The KGB Oracle

Trump card

Posted By: Sini

Trump card - 06/18/15 01:05 AM

Trump 16

More serious than horsemeat crisis.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 06/18/15 10:48 AM

Oh man.

....

........

Just when you thought the intellectual ceiling couldnt go any lower. Next thing we know Rick Santorum will run again. Oh wait....


GOP primary field is shit... collection of Empty Vessels, Maniacs, Royals, and Rand Paul. Unless Rand Paul gets nomination we are so fucked.

Unless Bernie Sanders manages to upset that megalomaniac psycho woman. Yeah, who would ever have imagined me voting, even donating to Bernie fucking socialist Sanders. But honestly, at this rate... it could happen. In fact, I wouldnt bet against it happening.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 06/18/15 09:20 PM

I think we can mark the exact moment when GOP political theater jumped the shark by Trump's running for president.

Some think that Trump is Clinton's operative - pushing GOP field into "Trump territory" that could be later used to club the nominated candidate.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 06/19/15 02:17 AM

Not sure why, but politifact fact-checked Trump.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 06/19/15 02:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Derid
Oh man.

....

........

Just when you thought the intellectual ceiling couldnt go any lower. Next thing we know Rick Santorum will run again. Oh wait....


GOP primary field is shit... collection of Empty Vessels, Maniacs, Royals, and Rand Paul. Unless Rand Paul gets nomination we are so fucked.

Unless Bernie Sanders manages to upset that megalomaniac psycho woman. Yeah, who would ever have imagined me voting, even donating to Bernie fucking socialist Sanders. But honestly, at this rate... it could happen. In fact, I wouldnt bet against it happening.


Bernie Sanders and Rand Pauls is how government should look like, instead we get Bushes and Clintons.
Posted By: Sethan

Re: Trump card - 07/02/15 04:57 PM

It is way too early to set anything in stone but I am shocked how well Hillary and Jeb are fundraising right now. I figured most Americans would be jaded by the past but that isn't the case.

Hillary is dominating all the polls by over 40% and Jeb is coming out on the top by several points. Do you think we will actually see Clinton vs Bush for 2016 or is this just early fundraising driving up their points?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/03/15 12:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Sethan
Do you think we will actually see Clinton vs Bush for 2016 or is this just early fundraising driving up their points?


I hope not, because if that is the case I might get arrested for projectile vomiting at the polling station.

I better get a note from Dr.Derid explaining my condition. It has something to do with infectious inflammation of vestigial principles... probably would need a surgery at that point.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/15/15 01:48 AM

Trump leads in polls
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/15/15 02:26 AM

Originally Posted By: Sini


I honestly fear for humanity sometimes.
Posted By: Sethan

Re: Trump card - 07/15/15 08:01 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...inton-5491.html

Trump can't even beat Clinton on a Fox News general election poll...

Right now America is going through another nasty race relations period. Trump's anti illegal immigration comments caused a brief surge in support. Bush is still beating him by 6 points for the nomination.

His numbers will drop back down if mass media stops heavily reporting on race related hot points and pitting white people against brown people.

Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/15/15 08:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Sethan
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...inton-5491.html

Trump can't even beat Clinton on a Fox News general election poll...

Right now America is going through another nasty race relations period. Trump's anti illegal immigration comments caused a brief surge in support. Bush is still beating him by 6 points for the nomination.

His numbers will drop back down if mass media stops heavily reporting on race related hot points and pitting white people against brown people.



In all honesty, I cant say Bush is better than Trump. Or Hillary... sad isnt it? Jeb and Hillary are pure malevolence, Trump is just ignorant and egoistic.
Posted By: Sethan

Re: Trump card - 07/15/15 08:22 PM

If my options are between Hillary/Bush or Hillary/Trump then I will probably just stay home and wait for 2020.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/15/15 08:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Sethan
If my options are between Hillary/Bush or Hillary/Trump then I will probably just stay home and wait for 2020.


Preferably in a bunker/biodome IMO.

Seriously though, 3rd parties 4tw.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/16/15 12:36 AM

Honestly, I will take ignorance over malevolence. With ignorance, at least there is a chance that incompetence's randomness will keep it from hitting where it hurts most.

As to "Hillary/Bush or Hillary/Trump" scenario. I will probably write-in some name. Like George McGovern.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/19/15 05:10 PM

Trump speaks out against McCain.

Is this calculated or foot-in-the-mouth?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/19/15 08:18 PM

I think trump shot his mouth off one too many times with his criticism of McCain. I don't like McCain, and I don't like his politics, but to criticize someone for being a POW is too much for me. In my opinion, Trump is unqualified to hold public office.
Posted By: Kaotic

Re: Trump card - 07/21/15 01:48 AM

I don't think anything he does is calculated to do more than get him some attention.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/27/15 01:58 AM

Trump leads in the polls

Good news, Cruz trailing. Bad news, Trump has big lead.
Posted By: Kaotic

Re: Trump card - 07/27/15 02:15 AM

Interesting, but...
Less than 20 days ago they posted this poll and even listed the margin of error (seems higher than normal at 6 points) which they neglected to do with this poll. Neither of them lists the confidence percentage.

I really want to move to New Zealand anyway, so maybe it will be Trump and Hillary to give me a good excuse.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/04/15 01:31 AM

This seem relevant:

Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 08/04/15 03:37 PM


I think I should run for Prez

Honestly I would, if I had a book.

Maybe I should write a policy/social commentary book over the next 3 years

#Derid2020

That voter humiliation thing.... I could do it
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/05/15 12:18 AM

According to the proposed criteria I'd make an excellent conservative presidential candidate.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 08/05/15 02:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Sini
According to the proposed criteria I'd make an excellent conservative presidential candidate.


You have a book to sell? Or just a hipster? If you already have a book to sell, I'll sit it out. Otherwise you'll be seeing me in the primaries.

Actually wait.. I should just run as a Dem. If I just broke down how stupid 90% of their policies are, and harmful they are to the groups they ostensibly are to help I might even win the nomination.

As long as I didnt tell anyone what MY policies would actually be anyway.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 08/08/15 01:36 PM

Whatever you might say about the GOP candidates, at least none of them are currently under an FBI criminal investigation.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 08/08/15 04:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Owain
Whatever you might say about the GOP candidates, at least none of them are currently under an FBI criminal investigation.


Oh did Gov Christie manage to avoid that somehow? Well, he is close with Obama and Wall St after all.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 08/09/15 01:31 AM

Christie was investigated and cleared over a year ago, if you are talking about Bridgegate. Hillary is currently under investigation, however.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 08/09/15 04:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Owain
Christie was investigated and cleared over a year ago, if you are talking about Bridgegate. Hillary is currently under investigation, however.


Ah yeah thats right, he managed to throw some low level schmucks under the bus on that one.

Well theres still his campaigning with 5mil os taxpayer money. And plenty of other stuff that is common in Jersey, that rational people would prefer remain in Jersey.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/07/15 01:27 AM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/...p-for-33-years/
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/19/15 02:59 PM


Just a random oddity -

So I was in NYC this weekend for the GGG fight at the Garden. Its during the undercard, and Trump pops up on the jumbotron in the dressing room with GGG, and the arena goes nuts - equal boos and cheers.

Dude next to me is a local , with cornrows and that braided tail, is like "man when I heard equal boos and cheers like that I knew it had to be Trump even before I looked up. Id never think id ever vote for a Republican, but man, I'd vote for Trump".

Was just... kind of surreal in a way.

/random
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 10/19/15 09:25 PM

People like it when someone upsets the apple-cart.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/19/15 09:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Helemoto
People like it when someone upsets the apple-cart.


Speaking of, Trump on 9/11 was interesting.

It takes Jester to mock the King.
Posted By: Kaotic

Re: Trump card - 10/20/15 01:45 AM

I missed it because I can't be bothered. Is he still a truther?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/20/16 10:57 PM

Trump just won NY primary, making his nomination all but certain. It is now Hillary's election to lose.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 04/21/16 04:50 PM

I'm not so certain about the nomination. Cruz has been outmaneuvering him on the delegate side thus far. If Trump falls short of clinching it outright, its entirely possible that Kasich and Rubio delegates could go to Cruz. If neither Cruz or Trump can clinch a second ballot, it could get interesting real quick.

Having followed GOP convention antics very closely the last two cycles, I can say with some authority that shenannigans are the norm not the exception, and anything can happen. Much will depend on Paul Ryan, who as far as I am aware will still be chairing the convention. Whether he decides to play a passive role and let Trump steamroll the event, or decides to play kingmaker.

If the GOP was smart (theyre not), they would be crunching data to factor in who might stay home on election day relative to each candidate. Their objective should be to keep control of congress. Conventional wisdom says that will be difficult with Trump heading the ticket. But it would also be difficult with Cruz. GOP is just fucked, and they did it to themselves.

After thinking on it a while, I have decided that Trump is actually less scary than Hillary though. Hillary is Saruman, where Trump is just Dr Evil.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 05/04/16 02:48 AM

Trump wins Indiana, Cruz drops out.

For Carly Fiorina, that VP run beats her tenure at HP.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 05/04/16 04:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Sini


For Carly Fiorina, that VP run beats her tenure at HP.


laugh
Posted By: Kaotic

Re: Trump card - 05/04/16 11:30 PM

Thought this was a pretty good description of the status of the GOP.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 05/05/16 12:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Kaotic
Thought this was a pretty good description of the status of the GOP.


"Its true that Hillary is worse than almost every human in America, but Republicans went rifling through a a flaming dumpster and managed to dig up the one guy who could rival her in general contemptibleness. "

Truer words have seldom been said.

Personally I will be voting 3rd party. Which party doesn't really matter. (though im sure people who know me can guess)

As I see it, Trump is the result of the GOP establishment intentionally dumbing down its base electorate for years so as to continue getting carte blanche to continue bad policy.

Once a critical mass of stupidity was reached, it was a matter of time before someone else swooped in and proved more adept at pulling the emotional levers of an ignorant and unthinking electorate.
Posted By: Kaotic

Re: Trump card - 05/05/16 01:25 AM

Too funny. That's the exact same line I quoted when I sent the link to my dad.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 05/06/16 05:32 AM

People want to bash how bad it would be under Trump, yet Hilary is worse. She's lied so many times you can't even begin to keep up. I think with Bernie Sanders still hanging around says it all. People would rather have an outright commie than to vote for Hilary.

I think when it comes to the Economy and keeping jobs in the states Trump will be better than anyone we've had. However his obvious weakness would be Global Politics. Though like any good Executive they tend to surround themselves with people that do know about it. So it may look like a weakness but I don't think it would be something to worry about. The biggest seller is his self funding. He's tied to nobody unlike every other Politician in the game. Also there's noway he could be worse than what we've had recently.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 05/06/16 05:44 AM

The problem with Trump, is his desire to see armed gov't types going around door to door looking for people. That will end up poorly for a lot more than just the people who supposedly need deported. He is authoritarian, as is Hillary.


And yeah, I switched parties to vote for the commie. He was the only sane one left outside Kasich who never went anywhere. But at least Bernie believes in the Bill of Rights.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 05/07/16 11:47 PM

So Wolfgang would you vote for Trump if he promise to make the trains run on time?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 05/11/16 02:43 AM

I keep thinking that Trump is a rejection of Reaganism that has not worked out for the base.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 05/11/16 04:08 AM

You might be on to something, but which parts of Reaganism?

More realistically though, Reagan is well in the past. I would suggest it is a rejection of Hastertism and Boehnerism that hasn't worked out for the base.

But really, I think it's even simpler. People feel under siege, and no major political establishment has taken them seriously. They have been bought with lip service for 25+ years and know it. Add in inaccurate and confusing "news", where one side continues with the lip service and a constant barrage of irrational thinking in justification of bad policy and the other side simply mocks them and blames them for all the worlds ills nonstop.

I consider Trump the "fuck me? no, fuck you!" moment.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 05/12/16 01:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Derid
I consider Trump the "fuck me? no, fuck you!" moment.


Without a doubt, but response to which message?

I think it is rejection of supply-side that lead to inequality, outsourcing, and historic drop in living standards of a large chunk of what used to be middle class.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 05/12/16 03:00 PM


If you blame supply-side for the current condition, then you might be right. As far as the other (politically) viable options were concerned, I would say its a wash. Supply-side is just Keynsianism for corporatists. I think Clintonomics and W play a much bigger role than Reagan though, in Reagan's day when Volcker was leading the Fed there was at least some sanity, which was reflected in 90's relative prosperity.

Plus, I wonder how much economics has to do with it. Surely something, but I think that is not the whole story.

Generally speaking, I think two things are required for the stability of a state.

1) Equitable distribution of taxes

2) That everyone plays by the same set of rules

#2 is something we should pay attention to. The general sense, is that this is no longer the case. Maybe it never was, but the perception now is that it is not. The Wall St bailouts were the epitome of this. But there all sorts of cases that fuel the perception that gov't treats people quite unequally. Hillary is a case in point, everyone knows that if someone who wasn't a Clinton did half the things she did, prosecutors looking for a resume bump would have indicted them several times already just for giving them a good excuse.

If their business has difficulty, they can't even get credit. But if a politically connected business gets in trouble they get cash. Politically connected businesses can even get the rules written in their favor. Compound that with the trade deals intended to help the political class, that negatively impacts the smaller guys. People can tell that the interests of the gov't and their interests are widely different.

Especially when the anti-them rhetoric comes down from the pro-gov't people. When the rhetoric of the left is a constant barrage against them personally, and as a class of people, it should be no surprise that they come to view the left and the gov't as the enemy. When the right makes promises, then doesn't keep them, and also writes the rules against them or buckles in the face of criticism from the left - same deal. Trust goes down.

When trust bottoms out, and even when you "win" you "lose", then people feel helpless. When people feel helpless, it turns to anger.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 05/14/16 09:35 PM


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/vult...hp_ref=politics

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...america/482655/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/army-internal-fight-russia-defense-budget-213885

The first, Huffpost article is a rare article that details just how gov't actually works. Be aware that most of the Federal apparatus functions in something like this manner and has for some time, it is not limited to just hedge funds. I think many people, particularly the ones derisively referred to so often by the coastal elites as obstructionists, have always held at least a vague understanding of this dynamic. Even though at times they find it difficult to articulate.

On a related note, this also plays into renewed racial and cultural animus when said divides are willingly played up and played into by the political "other".

After all, an establishment that run the types of machinations described above with no limit becomes very dangerous when, for any particular reason or set of circumstances, you find yourself in its crosshairs. It scares a lot of people, and perhaps rightly so. In a world where sole power lies in coalitions of vested interests, perhaps people should not be surprised when certain groups that feel besieged (rightly or wrongly), begin thinking in terms of the group dynamic.

Of course like many of the problems we face, Hayek already discussed this some years ago.

"The agreement on which such a programme for governmental action is based is something very different from that common opinion of a majority which it was hoped would be the determining force in a democracy. Nor can this kind of bargaining be regarded as the kind of compromise that is inevitable whenever people differ and must be brought to agree on some middle line which does not wholly satisfy anybody. A series of deals by which the wishes of one group are satisfied in return for the satisfaction of the wishes of another (and frequently at the expense of a third who is not consulted) may determine aims for common action of a coalition, but does not signify popular approval of the overall results. The outcome may indeed be wholly contrary to any principles which the several members of the majority would approve if they ever had an opportunity to vote on them.

This domination of government by coalitions of organized interests (when they were first observed they were generally described as sinister interests) is usually regarded by the outsider as an abuse, or even a kind of corruption. It is, however, the inescapable result of a system in which government has unlimited powers to take whatever measures are required to satisfy the wishes of those on whose support it relies. A government with such powers cannot refuse to exercise them and still retain the support of a majority. We have no right to blame the politicians for doing what they must do in the position in which we have placed them. We have created conditions in which it is known that the majority has power to give any particular section of the population whatever it demands. But a government that possesses such unlimited powers can stay in office only by satisfying a sufficiently large number of pressure groups to assure itself of the support of a majority.

Government, in the narrow sense of the administration of the special resources set aside for the satisfaction of common needs, will to some extent always have that character. Its task is to hand out particular benefits to different groups, which is altogether distinct from that of legislation proper. But while this weakness is comparatively innocuous as long as government is confined to determining the use of an amount of resources placed at its disposal according to rules it cannot alter (and particularly when, as in local government, people can escape exploitation by voting with their feet), it assumes alarming proportions when government and rule-making come to be confused and the persons who administer the resources of government also determine how much of the total resources it ought to control. To place those who ought to define what is right in a position in which they can maintain themselves only by giving their supporters what they want, is to place at their disposal all the resources of society for whatever purpose they think necessary to keep them in power."

Hayek, F. A.. Law, Legislation and Liberty: A new statement of the liberal principles of justice and political economy (Routledge Classics) (pp. 358-359). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/22/16 11:46 AM

Trump nominated, Cruz refuses to endorse (unlike Ryan and the rest).

Trump proceeds to threaten NATO unity.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/22/16 05:37 PM

I knew it would be an interesting convention. I didn't know exactly what would happen, but I was pretty confident something would. Did not disappoint.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 08/13/16 07:02 AM

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2..._all_study.html
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/23/16 03:29 AM

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/charlie-skyes-wisconsin-radio-conservatives-214175
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 08/25/16 04:38 PM

Since the deficit will be nearly $600 billion all that BS about Obama lowering them isn't working out. His press secretary basically throwing their hands up and passing the buck to the next person. Hilary is going to tax more and spend more, this isn't the 90's and that will not work when you have deficits nearing $600 billion and a debt of $20 trillion. Trump wants to lower Corporate tax and reform the income tax. By doing so they're hoping that will give the economy a jump. If it works it will pay off but for the first year maybe two it won't look to good.

I think the two establishment maybe coming to an end. If Hillary gets in Congress will turn more more anti democrat If Trumps wins and it doesn't go well for him, congress will possible turn more left. But Hopefully either way it turns away from the Establishment. That's the only way you will see change, if voters keep voting in the same trash each establishment puts in front of them it can't change. We need Fiscal Conservatism with LIGHT Social Liberalism. There's a thin red line there. No more over bloated Government with red tape on everything. I'm just sick of both sides, we need to see a libertarian win.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/27/16 03:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
We need Fiscal Conservatism with LIGHT Social Liberalism.


I'd vote for that.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/27/16 08:50 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/rush-limbaugh-donald-trump-immigration-227424

Quote:
Who knew Limbaugh managed to say, before bursting into laughter. Do you imagine what its like to be Jeb Bush today? He continued to choke up, apologizing between bursts of laughter.


Indeed.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 08/30/16 10:06 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/michele-bachmann-god-trump-nominee-227556
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/31/16 12:59 AM

She is right, god in form of religious right, did play a role in shaping this nomination.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 08/31/16 06:47 AM

Which is still just odd, considering Trump is neither religious nor right. But ya, they voted for him. What is worse, is I'm not even sure who would have been worse - Trump or Cruz. Every time I think of how bad Trump is, it hits me that the GOP alternative was effectively Cruz, and I wonder if the party has a future at all.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 08/31/16 06:13 PM

The Future for either party putting out a good candidate is very questionable. Considering that Debbie Wasserman-Schiltz won her re-election bid. People wonder why we can't get real change, when they go out and vote back in the people that are the problem.
Posted By: Kaotic

Re: Trump card - 09/01/16 09:25 PM

If there is a god, he certainly is laughing at the human ability to warp what they want into "His will". Absolutely amazeballs.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/08/16 03:09 AM

Speculation on Trump tax returns .
Posted By: JetStar

Re: Trump card - 09/09/16 04:03 AM

Wow. Loot Iraq for oil (War crime). Our current class of Generals are "rubble". More respect for the Russian President than the US?

How can anyone vote for this total incompetent clown.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 09/09/16 04:30 AM

Probably the same people on the left that are voting for Hillary, Despite...this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/-hillary-clintons-appalli_b_9157892.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/campaign-2016-hil...rations-2121999
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/10/16 01:40 PM

I am curious what right-leaning people here think about Trump's affinity for Putin.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 09/10/16 07:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Sini
I am curious what right-leaning people here think about Trump's affinity for Putin.


The only affinity I see is when it comes to taking out terrorists. I think there is a certain mutual agreement, where taking out people that only want to cause more suffering and death would be a good thing. That's where the line is drawn. As far as him calling Putin a better leader than Obama, well myself I can't disagree with that one when it comes to taking on terrorism. Obama called ISIS the JV team, well that JV team nearly took Iraq over. Some bad decisions making there.

I don't see Trump liking Putin well enough to start taking money into his foundation from Russia, then have his spouse give a speech to a bank in Russia which also works very closely to the Russian Government. Oh wait... that's not Trump.

There's two way different issues here, people are concerned with the things Trump has said and rightfully so to a degree. However I'm more concerned with what Hillary has DONE.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 09/10/16 08:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Sini
I am curious what right-leaning people here think about Trump's affinity for Putin.


He's no worse than the Sauds.

While I don't particularly agree with Putin, the fact is Russia is no longer interested in invading the US.

What I find troubling, is old-guard cold-warriors who seem intent on stoking another long term conflict with Russia. De-escalating meaningless conflict with Russia would be the one silver lining to a Trump presidency.

Also, Europe should learn to handle their own business. We no longer have the luxury of providing them with a free ride when it comes to defense.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/11/16 03:45 AM

What do you think Putin's geopolitical ambitions, and what would be logical conclusion if US no longer 'checks' these?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 09/11/16 05:50 AM

I think that with the price of oil so low, it doesn't really matter. Germany should be footing the bills in any case. Germany and eastern Europe have every ability to get their shit together.

I know some people want to predict a doomsday if Putin recaptures more ex-Soviet territory, but that's just hogwash. While I feel bad for some of those people, there comes a point where we just cannot afford to play policeman for the world. We are on the way to becoming very Russia-like ourselves, unless we start exercising some sense, and focusing our energy and efforts on the homefront.

Looking past the next five years, if we want to be in a position to play world police fifteen years from now, we have many internal issues to address. On our current path, it isn't terribly long, in a historical sense anyhow, before our national energy is exhausted. Instead of a creeping withdrawal from acting as a hyperpower incrementally today, we might see a sudden catastrophic collapse in the future. As it stands, even when we don't overtly act, other polities still know we are here watching.

Should our eventual collapse create a true vacuum of power in the future, see how we do stumble into a doomsday scenario.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/13/16 01:36 AM

How did you go bankrupt? Bill asked.

Two ways, Mike said. Gradually and then suddenly.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 09/13/16 09:33 AM

You have always seemed to be pretty anti-Russia. I'm curious what your rationale is, long term. I recall you mentioning upsetting Euro markets in the past, sparking recession, but I can't imagine that's all. Do you think Russia is a legit threat to anyone the US should care about?

Frankly, I think the best long term strategy for weakening Russia is to let them do as they please in the ME, and to a degree, eastern Europe. All they will do is walk into another Afghanistan sooner or later, probably sooner.

Taking a passive approach to Russia isn't giving them a free pass, it's handing them the rope with which they will hang themselves.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 09/13/16 07:17 PM

Today the guy that setup Hillary's private server didn't show up to the hearing in front of congress on that issue. Other pled the 5th. Justin Cooper was the Family aide and an aide at the Clinton Foundation. He said he busted up one of the phones and said he extracted the information on it before doing so. So this means someone WITHOUT security clearance had access to classified Information.

Also Congress had to subpoenaed the FBI to get the files on the Clinton investigation. Senator Grassley has seen the documents and said the non classified stuff is mind blowing. So why is the FBI bundling them together and not allowing Congress to see it? Here's two videos, one of Chaffetz at the hearing the other of Grassley.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qct5BBRjC8Y

Grassley...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-wW6NoCP6w
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/14/16 01:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Derid
You have always seemed to be pretty anti-Russia. I'm curious what your rationale is, long term.

First hand experiences.

Quote:
Do you think Russia is a legit threat to anyone the US should care about?


Absolutely. Unlike Arabs, Russians are clever enough to pull it off but also not fratricidal enough to derail into internal faith-based conflict. McCain is actually right, in a stopped clock kind of way. If not for US, Red Army would be suntanning in Nice.

Quote:
Frankly, I think the best long term strategy for weakening Russia

The same Western standards don't apply to Russia. Russia can and will invade and/or nuke you while being completely broke. All it needs is grain, oil, and uranium and all that is produced internally.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/21/16 11:26 PM

Constitution

I agree with the article on most point. The only note I'd make is that SJW are anti freedom of speech and they are far left.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 09/22/16 07:02 PM

I was actually commenting on that article, which I didn't really care much for. In the end, I guess it depends on what you quantify as left and right. Honestly, I think that terminology is outdated and not useful. If Obama left? Depends on who you ask. In any case, he has shown as much regard for the Constitution as he does for the rolls of Presidential toilet paper.

Both parties ignore the Constitution when it is inconvenient, and both invoke it when it is politically expedient to do so.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 09/22/16 07:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Sini
Russia stuff


So noted. While I don't entirely disagree, what I fear is overplay.

If you have ever played Go, you know that the most effective method to stop a territorial advance is a soft encirclement, while keeping your foundations firm, and letting your opponent over extend into untenable positions. Trying to match your opponent move for move, and engaging in an aggressive fighting style, is needlessly risky when you already hold the upper hand, and only opens yourself up to small mistakes that lead to major losses. I think that metaphor is applicable here.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/27/16 12:26 PM

Trump all but confirmed that he pays no federal taxes during debate. Is this going to be enough to put him out of running?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 09/27/16 04:40 PM

Who knows. I don't think he was ever really in the running, media needs illusion of a horse-race to sell advertisements.

I did watch part of the debate and couldn't stop laughing. Literally, I was laughing. The whole thing is such a farce.
Posted By: Tasho

Re: Trump card - 09/27/16 08:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Derid
Who knows. I don't think he was ever really in the running, media needs illusion of a horse-race to sell advertisements.

I did watch part of the debate and couldn't stop laughing. Literally, I was laughing. The whole thing is such a farce.


I hear they actually sold the rights to Netflix and they'll be giving us a whole season here shortly.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/02/16 04:36 AM

Trump 1995 Taxes released for him. Show 1bil write-off.

I am not at all surprised that Hillary's campaign is playing dirty.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/03/16 03:59 PM

I'm never surprised at any campaign playing dirty. What amuses me, is how Trump has seemingly lost the agility that defined him early in the primary.

The Trump that doesn't pay income tax would just say that it's goofed up, and just like that because people like him buy politicians like Hillary. He's lost his touch for rhetorical reversals, and probably the race with it. Not that I thought he ever had a chance.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/04/16 04:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Sini
Trump all but confirmed that he pays no federal taxes during debate. Is this going to be enough to put him out of running?


Why would it, lets really be honest if having a private server then deleting all the emails doesn't put a person out, nothing will.

There's a long list of big business's that have paid little to no taxes that have also gave to the Clinton campaign. General Electric, JpMorgan just a to name a couple.

With Hillary taking donations from a lot of those companies it makes her look like a big hypocrite. I'm not sure if Corning has given any campaign contributions, from 2009-2012 they paid ZERO Federal taxes and received $10 million from the IRS. The problem with that is all of those years they made billions in profit.

I've been screaming for tax reform for a long time. We need to cut out Federal Payroll taxes and go to a Value Added Tax (VAT). This way everyone has to pay, it won't matter if your rich or poor everyone pays. That's as fair as your ever going to get it. Hillary was a Senator for 8 years and has been in politics longer than that, why now all the sudden she wants to be a tax champion shows the hypocrisy.

Especially coming from someone that appointed donors to her Clinton Foundation to Government jobs. I agree Trump would be wise to show his taxes, but it's not going to show anything that he hasn't already said. We know he's paid little to no Federal taxes.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/04/16 09:05 PM

Interesting, so tax dodging is not a big deal then?
Posted By: Instrument

Re: Trump card - 10/04/16 09:40 PM

avoidance or evasion?
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/04/16 11:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Sini
Interesting, so tax dodging is not a big deal then?


It's not Illegal, if it were there's a lot of business's out there that would be in trouble. I'll say again, this has been an issue for a very very long time. Nobody want's so do anything about it, especially the Politicians that are given a lot of money by those business's and people that do the same thing that Trump does.

Before Trump started running for office and gave donations to Clinton years ago she wasn't worried about it. I think it makes them look stupid throwing such a fit over it when they have done nothing to fix it. It's all the democrats know, Redirect and Deny.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/05/16 01:40 AM

Can you think of anything Trump could do that would change your mind about supporting him? That is, if he pulls back the mask and turns out to be a lizard person, would that be a deal breaker? Could you name couple things that would be unforgivable? What if he came out supporting free government sponsored abortions? What if he turned to be flat-earther? What if he admitted to Rob Ford-like crack habit?

Also, I preemptively apologize if you take this post as an attack. This is not my intention. I am just truly fascinated and would like to understand your thinking.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/05/16 01:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Instrument
avoidance or evasion?


To me Trump's tax status is manifestation of 0.1% operating by a different set of rules that the rest of us. He is also unlikely to change that if he wins the election.

I'd end up in prison if I attempted something like that: Look, my 10 million-valuated tool shed burned down! No more taxes for 18 years!
Posted By: Instrument

Re: Trump card - 10/05/16 05:23 AM

If its not illegal is it not the fault of the past governments and their failure to introduce a fair tax system
and is not Clinton representing the current government?

PS
we have free government sponsored abortions
Posted By: Banshee

Re: Trump card - 10/05/16 02:10 PM

The rich have always played by a different set of rules regardless of the nation they live in and its silly to represent it any other way.

Every Taxpayer takes every break they can get, hell the really poor get a bonus (Refund check) at the end of the year even if they paid no taxes. I know lots of people who play fast and loose with reporting taxable income its not just the rich....that's why it doesn't upset people that much

What was that saying "Don't hate the player hate the game". System is broken and won't be fixed until we the people stop voting the same Senators and Congressman into office year after year....in the end its really our own fault but until that last straw breaks the camels back it won't change, and when the camels back does break its going to be very painful but we will come out of it a stronger and wiser nation.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/05/16 02:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Sini
Can you think of anything Trump could do that would change your mind about supporting him? That is, if he pulls back the mask and turns out to be a lizard person, would that be a deal breaker? Could you name couple things that would be unforgivable? What if he came out supporting free government sponsored abortions? What if he turned to be flat-earther? What if he admitted to Rob Ford-like crack habit?

Also, I preemptively apologize if you take this post as an attack. This is not my intention. I am just truly fascinated and would like to understand your thinking.


OK I'll start off with the name calling and women. Starting with Rosie O'donnell. She started on him because of his decision to not fire Tara Conner Miss USA for underage drinking and sexual activities. Rosie started slamming Trump on his decision, then went to a rant about his bankruptcies, marriages and having kids from different women. Then told him to sit and spin. He first called her a Loser and a woman out of control. Later when the name calling war continued was when he made the pig comment. I don't see anything wrong with that. Could he have been a bigger person and ignored it? YES. But some people as myself do not let people simply walk on by after making comments that I do not like. She deserved it, if words hurt her then people like that need to keep their mouths shut because it's a two way street.

When Alicia Machado gained some weight, he said she was a person that liked to eat. Does this really hurt people's feeling? Saying they like to eat? c'mon that's just absurd. However the other comments about miss piggy and miss house keeping is something he shouldn't have said. It's bad but not a deal breaker. I get that Trump has the open mouth insert foot problem. He could be so far ahead right now Clinton would really be in trouble if would keep his mouth shut on the extra comments. This is what you get when you have someone that speaks their mind. They tend to say shit that's not the typical "Political" line.

I go off more of what people have done than what they have said. On Trumps taxes, is it fair that he gets to wright off and pay little to no tax? Absolutely it's unfair. But it's not illegal, I do the same thing if I'm able to take a tax break I'll do it every time. For starters I think payroll federal taxes is bullshit. I think I made that clear already. He's doing what millions of other people are doing that have business's and big money. This isn't their fault, it's the Government's fault for not reforming taxes. He said he will release them and I think he will. He did offer a great deal to Hillary, if she released everything she's supposed to with her server that he would immediately release everything despite what his lawyers say.

If he had done something illegal with taxes he would have been in trouble already. Despite the play on taxes, he still has to pay taxes for employees, along with local and state taxes on all his properties. That's something even rich people can't get out of. So again, not releasing them hurts him some but I don't think it's a deal breaker, he did turn in his financial disclosure form that he was legally obligated to do.


You asked what a deal breaker would be. First I'll say Trump was not my first choice Rand Paul was. I do have issues with some of what Trump says, but it isn't a deal breaker. I would say I'm following the footsteps of Democrats when it comes finding something that would be a deal breaker. If starting your Political career in a guys house that helped blow up the Pentagon among other sites. Sit in a church with a guy the likes of Rev. Wright. Have another person that has been riddled with scandals her whole career, that has also been fined many times for wrong doing in many of those scandals. Then to go on and have a private server in her basement that was unsecure and passed classified information on then went on to wipe the hard drives, while also taking donations to her Foundation from foreign Government and them buying access to her with their donations, along appointing some donors in positions with the government. If those people can do all of that and not be a deal breaker, I guess the bar for that is set pretty high. So I'm just following the Democrats rules when it comes to things that are or aren't deal breakers. As I've said before, What Trump has said and what Clinton has done is a big difference. You can take back what you've said, you can't take back what you have done.

You shouldn't apologize, I don't take it personal at all.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/05/16 03:46 PM


On the one hand, I don't see how anyone who cares about the Constitution could support Trump. Personally, I could honestly give a shit about anything Trump has said about women, fat or otherwise. What I do care about, is his thought that govt can just arbitrarily strip rights from people.

"If the govt says you are too dangerous to X, then you must be too dangerous to Y" is a statement, and action, that totally delegitimizes govt when the "dangerous" tag is applied in a secret process, by inscrutable govt agents, with no recourse. In this case, it often doesn't even target specific people, but rather just a specific name.

Make no mistake, govt losing its legitimacy is not a good thing. Illegitimate govt isnt less govt, it is just a less responsible govt that starts losing any need to allow any checks on its power whatsoever. The fact that the govt still has millions of guns aimed at us doesn't change.

The day is quickly coming where not just writing a political thought, but criticizing certain connected corporate entities, or attempting investigative journalism, will result in being awoken at 4am by armored govt thugs, and hauled off to a hidden cell somewhere for years. All because some crony somewhere signed a paper saying you are a "terrorist", or had "terroristic thoughts." More commonly, instead of hauled off, people will just suddenly find that not only can they not fly, but their assets have been frozen, and they get pulled over and harassed frequently by local police because they are on a "list"

=====

Oddly enough, I'm not sure which candidate will bring us there quicker, but they will both bring us there. Where Trump is a virus that attacks our civic order directly, Hillary is a retrovirus that attacks our civic immunity to such things. We might still have enough civic consciousness to push back against a blatant Trump, but after eight years of Hillary, I'm much less certain. One mistake I think many make, is thinking the Trump problem revolves around Trump. It doesn't. Trump is a symptom, not a cause. Trumpism isn't going away if Trump loses, but after eight years of Hillary, will almost certainly burn with unprecedented intensity.

It's kind of funny actually, I was hanging out with a friend last night who is voting Trump. I asked her if she knew anyone who was voting Trump, and she was all like "hell yea! Lots of people are, I am too." A bit flabbergasted, I asked why. The response was informative, I think.

"Trump will bring change. It might not be good change, it probably wont be. But it will be change, and thats what I want right now."

Heavens help us all.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/05/16 10:53 PM

@Wolfgang
Actually, I agree with you that Trump's supposed misogyny is overblown and largely political wounds. Sure, a lot of it is really poor taste but that is the extent of it.

What makes him unqualified is his lack of self-control that makes him easy to provoke and his views on speech, especially telling his views on libel. There is no question in my mind that he supports censorship. Also his views on religious freedoms as applied to Muslims. His anti-trade views that are rooted in fundamental misunderstanding the fact that US need the world more than the world needs US.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/05/16 10:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Derid
Oddly enough, I'm not sure which candidate will bring us there quicker, but they will both bring us there. Where Trump is a virus that attacks our civic order directly, Hillary is a retrovirus that attacks our civic immunity to such things.


Well said!

(I miss the days when we used to disagree a lot)
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/06/16 01:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Sini
@Wolfgang
Actually, I agree with you that Trump's supposed misogyny is overblown and largely political wounds. Sure, a lot of it is really poor taste but that is the extent of it.

What makes him unqualified is his lack of self-control that makes him easy to provoke and his views on speech, especially telling his views on libel. There is no question in my mind that he supports censorship. Also his views on religious freedoms as applied to Muslims. His anti-trade views that are rooted in fundamental misunderstanding the fact that US need the world more than the world needs US.


This may sound bad, but I think he's putting on a show when it comes to all the crap he talks. Sure it's distasteful and doesn't look good but this is Trump. He's been that way for as long as I can remember, the other part to that, is he's brave enough (or stupid) enough to say those things depending on how you look at it. It's not because people that follow him are "Deplorable" as many want to think. It's more along the lines that people want a change from what's going on. Just like they did back in 2008, the economy is a big deal when it comes to people wanting change. If you don't have a job or can't get a raise because the economy is in the shitter that will make a lot of people want to go the other way.

I would be willing to bet anything that if the economy was booming and things looked good Hillary would win very easily despite all the Email and Foundation BS. After all she's going to keep doing what has been going on the past 8 years. As Bill Clinton's campaign manager put it back in 1992 "It's the economy stupid" he went balls deep with that because people wanted change to what was going on at the time. I did as well, I had turned 18 that year and was able to vote and my first vote was for a Clinton. It was also my last one for a Clinton. Fool me once...
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/06/16 04:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Sini
(I miss the days when we used to disagree a lot)


Ah, those halcyon days where the most pressing issue was how good/crappy Pelosi's health bill was.
Posted By: JetStar

Re: Trump card - 10/06/16 10:24 PM

I think the Atlantic said it better than I ever could.
"Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of Americas nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...-still-no-ther/
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/07/16 02:07 AM

Originally Posted By: JetStar
he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers


Speaking of, Putin threatening US over Syria is all but guaranteed Hillary's win. Such a misstep on Vlad's part, if he only waited after elections.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/09/16 05:19 AM

Well, it would appear that Trump's attempt to grab the nation by its pussy has failed.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/09/16 01:47 PM

If Trump does step down, Clinton will be in a serious trouble. For example, Pence + Cruz will be as popular with the right, while universal revulsion to Clinton would have most left sitting this election out.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/10/16 02:01 AM

Surprisingly, Trump addressed question on his taxes and confirmed his tax dodges during 2nd debate.

Clinton went on record about her desire to reverse Citizen United as part of her Supreme Court nomination.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/10/16 02:13 AM

Which was smart of him. Because he is absolutely right about Hillary's donors doing the same thing. This is Trump at his most dangerous - enough truth in his bluster to grab peoples' attention.

Gotta say, this shit is hilarious though, on so many levels. Dangerous as all fuck though. I used to laugh off the fundies that talked about end times, then I started watching our presidential debates.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/10/16 02:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Derid
Which was smart of him. Because he is absolutely right about Hillary's donors doing the same thing. This is Trump at his most dangerous - enough truth in his bluster to grab peoples' attention.


Yep.

Quote:
Gotta say, this shit is hilarious though, on so many levels. Dangerous as all fuck though. I used to laugh off the fundies that talked about end times, then I started watching our presidential debates.


Well, time to start building shelter under your house. It was good enough for our parents, it should be good enough for us. Plus, maybe there is something in hoarding guns and ammo.

Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/10/16 03:21 AM

After watching second debate, I reached conclusion we will get there without hacking:

Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/10/16 03:26 AM

So I catch the end, they both say nice things, yadda yadda. They shake hands, CBS says they didn't shake hands at the end and they did. Never let the truth get in the way of a good narrative, I guess. And the media wonders why people dont take it seriously anymore.

Moderator hostility to Trump was also on full display. Not that I blame them, but it actually makes him look better, which makes it silly.

Overall, I think Trump probably did well, all things considered. It is doubtful though, that it will be enough to reverse his losses after the sex talk. Of course, Hillary basically admitted fait accompli that the recent Wall St speech leaks were real, where they had been trying to insinuate that they weren't. Those might end up being a slow burning time bomb for her.

All I can say about the whole thing is... "So it has come to this..."
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/10/16 03:29 AM

LOL @ comic, it's now a prescient classic.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/10/16 12:56 PM

Trumps promise to prosecute Hillary

It is surprising how much left doesn't get this aspect. Truly, tribalism took over and all thinking went out. While Hillary's private email use is likely nonsensical charge, anyone but Clinton would have been prosecuted. Prosecution doesn't mean jail, thankfully we still have justice system, this means the case is presented to judge or jury and they decide if there is anything to prosecutor's case. Not a politically-driven senate committee seeking to smear, not politically driven internal investigation seeking to shield their old boss...
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/10/16 01:10 PM

Side-to-side comparison of second debate coverage:

Politico
Quote:
Swing-state Republicans are breathing a sigh of relief, convinced that embattled GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump successfully took the fight to Hillary Clinton in Sunday nights acrimonious town-hall debate.


The Atlantic
Quote:
Donald Trump knows he won't be president. He's now in full carnival-barking, network-launching, party-nuking modea scowling, pouting menace who threatened during a nationally televised debate to throw Hillary Clinton in jail and called her husband the most sexually abusive man in political history.


Fox
Quote:
An aggressive Donald Trump, seeking to stabilize his campaign after the release of a decade-old tape where he made lewd comments about women, assailed Hillary Clintons honesty and character in an unprecedented way at Sundays debate accusing her of lying about her email scandal, threatening shed be in jail if he were president and suggesting his own comments pale in comparison to her husbands alleged abuse of women and her treatment of them.


MSNBC
Quote:
A presidential debate whose tone was expected to be shaped by Donald Trump's lewd and demeaning comments a decade ago fulfilled that billing in a testy back-and-forth Sunday night.


BBC
Quote:
We were promised a nuclear war between the candidates over allegations of sexual impropriety, and it didn't take long for it to blow up.

But unlike a real nuclear war, with its mutually assured destruction, the participants were left standing after the exchange and had to slug it out for another hour.

What resulted was a muddled mess, with both candidates gaining the upper hand on occasion and stumbling in other moments.

Team Clinton, on other hand, has to view this as an opportunity missed. Her supporters were hoping for a political kill shot that would push Mr Trump's remaining supporters toward the exit and turn the last month of the campaign into a glorified mop-up operation.


Interestingly, I agree with BBC description. By comparison, US media is really taking sides.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/10/16 10:16 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/rnc-goes-dark-as-party-members-demand-answers-229556?lo=ut_a1

RNC: "So it has come to this..."
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/14/16 12:30 AM

Trump is getting buried by avalanche of sexual misconduct allegations. One or two could be discounted as political hits, but there a lot more now. Unless Wikileaks Clinton emails have a smoking gun both Trump and both majorities are done and over with.

Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/14/16 01:54 AM

Ironically enough, the emails do have some nice smoking guns. But it still wont be enough, not with the guns aimed at Trump still actually firing.

I can say with some confidence, that if Hillary were running against literally anyone else, she would be sunk. How serendipitous for her that she got to face off against a loose cannon with a history of sexual assault.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/14/16 12:18 PM

There's enough in the Emails that someone with a little research and thinking on their own behalf can conclude that there were enough things that were said and going on that it should hurt someone running for the Presidency. The thing that still pisses me off, you can look at those emails that were sent to the Secure Government email servers.

I want to say there's noway in hell people that were sent emails from the HillaryClinton.com email address didn't know that it wasn't secure. But given how fucking stupid our Government is I have to say anything is possible. The surprising thing is how Obama was given a pseudonym name to have contact with Hillary on that server. That alone should be enough for content on the both of them. Above all others especially Hillary for being in Politics far longer than Obama should have known. This whole bullshit of "I don't recall" is just that. The Clinton's need to patent that phrase because they use it so goddamn often.

I know Trump is a fuck face, he has done and said fuck face things. But something he hasn't done is LIE to people about the Benghazi attack. He didn't have a private emails server where indeed there was Classified material passeed through it from FBI director Comey's own words. The fact Hillary gave donors to the Clinton Foundation big Government contract in Haiti, also gave a donor that had absolutely NO experience in Intelligence a seat on an Intelligence board that was privy to classified information. On top of that Bill recieved big money from speaking fee's to people and business's that gave to the Clinton Foundation. For instance the Sale of Uranium to Uranium One in Russia. The bank that made the deal which was tied with that and the Kremlin gave Bill nearly a $800K speaking fee. Which was twice as much as his normal speaking fee's. All this Tied to Hillary While at the State Department.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/14/16 01:56 PM

What is really insane is that anyone will vote for either of them.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with people.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/14/16 10:09 PM

You're correct, it's amazing we have two undetectable people. It's been that way for years and seems to get worse. It's like people are trying to see how dumb shit can get. I would love to see Rand Paul in the running. Apparently being a Doctor and having a little common sense isn't cool enough. Maybe he needs to reveal he's really half mutant, that might win him an election.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/14/16 10:59 PM

I'd vote for Romney over Clinton, or even vote Jeb.
Posted By: JetStar

Re: Trump card - 10/14/16 11:08 PM

I think it will be funny if Trump turns out to be a Clinton plant. Two words, Supreme Court. Holding my nose and voting Clinton. That is all.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/15/16 03:49 PM

I don't think he is at all, simply because if he were his business would turn to shit because a lot of people would run his ass off. Unless the Clinton's will use the pay to play in the white house as well and give him large Government contracts. But I don't think he would do that, his name would definitely be stained if he did.

All he has to do is keep hammering on the Executive emails they wanted to keep out of the public between Hillary and Obama that were on her server. Proving that Obama knew she had a server despite lying that he didn't know. Between that and some of the media finally discussing the pay to play with CGI and she will start to drop again. Because it's hard to explain what happened in Haiti given the outcome, along with the guy they appointed to an Intelligence Board that was privy to Classified information that had NO former knowledge before the appointment and after he gave a large sum of money to CGI.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/16/16 04:53 AM

Wolfgang, here is 'relevancy test' for Clinton emails - find any you think are damning, post them here and I will tell you if they are big deal. I haven't seen any that are damning, but then I haven't spent any time looking aside from reading what media reported.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/16/16 04:39 PM


Relevancy is relative. While I haven't seen any that constitute anything that would lead to criminal prosecution, theres no way Hillary would have beat Bernie had they come out early in the Dem primary.

Now that she is running against an orange serial sex offender, the emails are less relevant.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/16/16 04:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Sini
I'd vote for Romney over Clinton, or even vote Jeb.


I actually miss Mitt. That's sad.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/16/16 08:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Sini
Wolfgang, here is 'relevancy test' for Clinton emails - find any you think are damning, post them here and I will tell you if they are big deal. I haven't seen any that are damning, but then I haven't spent any time looking aside from reading what media reported.


When I get time I'll get some together and post. The other side of the coin is, there are still many thousands that she has yet to turn over. Including some of the Emails that were to Obama where the State Department was saying he had executive powers where those emails wouldn't be released.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfZzP9byo3c
Posted By: JetStar

Re: Trump card - 10/18/16 06:13 PM

I think it is too late. Unless she has a seizure during the debate, or a smoking gun comes our, we are looking at President Clinton. With all the early voting going on, if they are sitting on the smoking gun, it is getting very late. They should drop it now, or make up a fake one or something.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/18/16 06:41 PM

Originally Posted By: JetStar
I think it is too late. Unless she has a seizure during the debate, or a smoking gun comes our, we are looking at President Clinton. With all the early voting going on, if they are sitting on the smoking gun, it is getting very late. They should drop it now, or make up a fake one or something.


If you don't see shady stuff going on, then you don't know what being shady is. Just to throw in this little nugget.
Posted By: JetStar

Re: Trump card - 10/18/16 06:48 PM

I've watched that and there is no smoking gun. A smoking gun will be needed to change the momentum. You need a email from Hillary or high level ratting her out.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/18/16 06:56 PM

I didn't figure you would find anything wrong with that. Which is disappointing. For them to go out and seek mentially ill people to punch people is some pretty sick shit and pretty diabolical.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/18/16 07:15 PM

I don't think what Jet said is a matter of finding anything wrong, or not wrong. Just that it is not likely to change the election, which is probably true, objectively speaking.

Hillary and her affiliated goons have done quite a bit "wrong" over the years. Doesn't mean she isn't going to be president.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/18/16 10:45 PM

Aside from aging feminists like Gloria Steinem I don't think anyone is actually rooting for Hillary on the left. It is more the case of bad choice vs. 'what is this, I don't even...' that gets people to line up behind Hillary. I keep saying that Trump must be a plant, as any other candidate in the lineup, even Cruz, would have resulted in an automatic loss for her.

Personally, I am going to vote for Gary Johnson, because I don't have enough moral flexibility to perform mental gymnastics that would allow me to do anything else. It is that, or write-in Darth Vader.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/19/16 03:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Derid
I don't think what Jet said is a matter of finding anything wrong, or not wrong. Just that it is not likely to change the election, which is probably true, objectively speaking.

Hillary and her affiliated goons have done quite a bit "wrong" over the years. Doesn't mean she isn't going to be president.

I would agree that it probably won't stop her from continuing to pursue the Presidency. There's just so much hypocrisy with the Democrats, it's really amazing.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/19/16 03:30 AM

Of all the interesting emails that came from Wikileaks this could top them all.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1766
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/20/16 12:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
Of all the interesting emails that came from Wikileaks this could top them all.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1766


Quote:
Dear John,

As 2015 unfolds, I understand you are leaving the Administration in February. It is urgent that we agree on a date and time to meet to discuss Disclosure and Zero Point Energy, at your earliest available after your departure. My Catholic colleague Terri Mansfield will be there too, to bring us up to date on the Vaticans awareness of ETI. Another colleague is working on a new Space Treaty, citing involvement with Russia and China. However with Russias extreme interference in Ukraine, I believe we must pursue another route for peace in space and ZPE on Earth. I met with President Obamas Honolulu childhood friend, US Ambassador Pamela Hamamoto on July 4 at the US Mission in Geneva, when I was able to tell her briefly about zero point energy. I believe we can enlist her as a confidante and resource in our presentation for President Obama. I appreciate Eryns assistance in working with Terri to set up our meeting.


As promised, I read linked email and can tell you that there is nothing damning in this email. Belief in zero point energy, which is modern equivalent of chasing perpetual motion, is at best mildly intellectually embarrassing. Not more so than, for example, belief in trickle-down economics. That is, 99.9% of voters would see it as "science stuff" and "economics stuff".
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/20/16 11:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Sini
Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
Of all the interesting emails that came from Wikileaks this could top them all.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1766


Quote:
Dear John,

As 2015 unfolds, I understand you are leaving the Administration in February. It is urgent that we agree on a date and time to meet to discuss Disclosure and Zero Point Energy, at your earliest available after your departure. My Catholic colleague Terri Mansfield will be there too, to bring us up to date on the Vaticans awareness of ETI. Another colleague is working on a new Space Treaty, citing involvement with Russia and China. However with Russias extreme interference in Ukraine, I believe we must pursue another route for peace in space and ZPE on Earth. I met with President Obamas Honolulu childhood friend, US Ambassador Pamela Hamamoto on July 4 at the US Mission in Geneva, when I was able to tell her briefly about zero point energy. I believe we can enlist her as a confidante and resource in our presentation for President Obama. I appreciate Eryns assistance in working with Terri to set up our meeting.


As promised, I read linked email and can tell you that there is nothing damning in this email. Belief in zero point energy, which is modern equivalent of chasing perpetual motion, is at best mildly intellectually embarrassing. Not more so than, for example, belief in trickle-down economics. That is, 99.9% of voters would see it as "science stuff" and "economics stuff".

I wasn't this as to something damming about Hillary. I found it interesting they were talking about disclosure. Which is something I think would be very interesting if the Government released what they knew about things possibly out of this world.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/20/16 11:19 AM

I came across this. If you all could find time to read it. I think it's both interesting and damming and also shows who really is in bed with the Russians partly because of greed and partly because of bad judgement. Which I've been saying all along how bad this Administration fails on Leadership.
http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/08/Report-Skolkvovo-08012016.pdf
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/24/16 07:41 PM

This guy makes several good points. The one about war is pointed out very well to what Hillary wants to do and how the outcome will ead to war.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/24/16 08:24 PM

Gotta admit, I really hate videos. Why some people want me to spend 15+ minutes listening to them, when I could have read their entire manifesto in 30 odd seconds, is something I will probably never understand.

Unless your video has rapping economists anyhow.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/26/16 03:56 AM

I am with Derid. Unless video has copulation and/or someone getting seriously injured, I prefer it in a text form.
Posted By: Arkh

Re: Trump card - 10/26/16 04:19 PM

Has anyone against trump watched a full speech from him or do you just keep on repeating the nuggets given by the media?

I have honestly not watched one but reading about how he is portrayed I'm reminded of a lot of shit happening during the last decade. How the media are biased like hell and can extract 2 phrases they repeat ad nauseam from a 15mn interview to vilify people they don't like. The fact the guy is not from the USA nobility could explain how much shit he's getting.

And if worst goes the guy is a lunatic: if he does not have any friend in Congress and other offices you may have the chance for 4 years of no real government. Ask Belgium how good it can be.

Never forget:
Originally Posted By: Cardinal de Richelieu
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 10/26/16 06:12 PM

I mean, I am apart of this nefarious media you speak of. I can go into the CBS archives right now and find you a ton of material of Trump being Trump, which is him being stupid and saying terrible things. I wont though, because leaking CBS archive material would get me fired.

Trump is getting shit because he is a shitty person and truly is the worse of the two. A Trump presidency would just shift the corruption from USA nobility to his business partners. I'd rather continue with the status quo than elect this man and have no idea what trouble would come down the line.

Lastly, my father works in real estate in NYC, one of the first things his boss and colleagues told him was never do a deal with Trump. The guy would blackmail you, lie, and see you fired just so he can save an extra buck per sq ft in a deal.

Never deal with Trump.


*edit: I would like to also add that I am not a fan of Hillary, I was and still am a Bernie supporter. Unfortunately, I will have to vote for Hillary.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/26/16 06:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Arkh
Has anyone against trump watched a full speech from him or do you just keep on repeating the nuggets given by the media?

I have honestly not watched one but reading about how he is portrayed I'm reminded of a lot of shit happening during the last decade. How the media are biased like hell and can extract 2 phrases they repeat ad nauseam from a 15mn interview to vilify people they don't like. The fact the guy is not from the USA nobility could explain how much shit he's getting.

And if worst goes the guy is a lunatic: if he does not have any friend in Congress and other offices you may have the chance for 4 years of no real government. Ask Belgium how good it can be.

Never forget:
Originally Posted By: Cardinal de Richelieu
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.




This is what happened to Gary Johnson.

Trump to an extent, but there's real fire under the Trump smoke.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/26/16 06:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Goriom


Lastly, my father works in real estate in NYC, one of the first things his boss and colleagues told him was never do a deal with Trump. The guy would blackmail you, lie, and see you fired just so he can save an extra buck per sq ft in a deal.

Never deal with Trump.


Trump and Don King get along well for a reason. Birds of a feather.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/26/16 11:20 PM

I don't care for Trump I know we can do better. Same goes for Hillary, she has been the most investigated Politician for a reason. Her kind screws the rest of us because she's part of the good ol' boy political system. Trump may screw people that deal with him. Maybe that's what we need on some of these trade deals that we have going on that screws us. Dems seem to like to screw their own by making these bad trade agreements. For heavens sake look at the TPP. As bad as NAFTA is the TPP would make that thing look good.

I can deal with what Trump has said a lot better than I can deal with the things Hillary has done. We will not be a better country with her as President. That could also be true with Trump, however she's a proven snake in the grass power hungry Politician, Trump is a Real Estate asshole.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/26/16 11:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Goriom
I mean, I am apart of this nefarious media you speak of. I can go into the CBS archives right now and find you a ton of material of Trump being Trump, which is him being stupid and saying terrible things. I wont though, because leaking CBS archive material would get me fired.

Trump is getting shit because he is a shitty person and truly is the worse of the two. A Trump presidency would just shift the corruption from USA nobility to his business partners. I'd rather continue with the status quo than elect this man and have no idea what trouble would come down the line.

Lastly, my father works in real estate in NYC, one of the first things his boss and colleagues told him was never do a deal with Trump. The guy would blackmail you, lie, and see you fired just so he can save an extra buck per sq ft in a deal.

Never deal with Trump.


*edit: I would like to also add that I am not a fan of Hillary, I was and still am a Bernie supporter. Unfortunately, I will have to vote for Hillary.


The Media is supposed to be neutral. There is a very noticeable bias in media. Not just one or two but ALL of them. One way or another they are all biased. To find a true neutral media is probably as hard or harder to find a truthful politician.

I can turn on any mainstream media and you already know who they are railing on. Very little is said about the Hillary campaign. No doubt there are some individuals in media that aren't like that. But they can't really voice their opinions or they would surely be fired.

It's hard to get the truth from any media. You have to piece it altogether like a puzzle from all media then hope you can come close to getting the facts. It is really sad that the Media is protected by the constitution yet they are afraid to report the truth because of the biased opinions of those in the upper management.

I remember many years ago when I was a kid that the media was somewhat believable and you did get some truth out of it. Nowadays it's like a race to see who can follow the ambulance to get the shock and awe story, who cares if it's the truth or not. Hell when you do get a video of someone going under cover for a story they call it "Hearsay" even when people in the video were taped saying it. The world today is sinking further into an Idiocracy.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 10/27/16 12:11 AM

You should always be getting your news from multiple outlets.

The 24/7 "news" business has brought the quality of this business way down. That shit is not news, its entertainment at this point. Good rule of thumb, if someone is giving you their opinion, its not news.

Unfortunately at the end of the day this is still a business and it needs to make money. That's why, if it bleeds it leads. It is also why its not just the media's fault, its the viewers as well.

Funny enough, all this talk reminds me of this clip from Newsroom:
Posted By: Exey

Re: Trump card - 10/27/16 02:26 AM

Originally Posted By: Goriom
You should always be getting your news from multiple outlets.

The 24/7 "news" business has brought the quality of this business way down. That shit is not news, its entertainment at this point. Good rule of thumb, if someone is giving you their opinion, its not news.

Unfortunately at the end of the day this is still a business and it needs to make money. That's why, if it bleeds it leads. It is also why its not just the media's fault, its the viewers as well.

Funny enough, all this talk reminds me of this clip from Newsroom:


you didn't cite your sources...
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/27/16 11:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Goriom
You should always be getting your news from multiple outlets.

The 24/7 "news" business has brought the quality of this business way down. That shit is not news, its entertainment at this point. Good rule of thumb, if someone is giving you their opinion, its not news.

Unfortunately at the end of the day this is still a business and it needs to make money. That's why, if it bleeds it leads. It is also why its not just the media's fault, its the viewers as well.

Funny enough, all this talk reminds me of this clip from Newsroom:


I agree that the media needs to make money and it's also society's fault. However they have an obligation to not be biased and report the truth. They can show the other crap anytime, but they should always be neutral and report the truth. In the end it would make them as much or more money because they would be respected. The ONLY reason I watch any mainstream TV at all is for Football and some local news.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/27/16 10:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Derid
there's real fire under the Trump smoke.


I feel ritually unclean for wholeheartedly agreeing with Derid. I will now have to bump Ron's trolling thread to atone for this.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/28/16 01:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Sini
Originally Posted By: Derid
there's real fire under the Trump smoke.


I feel ritually unclean for wholeheartedly agreeing with Derid. I will now have to bump Ron's trolling thread to atone for this.


Us agreeing on things probably means that the sky is literally falling, and the apocalypse is almost here.

Just kidding.

*reads news*

Ok, maybe not kidding. As you said, if bomb shelters and bunkers full of canned goods were good enough for our parents and grandparents.. I guess they're good enough for us.
Posted By: Instrument

Re: Trump card - 10/28/16 07:11 PM

FBI probes new Hillary Clinton emails
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37805525


49% Hillary Clinton

44% Donald Trump

So president Trump it is
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/28/16 08:10 PM

I wonder if it is related to the recent revelation that the head of FBI DC field office that headed the investigation was part of Hillary's crew.

edit: Looks like it was actually because they found stuff on Hillary's longtime personal aide's hubby's devices. Said hubby being none other than the infamous Anthony Weiner, currently under investigation for sexting minors.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/28/16 09:03 PM

But Hillary said she turned over all the emails... how could this be? SMH she is such a lying corrupted individual it's sickening she's able to get so close to the Presidency.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/28/16 09:21 PM

Weiners out http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-re-open-investigation-clinton-email-server-n674631
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/28/16 09:34 PM

Just out of curiosity, wtf does SMH mean? I've been meaning to ask someone in the know about that for years.
Posted By: Instrument

Re: Trump card - 10/28/16 09:46 PM

https://www.reference.com/technology/smh-mean-texting-ba824862c0c52f4e

shaking my head Hillary

guessing its based around the Parkinson rumours
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/28/16 10:37 PM

It would be nice to see executive branch take on FBI. I know it won't happen for a good reason, but pissed-off President Hillary just might go after the worst FBI/CIA excesses.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/28/16 11:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Sini
It would be nice to see executive branch take on FBI. I know it won't happen for a good reason, but pissed-off President Hillary just might go after the worst FBI/CIA excesses.


Agreed. Wouldn't be any different than GOP investigating Hillary. Reasons? Personal/political. But its still the closest thing to accountability we can get these days.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 10/29/16 07:59 PM

I bet the DNC regrets rigging the primaries for Hillary. Right about now that Bernie Sanders vote isn't looking to bad to some Democrats I bet.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/30/16 01:34 AM

These emails are nothing new, and tell nothing new about Hillary. If you think mishandling classified information disqualifies her, then you will still think that afterwards. I expect Hillary supporters just rolled their eyes in response.

Think of it this way - if second Trump tape came out, it wouldn't change much. If you plan to vote for him after hearing the first one, you will still vote for him after hearing more of the same.
Posted By: Instrument

Re: Trump card - 10/30/16 05:47 AM

allegations of mishandling classified information with the private email server have been around for months
and the world press ignored it

The FBI director just stood up in front of the US congress and declared a criminal investigation into Hillary and the world press noticed.

Thats got to be worth a 5% swing


*thats the way it reads:)
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/30/16 11:40 PM

I am surprised to hear you say that press ignored it, because it was rather extensively covered. Also, FBI this time around are not at all direct, they won't even state that they are investigating Hillary again. Both of these facts combined makes me think it is all hat.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/31/16 02:01 AM

If you want to read evenhanded report on Clinton scandals.

Of reported scandals, I personally think only foundation and speeches to bankers are big deal. Ironically, they are least focused-on.

Posted By: Instrument

Re: Trump card - 10/31/16 02:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Sini
I am surprised to hear you say that press ignored it, because it was rather extensively covered. Also, FBI this time around are not at all direct, they won't even state that they are investigating Hillary again. Both of these facts combined makes me think it is all hat.


The original email server story was months ago extensively covered in the US most likely outside not realy, main difference is that Trump has always seen as a joke with Hillary the president in waiting, now they are starting to worry that Trump is going to win.
The BBC has had this as their main story all weekend
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/31/16 02:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Sini
If you want to read evenhanded report on Clinton scandals.

Of reported scandals, I personally think only foundation and speeches to bankers are big deal. Ironically, they are least focused-on.



Methinks a lot of people close to media execs and significant shareholders don't really want to "follow the money" when it comes to Clinton Inc. At least, not too close or too deep. It would be... rather uncomfortable, for a great many people, were it actually focused on properly. (probably not illegal, at least if you are part of the USA Nobility, but uncomfortable and embarrassing.)

Things like $$$/political connections to FBI DC Field office leader, that led email investigation.

Bottom line is that we are effectively a third world nation, politically speaking. Just, no one wants to admit it yet.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/01/16 04:11 PM

Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 11/01/16 06:36 PM

Proof POTUS knew that Hillary had a private server and they were going to try to clean it up. This is pure corruption, the DOJ gave Mills immunity. I think it should be taken away for lying about it. If they don't get charged it's pure corruption. How more blatant can someone get?
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/01/16 07:45 PM

USA Nobility can do whatever they want, unless a sufficiently powerful political enemy pulls one over on them.

Regular people get their life destroyed if they so much as abuse the TOS of a University document repository, or have a large puddle on their land
that qualifies them as a "wetland"

We are third world. It is what it is.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/02/16 12:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
Proof POTUS knew that Hillary had a private server and they were going to try to clean it up. This is pure corruption, the DOJ gave Mills immunity. I think it should be taken away for lying about it. If they don't get charged it's pure corruption. How more blatant can someone get?
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077


Here is what email actually says:

Quote:
Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it in the news.


What are you reading that I am not seeing?
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 11/02/16 04:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Sini
Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
Proof POTUS knew that Hillary had a private server and they were going to try to clean it up. This is pure corruption, the DOJ gave Mills immunity. I think it should be taken away for lying about it. If they don't get charged it's pure corruption. How more blatant can someone get?
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077

Here is what email actually says:

Quote:
Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it in the news.


What are you reading that I am not seeing?

That is the part that was further down the email I'm talking about the very top of the email. Mills sent it to Podesta and forwarded it to others.

The very top of it says this...
"we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say
state.gov"

She's saying they need to clean it up because it doesn't have a State.Gov which means it wasn't sent through a secure line and showed it was on another server Hillary Clinton.com. So either nobody cared she was doing it or they are to stupid to figure out it wasn't a secure line.

I worked for the Postal Service for over 2 years, if they are any indication of how Government is ran than I can vouch that it's a shit show.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/04/16 01:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Wolfgang

The very top of it says this...
"we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov"


I am not seeing anything problematic with this email. To me, it reads as "we need to address this".

I can see myself writing "we need to clean this up" when someone on my team fucks up. This doesn't necessary mean I will have commit fraud or have to bring a shovel and an old carpet to do this clean up.

Sure, you can chose to misunderstand this, but it would be contrived.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/04/16 02:11 AM


Wolfgang's interpretation might be accurate, but I also don't think it matters. Regarding protecting data, none of it was safe, no matter on which server it was on.

As far as the actual email server scandal goes, regarding the mechanics of the server, only two things really matter.

1) That Hillary tried to withhold information from the National Archive, and thus history itself. Legal, illegal, doesn't matter. It was a shitty thing to do as a human, let alone a statesman, and should be instant disqualifier from holding any other office.

2) That if anyone else had been in a similar position, and done similar things, they would have been nailed, regardless of intent or technical legality. The DOJ would have concocted a dozen plausible-sounding charges, that even if they all seemed quite defensible individually, would still put the victim at risk of dozens of years of mandatory federal minimum sentences, and generally scare them into a plea bargain, especially if they didnt have access to a multi million dollar legal and PR team.

If memory serves, something similar actually happened to a former Clinton cabinet member, who accidentally left something innocuous yet classified in a book or folder that he took off-premise. The Clintons hung him out to dry, and he ended up becoming a convict. Even though his "breech" of security was, on the whole, much more innocuous and much less threatening to national security. But such is how it goes when you serve the Clintons: they don't have friends or colleagues, they have patsies and pawns.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/05/16 04:08 AM

Interesting read:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/dont-gamble-on-trump/506207/
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 11/06/16 02:41 PM

It's obvious Clinton is corrupt and they have made a lot of personal financial gain from her time as SOS. I'm certain the FBI is making a lot of connections with that since they have been investigating the Clinton Foundation for a year now as well. How much smoke and flames do you need to say you have a fire? Seems like they would still deny it even if the building is turned to ask.

A sailor is going to prison for taking a picture inside the engine room of a Submarine. He lost his phone the picture was on and someone found it, they turned the phone in to authorities and he got into trouble for it. He didn't intend to distribute the photo it was on his phone that he lost. There were no intent there yet he's going to prison. What went on with the private non-secure Clinton server should be intent. She knew what she was doing.

For that sailor to get prison time and Hillary to get absolutely nothing shows how fucked and corrupt our legal system is. If they are going to claim everyone is equal then they should at least play the part. Democrats are heavy on Do as I say, not as I do. It seems it only applies to everyone else except them.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/08/16 06:39 AM

The system is fucked up and Clinton is corrupt, but you are sadly mistaken if you think that vote for Trump is not going to make even this shitty state of thing worse.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/08/16 06:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Sini
More serious than horsemeat crisis.


So Derid, are you ready for President Trump and the final stages of decline of Western Empire/Civilization?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/08/16 03:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Sini
Originally Posted By: Sini
More serious than horsemeat crisis.


So Derid, are you ready for President Trump and the final stages of decline of Western Empire/Civilization?


Yeah. I've been playing Rimworld the past few days, as a kind of survivalist crash training course. I should be just fine, as long as we dont get any solar flares. Having your power knocked out and losing your hydroponic room in the middle of a long winter kinda sucks.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/09/16 05:38 AM

How far is far away enough to escape the fallout from Trump?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/09/16 05:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Sini
How far is far away enough to escape the fallout from Trump?
I suggest making friends with Elon Musk, I hear he is building a nice rocket ship.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/09/16 06:02 AM

Originally Posted By: Derid
I suggest making friends with Elon Musk, I hear he is building a nice rocket ship.


He is still 10+ years away from credible attempt, if it unravels it will be much quicker than that.


When reading history books I always wondered what it was like to live around Napoleonic times. I guess I will find out firsthand, the only complication is magnitude: anything from nukes starting to fly to financial system collapsing... This is on top of the expected guillotine in the square.

Is it too much to hope that The Donald didn't believe most of what he had to say to get elected?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/09/16 06:39 AM

I don't know, but I guess we will find out. I have to admit, I didn't see this coming, not really. Maybe on some level, I didn't want to know. After all, I hadn't really been paying too much attention, Hillary vs Trump was just too depressing.

Of course it is obvious in hindsight. Number one factor being SJWs, combined with demographic forecasts, finally scaring white people - even white women - into adopting the same racial identity politics as other groups, and voting, as a group. Numbers I have seen put whites supporting Trump almost to the degree blacks support a Democrat in a typical year, and about on par with Latino Democrat support.

Take out the liberal coastal areas, and the numbers surely will reflect a white populace in line with, but opposite of, black voting trends. I have to wonder if the Left is happy now, that they scared pretty much the entire Midwest into voting for a madman.

I also have to wonder if they are happy about the role they played in delegitimizing the libertarian, reformist strain of the GOP, when it went to take on the banksters and NSA. I warned at the time that doing so would just channel the malaise people felt but couldn't always articulate, into other, unpredictable directions. But strategic thinking isn't a strong suit of the political class in this country, and the left wanted to win the whole pie, and crush any ideological competition. Well, it is crushed, and here we are. Someone with no scruples or principles of any sort, and an infantile mentality will likely be President, and his party will likely control both houses of the legislature.

It's a sad day. It was going to be a sad day regardless, but at least Hillary winning but being faced with GOP legislature would have felt relatively "safe." Trump winning, with a GOP legislature to boot, doesn't feel safe at all.

Looking at Gary Johnson performance, it is easy to see that nominating Bernie would have easily clinched the election. Gary didn't perform at 3% because of anything he himself did, but rather because of HillaryTrump. A civil libertarian in a major party would easily and obviously have siphoned all those votes, for an easy electoral path.

Corrupt and inept DNC is at least as much to blame as anyone.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 11/09/16 09:51 AM

They're responsible.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 11/09/16 04:03 PM

Well how about that. Trump pulled it off. Now we get to see how well he does with a House and Senate Majority. Hopefully they don't screw it up. Because we really need to get the economy going.
Posted By: Banshee

Re: Trump card - 11/09/16 04:34 PM

Dramatic much, they were and are the same powerful elite who think they can do what they want lol she was just sneaker because of years of practice.
What does it mean really? Who knows but the sun came up and I went to work today so the world goes on.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/09/16 10:18 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...linton-liberals

This is easily be best take on the election I have read.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/09/16 11:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Derid
factor being SJWs


I want to believe this, because I am very opposed to these censorious self-righteous fucks, and would find solace in Trumps win if this is the end of them, but is it want-make-belief or factual?

Seeing as we are not lately into trolling each other, I'd warn you to not subscribe to what you want to be the truth to what is actually is.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/09/16 11:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
Because we really need to get the economy going.


We do, so lets hope he didn't mean any of what he said on trade, because tearing up treaties will throw US into deep recession without bringing any of the jobs back.

The appropriate way to fight outsourcing is to heavily tax it. This removes financial incentive. You do this by keeping tax rate high but giving lots of tax credits to anyone who is not outsourcing.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/10/16 01:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Sini
Originally Posted By: Derid
factor being SJWs


I want to believe this, because I am very opposed to these censorious self-righteous fucks, and would find solace in Trumps win if this is the end of them, but is it want-make-belief or factual?

Seeing as we are not lately into trolling each other, I'd warn you to not subscribe to what you want to be the truth to what is actually is.


You don't think that anti-PC mentality had anything to do with galvanizing Trump support? In the end, it's hard to quantify everything, but I certainly think it a major factor in myriad ways. Not necessarily as an immediate cause-effect relationship, as in people didn't necessarily vote Trump in response to an immediate SJW action (other than Hillary) - but consider the following:

MSM widely came together to condemn everyone not supporting Hillary as sexist/racist. I think many people resented this, and it stoked motivation.

Underprivileged whites being told how privileged they are, due to skin color. Despite their lives and background certainly not feeling it.

Gloating bandying about in MSM of demographic trends, and how whites were becoming irrelevant, and would soon be a minority. And how it would be a good thing.

Hillary and DNC unabashed identity politics, and their allies that ran with it over the SJW cliff.

Even the Guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...linton-liberals notes:

"How did the journalists crusade fail? The fourth estate came together in an unprecedented professional consensus. They chose insulting the other side over trying to understand what motivated them. They transformed opinion writing into a vehicle for high moral boasting. What could possibly have gone wrong with such an approach?


Put this question in slightly more general terms and you are confronting the single great mystery of 2016. The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasnt all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didnt accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe its time to consider whether theres something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away."

I certainly do think there is something about shrill self-righteousness that turns people away.

I also think that the general environment has led many white people to begin thinking in racial terms. Though I have anecdotal evidence of such, I think the most compelling proof is in the pudding. Non-coastal enclave whites voted for Trump as assiduously as any minority ethnic group voted for Democrats. That so many of them had previously supported Obama seems to contradict the media narrative that they are racists. (though sure, racists do exist among them)

So, without factoring in blowback from identity politics and SJW hectoring and threats, how do you explain it?

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but something sure scared and agitated white people - including white women - into dropping previous voting and polling patterns, and voting as an ethnic bloc. The person they voted for also happens to be the most non-apologetic anti-PC figure in politics. Coincidence? I doubt it. Are there other factors? Sure, absolutely.

One should keep in mind that, at least in the Midwest, identity politicians and SJWs are mostly seen as tools of elitist, pampered, coastal nobility.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/10/16 02:48 AM

Addendum:

Between being half asleep, and the whole issue containing many layers to unpack, I don't' think I was clear enough previously.

If we are going to be technically precise, I would say that it is the SJW-like tendency of the MSM and coastal elites, including the Hillary campaign, to agglomerate, objectify, and dehumanize others, so as to pontificate on the perceived moral deficiencies of said "other" in favor of their own hollow self-righteousness, and projection of assigned blame for things over which said people have little, or no, control over, is the issue.

Not the presence of the annoying twits that infest social media, university campuses, and gaming blogs. Though I do think the institutional shift in regards to SJWs in media and education has not gone unnoticed by the larger public, and also has an effect.

Think Hillary, and her calling half the country a "basket of deplorables" as one example.

In the brave new SJW world, people don't have disagreements, differing views, cultures, or competing ideas - or at least not that ones that include typical Euro-centric culture derivatives as legitimate. Nor that Euro-centric people have legit grievances. And I do guarantee you, that the scions of northern Europe have in fact noticed this. It's not that other people have different ideas, or different opinions - it is that their whole culture and existence is seen as being delegitimized entirely.


Another example would be the fight over Obamacare, and the govt shut downs, or threatened shut downs. Instead of framing the issue as:

GOP: Being willing to threaten to shut down govt to defund Obamacare, or other issue

Dems: Being willing to threaten to, or shut down govt to keep ACA, and other issues


Almost the entire media apparatus simply framed the issue as the GOP/Tea Party/righties being willing to shut down the govt or do any reckless action to get their way. Nevermind that the Dems were also willing to commit precisely the same actions for the sake of implementing their agenda, and never mind that a majority of public opinion was actually against ACA at the time, the pro-ACA narrative was ubiquitous.

That wasn't a discussion, or an argument, or an instance of competing ideas - at least not in the MSM narrative. it was a total delgitimization of those who went against the prejudices of the Establishment. Why? Because the people who didn't like ACA, or Obamas agenda were mostly all non-coastal whites.

People started noticing this. People really aren't too dumb to discern that both sides had exactly equal, if opposite, stances. Nor too dumb to see that there is a pattern (of which this is one example) to delegitimizing their concerns or desires for govt.

The same can be said of trade, and immigration. Just how were the MSM, and Establishment, treating opponents in this arena? Not to mention bailouts for banks. Not just with disagreement, but with delegitimization and scorn.

Bernie got this, I think. Especially in regards to trade and Wall St. Which forced the issues to become "legit" again, as Hillary put on a public face of pivoting that, as Michigan results show, was not wholly believed.

But I digress from the initial point, somewhat. Other than the fact that Bernie legitimized some of those issues again, which is partly why I think he would have easily trounced Trump.

Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/10/16 04:18 AM

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/trump-won-because-leftist-political-corr

I'm not alone in my conclusions, apparently. Also, Kudos to the author for pointing out the boy-that-cried-wolf aspect, which is something I wrote about extensively a couple weeks back, but not here.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/10/16 05:16 AM

Quote:
So, without factoring in blowback from identity politics and SJW hectoring and threats, how do you explain it?

Economic pain from no-jobs recovery after 2009 further compounded by days-before-election Obamacare rate hikes. Anecdotally, I heard from someone turning up to vote for Trump because they just got a 400% rate hike.

SJW on the left are equivalent to fundamental evangelicals. I personally wouldn't vote for a candidate even if they campaigned wearing colander, I'd certainly approve of that, but not enough to impact my decision-making in a major way.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/10/16 05:26 AM

Also, I always wondered but never asked, because it doesn't really matter, but why is he frequently orange?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/10/16 06:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Sini
Quote:
So, without factoring in blowback from identity politics and SJW hectoring and threats, how do you explain it?

Economic pain from no-jobs recovery after 2009 further compounded by days-before-election Obamacare rate hikes. Anecdotally, I heard from someone turning up to vote for Trump because they just got a 400% rate hike.

SJW on the left are equivalent to fundamental evangelicals. I personally wouldn't vote for a candidate even if they campaigned wearing colander, I'd certainly approve of that, but not enough to impact my decision-making in a major way.


And like the right-wing fundies, large parts of the left wing caters and kowtows to the SJW crowd, much as the right wing did towards their own religious zealots.

Just as people largely saw the image of Pat Robertson and Rick Santorum behind every GOPer, so do people see Gloria Steinem and Anita Sarkeesian behind many Dems, or at least Hillary. (even if they don't actually know their names) Hillary's tone and allied media didn't help that perception either.

-

I think your statement regarding economy and Obamacare is part of it, but I also saw data indicating that the vast bulk of Trump supporters were doing OK. Plus, it's not like he had any real cogent policies that he consistently articulated to address jobs. The fact is, there was a large confluence of many factors, and quantifying their relative impact will take time.

Also, recall the humiliating manner in which opposition to said Obamacare was not just fought by the Dems and MSM, but completely delegitimized. (outside of Faux News anyhow, which is its own barrel of snakes)

Don't underestimate the degree to which middle America feels insulted, disrespected, and despised by the DC/NYC Establishment and their left coast compatriots. The feeling is that those forces are genuinely "out to get them", and objectively speaking, there is even some truth to it. Of course they also believe a lot of silly things, but it is what it is.

Part of the reason this is all so hard to quantify, is because it stems from a general sense of malaise, that I think few people are able to articulate clearly.

The fact is, one could lay blame on any great number of factors, and there would probably be at least some truth to any of them. What I worry about, is the Democrats continuing down the path of simply demonizing everyone who disagrees with them as racist, or sexist. That doesn't seem to be a winning strategy, and having either party control executive plus legislative is something I find pretty scary.
Posted By: Banshee

Re: Trump card - 11/10/16 11:32 PM

Nice post.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 11/11/16 07:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Sini
Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
Because we really need to get the economy going.


We do, so lets hope he didn't mean any of what he said on trade, because tearing up treaties will throw US into deep recession without bringing any of the jobs back.

The appropriate way to fight outsourcing is to heavily tax it. This removes financial incentive. You do this by keeping tax rate high but giving lots of tax credits to anyone who is not outsourcing.

I'm sure he's going to do as he says and renegotiate the trade deals. I'm not sure how that's going to hurt the economy when we are looking for a deal that's more fair for us. Right now the deals favor other countries. What's unfair is for us to lose out on a trade deal all the while giving them Government aid as well. That's a plus plus for those countries. There's nothing wrong with making things fair. I thought that being fair was the left's creed.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 11/12/16 04:46 AM

I think this says a lot...
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/12/16 05:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
I'm not sure how that's going to hurt the economy when we are looking for a deal that's more fair for us.


First, you are assuming that you are going to get a better deal. Considering how unpopular Trump in Mexico with his build a wall, there is very likely political capital to tell him in a very public way to go fuck himself. So no deal with Mexico is worse than present deal.

Second, you are assuming that deal is unfair. With US, Canada, and Mexico economies benefiting from NAFTA such view just isn't supported by facts. NAFTA is absolutely generating more trade and wealth for everyone involved. The question you should be focusing on is how this wealth is distributed internally. This is what unfair - but then Trump's promised tax cuts would only make it less fair.

TL;DR Wrong question, wrong solution. It is like going to dentist to have your tooth removed and ending up with a prostate surgery.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/12/16 07:01 PM



Go to 27:50 , timestamp in URL doesnt seem to work. Quick mini-transscript for those who dont like video (which includes myself, hence typing it out, cause I understand. Mildly redacted for length)

Guest is Trae Crowder, author of "The Liberal Redneck Manifesto"

Bill Maher: We thought you would be the perfect guest tonight, to explain to shocked, coastal-elite liberals - [interject]

Trae Crowder: - what the hell happened?

[interject]

BM: .... - what the hell happened.

BM: And by the way, just the shock, on their faces, on their smug, kale-eating faces, must be so satisfying for people from your neck of the woods.

Trae Crowder: Oh my god man, that's why I ain't even been home since Tuesday. Ya'know, cause, I can't deal with seein' the shit.

BM: You're a liberal.

TC: I am. I'm a liberal redneck, which people think is an oxymoron, but it's not. I am also not a unicorn, there are more of me, [laughs] we do exist.

BM: [garbled] - I see them every other week.

TC: Ya know, I'll do shows in like, Manhattan, and people will say "where you goin next?" - [and I'll say] Texas. [and people will be like] "Oh, god, no. Don't get shot by a rodeo clown."

TC: And it's so clear, how people people feel about the South, or, just rural America. And ya'know, it just really stands out, and I think that's a lot of what happened here, frankly. Like, it really drove it home for me, being on the road this year, and talking to people all over the country, who've been great, but, how much they fundamentally don't understand, and don't care to understand so many of these [rural] people.

TC: And I feel like a lot of this is the backlash from those [rural] people, against, that. Ya know?

BM: Total backlash. I feel like what happened was, for the last eight or ten years, the liberals have been telling white people in America that "your time is passed". And so, they made them feel like a minority. And then they went out and voted like a minority.

TC: Right, yeah.

BM: Isn't that what happened?

TC: Absolutely. They, turned out, ya know? But it's so weird to me, cause' , I'll be honest with you - I didn't expect him to win, ultimately.

[segment on how redneck thought of Trump three years ago]

TC [continuing]: So it was surprising to me, that they bought into [Trump's] his bullshit.

[bit on Trumps attitude, such -skip]

BM: But also, the Democratic party, and back me up on this guys, sort of lost the white working man. That's what they used to have. And they made the white working man feel like "your problems aren't real." Because you're mansplainin' and, ya know, "check your privilege"

Latte-liberal panelist: [tries to interject]

BM: But ya, if your life sucks, your problems are real. And, what should I do, chop off my dick and check my privilege?

Latte-liberal: Do you really think thats liberals fault?

BM: Oh, I do, I do.

Latte-liberal: You know that saying, like, "to a white person equality feels like oppression."


BM: If there's a silver lining in this for me personally, it's the two issues I have been on the case of liberals for, and they've been booing me about this for years, and maybe they'll listen. One is political correctness. I think I did a show about that, for nine years. You're outrageous with your political correct bullshit, and it does drive people away.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/12/16 08:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Derid

BM: But ya, if your life sucks, your problems are real. And, what should I do, chop off my dick and check my privilege?


Gold right there. People in SV often forget that anywhere else in the US you can't get $150,000 salary by just showing up with a laptop and a ponytail.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/13/16 02:40 AM

I read that Hillary got 6.5 mil less votes than Obama in 2012. If I listen to the media, each one of these are racist sexists misogynist that just finished beating their wives. Unfortunately, this unlikely to result in Democratic party learning from their mistakes.

However, this article is optimistic:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/bernie-sanders-empire-strikes-back-231259
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/13/16 05:05 AM

Some interesting reader comments, and back-and-forth.

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/1...ill-get/507437/
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 11/13/16 09:26 PM

This GIF is telling.
https://gfycat.com/FoolishSaltyBats#?speed=0.25
Posted By: Arkh

Re: Trump card - 11/13/16 10:38 PM

Quote:
Latte-liberal: You know that saying, like, "to a white person equality feels like oppression."


The real saying is "to the privileged equality feels like oppression". Remember it next time you see the reaction of a woman being treated like a guy.

White women are the most privileged demographic in the western civilizations.
Posted By: Arkh

Re: Trump card - 11/18/16 11:34 PM

While passing by, some reading: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/19/16 04:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Arkh


That blog is entirely too rational.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/19/16 06:18 PM

Twitter just went full-blown censorship on political wrongthink. Facebook with its "fake news" is not far behind. The epistemic bubble on the left is now worse than Romney/Tea Party one. What a disgrace.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 11/22/16 09:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Sini
Facebook with its "fake news" is not far behind.


Not sure if you've ever been on Facebook (do you have friends??) but the shit that gets posted on there is ludicrous, been that way for years now.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/22/16 03:59 PM

So, who gets to decide which news is "real" and which isn't?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/22/16 04:11 PM

Quote:
Conservative Kansans fall for a plutocratic, imperialist agenda cloaked in patriotism, religion, and nostalgia for the good old Ed Sullivan days; liberal New Yorkers fall for the same plutocratic, imperialist agenda dressed up in multiculturalism, identity politics, and celebration of the good new Caitlin Jenner days. Whos the bigger fool? Hows that working out for everybody? For the millions of victims of that top-down, plutocratic class war in the ghettos of the cities and the hollows of Appalachia? For the Syrians, Iraqis, and Libyans, whose countries have been destroyed? Ad infinitum.

Yes, the voters who switched from Barack to Donald are fools for thinking that Trump is going to help them in any way, but they are not fools for thinking that Hillary Clinton would not have.

And how smart or foolish is it to think the thing to do now is to try and persuade them on the next version of Hillary, Clinton 3.0 (Obama was 2.0)which is all the Democratic Party is going to offer them. This bouncing back and forth between phony, mendacious saviorsfrom "hope and change" to "make America great again"while ignoring, or posing false solutions to, the fundamental socio-economic forces ripping the country apart, is the characteristic of American liberal-conservative, Democratic-Republican, politics. It suffers a lot of fools.


From http://www.thepolemicist.net/2016/11/ship-of-fools-what-trump-teaches.html

Which btw is a blog I think Arkh originally found. I don't agree with everything in the post, but there are some good points made.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 11/22/16 05:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Derid
So, who gets to decide which news is "real" and which isn't?


I see your point, but in reality, the slippery slope is a few miles away from the Pope endorsing Donald Trump.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/22/16 06:44 PM

Originally Posted By: rhaikh
Originally Posted By: Derid
So, who gets to decide which news is "real" and which isn't?


I see your point, but in reality, the slippery slope is a few miles away from the Pope endorsing Donald Trump.


If people really believe that, then that is a problem that can't be fixed by having someone censor that particular blurb. Trying to do so is simply focusing on the wrong problem, much like trying to eliminate the electoral college and go to popular vote.

In any case, I genuinely think that Facebook and similar platforms are harbingers of doom for a society that wants to maintain democratic roots. Facebook is the "new TV" in that if you want to maintain a rational outlook, and an even disposition, you shouldn't get your news or opinion from it - or probably use it at all. I cannot help but wonder if the complete loss of rationality by the self-identifying left, and right, isn't magnified by Facebook and its ilk. Humans aren't cognitively wired to be well-adjusted when immersed in that type of social environment, nor have we any type of socialized immunity to groupthink or epistemic isolationism.

There are of course, individual exceptions. By and large, my fears regarding "social media" have proven true over the years. But that's another topic.
Posted By: Arkh

Re: Trump card - 11/22/16 08:59 PM

Note how the "fake news" problem appeared suddenly in all the traditional media at the same time.

That's propaganda pure and simple. Those fuckers coordinated to try and get out of their own responsibility. THEY are the dealers of fake news under the guise of their old good reputation. They colluded with candidates and politicos. They have email lists to do those kind of things together. They push narratives. So-called journalists and their editors fucked up journalism in the eyes of everyone but themselves, those elections were part of the consequence. Their dwindling revenues are another.

Fuck them.

Want to know when the 4th estate failed? See when 95% of the population would not piss on them if they were burning. The 4th power is now just a mouthpiece for state propaganda like in any banana republic. Give it ten more years and you'll get the same shit we have in Europe with all media depending on the money coming from the state. With prominent journos married to politicians. And they'll still try to sell how independent and anti-establishment they are.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/23/16 01:39 AM

https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/22/chinabook/

What more needs said?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/28/16 07:07 PM

I always laughed at the right's assertions that media is rigged against them. Turns out, they are partially right. Where they went wrong with the complaint is assuming it is against them, rather than pro-establishment of either type.

Media failed us informing that Trump is popular, media failing help us understanding why he succeeded, and media is now peddling solution that censorship is the right solution to this problem.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/28/16 08:52 PM

It's not that the media failed to inform us that Trump was popular, but rather that the media chose sides, and at every turn sought to push the narrative of Hillary's inevitability. If that isn't a rigged situation, I don't know what is.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 11/28/16 09:13 PM

Well, yeah. I've always maintained that mainstream media is an establishment organ, as opposed to an ideological one. There are examples of exceptions to the general rule, and maybe I picked a bone at some point for the sake of entertainment - and there is a bit of implicit bias due to education/background. But for the most part the writers/pundits cater to the perceived agendas of their editors/producers, who cater to the agenda of the VPs, who cater to the perceived (or at this level, flatly stated)agenda of the CEO and various powerful board members.

There are usually "layers" so it isn't as if the people in the trenches are being told what to write, exactly. (Though there are exception, like Faux News channel where Murdoch and Aisles both did literally have a red line direct to the production room, where guests that said the wrong things would be summarily dismissed/cut off) But if they want to write/say something useful they usually won't get a budget to do so (even NYT writers that do real investigative journalism usually do so in the form of an outside book deal.)

By the same token, if say, some folks in the "trenches" at say, CBS, did do something like say, a real expose on quantitative easing cash flow and how it helped empower the most corrupt elements of Wall St to put an even greater stranglehold on the economy - expect heads to roll.

This has always been obvious, and after the previous election cycle, should hopefully be obvious to more people. Mainstream media in the US is pretty much garbage, despite occasionally (very rarely these days,) doing something meaningful.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/28/16 09:15 PM

Maybe if they were to cater to the needs of their audience, they might be held in less contempt.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/01/16 02:10 AM

while I usually dont like videos, this 26 second bit just sums up this election, and post election so perfectly.

Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/02/16 02:07 AM

Good read: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...suasion/508961/
Posted By: JetStar

Re: Trump card - 12/12/16 07:45 PM

Wow! I am amazed that Trumpers are ok with the Billionaire Cabinet.

{popcorn}
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/13/16 12:33 AM

Originally Posted By: JetStar
Wow! I am amazed that Trumpers are ok with the Billionaire Cabinet.

{popcorn}


When Trump said he was gonna drain the swamp, I wonder if his supporters knew he meant to drain it into the White House.

Maybe he considers it his environmental push, since Goldman Sachs execs are too toxic to just dump in the ocean.
Posted By: Tasho

Re: Trump card - 12/13/16 02:51 AM

Originally Posted By: JetStar
Wow! I am amazed that Trumpers are ok with the Billionaire Cabinet.

{popcorn}


Demand Facts, Truth and Logic as evidence of moving in a bad direction - and then immediately dismiss anything that is brought forward so that your opponent gets sick of talking regardless of their tone or quality of their information. This country is going places - but don't worry, they'll blame everybody but themselves at the end of it. The fanatical devotion to a guy who just makes shit up consistently is sickening - at least most anti-trump folks could/would acknowledge the weaknesses of other candidates as well.

It's funny to hear people stereotype women as emotion-driven and irrational and then to have Trump and this reality being what it is.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 12/13/16 10:29 PM

Denzel Washington telling the truth about media.
Posted By: JetStar

Re: Trump card - 12/14/16 12:12 AM

WOW Exxon Mobile owns the State Department! Any bets on how long the Russian sanctions will stay in place now!

This is like watching a bad reality show. I love it!
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 12/14/16 01:15 AM

Originally Posted By: JetStar
WOW Exxon Mobile owns the State Department! Any bets on how long the Russian sanctions will stay in place now!

This is like watching a bad reality show. I love it!

We had 8 years of a bad reality show...oh and remind me who sold Russia 20% of our Uranium and took Millions from Russians into their Foundation. Then their husband got a huge payday for a speech from a Bank that is directly tied to the Kremlin... who was that again I forgot
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/14/16 01:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
Denzel Washington telling the truth about media.


Denzel is right about the MSM.

Plus, looking back, if MSM hadn't gone to shit, Faux wouldn't have had a market to build on.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/14/16 01:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
Originally Posted By: JetStar
WOW Exxon Mobile owns the State Department! Any bets on how long the Russian sanctions will stay in place now!

This is like watching a bad reality show. I love it!

We had 8 years of a bad reality show...oh and remind me who sold Russia 20% of our Uranium and took Millions from Russians into their Foundation. Then their husband got a huge payday for a speech from a Bank that is directly tied to the Kremlin... who was that again I forgot


That Hillary was also objectively garbage is no reason not to have voted for Johnson.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/15/16 06:23 PM

The fact that Johnson had zero probability of winning was reason to not vote Johnson.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/15/16 09:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Owain
The fact that Johnson had zero probability of winning was reason to not vote Johnson.


I've never understood that line of thought. If you are a Russian should you then feel obligated to vote for Putin, because he is going to win? For Kim Jong if you are a North Korean?

Is it some hope that one time you will vote, and the race will come down to one vote - thus giving you that lotto-winning feeling that you single-handedly altered the course of history?

If someone actually supports Hillary Trumpkin, that's one thing. But if you don't, but vote for them anyway because "they are going to win" then I honestly find that extremely sad.
Posted By: JetStar

Re: Trump card - 12/15/16 10:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
sold Russia 20% of our Uranium and took Millions from Russians into their Foundation. Then their husband got a huge payday for a speech from a Bank that is directly tied to the Kremlin... who was that again I forgot


More unproven fake news bullshit

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/Dont just discount it because it is snopes. Read the referenced materials.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 12:29 AM

There was more than one candidate running, so your Putin analogy makes no sense.

Realistically, only one of two candidates had a possiblility of winning. Voting for a third party candidate is useless. The only impact they have is acting as spoilers by sucking votes away from a candidate who actually can win.

No candidate is perfect, so one should always vote for the candidate that either provides the best match for their interests, or is least damaging, otherwise, they risk winding up with the candidate they like least.

Why would you want that?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 06:03 AM

Let's take an example. Let's say you are undecided between Hillary and Jill Stein, but you despise Trump. It's a close call, but you decide to cast your vote for Stein.

In Michigan, Trump beat Hillary by 279000 votes to 268000 votes, a margin of 11,000 votes. Jill Stein got only 50,000 votes, so she never stood a chance of winning Michigan, but arguably caused Clinton to lose the state.

So if you lived in Michigan, by voting for a candidate with zero chance of winning, you wind up with the candidate you despise rather than a candidate that actually had a chance of winning that you would have liked better.

That demonstrates the folly of voting for third party candidates. Vote for the candidate you like best who actually has a chance of winning, or the candidate you dislike least. Otherwise, you might end up with the candidate who was your LAST choice winning the election.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 08:15 AM

People run against Putin as well, he just defeats them all.

The bottom line, if you vote for someone that means you find them acceptable and fit. Voting is ultimately an affirmative action.

Voting for someone who wont "win" has great merit when none of the "leading" contenders will result in any net benefit.

The problem with your "lesser of two evils" approach:

You are probably familiar with Darwin's various theories. Heres the thing - selection happens on a societal level, not just a biological one. If you affirm garbage politicians, you are affirming a garbage society. When the "lesser of two evils" is still evil, meaning, in this case, a net negative societal impact, then affirming such with a vote is nothing less than actively contributing to the devolution of human society. All you are doing, is ushering in the day where history turns against us, and we fail to "make the cut"


In theory, humans have agency. This makes the actual political dynamic akin to a market dynamic, where, bluntly put, people can select sub-optimal product. We see that all the time, in markets as well as politics. However, they can also choose to send a signal that the current offerings aren't good enough. This is to entice a better offering. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. But at least it beats continuing affirmation of one's support for getting ripped off.

Not only that, but more importantly, it is at least making some effort to align our social construct with the very real Darwinistic demands that do, and will always continue to exist. By this I don't mean a human extinction-level event (although theoretically possible,) but rather the simple fact that institutions, governments, nations, and cultures can die or disappear.

Supporting an aspect of Hillary Trumpkin is just choosing which type of poison to take.

Both major parties have, for quite some time, been in a race to the bottom. They constantly push the bounds of how much garbage they can get away with feeding us, and for some reason the vast majority of us keep choking the shit down, forcing a smile, and asking for another serving.

Your Stein example, while technically correct in terms of mechanics, fails to address the real problem. In fact, that entire mode of thinking is the problem.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 03:11 PM

Let's suppose that as in Michigan, you get 100% of what you want Jill Stein as a candidate, 70% with Hillary Clinton, but only 10% (or less) with Donald Trump.

Even though Stein is the perfect candidate for you, if she cannot win, voting for her is useless. You are better off getting 70% of the policies you want with Hillary than you are with only 10% or less with Trump.

In warfare, there is a principle known as Divide and Conquer. Liberals allowed themselves to be divided, so they were conquered.

Let's say you have a football team that can win the Superbowl. If you take 11 men on the field, you are unbeatable. Why would you insist on playing two different games, one with 8 players and one with 3 players, guaranteeing defeat?

Seeking your ideal candidate is ok only to the extent that your goal is achievable. If trying for perfection guarantees failure and defeat, you are better off accepting less that perfection.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 04:28 PM



This video is totally worth watching.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 05:00 PM

It's a good thing, then that we in the United States live in a representative democracy under a federal system, and not under a democracy.

As long as that is the case, and as long as Democrats are unwilling to accept the reality of the system under which we live, their electoral collapse will continue indefinitely.

Trump wasn't my first choice (Ted Cruz was), but I will see a majority of the policies I want implemented under a Trump administration rather than none of my preferred policies were I to have taken a #NeverTrump stance.

Majorities are of critical importance in American politics. If you fail to recognize that fact, you will forever fail due to the inevitable consequences of a divide and conquer approach. Minorities enact few policies. The policies we live under come from the party that is in the majority.

If you are OK with the policies enacted by the majority party, terrific. If not, you need to change your strategy, for otherwise you will consistently be defeated.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 05:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Owain



Trump wasn't my first choice (Ted Cruz was), but I will see a majority of the policies I want implemented under a Trump administration rather than none of my preferred policies were I to have taken a #NeverTrump stance.



Are you sure about that lol?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 05:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Owain
Let's suppose that as in Michigan, you get 100% of what you want Jill Stein as a candidate, 70% with Hillary Clinton, but only 10% (or less) with Donald Trump.

Even though Stein is the perfect candidate for you, if she cannot win, voting for her is useless. You are better off getting 70% of the policies you want with Hillary than you are with only 10% or less with Trump.

In warfare, there is a principle known as Divide and Conquer. Liberals allowed themselves to be divided, so they were conquered.

Let's say you have a football team that can win the Superbowl. If you take 11 men on the field, you are unbeatable. Why would you insist on playing two different games, one with 8 players and one with 3 players, guaranteeing defeat?

Seeking your ideal candidate is ok only to the extent that your goal is achievable. If trying for perfection guarantees failure and defeat, you are better off accepting less that perfection.


The problem is that the issue we face is not "lack of perfection", the problem is that the major party offerings are completely abhorrent, and actively harmful. Yet we accept it.

As long as people continue to accept this dynamic, it will continue. If it continues, our society will continue to devolve, taking much of Western civilization with it.

Food for thought: Rhaikh and I both supported the same candidate in the presidential primary. You know both of us, so you should already have a pretty good grasp on the fact that perfectionism is not what I am talking about here.

What I bemoan is how most people lack a line that they refuse to cross. Your team analogy is apt, as most people aren't civic minded in this day and age. Instead, they play for the "team." After seeing Hillary Trumpkin nominated, and the Trump half of the coin winning, I have to wonder if there even exists a line people won't cross, if there is anything or anyone people won't support, with a little cajoling from their respective echo chambers. I suspect that the answer to this is "no," and that future elections will prove that I'm right.

As long as people are caught in the two-party false dichotomy, to the point where they won't even protest when those parties go over the cliff into utter insanity, the political offerings will continue to worsen.

This isn't about getting 70% of "what you want"
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 05:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Derid


The problem is that the issue we face is not "lack of perfection", the problem is that the major party offerings are completely abhorrent, and actively harmful. Yet we accept it.


This is the problem people face when they fall into absolutist thinking like this. Hillary was by far not my first choice as a candidate, but really, she wasn't abhorrent. The country wouldn't have collapsed had she been elected, and the country won't collapse because Trump was elected.

Politics is the art of compromise, but both sides have declared the other side to be 'evil', which is a pathological approach. Collectively, voters have rejected that approach, which is among the factors that led to the election of Donald Trump.

Perhaps it's the engineer in me, but political strategies that lead to failure and defeat are of no interest. If you cannot compromise on your politics, get used to failure and defeat.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 06:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Owain
Originally Posted By: Derid


The problem is that the issue we face is not "lack of perfection", the problem is that the major party offerings are completely abhorrent, and actively harmful. Yet we accept it.


This is the problem people face when they fall into absolutist thinking like this. Hillary was by far not my first choice as a candidate, but really, she wasn't abhorrent. The country wouldn't have collapsed had she been elected, and the country won't collapse because Trump was elected.

Politics is the art of compromise, but both sides have declared the other side to be 'evil', which is a pathological approach. Collectively, voters have rejected that approach, which is among the factors that led to the election of Donald Trump.

Perhaps it's the engineer in me, but political strategies that lead to failure and defeat are of no interest. If you cannot compromise on your politics, get used to failure and defeat.


There is a difference between compromise, and abandonment of principles. Call it the engineer in me, but I don't see how affirming either of two losing strategies can work. Given two paths to failure, the rational option would seem to be figuring out a new path.

You are most likely correct that, in of themselves, neither Hillary nor Trump will harken immediate societal collapse. Rather, what we will get is continued weakening of the social fabric. What will bring collapse, in due time, is a continued willingness to support continuing strings of objectively worse politicians. If we continue trotting out the worst our species has to offer, expect our social conditions to continue worsening. We will have no one to blame but ourselves, for being willing to not just accept, but embrace it, in the name of party politics.

People have come to call the other side "evil" because they no longer share much, if any, specific values. There is no longer mutual faith in any institution, process, or philosophy. Even where some is claimed by one political tribe or another, their hypocrisy is almost always clearly evident.

There are only tribes that people are willing to follow, seemingly out of fandom more than anything. Your team analogies earlier were apt, on multiple levels.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 06:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Derid

There is a difference between compromise, and abandonment of principles. Call it the engineer in me, but I don't see how affirming either of two losing strategies can work. Given two paths to failure, the rational option would seem to be figuring out a new path.


Since Trump won the election, his can hardly be considered a losing strategy. It may not have been your strategy, but adhering to your strategy only resulted in failure and defeat (assuming you didn't support Trump).

If a strategy yields only failure and defeat, no matter how principled that strategy might be it's time to consider a new strategy.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 07:02 PM

Quote:
If we continue trotting out the worst our species has to offer, expect our social conditions to continue worsening.


This is most certainly not true. If this is what you actually believe, then as Yoda might say, "That is why you failed."
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 07:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Owain


Since Trump won the election, his can hardly be considered a losing strategy.



Trump won. You lost. I lost. We all lost.

With the "help" of everyone who supported Trump. And by support I mean voted for. That so many supported Trump, while recognizing that, but simply fearing they would somehow lose worse with Hillary, is the problem here. We all would have lost with Hillary as well.


Don't confuse a winning electoral strategy with a winning governing strategy that is successful in improving the human condition, or, even maintaining the status quo.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 08:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Owain
Quote:
If we continue trotting out the worst our species has to offer, expect our social conditions to continue worsening.


This is most certainly not true. If this is what you actually believe, then as Yoda might say, "That is why you failed."


So on one hand, we had a corrupt pol who was bad at every job she ever had, whose claim to fame was leveraging her husband's connections to raise big money and get media access.

On the other hand, we have a reality TV star with the gravitas of a circus clown and the attention span of a gerbil who has no philosophical underpinnings or moral fiber, and is demonstrably a pathological liar. His money is about where it should be, given average rate of return on his inheritance.

So which part of my statement do you disagree with, that they are garbage people, or that having them at the top of our govt will result in worsening of our social state?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 08:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Derid
Originally Posted By: Owain


Since Trump won the election, his can hardly be considered a losing strategy.



Trump won. You lost. I lost. We all lost.


This is most certainly not a true statement, either.

You may not like that Trump was elected, but really, that is about all that can be said with certainty. Anything beyond that is pure speculation. Let's compare notes at the end of his administration.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 08:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Derid
Originally Posted By: Owain
Quote:
If we continue trotting out the worst our species has to offer, expect our social conditions to continue worsening.


This is most certainly not true. If this is what you actually believe, then as Yoda might say, "That is why you failed."


So on one hand, we had a corrupt pol who was bad at every job she ever had, whose claim to fame was leveraging her husband's connections to raise big money and get media access.

On the other hand, we have a reality TV star with the gravitas of a circus clown and the attention span of a gerbil who has no philosophical underpinnings or moral fiber, and is demonstrably a pathological liar. His money is about where it should be, given average rate of return on his inheritance.

So which part of my statement do you disagree with, that they are garbage people, or that having them at the top of our govt will result in worsening of our social state?

People are imperfect beings. What matters are the policies that will result from Trump's administration. Policies endure long after individuals leave office. Regardless of Trump's personal qualities, I am of the opinion that he will enact effective policies. That is all I am interested in.

Joe Biden is an embarrassing buffoon, but that is not why I opposed the Obama administration. I opposed the Obama administration based upon its failed policies. By itself, my opposition doesn't mean much, but collectively, the voters thought so as well, which resulted in Trump's election.

Trump will be reelected, or not, based primarily upon the policies he enacts and the success or failure of those policies, not upon his personality.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 09:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Owain
Originally Posted By: Derid
Originally Posted By: Owain


Since Trump won the election, his can hardly be considered a losing strategy.



Trump won. You lost. I lost. We all lost.


This is most certainly not a true statement, either.

You may not like that Trump was elected, but really, that is about all that can be said with certainty. Anything beyond that is pure speculation. Let's compare notes at the end of his administration.


At the level of rigor you are implicitly asking for, we aren't certain the sun will rise in the morning either. We'll just have to check tomorrow.

Also, speaking of comparing notes in the future, take a moment to think back to discussions of years past. Particularly pre-Iraq war, where enough time has passed to clearly see how events played out. You might recall that my prognostications back then have turned out to have been mostly spot-on. Not just what would happen, but why.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 09:14 PM

I haven't been paying much attention to the political forum before, so I don't know anything about that.

In all things, we have to wait to see what actually happens before judgement can be rendered. Probably 95% of the things people worry about never come to pass, which is why one should never take counsel of their fears.

What exactly do you fear and what justification do you have to fear that. Specifically.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 09:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Owain
Originally Posted By: Derid
Originally Posted By: Owain
Quote:
If we continue trotting out the worst our species has to offer, expect our social conditions to continue worsening.


This is most certainly not true. If this is what you actually believe, then as Yoda might say, "That is why you failed."


So on one hand, we had a corrupt pol who was bad at every job she ever had, whose claim to fame was leveraging her husband's connections to raise big money and get media access.

On the other hand, we have a reality TV star with the gravitas of a circus clown and the attention span of a gerbil who has no philosophical underpinnings or moral fiber, and is demonstrably a pathological liar. His money is about where it should be, given average rate of return on his inheritance.

So which part of my statement do you disagree with, that they are garbage people, or that having them at the top of our govt will result in worsening of our social state?

People are imperfect beings. What matters are the policies that will result from Trump's administration. Policies endure long after individuals leave office. Regardless of Trump's personal qualities, I am of the opinion that he will enact effective policies. That is all I am interested in.

Joe Biden is an embarrassing buffoon, but that is not why I opposed the Obama administration. I opposed the Obama administration based upon its failed policies. By itself, my opposition doesn't mean much, but collectively, the voters thought so as well, which resulted in Trump's election.

Trump will be reelected, or not, based primarily upon the policies he enacts and the success or failure of those policies, not upon his personality.


While I think having faith in Trump's policies and approach to govt is certainly naive, I can at least say that the point I have been making here doesn't apply to you. Like I said already, if you truly support Hillary Trumpkin, then that's one thing. My original comment was directed at someone who I don't think actually does support Trump, and did so mostly due to fear of Hillary.

If you support Trump, fine. If you don't, then voting for him regardless is the issue at question.

Since you claim to actively support Trump, then my point doesn't apply to you. That is a different topic altogether. I do wonder what Trump supporters actually stand for, since Trump doesn't seem to stand for much of anything, but again, a different topic altogether.

I do see why some might have supported him pre-election, with his promises to drain the swamp and such. But as we have already seen, when he said "drain the swamp," he meant drain it into the White House, which seems somehow different that what most of his supporters probably thought he meant. So ongoing support is something I do find puzzling.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 09:26 PM

If someone actively opposed Hillary first and foremost, why would voting for Trump be a bad idea if they felt that was their best option to ensure that she was not elected?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 10:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Owain
I haven't been paying much attention to the political forum before, so I don't know anything about that.

In all things, we have to wait to see what actually happens before judgement can be rendered. Probably 95% of the things people worry about never come to pass, which is why one should never take counsel of their fears.

What exactly do you fear and what justification do you have to fear that. Specifically.


Referring to the past, I was thinking of discussions we had (you and I, among others) about various topics - from the looming Iraq war, to the way we were financing govt, and the wisdom (or lack thereof) or massive deficit spending, and of artificially flooring interest rates while printing money in order to service said debts which led directly to the bubble, and housing crisis. Though to be fair, although I specifically said that the policies and massive excess of free capital would result in a bubble that would create a massive financial dislocation somewhere, I was unable to predict at the time exactly where, and said as much. Seeing a massive pipe pouring millions of gallons per second makes it easy to predict a flood, knowing exactly where the runoff will land is quite a bit harder. (With Vydor, on this topic, for the most part)

For one specific example, I recall a discussion you and I had, where I warned of the collateral carnage the Iraq war effort would bring, and amidst the Cheney jingoistic hubris of the time, how we needed to approach the prospect of war with both eyes open. (and how we would not be seen as heroic liberators, for that matter) You replied that US Pilots and such took great pains to avoid collateral damage, act responsibly - which I granted as true, but was not the primary issue I was trying to touch upon. Of course we now know of the massive civilian death tolls due to our intervention there. Just as one example.

This was prior to even having political topics sequestered to a specific forum, actually. But in any case.

Unfortunately, a lot more than 5% of my fears do come to pass, politically and financially speaking.

--

As far as Trump specifically, there are enough concerns to fill a large tome.

The first and foremost being a complete disregard for Constitutionally granted individual rights, and the rule of law itself. Compounding this lack, is the lack of any cohesive political worldview at all - instead, replaced by a narcissistic need for self-gratification via showboating.

In similar vein, Trump has a great faith in his own capability, and seems unwilling to acknowledge issues that might be beyond him, or anyone. But, given his history, he seems unlikely to care about anything other than being able to stand behind a podium and spin out a claim of victory. I mean, he talked up his defunct packaged steak business while campaigning - replete with sticking a fake label on a different brand of steak. The man is simply a walking, talking absurdity.

Trump has specifically spoken out against due process, and in favor of "watch lists"

He has specifically spoken out against First Amendment rights on multiple occasions.

He advocated building a wall on the Mexican border. Which not only addresses the wrong problems, but is absurd in of itself. Israel is one of the most militarized states in the world, and cannot even keep people from trafficking around and under their walls, which are heavily guarded and monitored with sensitive equipment. As if a several thousand mile wall could or would do anything. In short, a silly suggestion befitting a silly person.

His cabinet picks thus far have been a whos-who of some of the worst actors - particularly Goldman Sachs, which thrives entirely due to cronyism between Federal and psuedo-Federal institutions. His picks thus far are not pro-market, but rather pro-certain-businesses.

Much like most of W's tenure, where W knew or cared little about much of what his cabinet was doing, so too does Trump seem primed to sit back and talk up a spiel while his govt acts entirely in the interests of their various cronies, to the detriment of the rest of us.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 10:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Owain
If someone actively opposed Hillary first and foremost, why would voting for Trump be a bad idea if they felt that was their best option to ensure that she was not elected?


See preceding posts regarding demanding better. Its about looking to the future, knowing that the present is fated to be fetid, regardless of whether it is a blue or red strain of garbage.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 10:20 PM

You have a better memory than I, but that isn't a high bar.

To my knowledge most of what Trump proposes involves enforcing existing laws,which us fine by me. If he proposes something that is actually improper I will oppose that, as i expect Congress will as well, just as I opposed Obama's unconstitutional violation of freedom of expression of religious freedoms, persecution of political opponents with the IRS, spying on journalists and citizens with the NSA, and his refusal to enforce existing immigration laws.

Were you equally critical of Obama's transgressions?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 10:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Derid
Originally Posted By: Owain
If someone actively opposed Hillary first and foremost, why would voting for Trump be a bad idea if they felt that was their best option to ensure that she was not elected?


See preceding posts regarding demanding better. Its about looking to the future, knowing that the present is fated to be fetid, regardless of whether it is a blue or red strain of garbage.


All of which are your personal opinions, which do nothing to invalidate the decisions of everyone who voted for Trump for whatever reason. In fact, it is likely that a large contributing factor in Trump's election was the arrogance of of both liberals and #NeverTrump folks who felt they knew better than anyone else, and like Hillary, felt that anyone who disagreed with them were deplorable, and irredeemable.

This is a state of mind that both Democrats and Republicans (thinking mostly of #NeverTrump folks here) need to eliminate, because if there ever was a failed strategy that absolutely needs to be eliminated, this is the one.

The very fact that Trump won is evidence of the failure inherent with this approach.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 11:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Owain
You have a better memory than I, but that isn't a high bar.

To my knowledge most of what Trump proposes involves enforcing existing laws,which us fine by me. If he proposes something that is actually improper I will oppose that, as i expect Congress will as well, just as I opposed Obama's unconstitutional violation of freedom of expression of religious freedoms, persecution of political opponents with the IRS, spying on journalists and citizens with the NSA, and his refusal to enforce existing immigration laws.

Were you equally critical of Obama's transgressions?


Yeah, I was extremely critical of Obama.

I think anyone who has frequented the discussion here in recent years can vouch for that.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/16/16 11:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Owain
Originally Posted By: Derid
Originally Posted By: Owain
If someone actively opposed Hillary first and foremost, why would voting for Trump be a bad idea if they felt that was their best option to ensure that she was not elected?


See preceding posts regarding demanding better. Its about looking to the future, knowing that the present is fated to be fetid, regardless of whether it is a blue or red strain of garbage.


All of which are your personal opinions, which do nothing to invalidate the decisions of everyone who voted for Trump for whatever reason. In fact, it is likely that a large contributing factor in Trump's election was the arrogance of of both liberals and #NeverTrump folks who felt they knew better than anyone else, and like Hillary, felt that anyone who disagreed with them were deplorable, and irredeemable.

This is a state of mind that both Democrats and Republicans (thinking mostly of #NeverTrump folks here) need to eliminate, because if there ever was a failed strategy that absolutely needs to be eliminated, this is the one.

The very fact that Trump won is evidence of the failure inherent with this approach.


I don't think #NeverTrump had much influence, though I have discussed the effects of liberal arrogance and PC culture earlier in this very thread, and was the first to do so. (If I recall correctly, and even partially transcribed the discussion between Bill Maher and Trey Crowder, which I thought encapsulated the concept)

The fact that Johnson's votes covered the swing state spread sufficiently, despite the prevalence of your type of party thinking in the electorate, is in fact sufficient evidence that voting for neither Hillary nor Trump is worth something, and was not a failed strategy. There is now a quantifiable voting bloc that has the power to swing elections, that isn't failure. Conversely, it is something to build upon as the party establishments continue to fail.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/17/16 01:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Goriom


This video is totally worth watching.


It's not a bad video, but makes an error where it says "third party voters hurt themselves"

As things stand, third party voters know quite well that their candidate will not "win"

If someone votes third party, it's usually because the two major parties have drifted so far into insanity that they can't in good conscience vote for them, but still feel a civic obligation to vote. True believers are rare.

I do agree that proportional representation is needed, particularly in the House. But, well, good luck with that. Queen Lion doesn't control the electoral rules, Leopard and Gorilla do - and aren't about to make any changes.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/17/16 10:08 AM

It is obvious that the #NeverTrump folks failed to exercise influence, otherwise Trump would never have been nominated as easily as he was. Their arrogance in condemning Trump supporters was still a factor in energizing those supporters, as was Hillary's stupid 'deplorable' comment directed at millions of voters she needed to attract to win the election.

So of course, failed political tactics are ineffective, but unless people want to perpetuate failure and defeat, they need to recognize and accept responsibility for their failures, and be willing to change.

What I am seeing instead on both sides, (but most often on the left) are people doubling down on the very mistakes that contributed to their failure in the first place.

With Democrats, that behavior is what has led to their historic electoral collapse at all levels across the country over the last eight years in most states.


Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/18/16 12:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Owain
It is obvious that the #NeverTrump folks failed to exercise influence, otherwise Trump would never have been nominated as easily as he was. Their arrogance in condemning Trump supporters was still a factor in energizing those supporters, as was Hillary's stupid 'deplorable' comment directed at millions of voters she needed to attract to win the election.

So of course, failed political tactics are ineffective, but unless people want to perpetuate failure and defeat, they need to recognize and accept responsibility for their failures, and be willing to change.

What I am seeing instead on both sides, (but most often on the left) are people doubling down on the very mistakes that contributed to their failure in the first place.

With Democrats, that behavior is what has led to their historic electoral collapse at all levels across the country over the last eight years in most states.




I wouldn't call Trumps nomination easy, and #NeverTrump didn't really gain steam until he already looked likely to win.

As far as the Democrats, I do agree with you on that. I've been saying much the same for a while. Nevermind the FedGov, if they continue at their current speed, they will lose enough statehouses for the GOP to be able call a Constitutional Convention. Even if you look at their House representation, it is easy to see that they are basically the party of NY and CA, and exist primarily to spew identity politics and collect donations from wealthy coastal donors. They also lack principles, and thus, lost the last election to the bigger showman.

That they have kept the same leadership (and forget the DNC, Pelosi is the real party leader) shows they aren't even serious. They will just work off Trump's actions to rile up their base and collect funds, and probably fail again, unless Trump trips on a Rust Belt third rail.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/18/16 02:46 AM

It was certainly far more easy for Trump than it was for any other candidate in the Republican field. They all dropped out fairly quickly when it became obvious they would not prevail.

I remember being shocked and dismayed when Ted Cruz dropped out. I thought it was a premature decision, but he probably was far more informed on the grim realities of the situation that was I.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/20/16 03:01 AM

Interestingly, Clinton had more faithless electors than Trump.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/20/16 03:11 AM

Voters already have put Democrats out of office in historic numbers in the last 8 years. I can't imagine they will regard this failed move by Democrats to subvert the electoral process with favor in elections come.
Posted By: JetStar

Re: Trump card - 12/20/16 08:58 AM

I am embarrassed to say that the left has gotten complacent and lazy. We are going to have to wake up if we are ever going to return to power. Trump may be just what we need to wake us up.

Time will tell.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/20/16 09:01 AM

I wouldn't say anyone tried to subvert the process, electors voting is the process. It would have been nice if they'd dumped Trump, but I sure wasn't expecting US politicians to grow anything resembling a backbone.

On the bright side, as long as Trump doesn't manage to totally fuck up - as in fuck up on the societal death level, there are some upsides.

Namely, I think some progressives are going to become a lot more libertarian minded when they really internalize the fact that history is not, in fact, over. For every bit of "progress" they made using the power of the Federal govt, and the Presidency in particular, they will see that same power turned 180degrees in the opposite direction. Maybe some of them will see and understand how using heavy handed statist tactics can spectacularly backfire as soon as a bad news cycle coincides with a bad political cycle.

Maybe, as civil order continues to decay, and fringe extremism rises and starts taking its toll on minorities, all while civil institutions flounder and decay, they will realize again that history is not fucking over - and that long periods of social stability are historically infrequent, and having an ipod and an automobile doesn't make them any better than their predecessors. Maybe they will be even thankful that they can still buy a gun if they need to.

But nah, they will probably just blame the Russians and put on a brown shirt.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/20/16 02:31 PM

Calling for electors to violate their trust and oppose the will of the voters of their respective states because Democrats are suffering from advanced butt hurt sure sounds like an attempt to subvert the electoral process to me.

Hysterically, more electors abandoned Hillary than any other candidate in 150 years.

I guess that is what "voting your conscience" looks like.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/20/16 07:42 PM


People are genuinely worried about a Trump govt. Hillary didn't actually support the Hamilton movement, though I do find it funny she lost electors - I think they were mostly just encouraging the GOP electors to defect though.

Had Trump not reached 270, it would have gone to the House. There is a process, and it's not like Trump was actually preferred by a majority of voters anyhow - even as things stand, let alone had people felt there were more viable options.

It would have been rather interesting to see the election fall to the House, and it might have shook things up a bit.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/20/16 09:25 PM

"People are genuinely worried about a Trump govt."

This is what comes from Democrats believing their own propaganda. He'll do fine.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/20/16 09:27 PM

But if people are genuinely afraid of the consequences of a simple election, isn't that a sure sign that the government has too much power?
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/20/16 10:13 PM

People are afraid because there are a lot of regressive conservatives in control of every branch of our government. I wouldn't even say it is because they were properly voted in. Gerrymandering is a thing and it HEAVILY favors republican districts across this nation. If you can't win the game by the rules, you change the game or move the goal posts. That is what Republicans are very good at.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/20/16 10:27 PM

On the topic of gerrymandering: For gerrymandering to be a thing, at one point, Democrats had to have been in charge and districts had to have been drawn in their favor. For district boundaries to have changed, Democrats would have to had to have been voted out of those offices.

I think what actually happened is that the composition of voting districts changed to benefit Republicans, and that when they were redrawn, they were redrawn to more accurately reflect their current composition.

The gerrymandering complaint then boils down to a ineffective excuse to try to explain electoral failure. Given the collapse faced by Democrats in most states across the nation in the last eight years, that cannot all be due to gerrymandering. Democrats will have to come to grips with that if they ever wish to dig themselves out of the hole in which they currently find themselves.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/20/16 11:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Owain
But if people are genuinely afraid of the consequences of a simple election, isn't that a sure sign that the government has too much power?


Obviously. Though some who self-identify as leftists might not have come around to that realization yet.

Fear of Trump isn't solely the domain of Democrats either, but rather the domain of anyone who studies history and politics. Annoyingly enough, the Democrat mouthpieces usually get the specific reasons Trump should be feared so wrong, and do such a terrible job making the case against him. It is unfortunately true that left-leaning media exists in an equally bizzaro world as right wing media.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/20/16 11:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Goriom
People are afraid because there are a lot of regressive conservatives in control of every branch of our government. I wouldn't even say it is because they were properly voted in. Gerrymandering is a thing and it HEAVILY favors republican districts across this nation. If you can't win the game by the rules, you change the game or move the goal posts. That is what Republicans are very good at.


Honestly Owain had a point on this topic, and it isn't like Democrats don't gerrymander when they are able, to the same degree. And I really wouldn't call the GOP conservatives, especially Trump - that does a disservice to conservatives.

Sure, you could get into "no true Scotsman" arguments, but really, Trump is about as conservative - in the traditional USA sense - as Mussolini.

On a side note, I've been playing as Trump.... er... Mussolini in Heart of Iron IV, having picked it and the expansion up a couple days ago during a Steam sale. Really cool game.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/20/16 11:55 PM

Fear of Trump among establishment Republicans comes from those worried that he will end up breaking their rice bowl, so to speak. Trump may not respect their cushy establishment compromise deals.

People fear change, particularly when it threatens their self interest.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/21/16 12:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Derid
Originally Posted By: Owain
But if people are genuinely afraid of the consequences of a simple election, isn't that a sure sign that the government has too much power?


Obviously. Though some who self-identify as leftists might not have come around to that realization yet.

In my experience, those on the left are just fine with having too much power concentrated in government because they think the use of that power will always be to their benefit.

I want to remove much of the power accessible to both the right and the left, because power is inevitably abused no matter who wields it.

Enormous power begets enormous abuse. There will still be abuses under governments with limited power, but the damage and the abuse will be equally limited.

The same thing happens with corruption. Large government = large amounts of corruption. Small government at least limits the opportunities for corruption that fallible human beings find irresistible.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/21/16 03:51 AM

Small government just creates power vacuum. Substituting profiteering corporations instead of corrupt government is not in any way will lead to improvement.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/21/16 04:28 AM

Corporations only profit if they supply useful goods or services to people at prices they are willing to pay.

The fiends.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/21/16 11:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Sini
Small government just creates power vacuum. Substituting profiteering corporations instead of corrupt government is not in any way will lead to improvement.


That argument might make more sense if Goldman Sachs and Exxon Mobil weren't about to start leveraging the power of govt directly, for the benefit of their own market outcomes, at the expense of everyone else. (again)

Seriously though, there is a difference between limited govt and weak govt. The problem is the current lack of discernment between things govt should and shouldn't do, and how it should and shouldn't do them. Lack of philosophical underpinnings and practically unlimited power results in govt doing either a) whatever "sounds good" at the moment, and can be sold to the public - or b) whatever various people in govt can get away with when "no ones looking" or in a position to stop them.

Theres plenty of things govt should be doing. I'd rather focus on those things, and do them well.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/22/16 04:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Derid


Seriously though, there is a difference between limited govt and weak govt.



There might be, but 99% of calls for small government are calls for weak government that doesn't prosecute white collar, doesn't protect environment, and doesn't provide any safety nets.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/22/16 04:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Sini
Originally Posted By: Derid


Seriously though, there is a difference between limited govt and weak govt.



There might be, but 99% of calls for small government are calls for weak government that doesn't prosecute white collar, doesn't protect environment, and doesn't provide any safety nets.

I'm not seeing that. I am seeing calls to enforce more laws, nnot less, since the Obama administration was infuriatingly selective regarding which laws would be enforced, and which would not be enforced.

Failed policies like that are another factor that led to the election of Donald Trump.
Posted By: JetStar

Re: Trump card - 12/22/16 05:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Owain
On the topic of gerrymandering: For gerrymandering to be a thing, at one point, Democrats had to have been in charge and districts had to have been drawn in their favor. For district boundaries to have changed, Democrats would have to had to have been voted out of those offices.

I think what actually happened is that the composition of voting districts changed to benefit Republicans, and that when they were redrawn, they were redrawn to more accurately reflect their current composition.

The gerrymandering complaint then boils down to a ineffective excuse to try to explain electoral failure. Given the collapse faced by Democrats in most states across the nation in the last eight years, that cannot all be due to gerrymandering. Democrats will have to come to grips with that if they ever wish to dig themselves out of the hole in which they currently find themselves.


The Republican strategy to Gerrymander was legendary in 2012, drawing amazement from both sides in a well executed strategy.

The Great Gerrymander of 2012

Republicans have just done a better job of staying in power. They were more organized and won when and where it counts despite being in the minority population wise in many cases.

Take a look at these districts as an example:



Here it is explained:




I am not going to cry about it. My side is just disorganized and lazy. I think exactly what is happening now, needs to if we are ever going to return to power.

Whether we can get it together or not remains to be seen.
Posted By: JetStar

Re: Trump card - 12/22/16 06:06 PM

If we look at trending, clearly the odds remain in the Democrats favor if they can get organized. I know popular vote is not how the House and the President are elected, but it does show an important trend.

The Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

45.2 million Americans cast a vote for a Democratic Senate candidate, while 39.3 million Americans voted for a Republican.

In House of Representatives however, Republicans captured the majority of the "popular vote" for the House on Election Day, collecting about 56.3 million votes while Democrats got about 53.2 million.


My best guess right now is there will be a backlash against Trump by his own supporters when he is unable to fulfill the promises he made in his campaign.

In this BBC Article comparing promises to current positions, you can see him backing away. Also, it seems he has "drained the swamp" into his own cabinet. No one knows what is going to happen, but I think my assessment is plausible based on the facts so far.

If the Republicans are unable to deliver, then the Democrats will be in good shape for the 2020 Census and the redistricting that follows. Then they can replicate the genius gerrymandering that the Republcans pulled off in 2012.

The Republicans have a historic opportunity to prove all their claims by using their super majority to revoke Democratic laws and policies and implement their own according to their strategy.

{popcorn}
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/22/16 06:30 PM


Those surplus Dem numbers pretty much just come from NY and California, hence the Democrat problem.

With Pelosi and Schumer at the helm, I don't think the party's future looks bright at all. To gerrymander, you need to control statehouses - the GOP controls 35 or so, and it isn't likely to change regardless of Trump - unless the Democrat party changes, and it isn't about to - Pelosi already dug her heels in.

Honestly, the political future seems to be developing into NY/CA vs the rest of the country, and regardless of who "wins" in such a scenario, everyone loses.
Posted By: JetStar

Re: Trump card - 12/22/16 06:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Derid

Those surplus Dem numbers pretty much just come from NY and California, hence the Democrat problem.

With Pelosi and Schumer at the helm, I don't think the party's future looks bright at all. To gerrymander, you need to control statehouses - the GOP controls 35 or so, and it isn't likely to change regardless of Trump - unless the Democrat party changes, and it isn't about to - Pelosi already dug her heels in.

Honestly, the political future seems to be developing into NY/CA vs the rest of the country, and regardless of who "wins" in such a scenario, everyone loses.



We have to see how the Republicans do.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 12/23/16 04:15 AM

Originally Posted By: JetStar
Originally Posted By: Owain
On the topic of gerrymandering: For gerrymandering to be a thing, at one point, Democrats had to have been in charge and districts had to have been drawn in their favor. For district boundaries to have changed, Democrats would have to had to have been voted out of those offices.

I think what actually happened is that the composition of voting districts changed to benefit Republicans, and that when they were redrawn, they were redrawn to more accurately reflect their current composition.

The gerrymandering complaint then boils down to a ineffective excuse to try to explain electoral failure. Given the collapse faced by Democrats in most states across the nation in the last eight years, that cannot all be due to gerrymandering. Democrats will have to come to grips with that if they ever wish to dig themselves out of the hole in which they currently find themselves.


The Republican strategy to Gerrymander was legendary in 2012, drawing amazement from both sides in a well executed strategy.

The Great Gerrymander of 2012

Republicans have just done a better job of staying in power. They were more organized and won when and where it counts despite being in the minority population wise in many cases.

Take a look at these districts as an example:



Here it is explained:




I am not going to cry about it. My side is just disorganized and lazy. I think exactly what is happening now, needs to if we are ever going to return to power.

Whether we can get it together or not remains to be seen.


How is the House not voted in by popular vote? Thats the only way anyone in the house gets elected.
Your assessment is as bad as Hillary's honor.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/its-the-geography-stupid.html?_r=0


You dont take into account populations of small states.
I get in my state 2 Senators same as California and the population difference is 40 mill in cali, mostly dem, and 2 mill in Nebraska, mostly rep. 10 million votes as compared to 500 thousand votes.

Posted By: JetStar

Re: Trump card - 12/23/16 05:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Helemoto

How is the House not voted in by popular vote? Thats the only way anyone in the house gets elected.


Representatives represent and are elected by districts that are drawn by the majority party after the Census. You obviously didnt bother to look at the example I gave.

All you have to do is draw the districts in your favor.

To return your unwarranted insult, your knowledge of our system of government is as bad as Trump's opinion of women. Grab that pussy, you know, you can do anything you want if you are famous.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/23/16 06:25 AM

House redistricting isn't done at the Federal level though, it is done at the state level. The scenario where the minority party somehow gerrymanders themselves into the majority doesn't really happen, the majority party of the state in question can just push their advantage some. Both parties do it, equally, as they are able.

Right now the Democrats throw it out as a red herring, because they have had the worse of it lately due the party messaging being out of touch with flyover country, resulting in steady progressive losses.

The problem isn't the gerrymandering, it's the message and intent.

Jet, I think you had it half right when you said the Democrats are lazy and disorganized, that's true - but not the whole story.

I think it unfortunate, as straight GOP control is every bit as scary as straight Democrat control. Plus, I wasn't joking or exaggerating when I earlier spoke of the GOP calling a Constitutional Convention. I think they just need 4 more statehouse trifectas, and the GOP could then call a convention and ratify whatever amendments they wanted.
Posted By: JetStar

Re: Trump card - 12/23/16 07:00 AM

Let's meet the "the Picasso of gerrymandering" shall we?

The Picasso of Gerrymandering
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/23/16 07:15 AM

Yeah no one is saying gerrymandering isn't a thing, but to do Picasso , a party still has to control the whole state level process.

When the Democrats lose the Governership, state house, and state senate, in a former swing state like Ohio - it's due to the party, and its message. Especially when it occurs in so many states. It is unfortunate that Democrats don't want to be an inclusive party, and it isn't going to serve anyone.

A handful more statehouse trifectas, and, even if, implausibly, the Democrats retook the presidency and both houses of congress, the GOP could still call a convention, and with 38 states in accordance, change the Constitution directly - entirely bypassing the will of voters in CA, NY, and other Democrat strongholds.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 12/23/16 07:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Sini
Originally Posted By: Derid


Seriously though, there is a difference between limited govt and weak govt.



There might be, but 99% of calls for small government are calls for weak government that doesn't prosecute white collar, doesn't protect environment, and doesn't provide any safety nets.


I wonder if that's true. Honestly, it is hard to say. Everything is so muddied and muddled these days. People say and mean one thing, others hear and interpret another. Sometimes because they think that the original speaker is mistaken in their premise, sometimes because they simply misinterpret their intent.

Maybe it would be fun to drop all the depressing Trump and Dem/GOP stuff for a bit, and try a different discussion tack, just for the sake of trying something new. I have an idea, will make another thread once I finish figuring out the details.
Posted By: JetStar

Re: Trump card - 12/23/16 08:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Derid
Yeah no one is saying gerrymandering isn't a thing, but to do Picasso , a party still has to control the whole state level process.

When the Democrats lose the Governership, state house, and state senate, in a former swing state like Ohio - it's due to the party, and its message. Especially when it occurs in so many states. It is unfortunate that Democrats don't want to be an inclusive party, and it isn't going to serve anyone.

A handful more statehouse trifectas, and, even if, implausibly, the Democrats retook the presidency and both houses of congress, the GOP could still call a convention, and with 38 states in accordance, change the Constitution directly - entirely bypassing the will of voters in CA, NY, and other Democrat strongholds.


Absolutely. The Democrats ignored the spending in state races and lost the ability to impact gerrymandering. It has all been downhill since then.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 12/24/16 12:32 AM

Sorry but you are wrong. They are elected by popular vote. How the districts are organized is a different issue.
Both sides use the same strategies, to keep bringing up 2012 is disingenuous.

I get it, its hard when you lose. You seem to forget that the Dems had all 3 when Obama was elected the first time. I didn't see you complain about redistricting then.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/24/16 03:02 AM

The Presidents of Disunited States

Quote:
The Egyptian government submits to the UN Security Council a resolution against Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This raises the possibility that the Obama administration could express its opposition to Israeli settlement policy by abstaining from the vote, rather than vetoing the resolution as it had with a similar one in 2011. Enraged Israeli officials call up Donald Trump, who tweets that the United States should veto. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the president of Egypt, abruptly calls off the vote. A day later, Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal, and Venezuela reintroduce the resolution, which comes to a vote and is adopted by the Security Council, including Egypt, with the United States abstaining.


What a mess. Geopolitics by tweets.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/24/16 03:16 AM

Originally Posted By: JetStar

Absolutely. The Democrats ignored the spending in state races and lost the ability to impact gerrymandering. It has all been downhill since then.

The wages of incompetence. It's not like anything important was at stake.

"Can't anybody here play this game?"
-- Casey Stengel
Posted By: Instrument

Re: Trump card - 01/03/17 10:52 PM

So is Ford building cars in Michigan instead of Mexico

A win for Trump?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 01/10/17 10:27 PM

This is unfortunate, but not surprising.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...mocracy/512525/
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 01/11/17 03:39 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

US now third-world battlefield for proxy war between Russian/Ukranian superpowers. Lulz.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 01/14/17 03:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Derid
This is unfortunate, but not surprising.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...mocracy/512525/


While I don't agree with conclusions, I do agree with many of his observations. This is why in 2016 I mailed my last ever tax to IRS. Sayonara.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 01/14/17 05:17 AM

Really? Damn. It isn't that bad. When the US does go down, it will take most of the rest of the world with it anyhow.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 01/15/17 04:48 AM

It will be slow, then all the sudden. Meanwhile it will keep getting more illiberal for a larger and larger % of population. Used to be it was just poor blacks and poor hispanics, now it is also poor whites and bigger chunk of black and hispanic population. The trend is unmistakable and only matter of time until it would have reached my socioeconomic status.

I lived through the fall of USSR, I see a lot of parallels now. 90s were really awful time to live in post-soviet republics, but "nobody died" and the world didn't end. Likewise with US, unless somebody presses the red button on the way out.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 01/15/17 05:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Derid
Really? Damn. It isn't that bad. When the US does go down, it will take most of the rest of the world with it anyhow.


As far as stages of grief, you got to bargaining.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 01/15/17 06:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Sini
Originally Posted By: Derid
Really? Damn. It isn't that bad. When the US does go down, it will take most of the rest of the world with it anyhow.


As far as stages of grief, you got to bargaining.


Nah, more like I'm mostly over it. I've been predicting this path for a long, long time. So has the Deep State, you don't spend hundreds of billions on internal security because you're afraid of a few cavemen in turbans.

Nonetheless, I have seen people thinking it was "the end" for quite a while, and be mostly wrong. I'm thinking Trump came soon enough that there are still enough civic "antibodies" left to fight the infection. We might even be graced with some temporary immunity.

Time will tell. Maybe the fever that has gripped both sides of the spectrum will break.

I disagree with you on one major thing though, from the other thread: details matter. Letting the details slide leaves them in the hands of others, who are able to work them for their own benefit.

This is fundamentally why we, the citizens, always lose. Populism, nor even popular democracy, are capable of detailed thinking. At least not in the age of social media.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/15/17 02:13 PM

The chief benefit of not having died for a reasonably long period of time is that generally, you have seen it all before. These are neither the best of times, nor are the the worst of times. They are just the times we have at the moment.

I think it is more than a bit narcissistic for anyone to think these times are in any way special just because they happen to live in these times.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 01/15/17 09:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Owain
The chief benefit of not having died for a reasonably long period of time is that generally, you have seen it all before. These are neither the best of times, nor are the the worst of times. They are just the times we have at the moment.

I think it is more than a bit narcissistic for anyone to think these times are in any way special just because they happen to live in these times.


If the times are special, it is because humans evolved physically and socially in a completely different information environment. We, as a species, don't seem suited to living in a digital age, inside a massive cloud of noise, where we naturally seem to take refuge in thick social bubbles.

Plus it isn't about being special in any regard, history runs according to a few repeated patterns and cycles. It isn't that nothing similar has occurred before, but rather identifying our current pattern, and where in the cycle we sit. (and what might be different this time, because something always is a bit different) This is of course made more difficult by the new information and social environment. But still, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Just, at a faster pace, and larger scale.

Writers write, fighters fight, and pol nerds argue with other pol nerds about anything and everything in whatever venue is made available. Those three things are more or less eternally human.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 03/07/17 12:21 AM

Trump recently made allegations that Obama administration wiretapped his campaign, Watergate-style. If this is true, then Obama has a lot to answer for and unlikely to get pardon. If it isn't true, then Trump has a lot to answer for, and impeachment isn't unreasonable.

You don't throw allegations like that lightly.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 03/07/17 02:25 AM

Twitter posts hardly rise to the level of crimes that justify impeachment.

Is there no straw too frail for the left to try to grasp?
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 03/07/17 03:47 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
Twitter posts hardly rise to the level of crimes that justify impeachment.

Is there no straw too frail for the left to try to grasp?


Certainly not but they sure are amusing.

http://imgur.com/a/3zyCr
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 03/07/17 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Twitter posts hardly rise to the level of crimes that justify impeachment.


Twitter is another form of public speech. There is no difference between twitting these accusations or holding a press conference.

False speech must have consequences. Trump advocated as much during his campaigning.

Quote
Is there no straw too frail for the left to try to grasp?


So you are advocating for accountability-free presidency? Do you understand that if Trump isn't held to answer, no POTUS ever again will be bound to tell truth? You can cynically point that all politicians brake promises, but promises is not the same thing as lying about factual events.

For example, 2020 some Democratic populist gets elected on the wave of "anyone but Trump". Then they falsely declare that GOP was putting LBGT people into concentration camps, then proceed to drive policy from that point (anti-hate speech laws, reconciliation and compensation and so on... basically raining taxpayers money on anything LBGT and making it illegal to speak out against this). Would you want to live in such US? If not, hold Trump accountable.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 03/07/17 03:39 PM

Given that Obama spied on journalists, spied on ordinary Americans, used a weaponized IRS to persecute political rivals, and spied on allied leaders like Angela Merkle, you tell me. Did you support the accountability free administration of Barack Obama?

Given Obama's sordid history on abusing things like this, I think it is almost a certainty the illegal surveillance took place. We now must wait for the FBI, the Justice Department, and Attorney General Sessions to conduct investigations.

Should the results of those investigations reveal that Obama violated federal law, no doubt you will be equally vocal in support of his prosecution, and if convicted, his imprisonment.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 03/07/17 04:23 PM

And if it turns out that Donald Trump lied? what will you do?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 03/07/17 09:48 PM

And if your aunt turns out to be your uncle, what WILL you do then??!!1???

I suggest that you waste no time on hypothetical situations unsupported by anything, and await the results of what no doubt is now an ongoing FBI/Justice Department investigation.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 03/08/17 12:11 AM

This is far from hypothetical, Trump made actual statements. Not even with "maybe" or "indications of" qualifier attached. GOP Congress will be investigating. If they find nothing what will you do then?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 03/08/17 03:45 AM

It depends upon the cirvumstances, doesn't it?
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 03/09/17 04:28 PM

Oh god, here we go guys.


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...-dioxide-not-primary-contributor-n731141
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 03/10/17 01:01 AM

Finally we will be free from oppressive yoke of science!
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 03/10/17 03:48 PM

Has anyone been reading up on the Trump server? its quite an interesting read.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 03/10/17 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom
And if it turns out that Donald Trump lied? what will you do?

What did the Democrats do when the Obama Administration lied? I know what they did, this is all you heard... "crickets"
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 03/10/17 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Wolfgang
Originally Posted by Goriom
And if it turns out that Donald Trump lied? what will you do?

What did the Democrats do when the Obama Administration lied? I know what they did, this is all you heard... "crickets"


So then by your own admission you are no better than the democrats you seem to have disdain for?
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 03/10/17 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom
Originally Posted by Wolfgang
Originally Posted by Goriom
And if it turns out that Donald Trump lied? what will you do?

What did the Democrats do when the Obama Administration lied? I know what they did, this is all you heard... "crickets"


So then by your own admission you are no better than the democrats you seem to have disdain for?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander too right?

There's so much bullshit hypotheticals flying around now it's ridiculous. Someone in the mainstream media will take a word twist it and call it news when in fact it has no merit whatsoever. The media and the leftist propaganda machine (George Soros funded at that) is putting out there all kinds of stupid shit. If it's true we will find out soon enough. Obama had a lot of bullshit when he got in office, but It was never on the scale as this. People have fucking mind melted over Clinton losing. I really think people believe if they find anything that somehow Clinton will be put in office. It would be almost laughable if people didn't believe that.

There has been NO positive stories from the Trump administration. Trump signed orders to help promoting women in business along with math and science. Yet you barely heard a thing from all the bashing going on. People have little confidence in the media anymore. I'd say that's true since most are more worried about being first than being accurate. Do and say what you can to be first, seems to be the motto within the media. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trust-in-media_us_57148543e4b06f35cb6fec58

My point is there surely will be investigations anything done and said now until the investigations are done is nothing more than hypotheticals.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 03/10/17 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by Wolfgang
Originally Posted by Goriom
Originally Posted by Wolfgang
Originally Posted by Goriom
And if it turns out that Donald Trump lied? what will you do?

What did the Democrats do when the Obama Administration lied? I know what they did, this is all you heard... "crickets"


So then by your own admission you are no better than the democrats you seem to have disdain for?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander too right?

There's so much bullshit hypotheticals flying around now it's ridiculous. Someone in the mainstream media will take a word twist it and call it news when in fact it has no merit whatsoever. The media and the leftist propaganda machine (George Soros funded at that) is putting out there all kinds of stupid shit. If it's true we will find out soon enough. Obama had a lot of bullshit when he got in office, but It was never on the scale as this. People have fucking mind melted over Clinton losing. I really think people believe if they find anything that somehow Clinton will be put in office. It would be almost laughable if people didn't believe that.

There has been NO positive stories from the Trump administration. Trump signed orders to help promoting women in business along with math and science. Yet you barely heard a thing from all the bashing going on. People have little confidence in the media anymore. I'd say that's true since most are more worried about being first than being accurate. Do and say what you can to be first, seems to be the motto within the media. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trust-in-media_us_57148543e4b06f35cb6fec58

My point is there surely will be investigations anything done and said now until the investigations are done is nothing more than hypotheticals.




Maybe there are few positive stories because the President and his underlings are a complete mess? Should we applaud the president when he performs the bare minimum amount of work now?

I'm not going to even defend my fellow Journalists because there is no need to. You think the media is some sort of singular hive mind controlled by a nefarious individual, that sir gave me a good laugh. I see it different however, what I see is a complete idiot at the helm of this country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims/?tid=sm_fb


Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 03/10/17 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom

I'm not going to even defend my fellow Journalists because there is no need to. You think the media is some sort of singular hive mind controlled by a nefarious individual, that sir gave me a good laugh.


Personally, I see the crux of the problem as editorial consistency, or lack thereof. Often influenced, I think, by perceived viewing demographic, and a desire to clickbait. The CNN article that we discussed regarding the State Dept personnel issues was a perfect example, especially the on-air version.

Another example would be the overall slant taken towards the so-called Muslim ban. Unless all the Muslim countries of Southeast Asia were affected by the travel/immigration orders, then it obviously wasn't a Muslim ban. So what was it? It was cheap grandstanding to showboat a supposed hard line against terror, in an ineffective manner. The impacted countries were pretty much from the "enemies list" plus some failing/failed states with thriving Islamist groups.

There was plenty of wrong with the executive orders, that needed called out. But one has to wonder if all the breathless sensationalism and hyperbole that inundated the airwaves, attempting to paint the issue as religious discrimination didn't do far more to hurt the cause, than help.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 03/12/17 01:40 AM

Quote


I see it different however, what I see is a complete idiot at the helm of this country.


Now you know how some of us felt the past 8 years.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 03/20/17 10:20 PM

Comey confirms FBI probe into Trump ties to Russia. Also explicitly tells there is no evidence to support accusations of wiretapping.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/adam-schiff-trump-twitter-wiretapping-russia-ties-236249

So what now? Anyone in the Trump brigade here going to comment on how they think Trump should be made accountable for unsubstantiated Twitter allegations?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 03/21/17 01:16 AM

A lot of people in business have ties to Russia. The Clinton Foundation had many dealings with the Russisns. Were the dealings illegal? That is the question to be asked.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 03/21/17 02:51 AM

I will try again. Both FBI and CIA told point-blank that Trump's tweets on wiretapping are baseless. Are you going to hold him accountable or dismiss/excuse it?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 03/24/17 08:11 PM

Trump lost Repeal of Obamacare legislative fight. Party of No couldn't even agree on how to do NO.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 03/24/17 08:33 PM

Because Republican leadership failed to repeal Obamacare as they promised during the election, and were opposed by the rank and file.

Hopefully, this will be a learning experience for Republican leadership. Do what you were elected to do.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 04/08/17 03:19 AM

According to the Obama administration they got all the Chemical weapons out of Syria... I wonder why the left is so quiet about this. I mean they grilled Bush for years because of the Iraq non weapons of mass destruction thing. Obama's admin saying they got rid of them... so again are they going to ignore this too? So far that's a yes...

Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/08/17 01:50 PM

Interesting, so Trump bombs Assad, in contradiction of his campaign promises, and all you can think of is how to blame Obama?

Not that I disagree with you that Obama's approach to middle east was incompetent, but now this is Trump's quagmire multi-Billion war in the Middle East to loose and this specific issue is of his own creation.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/08/17 01:58 PM

I am more cynical. I think using cruise missiles on Assad was collaborative effort with Russia. Putin lost control of Assad and this is a step to bring him back in line. You might think poorly about Russians, but chemical weapon use is a big No-No for them. Russians finished decommissioning their own arsenal in 2016.

Why I think this was coordinated with Putin. First, Russians were given advanced warning and they chose not to activate AA defenses. Second, US used old missiles that were likely to be replaced by new tech. Third, Assad embarrassed Russians who guaranteed his compliance in 2013.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 04/08/17 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Interesting, so Trump bombs Assad, in contradiction of his campaign promises, and all you can think of is how to blame Obama?

Not that I disagree with you that Obama's approach to middle east was incompetent, but now this is Trump's quagmire multi-Billion war in the Middle East to loose and this specific issue is of his own creation.

Yes he contradicted himself, but that was before Assad gassed people. You have to be a fucking fool to sit back and do nothing at this point. He would be another laughing stock of the World If he sat back and did nothing. Then again according the Obama administration they removed all the Chemical weapons, based on that you would have a different view of Syria.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 04/08/17 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
I am more cynical. I think using cruise missiles on Assad was collaborative effort with Russia. Putin lost control of Assad and this is a step to bring him back in line. You might think poorly about Russians, but chemical weapon use is a big No-No for them. Russians finished decommissioning their own arsenal in 2016.

Why I think this was coordinated with Putin. First, Russians were given advanced warning and they chose not to activate AA defenses. Second, US used old missiles that were likely to be replaced by new tech. Third, Assad embarrassed Russians who guaranteed his compliance in 2013.

Russia was supposed to be the Guarantor of the removal of the Chemical Weapons. This again is a stain on them and to believe Russia has destroyed their whole stock pile is naive. I bet North Korea doesn't have any Nukes either... nor is Iran trying to get a Nuke. I have 4 guns but you will only see 2 can you find the other two? I'm gonna bet that's a no because I don't want anyone to find them but me... see how that works? You think a countries will simply give them up with no Guarantee . We already have the answer from Syria with the gas attack.

Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 04/08/17 07:11 PM

First, the evidence that Assad actually gassed people is extremely weak at best. More likely is the Sauds and Qataris funneled more chem weapons to ISIS, which then leaked out during combat due to bad handling. Parse the news reports closely for actual verified facts instead of opinions treated as facts, and you will quickly find that the whole incident has basically been twisted beyond recognition due to the wishes of some major media houses to push clickbait and foment war.

Second, even if he did - so what? Like what, 50 people died? Terrible to be sure, but a drop in the bucket. The ISIS forces that Trump is now supporting have killed an awful lot more Christians than that, and raped orders of magnitudes more. Heck, the US itself seems to have accidentally killed four times as many civilians in an airstrike just a couple weeks ago.

Third, there is no thought that Assad poses any threat to us. None. Zilch. Zero. For a President to make war without Congressional approval is unconstitutional, unless they are responding to some imminent threat or circumstance.

Sure, Assad is a bad, terrible person, yadda yadda. So what. While we certainly sure shouldnt support him, theres also no good reason to become ISIS's air force either.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/08/17 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Wolfgang
Originally Posted by Sini
Interesting, so Trump bombs Assad, in contradiction of his campaign promises, and all you can think of is how to blame Obama?

Not that I disagree with you that Obama's approach to middle east was incompetent, but now this is Trump's quagmire multi-Billion war in the Middle East to loose and this specific issue is of his own creation.

Yes he contradicted himself, but that was before Assad gassed people. You have to be a fucking fool to sit back and do nothing at this point. He would be another laughing stock of the World If he sat back and did nothing. Then again according the Obama administration they removed all the Chemical weapons, based on that you would have a different view of Syria.



Did Assad gas any Americans? Don't think so. So this is not our problem and if anyone else disagrees they can pay for their own quagmire in the middle east.

Think of it this way. We can spend couple bil removing Assad from power, then spend many more bils trying to stabilize the country. OR . We could have free health care. OR . We could finance mission to Mars.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/08/17 09:07 PM

It is in our national interest to discourage the use and spread of chemical weapons, not only in the middle east, but anywhere.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/08/17 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
It is in our national interest to discourage the use and spread of chemical weapons, not only in the middle east, but anywhere.

Bullshit.

Nukes strapped to ICBMs? Sure. Chemical weapons ocean away? Not our business and not that damaging to us what little terrorists could smuggle.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/08/17 10:00 PM

Well, that's not your call to make, but it is the call made by President Trump. That is why we have elections, to sort these things out, and Trump is the man elected for the job.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 04/08/17 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Wolfgang
Originally Posted by Sini
Interesting, so Trump bombs Assad, in contradiction of his campaign promises, and all you can think of is how to blame Obama?

Not that I disagree with you that Obama's approach to middle east was incompetent, but now this is Trump's quagmire multi-Billion war in the Middle East to loose and this specific issue is of his own creation.

Yes he contradicted himself, but that was before Assad gassed people. You have to be a fucking fool to sit back and do nothing at this point. He would be another laughing stock of the World If he sat back and did nothing. Then again according the Obama administration they removed all the Chemical weapons, based on that you would have a different view of Syria.



Did Assad gas any Americans? Don't think so. So this is not our problem and if anyone else disagrees they can pay for their own quagmire in the middle east.

Think of it this way. We can spend couple bil removing Assad from power, then spend many more bils trying to stabilize the country. OR . We could have free health care. OR . We could finance mission to Mars.

LOL mission to Mars... that will improve things here immensely.

If Assad truly didn't gas those people they need to start laying out the evidence. All of it, Russia was supposed to be part of the mechanism to get rid of them. So far have not seen SQUAT on evidence. If I were them and I didn't do it I would be tripping over myself trying to put the evidence out there. If they don't then It would be apparent they did gas their own. I agree it's not like they are at our back door... at least yet. Though if they did somehow get some into Mexico that border is pretty goddamn leaky and it wouldn't take but one time for them to get it right and kill people. But hey fuck that let's go to Mars.

If Trump did nothing you and every liberal/Progressive in the land would be screaming as to why he didn't do it. It's dammed if you do dammed if you don't. I don't think we should send more troops in that are already there. I believe they still can get this thing taken care of Politically.
Your still missing the other point... If the Obama administration did the job they CLAIMED to have done there would be no Chemical Weapons there.

Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 04/09/17 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by Wolfgang
LOL mission to Mars... that will improve things here immensely.


Correct. Humanity has a short window of time, relatively speaking, to spread into space and branch off civilization if we want to avoid either extinction or the type of dystopian future that would've given Philip K Dick cold sweats.

Originally Posted by Wolfgang
If Assad truly didn't gas those people they need to start laying out the evidence.


Prove a negative? Start with common sense aspect though, why would the regime, full well knowing the sensitivity of the chemical issue, gas a measly 50 odd people. Iraq at least managed to gas tens of thousands with the chemical weapons we gave them in the 80's.

Originally Posted by Wolfgang
If Trump did nothing you and every liberal/Progressive in the land would be screaming as to why he didn't do it. It's dammed if you do dammed if you don't.


This much is true, and in fact most of the left leaning sites, both boutique and mainstream were in fact screaming for war. But the fact that the left is utterly asinine is no good reason to ignore due process of declaring war, nor getting involved in a shit fest in Syria. And make no mistake - other than the Kurds, there are no pro-western rebels. They are all Sunni nutjobs, and they will all continue to massacre and drive out the remaining Christians.

Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 04/09/17 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Derid
Originally Posted by Wolfgang
LOL mission to Mars... that will improve things here immensely.


Correct. Humanity has a short window of time, relatively speaking, to spread into space and branch off civilization if we want to avoid either extinction or the type of dystopian future that would've given Philip K Dick cold sweats.

Originally Posted by Wolfgang
If Assad truly didn't gas those people they need to start laying out the evidence.


Prove a negative? Start with common sense aspect though, why would the regime, full well knowing the sensitivity of the chemical issue, gas a measly 50 odd people. Iraq at least managed to gas tens of thousands with the chemical weapons we gave them in the 80's.

Originally Posted by Wolfgang
If Trump did nothing you and every liberal/Progressive in the land would be screaming as to why he didn't do it. It's dammed if you do dammed if you don't.


This much is true, and in fact most of the left leaning sites, both boutique and mainstream were in fact screaming for war. But the fact that the left is utterly asinine is no good reason to ignore due process of declaring war, nor getting involved in a shit fest in Syria. And make no mistake - other than the Kurds, there are no pro-western rebels. They are all Sunni nutjobs, and they will all continue to massacre and drive out the remaining Christians.


Don't get me Wrong I think space exploration should move forward and we should look for places that could be inhabited for the future. But right now we have a $20 trillion debt, I think we need to get other things in order before we start spending a lot of money on space. Everyone wants to believe we are to big to fail, that is utter bullshit the left has made up in their little pink unicorn Utopian bubble they want to live in.



Chemical Gas... I sort of agree there's an aspect here that is of some concern. It makes no sense why someone winning a war would risk everything to gas people. But then again crazy people don't think like everyone else. If they are innocent as they say I don't see the issue of them either letting people in to investigate. Otherwise it's perception. If you happen to be one to open carry and someone shoots another person and takes off and you are the only one around with a gun the perception is you did it. In which case once investigated would be cleared of wrong doing. Which is why the same thing should happen with Syria... if they don't allow an investigation they are implicating themselves.


Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/09/17 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Wolfgang


Prove a negative? Start with common sense aspect though, why would the regime, full well knowing the sensitivity of the chemical issue, gas a measly 50 odd people. Iraq at least managed to gas tens of thousands with the chemical weapons we gave them in the 80's.

For the same reason Saddam used chemical agents on his own people. Middle eastern despots rule by fear.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 04/09/17 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Wolfgang


Prove a negative? Start with common sense aspect though, why would the regime, full well knowing the sensitivity of the chemical issue, gas a measly 50 odd people. Iraq at least managed to gas tens of thousands with the chemical weapons we gave them in the 80's.

For the same reason Saddam used chemical agents on his own people. Middle eastern despots rule by fear.


The scale was quite different though, and the US was opposing Assad using any chem weapons, whereas the US had given Saddam his. Is it possible Assad, or someone in his regime made a gross miscalculation? Assuredly. But in the news articles I parsed, one thing that was glaringly lacking was actual evidence, or any type of reliable information from the ground. Instead, it was a bunch of opinion and "ohhhh the children" type emotional BS and clickbait. Very little detail on what happened or how, in favor of expounding on how horrible it was.

Quote
But then again crazy people don't think like everyone else. If they are innocent as they say I don't see the issue of them either letting people in the investigate. Otherwise it's perception. If you happen to be one to open carry and someone shoots another person and takes off and you are the only one around with a gun the perception is you did it. In which case once investigated would be cleared of wrong doing. Which is why the same thing should happen with Syria... if they don't allow an investigation they are implicating themselves.


But who would investigate, and how? If the area is rebel held, which it must be, otherwise why bomb it, how would Assad be able to facilitate an investigation anyhow? Plus, I have never seen anything to lead me to believe Assad is insane. He might not be softhearted, but that is different than insanity or irrationality.

I do have a bit of sympathy for the Alawite minority he represents. The Alawites and Christians in Syria have long stuck together because they are surrounded by rabid Sunni extremists who if not suppressed, would in fact slaughter and rape their way into a failed state similar Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/09/17 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by Derid

But in the news articles I parsed, one thing that was glaringly lacking was actual evidence, or any type of reliable information from the ground.

It's just possible that the President with the entire intelligence assets of the United States at his command might have better information available than people writing news articles.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/09/17 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
That is why we have elections, to sort these things out, and Trump is the man elected for the job.


He run on exactly opposite of what he is doing - explicit election promise to not get involved in more Middle East wars.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/09/17 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Derid

But in the news articles I parsed, one thing that was glaringly lacking was actual evidence, or any type of reliable information from the ground.

It's just possible that the President with the entire intelligence assets of the United States at his command might have better information available than people writing news articles.

Theoretically, he might have access to it, but he has shown to distrust intelligence community. As such, it is safe to assume he have seen something on late-night TV and decided to bomb based on that.

This was done for one of the two reason - political move to signal coming home to establishment or foolish reaction to media hysteria.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/09/17 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain
That is why we have elections, to sort these things out, and Trump is the man elected for the job.


He run on exactly opposite of what he is doing - explicit election promise to not get involved in more Middle East wars.

Now that he has better information at his disposal, I would hope that he would use that information as necessary.

Originally Posted by Sini
[quote=Owain][quote=Derid]
This was done for one of the two reason - political move to signal coming home to establishment or foolish reaction to media hysteria.

Or it might have been done for foreign policy purposes, since it is in our national interest to deter the use of chemical weapons in the region.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/09/17 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
it is in our national interest to deter the use of chemical weapons in the region.


Can you outline how this could possibly be the case?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/09/17 09:23 PM

Interesting bit of information:

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...-forces-not-assad-used-sarin-gas/315588/
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/09/17 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain
it is in our national interest to deter the use of chemical weapons in the region.


Can you outline how this could possibly be the case?

Is it in our national interest to encourage the use of chemical weapons anywhere? I cannot imagine that ever being true.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/09/17 09:35 PM

If Assad did gas his own people, I'm sure he would very much like to blame that upon the rebels, and no doubt has an active disinformation campaign designed for that very purpose.

Further investigation is required, and rather than publishing speculation, the Atlantic might want to work on verification.

Edit: I just noticed that the article is 4 years old, so it probably has nothing to do with the latest incident.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 04/10/17 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain
That is why we have elections, to sort these things out, and Trump is the man elected for the job.


He run on exactly opposite of what he is doing - explicit election promise to not get involved in more Middle East wars.

They shot some missles, it's not a War. If bombing now means we are at war then we was at war in Libya when Obama had planes bomb them as well.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 04/10/17 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by Wolfgang
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain
That is why we have elections, to sort these things out, and Trump is the man elected for the job.


He run on exactly opposite of what he is doing - explicit election promise to not get involved in more Middle East wars.

They shot some missles, it's not a War. If bombing now means we are at war then we was at war in Libya when Obama had planes bomb them as well.


Obama and Hillary absolutely should not have been shooting missiles at Qadafi either. Just because the target is too weak to retaliate doesn't mean that shooting them isn't an act of war.

The logic that says launching military strikes at neutral countries isn't an act of war is on about the same level as the logic that the Founders intended "Arms" to be "muskets" when they penned the 2nd Amendment.

When you weaken one part of the Constitution, you weaken the whole thing.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/10/17 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Edit: I just noticed that the article is 4 years old, so it probably has nothing to do with the latest incident.


Yes, but this demonstrates that at least there is a possibility that chemical weapons could have originated elsewhere other than Assad.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/10/17 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain
it is in our national interest to deter the use of chemical weapons in the region.


Can you outline how this could possibly be the case?

Is it in our national interest to encourage the use of chemical weapons anywhere? I cannot imagine that ever being true.



You are failing to demonstrate your case. There is a third possibility - it neither in nor against our national interests if chemical weapons are used in the middle east.

I really think cost/benefit analysis in this situation is firmly on "do nothing" side. Lets just assume that was Assad's weapons used intentionally. How likely is it that he would conclude civil war, turn around and start attacking US with these chemical weapons? Astronomically unlikely, we have ocean in between and we have nukes. Even if he wanted to do a suicide run, at best he would kill only couple thousands.

Now, what are costs of intervention? We could misread situation due to fog of war. We could accidentally cause regime change, and that will likely lead to genocide. We have seen this unfold with Yazidi, no reason to expect this will turn out differently.

An analogy - Hitler and Vlad the Impaler are waging civil war. What do you do? You know Hitler will start genocide, while Vlad the Impaler will only impale people that challenge his rule. So your real choices are - side with the lesser evil or do nothing.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/10/17 09:11 PM

We have national interests in the middle east. Anything that serves to destabilize the middle east is against our national interests. The unrestricted use of chemical weapons is a destabilizing force in the middle east.

We have personnel in the middle east. Unrestricted use of chemical weapons in the middle east is a threat to those personnel, and is not in our national interests.

We have allies and alliances in effect in the middle east. Unrestricted use of chemical weapons poses a risk to those allies and alliances, and is not in our national interests.

The United States is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention arms control treaty. It is in our national interest to see that the terms of that treaty are followed by other member states who are also signatories, such as Syria. One of the key features of the treaty is that it prohibits the use of chemical weapons.

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

The use of chemical weapons in general is prohibited by international law. It is in the national interest of the United States to support that prohibition under international law.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/10/17 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain
Edit: I just noticed that the article is 4 years old, so it probably has nothing to do with the latest incident.


Yes, but this demonstrates that at least there is a possibility that chemical weapons could have originated elsewhere other than Assad.

Grasping at a rather feeble straw, aren't we?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 04/10/17 09:43 PM

If Sarin was present and only 50 odd people died, that suggests an accident not unrestricted use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program#Iran.E2.80.93Iraq_War

When Iraq used mustard, or nerve agents, the casualty tolls were in the thousands not the tens. There is every reason to logically conclude that Syrian Baathist expertise in weapons is similar to that of Iraq at the time. Common sense says that vague reports complimented with profuse hyperbole should be taken with a large grain of salt.

The fact that Syria was incorrectly accused of using chemical weapons in the past is not grasping at straws. They also only entered the chemical weapon agreement in 2013, provisionally, when they turned over at least some of their stockpile. It is indeed possible that they didn't turn over everything, but it is also quite possible that bombings simply ruptured storage units in rebel hands supplied by the Sauds and Qataris. Especially since Syrian regime would be far more likely to deliver chemical weapons via artillery than via bombs.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/10/17 10:04 PM

That was what our response intended to deter. Unrestricted use. If any use results in one getting hammered, unrestricted use is deterred.

It is a feeble excuse if there is no evidence to suggest it in this incident. What evidence have you seen?

But, I suppose that when one is searching for an excuse, any old excuse will do, including that one.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/11/17 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
We have personnel in the middle east. Unrestricted use of chemical weapons in the middle east is a threat to those personnel, and is not in our national interests.


These are all active military and diplomats. If they get gassed, it will be act of war with the whole world sympathetic. Nobody is that stupid, not when roadside bomb works just as well at actually killing.

Originally Posted by Owain
We have allies and alliances in effect in the middle east. Unrestricted use of chemical weapons poses a risk to those allies and alliances, and is not in our national interests.


I disagree that any of these allies are worth protecting to that degree. Only if you can demonstrate that chemical weapons could uniquely disrupt the flow of oil would you have a point.

Quote
The United States is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention arms control treaty.


The US is also a signatory to the Paris Agreement, but I don't see you advocating carbon tax. There are many other treaties and agreements, including UN, you are simply citing this one because it is convenient.


Again, this is Hollywood sequel of Bush' WMDs. Uncertain information, ulterior motives and inevitable budget-busting expenditures. At best, we will find out how good Russian military tech is. At worst, we will lose a hot war with Russia and embolden them to retake Eastern Europe. In no scenario that I could see after regime change could we end up with Syria as anything other than complete Sharia run by bearded clerics.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/11/17 04:56 AM

Pearl Harbor was an act of war, and the world was sympathetic, but Imperial Japan attacked anyway. If Assad thought he could get away with it, he'd do it. He crossed Obama's Red Line, and nothing happened. It was in our national interest to demonstrate to him that craven policy is no longer in effect.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 04/11/17 07:49 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hitler-sink-chemical-weapons-spicer/story?id=46732616

Let that sink in for a second.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 04/11/17 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom

ZOOOOMMMMMMMGGGGGGGGGGG

Though Hitler used them in the Concentration camps he did not use them on the Battlefield in WWII I"m pretty sure that's what he was meaning. He even says that... but yeah the left is butthurt still and will to try to find anything to hang their hat on.

Quote
"But I'm saying that in the way that Assad used them where he went in towns, dropped them down to innocent - into the middle of towns - it was brought - so the use of it - I appreciate the clarification," Spicer said, before concluding, "That was not the intent."
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/11/17 09:35 PM

I imagine that no one used chemical weapons on the battlefield in WWII, not even Hitler, was because the memory of their use in WWI was too fresh. Hitler himself was partially blinded in a mustard gas attack near Ypres in Belgium.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 04/11/17 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Wolfgang
Originally Posted by Goriom

ZOOOOMMMMMMMGGGGGGGGGGG

Though Hitler used them in the Concentration camps he did not use them on the Battlefield in WWII I"m pretty sure that's what he was meaning. He even says that... but yeah the left is butthurt still and will to try to find anything to hang their hat on.

Quote
"But I'm saying that in the way that Assad used them where he went in towns, dropped them down to innocent - into the middle of towns - it was brought - so the use of it - I appreciate the clarification," Spicer said, before concluding, "That was not the intent."



Because Hitler never used Gas on his own people?
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 04/11/17 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom
Originally Posted by Wolfgang
Originally Posted by Goriom

ZOOOOMMMMMMMGGGGGGGGGGG

Though Hitler used them in the Concentration camps he did not use them on the Battlefield in WWII I"m pretty sure that's what he was meaning. He even says that... but yeah the left is butthurt still and will to try to find anything to hang their hat on.

Quote
"But I'm saying that in the way that Assad used them where he went in towns, dropped them down to innocent - into the middle of towns - it was brought - so the use of it - I appreciate the clarification," Spicer said, before concluding, "That was not the intent."



Because Hitler never used Gas on his own people?

Maybe you should refresh your history of the holocaust. German jews were killed... meaning they were from ding ding ding... GERMANY! They did deport a lot of them and a bunch left, but the German Jews that remained were sent to two concentration camps one of which was Auschwitz.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 04/11/17 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by Wolfgang
Originally Posted by Goriom
Originally Posted by Wolfgang
Originally Posted by Goriom

ZOOOOMMMMMMMGGGGGGGGGGG

Though Hitler used them in the Concentration camps he did not use them on the Battlefield in WWII I"m pretty sure that's what he was meaning. He even says that... but yeah the left is butthurt still and will to try to find anything to hang their hat on.

Quote
"But I'm saying that in the way that Assad used them where he went in towns, dropped them down to innocent - into the middle of towns - it was brought - so the use of it - I appreciate the clarification," Spicer said, before concluding, "That was not the intent."



Because Hitler never used Gas on his own people?

Maybe you should refresh your history of the holocaust. German jews were killed... meaning they were from ding ding ding... GERMANY! They did deport a lot of them and a bunch left, but the German Jews that remained were sent to two concentration camps one of which was Auschwitz.


Yeah, exactly, I guess i have to add /s to the end of my sentences now? Spicer fucked up, dudes dumb. His clarification when a journalist followed up with him was even worse. I'm getting sick of having to infer what this administration says. Don't take me for my words, its what was meant behind what i said that's important! hur dur.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 04/12/17 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
That was what our response intended to deter. Unrestricted use. If any use results in one getting hammered, unrestricted use is deterred.

It is a feeble excuse if there is no evidence to suggest it in this incident. What evidence have you seen?

But, I suppose that when one is searching for an excuse, any old excuse will do, including that one.


This makes me scratch my head a bit, because my whole point is that there is no good evidence for anything. Instead of advocating a knee-jerk reaction based on something really vague, I'm simply pointing out that both the sensible and Constitutional courses of action lie in waiting and seeing. If Assad indeed started using chemical weapons in a significant way, then surely actual evidence would pile up. Since the chances of his doing so - even in a worst-case scenario - in a fashion that would impact us is next to zero, there is no reason to be flying off the handle. Our planes and missiles will still be ready to launch in the event Assad did anything that actually threatened or annoyed us.

Originally Posted by Owain
Pearl Harbor was an act of war, and the world was sympathetic, but Imperial Japan attacked anyway. If Assad thought he could get away with it, he'd do it. He crossed Obama's Red Line, and nothing happened. It was in our national interest to demonstrate to him that craven policy is no longer in effect.


Except Assad actually didn't cross Obama's red line, because the chemical weapons were actually used by rebels, and supplied by our "allies" of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Hillary actually wanted to go to war, but Kerry was incoming SOS and actually did his job.

On another note, I'm honestly and truly surprised to see self-identifying conservatives so vehement about enlisting the armed forces of the USA in the service of ISIS and their ilk.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/13/17 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by Derid
On another note, I'm honestly and truly surprised to see self-identifying conservatives so vehement about enlisting the armed forces of the USA in the service of ISIS and their ilk.


Or self-identifying fiscal conservatives suggesting we bankroll another middle eastern war. How much did Iraq cost?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/13/17 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Derid
This makes me scratch my head a bit, because my whole point is that there is no good evidence for anything. Instead of advocating a knee-jerk reaction based on something really vague, I'm simply pointing out that both the sensible and Constitutional courses of action lie in waiting and seeing.

Sure, so instead of waiting for solid evidence, let's just throw in a really vague 4 year old story for which there is no evidence of involvement. That's the ticket! This is me, helping!!!
Originally Posted by Derid

On another note, I'm honestly and truly surprised to see self-identifying conservatives so vehement about enlisting the armed forces of the USA in the service of ISIS and their ilk.

Concern troll is concerned.

Noted.

One cannot help but feel touched.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 04/14/17 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Derid
This makes me scratch my head a bit, because my whole point is that there is no good evidence for anything. Instead of advocating a knee-jerk reaction based on something really vague, I'm simply pointing out that both the sensible and Constitutional courses of action lie in waiting and seeing.

Sure, so instead of waiting for solid evidence, let's just throw in a really vague 4 year old story for which there is no evidence of involvement. That's the ticket! This is me, helping!!!
Originally Posted by Derid

On another note, I'm honestly and truly surprised to see self-identifying conservatives so vehement about enlisting the armed forces of the USA in the service of ISIS and their ilk.

Concern troll is concerned.

Noted.

One cannot help but feel touched.



Erm.... I'm not the one with the knee-jerk reaction, like launching missiles.... I'm not the one who didn't wait for evidence, not that it matters either way. There likely wont ever be any evidence of worth, the first casualty of war is always the truth. Anyhow, I'm not sure you quite understand what I have been saying.

And no, that wasn't a concern troll in the slightest. I am genuinely flabbergasted and mortified that anyone is so interested in helping ISIS, just like I was some years back when Hillary, McCain and Obama were trying to beat the war drums for an intervention. My positions and principles haven't changed just because the President's affiliation is (R) instead of (D)

(R and D standing for the Retard and Dumbass parties, if the past 15 years is any indication)
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/15/17 03:04 AM

Now my first reaction to a statement as foolish and silly as that was one of amazement, but then no, I thought surely you must have said that based upon exact knowledge.

So by all means, reveal all you know of the satellite intelligence, the communications intercepts, the human intelligence assets in place, the reports from the CIA, NSA, military intelligence, and the rest of the sum total of intelligence assets of the United States available to the President.

I'll wait...
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/15/17 12:25 PM

So how about a proof of wiretapping of Candidate Trump by President Obama?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/15/17 05:21 PM

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/us/politics/carter-page-fisa-warrant-russia-trump.amp.html
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/15/17 07:00 PM

So "court" and "of aide" is the same thing as "Obama" and "of Trump"?
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 04/15/17 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
So "court" and "of aide" is the same thing as "Obama" and "of Trump"?

I'm sure the Obama administration isn't to blame, did they even do anything wrong during his 8 years?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/15/17 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
So "court" and "of aide" is the same thing as "Obama" and "of Trump"?

In order to submit a FISA request, the Justice Department, under the control of the Obama administration, has to petition the court in person in order for a FISA warrant to be granted. A FISA warrant was granted, and the communications of the aide were placed under surveillance. Aides communicate with their principals, so when Trump's conversations with his aide are being monitored by the Obama administration, then he is correct to accuse the administration of wire tapping him, unless you are going to insist on something stupid, like since Obama didn't personally have an ear to a microphone, no surveillance took place.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 02:19 AM

Owain, this is stretch too far to count even as a face-saving dodge. Considering that Trump accusations were very specific - this was supposed to be Watergate-style monitoring, not legal DOJ investigation of someone thrice-removed.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 02:22 AM

What the heck is going in California? Did crazed left forgot what democratic political process supposed to mean? That you can't just violently attack as a form of disagreement?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Owain, this is stretch too far to count even as a face-saving dodge. Considering that Trump accusations were very specific - this was supposed to be Watergate-style monitoring, not legal DOJ investigation of someone thrice-removed.

The only thing Trump said was that he was bring wire tapped. He didn't elaborate on the details, but the administration had already attempted to obtain a warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump and they were denied, so they had the warrant issued on an aide instead.

If at first you don't succeed...
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
What the heck is going in California? Did crazed left forgot what democratic political process supposed to mean? That you can't just violently attack as a form of disagreement?

To what are you referring?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 03:19 AM

Originally Posted by Owain

The only thing Trump said...


realdonaldtrump (March 4, 2017). "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"
realdonaldtrump (March 4, 2017). "Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!"
realdonaldtrump (March 4, 2017). "I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!"
realdonaldtrump (March 4, 2017). "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!""

I think Trump was very clear - it was "President Obama" and "my phones". DoJ legally tapping of aide does not fit this narrative at all.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 03:40 AM

And when the FISA court turned down the warrant request for Trump himself, what did they do? They get warrants to tap his aides and associates, and Trumps conversations with them are still being monitered.

Either way, Trump's conversations were still being subject to surrveilance before, during, and after the election, which one might expect in some banana republic, but before Obama, not in the United States.

Maybe this was the change Obama promised, to make the U.S. a surveillance state.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
And when the FISA court turned down the warrant request for Trump himself, what did they do? They get warrants to tap his aides and associates, and Trumps conversations with them are still being monitered.

Either way, Trump's conversations were still being subject to surrveilance before, during, and after the election, which one might expect in some banana republic, but before Obama, not in the United States.

Maybe this was the change Obama promised, to make the U.S. a surveillance state.


You are inconsistent even within your own descriptions. In this post you act as if Obama actually ordered wiretapping of Trump. What you present as evidence is court-approved DOJ investigation into Trump aide.

I hope you understand that Watergate lead to impeachment not because wiretapping, but because it was done illegally?

Alternatively, you should be arguing that everyone working on the presidential campaign should get immunity from criminal prosecution. However, presently not even legislative immunity goes that far. That is, elected officials don't presently enjoy a degree of immunity that you suggest this aide should have.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 01:27 PM

If you misrepresent a case to the FISA court for a warrant for surveillance for national security purposes when you are actually conducting surviellance for political puposes, that is a felony offense.

I hope that the investigation continues, and that felony indictments will be handed down, and those responsible will be prosecuted, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned.

If that includes Barrack Obama, then so be it.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 01:39 PM

This is a bit of a long read, but it sums up what is known to date, and makes a good case for the suggestion that the Obama administration feloniously misused the FISA courts and intelligence assets to conduct political surviellance on the Trump campaign.


http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/04/in_her_majestys_disservice.html
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
This is a bit of a long read, but it sums up what is known to date, and makes a good case for the suggestion that the Obama administration feloniously misused the FISA courts and intelligence assets to conduct political surviellance on the Trump campaign.


http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/04/in_her_majestys_disservice.html



This blog is credible?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 04:36 PM

Is your criticism a logical fallacy in the form of an ad hominem attack?

Why yes. It is.

[Linked Image]
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 05:24 PM

How is that an ad hominem? I'm questioning the validity of your source. A blog.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom
How is that an ad hominem?


I didn't see anything that could be interpreted as a personal attack. For this to be true, it should have read something like: "Only an idiot would consider this blog to be credible". Maybe post was edited, but as it stands by the time I read it, nothing of the kind was there.

Also, I agree that random blogs are not inherently more credible than simply stating opinion yourself. In this, I don't find Owain arguments on this subject credible.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
If you misrepresent a case to the FISA court for a warrant for surveillance for national security purposes when you are actually conducting surviellance for political puposes, that is a felony offense.


Sure, IF . Do you have any evidence that Obama directed to misrepresent such case with the goal to wiretap Trump for political purposes?

Listen, I am all for throwing Obama into jail if any of this turns to be true. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In this case there is not even indications of wrongdoing. Nothing that would even allow Trump to gracefully walk back his claims. However, you treating this as a given. That is, you are not justified in your views. It is not even a question of different interpretation, there is just no supporting evidence to back any of this.

Even if you actually read the linked blog. It is one unending string of hypotheticals (do a word count on "may"). At some point you seem to forgot that "I bought a lottery ticket and may win a jackpot" and "I bought a lottery ticked and won a jackpot" are two different statements with drastically different meaning.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain
If you misrepresent a case to the FISA court for a warrant for surveillance for national security purposes when you are actually conducting surviellance for political puposes, that is a felony offense.


Sure, IF . Do you have any evidence that Obama directed to misrepresent such case with the goal to wiretap Trump for political purposes?

That's not my job, but based upon news reports, mostly from the foreign press since the domestic media is curiously uninterested, I think it is highly likely.

I am content to allow the investigation to continue. If evidence exists incriminating members of the Obama administration, or even Obama himself, evidence can be produced in open court (or closed if the evidence is classified) by Justice Department prosecutors, whose job it is to present evidence obtained by government investigators.

If evidence does not exist, I will be relieved, but I don't think that is the likely outcome.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Owain

That's not my job...

It is your job to present justified opinions. You come across as "Trump was right, Obama did it, here is smoking gun". It is one thing to state opinions (e.g. Obama was a lousy president), it is entirely different when you support evidence-free accusations (e.g. Obama is a criminal, here is proof).

For example, I think Bush was lousy president and Iraq war was unmitigated disaster. I don't think he knew otherwise when he stated Saddam had WMDs. That is, it wasn't malicious lie on his part.

Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 07:53 PM

Sini, it is foolish to request evidence from a private individual, since no individual has the investigative assets necessary to provide evidence. I could just as easily demand evidence of you to prove Obama's innocence, but I am not foolish.

The best one can do is provide arguments to support why one holds an opinion. I think I have done that already.

So, in the future, let's dispense with foolishness, M'kay?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 08:00 PM

Owain, you engaged in faulty thinking and got called on it. Asking someone why they believe something, and then demonstrating that it doesn't make sense is well within the norms of political discourse. Technically, this is called epistemic justification. I don't expect you to personally produce evidence, but I do expect you to cite credible sources that actually present such evidence. You mentioned that you read "mostly from the foreign press", I am not aware of any such publications that would show any such evidence. Care to link it here?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/16/17 10:15 PM


Then, oh faulty thinker, I demand that you provide evidence of Obama's innocence, or barring that, evidence of Trumps collusion with the Russians.

Chop chop.

If you follow the link I already provided, you will see that he already linked articles from the foreign press. Rather than link them individually, I linked that, since he provides a good summary.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/17/17 02:02 AM

If you are asserting that something is happening, the burden of proof is on you.

I simply have to point out there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by Obama despite numerous inquiries to justify my position.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/17/17 02:04 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
If you follow the link I already provided, you will see that he already linked articles from the foreign press.


I have followed the link you provided and did not see any evidence, linked or otherwise, of Obama ordering wiretapping of Trump. Since you insist it is out there, why don't you link it directly?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/17/17 02:23 AM

I did not say that there was 'evidence'. I said that based upon what I have read, mostly in the foreign press, that I think it is highly likely [that Trump was wiretapped]. That might have been ordered by the Obama himself, or by someone in his administration. That might have been directly or indirectly, but I think it's still highly likely. As I also said, I am content to allow the investigation to take its course.

In the meantime, where is your evidence, slacker?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 04/17/17 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
I did not say that there was 'evidence'. I said that based upon what I have read, mostly in the foreign press, that I think it is highly likely [that Trump was wiretapped]. That might have been ordered by the Obama himself, or by someone in his administration. That might have been directly or indirectly, but I think it's still highly likely. As I also said, I am content to allow the investigation to take its course.


Your mental contortions are fascinating to watch, however they should be evaluated as a performance art and not an actual logical argument. In that light, they are not entirely devoid of value. Entertainment value that is.


Originally Posted by Owain

In the meantime, where is your evidence, slacker?


Originally Posted by Sini
... there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by Obama despite numerous inquiries ...


The proof is in Russell's Teapot.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 04/17/17 03:02 AM

No contortions except in your mind. I never said the article had evidence, no matter how you might want to twist it.

I guess there is no evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians, either.

Glad we got that settled.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 05/10/17 01:16 AM

Trump sacks FBI director citing improper behavior regarding Clinton emails prior to elections.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/10/17 04:50 PM

I think this is the first show to drop. The next shoe to drop will be multiple indictments against Hillary and her aides.

Comey failed to properly enforce federal law. If Sessions now indicts Hillary for crimes Comey should have fought to enforce, of course Comey has to be fired for failing to do his job.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 05/11/17 12:46 AM

While I agree with you it is only beginning, the likely outcome is Trump impeachment. Comey was sacked for investigating Trump's Russian ties, and not for helping Trump win elections by making more FUD about non-issue. I am sure there are many good reasons to prosecute Hillary, corruption and bribery comes to mind, but mishandling emails is not one of the remotely important or worthwhile issues. Sadly, incompetence is not a criminal matter.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/11/17 04:21 AM

Well, people have been investigating Trump for a year or so. There doesn't seem to be anything there. Hillary, on the other hand, is plainly in felony violation of several federal laws, and it could even be argued that Comey could be charged with obstruction of justice over his mishandling of her investigation.

But before Trump could be impeached, wouldn't he have to be guilty of some crime? With what crime do you think he can be charged?
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 05/11/17 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Well, people have been investigating Trump for a year or so. There doesn't seem to be anything there. Hillary, on the other hand, is plainly in felony violation of several federal laws, and it could even be argued that Comey could be charged with obstruction of justice over his mishandling of her investigation.


Are you aware of how long the investigation into Nixon went on for?


Originally Posted by Owain
But before Trump could be impeached, wouldn't he have to be guilty of some crime? With what crime do you think he can be charged?


Collusion with a foreign government to hack a candidate and undermine the elections?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ


Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/11/17 06:31 PM

What statute of the criminal code was violated?
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 05/11/17 07:57 PM

1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/11/17 08:51 PM

I'm not sure what this statute has to do with elections. It seems to apply only to diplomatic measures.

But what evidence is there that Trump has violated that statute? All I have heard is shrill butthurt from Democrats disappointed that they are failing to win elections.

It takes more that butthurt to secure a conviction.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 05/11/17 11:51 PM

Acting FBI director contradicts Trump. Trump changes his story during NBC interview. Flynn was issued a subpoena by the Senate.

It looks to me that Kissenger will have dubious distinction to be associated with two impeached presidents. Is this one good for Guinness? Does he have time left for a hat trick?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/12/17 03:49 AM

The FBI employs about 35000 people. Maybe they are both talking to different agents.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 05/13/17 06:47 PM

Your theory that director and deputy director are not aware of what is going on with such high-profile investigation is not credible.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/13/17 07:14 PM

To which investigation are you referring?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 05/14/17 07:35 PM

FBI investigation into Trump's ties to Russia and hacking of Hillary campaign emails.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/14/17 11:55 PM

The FBI is performing a counterintelligence investigation against the Russians. There is nothing to suggest collusion by the Trump campaign other than conspiracy theories advanced by Democrats butthurt over election results.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 05/15/17 09:53 PM

The fake media has once again slandered our Emperor with malicious falsehoods. These prostitutes of the fourth estate must be punished for their crimes. I recommend we extinguish that silly little first amendment, then we can start incarcerating these whores.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl..._breakingnews&utm_term=.917364c3d2a4
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 05/16/17 01:18 AM

Goriom, the problem with your sarcasm is that media on the whole didn't give Trump benefit of the doubt. Not during elections. Not after elections.

This could be a manufactured story. That is, it could be both factually accurate and not what it seems. I imagine classified information is exchanged between governments all the time. It is only if Trump done so without adequate justification would this be a problem.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/16/17 06:10 AM

I read the same story. I think this is the pertinent paragraph.

“The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation,” said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”

If you take away intelligence sources, methods, and military operations, there is nothing classified left. What you then have is what is common knowledge available through open sources, which is why for years now the TSA has required people to remove laptops from carry cases when going through airport security.

If I thought the media would cover a story like this honestly, I might pay more attention. Unfortunately, the media doesn't cover stories like this honestly. Even the Washington Post, which notes it's a nothing story, used a sensational headline.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/16/17 06:13 AM

if there really is some code word level classified information out there involving laptops, now morons at the State Department and elsewhere seeking to discredit the President have confirmed that without doubt.

Now, everyone knows there is new and improved secret squirrel information out there. Our adversaries now know that we know, and can take countersteps to change their methods to avoid detection.

This Deep State operations undermining the administration is going to end up getting people killed.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/16/17 06:24 AM

Update:

Yeah, bullshit #FakeNews, brought to us by the Washington Post.

The media are not disinterested neutral observers. They are active agents working against the administration, and in everything they say, they should be viewed as adversaries who will lie to advance their own agendas.

http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...ing-classified-materials-russians-false/
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Trump card - 05/16/17 08:44 PM

Quote
In his meeting with Lavrov, Trump seemed to be boasting about his inside knowledge of the looming threat. “I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day,” the president said, according to an official with knowledge of the exchange.


I can't decided if this is

a) an actual official quoting Trump word for word
b) an actual official giving the gist of what Trump said, but in Trump speak
c) an actual official's account of what Trump said, translated into Trump speak by a journalist
d) a journalist making up a source to claim that Trump said this, in Trump speak
e) none of the above

Moreover, I can't decide which of these possibilities is the most amusing (except for e, that would just be boring).
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/16/17 09:41 PM

Well, I suspect that it is d), since the eye witness to the meeting reported that nothing classified was divulged.

Everything reported by the Washington Post came from an "undisclosed source", which may exist only in the mind of the #Journalist.

That is the problem with undisclosed sources. #Journalists can say anything they want, and there is no way to verify the story.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 05/16/17 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Well, I suspect that it is d), since the eye witness to the meeting reported that nothing classified was divulged.

Everything reported by the Washington Post came from an "undisclosed source", which may exist only in the mind of the #Journalist.

That is the problem with undisclosed sources. #Journalists can say anything they want, and there is no way to verify the story.



That's not how Journalism works at all. I understand you are ignorant on how we do our jobs but I can explain to you later when I have the time.

Quickly, news makes its way through editors, producers, executive producers and lawyers before you get to see it. It also requires the lawyers and journalist to fact check the source material multiple times. With that being said, mistakes do happen and that's why retractions are a thing.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 05/16/17 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by Brutal
Quote
In his meeting with Lavrov, Trump seemed to be boasting about his inside knowledge of the looming threat. “I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day,” the president said, according to an official with knowledge of the exchange.


I can't decided if this is

a) an actual official quoting Trump word for word
b) an actual official giving the gist of what Trump said, but in Trump speak
c) an actual official's account of what Trump said, translated into Trump speak by a journalist
d) a journalist making up a source to claim that Trump said this, in Trump speak
e) none of the above

Moreover, I can't decide which of these possibilities is the most amusing (except for e, that would just be boring).


Either A or B

Trump seemed to be boasting about his inside knowledge of the looming threat. “I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day,”

the president said, according to an official with knowledge of the exchange.

Also I think I need to emphasis this:

"The Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities."

Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/16/17 10:14 PM

What is the source of that quote?

Links on this stuff would be nice...
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 05/16/17 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
What is the source of that quote?

Links on this stuff would be nice...



Oh you know, the story I linked before.

Not my fault you didn't read it lol.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/16/17 10:57 PM

Since that has already scrolled off the page, it would be helpful if you mentioned something like, "In the story I linked..."
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/16/17 11:01 PM

Further, from the story you linked, you should have added, "...according to an official with knowledge of the exchange", which is yet another unnamed, unidentified (possibly imaginary) source, whose accuracy cannot be verified.

That is not a quote. That is hearsay evidence.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 05/17/17 12:08 PM

Reports of Trump trying to stop Flynn investigation. Body of work keep growing.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/17/17 01:51 PM

The body of bullshit keeps growing. Double hearsay accounts from the malicious media are not compelling.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 05/17/17 03:40 PM

Yes Owain, everyone is out to get Donald Trump.

It's not that hes a scumbag or anything, right?
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html

Not that he had links with organized crime in NY and NJ.
Source: Trump: The Deals and the Downfall, pg 193

Is a complete and utter liar (and is terrible at it)
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rsey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

Was a "birther" LOL
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/

Screwed tons of small businesses and workers he hired to work for/in his shitty buildings
Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

Is a "great" business man who failed to keep a Casino afloat
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html

Is hated in New York
Source: I am a New Yorker
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-residents-of-New-York-City-vehemently-dislike-Donald-Trump

Is the epitome of what poor people think rich people are
Source: http://hbu.h-cdn.co/assets/16/19/980x639/gallery-1462816039-donald-trump-1.jpg



He doesn't stand for anything Conservative or Christian. He was for Abortion, now hes against it when its convenient. He could give a shit about you, he is in this only for himself and $$$$$$$$$$$. At this point the joke is getting old.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 05/17/17 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
The body of bullshit keeps growing. Double hearsay accounts from the malicious media are not compelling.


Media is unquestionably biased against Trump, however you can't dismiss everything media reports as false because of that bias. It is possible that media both biased and accurately reporting events.

Here is how you should read this:

Media: "We believe, we have undisclosed sources, our opinion" - Probably BS
Media: Reports of first-hand accounts,factual proof, record of events - Likely Accurate
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 05/17/17 05:15 PM

Goriom you just documented a very valid, but partial, list as to why many are out to get Trump.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/17/17 11:21 PM

If sources are serious about verifiable instances of wrongdoing, there is no need for anyone to make anonymous allegations.

Stories that cannot be verified should be ignored until verification is provided.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 05/18/17 11:38 AM

Flynn disclosed being investigated prior to getting hired.

FBI has records of undisclosed contacts by Trump campaign with Russians.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/18/17 02:40 PM

There is nothing illegal about having business contacts with Russians. The Clinton campaign has a long history of numerous contacts as well. I assume their contacts are equally legal.

If the FBI has proof of illegal activity, the Justice Department under Obama should have made indictments against people, and presented their evidence on open court.

That is still possible now, if their is actually any crime to be prosecuted.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 05/18/17 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
There is nothing illegal about having business contacts with Russians. The Clinton campaign has a long history of numerous contacts as well. I assume their contacts are equally legal.

If the FBI has proof of illegal activity, the Justice Department under Obama should have made indictments against people, and presented their evidence on open court.

That is still possible now, if their is actually any crime to be prosecuted.


"Conversations between Flynn and Kislyak accelerated after the Nov. 8 vote as the two discussed establishing a back channel for communication between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that could bypass the U.S. national security bureaucracy, which both sides considered hostile to improved relations, four current U.S. officials said."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN18E106

I'm certain now that Donald Trump has been trying to "improve" relations with Russia by easing sanctions for that sweet sweet money.

*EDIT:

I mean House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said it best...
"I'll guarantee you that's what it is... The Russians hacked the DNC and got the opp research that they had on Trump."
"There's two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump."
"Swear to God."


I like Ryan's defense though. "I'm only pretending to be retarded"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a-3aff-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html



Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/19/17 01:46 AM

More anonymous unidentified officials?

If Republicans had only known it was so easy, they could have used anonymous, unidentified accounts from 'officials' to remove Obama from office as well, but Republicans are not as dishonest as either Democrats or members of the Malicious Media.

If the Obama Justice Department had this 'evidence', why was no one prosecuted?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 05/19/17 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
More anonymous unidentified officials?

If Republicans had only known it was so easy, they could have used anonymous, unidentified accounts from 'officials' to remove Obama from office as well, but Republicans are not as dishonest as either Democrats or members of the Malicious Media.

If the Obama Justice Department had this 'evidence', why was no one prosecuted?



The quotes from House members are pretty detailed, and as I have not seen a rebuttal yet, are likely be to true.

Your assertions regarding the regurgitation of the opinions of anon sources has objective merit, but the GOP is also objectively dishonest as all hell. Saying someone is less dishonest than the Democrats is a pretty low bar to the point of being meaningless.

GOP friendly media also did in fact relay all sorts of unpleasant info about Obama and his minions, much of it true, some of it less so or out of meaningful context. The fact that the segments of the media that vociferously hate Trump are larger and generally more influential than the segments that hated Obama with the same intensity doesn't mean that they didn't try.

Obama wouldn't have pushed the issue for two reasons:

1)It was highly politically sensitive, and doing so in a rushed manner might have backfired. Yet, his term was almost up. It could have ended up backfiring and handing Trump a victory over Hillary.

2)They didn't think that Trump could actually win. Plenty of time to investigate after Hillary won, or so they thought. Reality didn't work out in their favor on that, obviously.

Hard to feel sorry for Trump though, he has brought all this on himself. Things in DC often aren't as they appear on the surface. It's true that he is under assault, and it's also true that many of the angles of attack are in of themselves often overblown or mere pretexts. Yet, there are still good reasons for it. Why? It's easy to see that many who in other times would step forward and provide political, or even legal and bureaucratic cover aren't assisting the administration.

Why? It's simple. Trump surrounded himself with bad actors. Trump, and his supporters such as yourself can gloss over things as much as you'd like, and try to hand wave away things like "differences of opinion"

However, whether we are talking about DC, Ohio, or VA... Trump has lost a very large segment of support already. Drawing in people like Adjit Pai, Jeff Sessions, Steve Mnuchin and co has told a great many people the type of president Trump wishes to be, and, cumulatively, has and is alienating many small but cumulatively not insignificant segments of society that not only tend to want to lean GOP, but provide that middle stratum of money and effort and advocacy that the larger machine relies upon to keep moving.

Now, many people might not make a disfavorable association based solely on the names; this is true, at least when talking about joe voter and not bobby bureaucrat, wally watchdog or larry lawyer. Trump has put an agglomeration of corrupt shills and retards in charge of things, who do manage to make their own controversies and terrible decisions that get widely reported upon and quite frankly are disillusioning people and pissing them off.

This doesn't have a happy ending. Just like we got Obama due to the vast incompetence of W Bush, and the backlash and disfavor that followed, so will we see similar blowback in 2020 as the Democrats and friendly media shove Hillary's reanimated corpse into the newly decorated Oval Sepulcher, where she ironically rides widespread angst against Trumps offenses against civil liberties to crack down on civil liberties, anger at Trump's corruption to enrich her own friends and punish her foes, and unhappiness at Trump's cozyness with Goldman Sachs to initiate her own measures to protect their grip on world finance and stifle free markets.

We are, in a word, fucked. GG.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/19/17 03:16 PM

I don't think things are as bad as the Malicious Media makes out. And the left has been pushing this Russian nonsense since Trump secured the nomination, so the reluctance to prosecute due to political sensitivity doesn't float. If there was evidence, there would have been a prosecution of someone.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 05/20/17 11:59 AM

Obama always cared about appearances. Investigations at that level also take a long time. You have to remember that they thought Hillary had it in the bag. Giving the appearance that they were using prosecution to stifle a political opponent would have been dangerous. Media rumormongering and selective leaks are par for the course for both parties, but directly prosecuting opponents is still a bridge seldom crossed.

Plus, always remember that Comey was on Trump's side until Trump got elected and started demanding oaths of loyalty and interfered in investigations.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 05/20/17 04:03 PM

Comey has been on the Clintons side for years. He acted not to help Trump, but to keep Hillary from being prosecuted.

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/07/comey-has-long-history-of-clinton-related-cases/
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 05/22/17 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Derid
Originally Posted by Goriom
People are afraid because there are a lot of regressive conservatives in control of every branch of our government. I wouldn't even say it is because they were properly voted in. Gerrymandering is a thing and it HEAVILY favors republican districts across this nation. If you can't win the game by the rules, you change the game or move the goal posts. That is what Republicans are very good at.


Honestly Owain had a point on this topic, and it isn't like Democrats don't gerrymander when they are able, to the same degree. And I really wouldn't call the GOP conservatives, especially Trump - that does a disservice to conservatives.

Sure, you could get into "no true Scotsman" arguments, but really, Trump is about as conservative - in the traditional USA sense - as Mussolini.

On a side note, I've been playing as Trump.... er... Mussolini in Heart of Iron IV, having picked it and the expansion up a couple days ago during a Steam sale. Really cool game.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-supreme-court-tosses-republican-drawn-districts-north-141528298.html
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 06/03/17 01:09 PM

Trump withdraws from Paris Accords. Putin trolls US with "patriotic hackers".
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 06/20/17 02:52 AM

Another Obamacare repeal attempt next week. While this isn't expected to be 100% rollback, details are kept in secret.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 06/21/17 02:38 AM

Georgia 6th went to GOP, this will embolden Congress to push more aggressive agenda.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 06/21/17 03:47 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Georgia 6th went to GOP, this will embolden Congress to push more aggressive agenda.

Perhaps this will encourage Republicans in Congress to better represent their constituents.
Posted By: Kaotic

Re: Trump card - 06/21/17 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Another Obamacare repeal attempt next week. While this isn't expected to be 100% rollback, details are kept in secret.

Only fitting for a bill that had to be "passed in order to find out what's in it."

I in no way condone this behavior. I do, however, find it more than mildly amusing that the very same people who were willing to "jump, pole vault and parachute" over the will of the American people to pass the ACA, are now screaming about the "tactics of secrecy."

At the same time, I'm more than mildly annoyed with the people who proposed a 3 week moratorium on any vote, to allow for plenty of time for comprehension and dissection of a bill, now trying to push things through on the sly.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 06/22/17 11:59 PM

I am with Kaotic on appreciating irony of reversed roles and behaviors.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 06/23/17 12:54 AM

It's such black world secret squirrel stuff that any one can freely read it.

How devious.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/politics/republican-health-care-bill-text/index.html
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 06/23/17 02:26 PM

{popcorn}

Oh come on Owain, you can do better than that.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 06/23/17 02:56 PM

I am not in competition here. Are you?
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 06/23/17 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
I am not in competition here. Are you?


You're the one bringing up competition, do you have it on the mind?

I was just talking about how you are purposefully misconstruing what Kaotic said.

Originally Posted by Owain
It's such black world secret squirrel stuff that any one can freely read it.

How devious.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/politics/republican-health-care-bill-text/index.html


No matter what you link AFTER the fact. What Kaotic said is true, this bill was done in secrecy. I know its hard to come to terms that the people you back are hypocrites. I feel its best to treat it like a band-aid. Just pull it off nice and fast.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 06/24/17 03:28 AM

Goriom, before you spoiled it, I was enjoying Kaotic getting RINOed.

It is like seeing torero getting gored to death. You just can't look away.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 06/24/17 01:59 PM

Hypocrite. The warcry of the party at fault first. The Tu Quoque fallacy liberals love to employ.

The bill is out for all to read and debate. If anyone in congress feels there has been insufficient time to read, debate, and/or amend, they can vote agsinst the legislation, as my Senator, Mike Lee, plans to do.

This isn't unusual. Legislation is typically developed in committee, then debated. Some would like a vote before the upcoming recess. I would like a Masserati. We dont always get what we want.

If the legislation is passed, then the Senate collectively will have decided they had debated and amended it to their liking. Not everyone will agree, but our system of government doesn't require everyone to agree. Only that most agree.

If most agree, then that is one step closer to getting rid of the miserable failure that is Obamacare, a program so despised that arguably it cost Democrats the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, the oval office in 2017, and is largely responsible for the current Democratic electoral collapse nationwide.

That is a degree of failure that is hard to match.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 06/26/17 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Stuff.


I think this post highlights how the state of our politics has fallen to the point where no one can articulate any cogent vision of how to properly govern based on a reliable set of sensible principles. It's all about the "other guy" and how bad they are. Don't look at what we're doing, just look at what they did. "As long as we somehow manage to be slightly less bad in some small regard, then that should be good enough." Is what come across.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 06/27/17 12:04 AM

I think Trump has a very clear vision based on reliable principles, which is why voters elected him and not Hillary.

Trump's judicial appointments have been excellent, his foreign policy is at least sane, his regulatory rollback has been terrific, and his opposition to the corrupt and divisive leftist news media has been long overdue.

Down the road, if he can work with the Congress to implement effective tax reform, or even just tax cuts, the economy will take off. It's already improving nicely.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 06/28/17 05:03 PM

You say you think that, but I still haven't seen any sort of evidence from you or Trump or his team that would indicate such. All signs point to people simply disliking Hillary, and being willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt at the time. What principles even? Certainly no principles grounded in the traditions and founding spirit of the country, thats for sure.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 06/28/17 05:18 PM

Trump has no principles unless you count the principle of hard cold cash. What Trump's whole role in this is to Russia and Republicans is one of the "useful idiot".

You know what else really bothers me. When Conservatives fall for the whole, the federal government is corrupt and nonfunctional so we need less of it. So what do these conservatives do? they elect idiots who purposely undermine the federal government causing this self sustaining shit storm. Thus the elected leaders go, "see, I told you we need less Federal government!" It's mind boggling because without the federal government, half of the red states would fall into third world status lol.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 06/28/17 09:57 PM

Even the media has admitted that the stupid Russian collusion story is bullshit, Goriom. Keep up with current events.

We are still working on reducing the size and scope of government. Trump's actions on regulatory rollback is a good start. There is still the rest of Congress, and when Democrats cry that every attempt to downsize government, PEOPLE WILL DIIEEE, MAN, that doesn't make it easy.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 06/29/17 02:09 AM

Reducing the size and scope of govt? Really? If only.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 06/29/17 02:16 PM

It was built up over about a century. It will probably take just as long to dismantle.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 06/29/17 02:23 PM

More on the foolish collusion myth.

https://amgreatness.com/2017/06/28/late-great-russian-collusion-myth/
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/12/17 01:13 AM

Release of Trump Jr. email chain increases stakes in Russian collusion story. There is now a smoking gun.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/12/17 01:48 AM

How so?

And a smoking gun with respect to what? What law do you think has been violated, and what evidence do you think this provides?
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 07/12/17 12:58 PM

Don't worry republicans keep moving the goal posts lol. It went from "there is no way Trump and his associates are colluding with Russia" to "well collusion isn't a crime!"

Originally Posted by Owain
How so?

And a smoking gun with respect to what? What law do you think has been violated, and what evidence do you think this provides?


The Logan Act.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/12/17 01:44 PM

The person he communicated with wasn't acting on behalf of the Russian government, so how does the Logan Act apply?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...ether-she-has-ties-russian-government-no
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/12/17 02:05 PM

If you are concerned about Logan Act violations, then you should advocate prosecution of members of Hillary's campaign for conspiring with the Ukranian GOVERNMENT.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Trump card - 07/12/17 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
The person he communicated with wasn't acting on behalf of the Russian government, so how does the Logan Act apply?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...ether-she-has-ties-russian-government-no


3 anonymous sources vs 1 Russian attorney who certainly couldn't have been coached. How are we to decided which narrative is true with such bedrock-solid actors on both sides?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/12/17 04:59 PM

Proof is required, and so far, none has been provided.

Speaking of collusion and violations of the Logan Act, there is this. Just as soon as lefty clowns get serious about this, maybe I'll be concerned.

Either we have to be serious about ALL of it, or one has to presume this is just more liberal electoral bullshit butthurt in play.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/07/10/l...-with-u-s-green-groups-to-block-frackin/
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/12/17 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by Owain


Either we have to be serious about ALL of it, or one has to presume this is just more liberal electoral bullshit butthurt in play.




Flip that 180, and you see the problem. No one is holding anything to objective standards. In the future, when others are caught I'm similar circumstances, they will just point to the Trump issue and say "but they got away with it, so you can't hold us accountable for anything either."

Accountability has to start somewhere, and it is obvious that the current incarnation of the GOP has no desire for any accountability to start with them.

After this fiasco, the Dems will be able to get away with even more bullshit than they have in the past, because the GOP will have zero credibility to speak on the matter. They will take your words, change "liberal butthurt" to "conservative butthurt" and throw your words right back at you.

Not that the current GOP is even remotely close to being conservative in any real sense, but rather has become sort of absurd caricature of conservatism.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/12/17 06:04 PM

But as I noted, Trump Jr committed no crime. There was no violation of the Logan Act because he wasn't dealing with anyone from the government.

But Clinton campaign officials were collaborating with the Ukrainian government and environmentalists are collaborating with the Russian government, but that is different because shut up.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/12/17 07:36 PM

Which has what to do with what? You do realize that since the Dems are also objectively horrible, that by covering for and encouraging the GOP to be just as bad, you are effectively saying that zero accountability in govt should exist, right?

"People should only support one of the two major parties, and as long as either one of them is bad, then both should be bad." I'm sure you didn't intentionally craft your stances to reflect that position, but that is what your stated positions amounts to.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/12/17 07:43 PM

The What this has to do with is that to my knowledge, Trump has done nothing while Democrats are guilty of the things they accuse Trump, and far more besides.

So the only smoking gun I see here is the one blowing up in Democrats faces.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Trump card - 07/12/17 08:24 PM

The strict adherence to party/ideology, combined with the fact that people who seek government positions are generally scum, ensures that this cycle of he-said she-said will continue. Accountability isn't even on the horizon at this point, and the prospects of its arrival look pretty grim. This reminds me of this post I saw today on reddit from /r/LateStageCapitalism (a socialist subreddit, only saw it because it popped up on /r/all):

[commenting on a picture that envisioned a world without Net Neutrality]
Originally Posted by "socialist idiot"
88% of the U.S. opposes this, yet we have to fight this by the millions every single year. Really shows you how much power we have left in this capitalist dump.

Because this person adheres to a socialist ideology, in their mind all of our problems exist because of capitalism. Nevermind that their own statement lays out in no uncertain terms that the problem isn't capitalism, but rather corrupt government officials who do not enact laws based on the will of the overwhelming majority of the people.

Simple fact is, it is unlikely either side of this newest juicy headline will ever be able to prove their case, certainly not to the satisfaction of the opposition. I find it best to withhold judgement until I see some actual proof. Call me a cynic.

Edit: If you choose to search up the post I mentioned avoid scrolling past the first few comments at all cost. The resonance in that echo chamber has probably built up to lethal power by now.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/12/17 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
There was no violation of the Logan Act because he wasn't dealing with anyone from the government.


Quote
Rob Goldstone to Donald Trump Jr.
Subject: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential

Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

Best

Rob Goldstone


To me, this is very unambiguous and establishes intent.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/13/17 01:24 AM

Intent from whom? An email to junior about what someone else wants, which may or may not be true says nothing about junior. As it so happens, it wasn't true, since the lawyer has admitted she has no government connections.

Even so, the Logan act only pertains to negotiations about government business, not dirt on some American citizen.

Information like that is neutral. It's either true, or it isn't. What if the contact had incontrovertable truth that Hillary had been selling Russians classified information? That would be information of interest to both the FBI and the Justice Department.

As it is, it turned out to be nothing, but that diesnt stop liberals short stroking each other iver it.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/13/17 01:31 AM

In looking over 47 pages so far of stupid crap that has come to nothing, odds are, this is just more stupid crap that will come nothing.

But if any group has a lock on stupid crap, it's most definately the Democratic party.

Have fun with your stupid crap, guys.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/13/17 02:31 PM

It's beginning to look like it was a set up, and that all the colluding is being done by Democrats.

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/t...LC&utm_medium=FB&utm_campaign=LC
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/13/17 02:36 PM

More evidence of Democratic collusion.

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 07/13/17 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Owain



Rohrabacher, Rohrabacher? Where have I heard that name before...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a-3aff-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html

The same guy that invited Natalia Veselnitskaya to sit right behind McFaul at a foreign affairs committee hearing on Russia. Interesting what is she looking at there?

[Linked Image]

BUT WE CAN GO DEEPER...

Why did the DOJ dismiss a money laundering case connected to Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya?


Natalia was in the US to represent Prevezon, who was accused of a russian money laundering scheme involving real estate. Who was the lead on that case? Preet Bharara who was fired by Trump and co. and as soon as Trump fired him this case was settled in a very secretive manner.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...c-65b1-11e7-94ab-5b1f0ff459df_story.html



TL:DR. A lawyer with a history of fighting sanctions against her country has no ties to her country? LOL give me a break.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/13/17 04:59 PM

Preet was fired by Trump, which was apparently a good move, and then the Obama administration allowed Natasha (moose and squirrel reference) in to help him represent the Russian money launderer.

So I wonder for whom was he laundering money that the Obama State Department would make special allowances to admit Natasha into the country under extraordinary circumstances without a visa?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/14/17 01:39 AM

I asked this before, but didn't get an answer. Owain, what would it take, what kind of evidence, for you to concede that Trump colluded with Russia? Also, when such evidence is presented, would you be for or against impeachment?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/14/17 02:17 AM

Depends upon your definition of collusion. So far, I have seen nothing even remotely illegal.

Look, I get that a lot of people didn't vote for Trump and that there remains a lot of unresolved butt hurt over that. But after more than a year, there is still nothing in this.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 07/14/17 04:18 PM

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-intelligence-officer-trump-team-n782851

Watergate from beginning to end did not take a day... It takes time for investigations like these. Meanwhile its looking worse and worse for ya boi.

So where are we now guys?

1) We never met with any Russians
2) We never met with Russians but if we did it isn't illegal
3) Ok we met with Russians but it's technically not illegal! <-------
4) There's a good chance I may have commited some light treason.


At this point I don't even think it was malicious. I think they are that stupid.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/14/17 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom

At this point I don't even think it was malicious. I think they are that stupid.


This.

I don't even think it was the meeting part that was stupid, either. Honestly the DC-NYC corridor is a total swamp pit of people interconnected with various megacorps or govts worldwide, all seeking their own little place at Uncle Sam's table. The amount of association and intermingling that has been widely published about both sides recently just scratches the surface.

The stupid part, as is usually the case in politics, wasn't the crime but the denials and/or coverup.

When the issue first arose, Trump should just have said "I'm sure people did speak with the Russian ambassador, it's an ambassador's job to chat up people in DC, they go around to various functions and try and speak with everyone. Who would hire an unsocial ambassador? I'm also sure none of my people let out any information they shouldn't have."

Crisis averted.

Luckily for the Dems, Trump hired rare specimens like Jeff Sessions. Unsurprising that the same guy who suddenly thinks bringing back D.A.R.E. is a brilliant idea couldn't even keep his Russian story straight or supposedly recall much of what he's done for the past year.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/14/17 07:42 PM

Derid, what you described is pretty much what has taken place. Sessions, for example, has stated that his meeting were in conjunction with his duties as a Senator when he was meeting other foreign dignitaries as well.

But when you have a dishonest agenda to advance, it will be advanced dishonestly.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 07/21/17 02:58 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...breaking-news&utm_term=.a28e55f916af
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/21/17 02:50 PM

Since Mueller has disqualifying conflicts of interest and has overstepped his mandate, that is appropriate.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/21/17 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Since Mueller has disqualifying conflicts of interest and has overstepped his mandate, that is appropriate.


LOL

That's all that can really even be said about that.

Mueller: "We need to look at the money trail, like every other major investigation"

Trump: "Don't look at my money, that's outside the scope! Outside the scope! You're fired!"

People with a lick of sense: "Impeach! Impeach!"
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/21/17 04:36 PM

I know many people to whom this applies.

[img]http://oracle.the-kgb.com/ubbthreads.php/galleries/141056#Post141056[/img]
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/23/17 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Depends upon your definition of collusion. So far, I have seen nothing even remotely illegal.


So turns out, according to Owain, interfering with Mueller's investigation is not sufficent grounds for impeachment.

What about firing Mueller? Would that be sufficient? What about firing of Mueller's replacement? How many fired investigators would it take for you to concede obstruction of justice is happening?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/24/17 11:58 PM

It would depend why he was being fired. Exceeding his authority would be a good reason.

Why don't we wait for someone to fired before hurling ourselves out windows, m'kay?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/25/17 12:20 AM

My premise is that you will excuse Trump no matter what. The good way to demonstrate this is to get you to commit to self-defined red line only to see you rationalize it anyways. Tricky part is to predict events prior to them happening. I expect Mueller and his replacement to both be fired. Therefore I am asking you to comment on this a priori while you are still could be objective about hypotheticals and not yet defensive due to excessive emotional buy-in.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/25/17 03:58 AM

My premise is that I will continue to support the President until there is evidence to suggest that support is not justified. Democratic butthurt and liberal conspiracy theories are insufficient justification.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 07/25/17 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
My premise is that you will excuse Trump no matter what. The good way to demonstrate this is to get you to commit to self-defined red line only to see you rationalize it anyways. Tricky part is to predict events prior to them happening. I expect Mueller and his replacement to both be fired. Therefore I am asking you to comment on this a priori while you are still could be objective about hypotheticals and not yet defensive due to excessive emotional buy-in.



The only premise here is that Trump should be impeached even when there is no evidence supporting the idea. The tricky part is to predict wrong doing on hear-say and hopefulness. Therefore I am asking you to comment on this priority while you could be objective about hypothetical's and not yet defensive due to emotional buy-in.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Trump card - 07/25/17 08:36 PM

It's fine to support the President until such time as he proves himself unsupportable. To even state that means that you already have some idea of what would qualify as crossing the line. Unless you are just trying to be contrary then you should be able to state what that line is. By doing so you can both clearly explain your position to everyone else, while at the same time proving that you aren't moving the goal post. Otherwise, you make yourself out to be a blind supporter, in which case it makes no difference to me which side of the aisle you sit on, you are worse than useless.

Disclaimer: I have largely avoided this discussion because I am 1) not a Republican, 2) not a Democrat, and 3) not butthurt one way or another over this past election. In my opinion, there really wasn't a winning option.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/25/17 09:22 PM

I've stated that many times. Actual violation of the law, for which there is no evidence, would be required.

Democrats clutching their pearls is not enough.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/26/17 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
I've stated that many times. Actual violation of the law, for which [presently] there is no evidence, would be required.


Thank you. Can you further clarify this? What kind of law? Would violation of tax code count? Criminal law? Contract law? Misdemeanor? Jaywalking?

As to violation, is this on balance of probabilities, indictment, public opinion or do you require actual trial and conviction (which is beyond reasonable doubt for criminal wrongdoing)? Keep in mind, Nixon was indited but not convicted.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/26/17 01:59 PM

Duplicate post the Oracle won't let me delete.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/26/17 01:59 PM

Getting desperate, aren't you?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/26/17 02:04 PM

An IT aide for Debbie Wasserman Schultz was just arrested for wire fraud at Dulles. This is the same aide for whom DWS threatened the Chief of Capitol Police for investigating.

Why don't you concentrate on actual crimes among Democrats rather than imaginary crimes by Trump?
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 07/26/17 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
An IT aide for Debbie Wasserman Schultz was just arrested for wire fraud at Dulles. This is the same aide for whom DWS threatened the Chief of Capitol Police for investigating.

Why don't you concentrate on actual crimes among Democrats rather than imaginary crimes by Trump?


The difference being just because she has a D next to her name, doesn't mean I support her. She is a piece of shit and if she goes to jail, good.

What is your reason other than Trump having an R next to his name that keeps you supporting him? I don't even see anything positive hes done for this country. Is it that hes pushing for killing millions of Americans via republicare? is it because he got those "dirty" "trans-gendered's" out of the military? Please I want to know what goes on inside that mind of yours.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/26/17 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
An IT aide for Debbie Wasserman Schultz was just arrested for wire fraud at Dulles. This is the same aide for whom DWS threatened the Chief of Capitol Police for investigating.

Why don't you concentrate on actual crimes among Democrats rather than imaginary crimes by Trump?


If you follow their careers, DWS and Trump have quite a few similarities in habits and personality and very similar levels of personal integrity. They are birds of a feather TBH.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/26/17 05:15 PM

" Is it that hes pushing for killing millions of Americans via republicare?"

Were millions of people dying before Obamacare was passed? No? Curious...

The purpose of the Armed Forces is to kill people, break things, and win wars. Things that do not contribute to our combat capability have no place in the military.

As far as the benefits Trump has accomplished so far, they are legion, starting with the steady dismemberment of failed Democratic policies, dismantling the regulatory system of unnecessary and intrusive regulations, and judicial appointments of jurists who will interpret and enforce laws as written.

He has done a good job of making good on the promises for which he was elected. Goals that require cooperation with Congress, a co-equal branch of government, remain underway.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 07/26/17 05:52 PM

A lot of words for basically saying nothing.

Originally Posted by Owain
" Is it that hes pushing for killing millions of Americans via republicare?"

Were millions of people dying before Obamacare was passed? No? Curious...


Forcing millions to lose their plans with no proper replacement is going to lead to the death of many of your fellow Americans. How can you support this?


Originally Posted by Owain

The purpose of the Armed Forces is to kill people, break things, and win wars. Things that do not contribute to our combat capability have no place in the military.


So is it safe to assume your stance is that people who are transgender are incapable of contributing to our combat capability? Are they subhumans or something? I don't get your point here, please clarify.


Originally Posted by Owain

As far as the benefits Trump has accomplished so far, they are legion, starting with the steady dismemberment of failed Democratic policies, dismantling the regulatory system of unnecessary and intrusive regulations, and judicial appointments of jurists who will interpret and enforce laws as written.

He has done a good job of making good on the promises for which he was elected. Goals that require cooperation with Congress, a co-equal branch of government, remain underway.


Any example of anything hes done positive for the country? You basically aren't saying anything here.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Trump card - 07/26/17 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
He has done a good job of making good on the promises for which he was elected


Unfortunately, this is just one example of a promise made now completely disregarded.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/26/17 06:10 PM

What is an example?
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Trump card - 07/26/17 08:12 PM

Not sure if you didn't follow the link, or don't keep up with current affairs..
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/27/17 03:25 AM

Can we get back to our Quixotic search for Owain's red line on Trump?

Owain, please clarify to best of your ability what kind of breaking of the law and what degree of proof would be sufficient for you to stop supporting Trump.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 07/27/17 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Can we get back to our Quixotic search for Owain's red line on Trump?

Owain, please clarify to best of your ability what kind of breaking of the law and what degree of proof would be sufficient for you to stop supporting Trump.


I see Sini is still trying to start false narratives. The Troll is strong in this one.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/27/17 03:49 PM

Stupid hypotheticals are stupid.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/27/17 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Brutal
Not sure if you didn't follow the link, or don't keep up with current affairs..

This has nothing to do with his decision regarding service in the armed forces. With the recommendations of senior military advisors, the Commander in Chief has determined that admitting transsexuals to the military is detrimental to combat effectiveness. This is not a military problem. This is a societal problem. Society is conflicted on this topic, and the military is a reflection of society as a whole. When we as a society have corrected the problem, the decision can be revisited.

If there was credible evidence that recruiting left handed Norwegians named Lars would serve to improve combat effectiveness, we should do a lot of that, too. In the meantime, anything that detracts from combat effectiveness has no place in the military.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/27/17 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom
Forcing millions to lose their plans with no proper replacement is going to lead to the death of many of your fellow Americans. How can you support this?

Millions won't lose their insurance. They will freely choose for themselves whether they want to buy insurance or not. When the government stops FORCING them to buy insurance with the individual mandate, people will be able to choose not to buy insurance without worrying about the IRS coming after them.

"At the outset, it's because some consumers would choose not to buy insurance if they're not penalized for lacking it. "CBO and [the Joint Committee on Taxation] estimate that, in 2018, 14 million more people would be uninsured under the legislation than under current law. Most of that increase would stem from repealing the penalties associated with the individual mandate," the report reads. "Some of those people would choose not to have insurance because they chose to be covered by insurance under current law only to avoid paying the penalties, and some people would forgo insurance in response to higher premiums."

Supporting link


Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/27/17 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom
Originally Posted by Owain

The purpose of the Armed Forces is to kill people, break things, and win wars. Things that do not contribute to our combat capability have no place in the military.

So is it safe to assume your stance is that people who are transgender are incapable of contributing to our combat capability? Are they subhumans or something? I don't get your point here, please clarify.

It is not that they are incapable of contribution. Inclusion of the transgendered creates more problems than it solves, and in the opinion of senior military advisors, reduces combat effectiveness.

This is not a military problem, and it cannot be solved by the military. This is a problem with society as a whole. Until our society addresses the problem, if it presents a drag on combat effectiveness, the new policy should remain in place.

Originally Posted by Owain

As far as the benefits Trump has accomplished so far, they are legion, starting with the steady dismemberment of failed Democratic policies, dismantling the regulatory system of unnecessary and intrusive regulations, and judicial appointments of jurists who will interpret and enforce laws as written.

He has done a good job of making good on the promises for which he was elected. Goals that require cooperation with Congress, a co-equal branch of government, remain underway.


Originally Posted by Goriom
Any example of anything hes done positive for the country? You basically aren't saying anything here.


He is supported by the voters who elected him. This is why we have elections, to determine who formulates policy. In the opinions of the voters who elected him, his policies benefit the country. That is what elected officials are supposed to do, abide by the wishes of their constituents.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Trump card - 07/27/17 06:30 PM

Let's be real, he was elected for the following reasons:

He ran as a Republican
He ran against Hillary Clinton
...
He had some sort of platform

The first two are the only ones that really matter, but I included the distant 3rd one for the sake of arguing your statement. So let's go through this line by line.

Originally Posted by Owain
He is supported by the voters who elected him.


WAS. Or at least "...is supported by SOME..." Latest Gallup puts his job approval rating at 39%. Simple math would indicate that a large portion of those who voted for him are unhappy with his performance so far.

Originally Posted by Owain
This is why we have elections, to determine who formulates policy. In the opinions of the voters who elected him, his policies benefit the country.


The first sentence is true! If that 3rd reason I listed mattered to some of the voters, then the 2nd statement is also true, but only if you rephrase it to say, "...the policies he promised benefit the country." The distinction is important I think, since so far none of the major policies he promised have been successfully implemented.

Originally Posted by Owain
That is what elected officials are supposed to do, abide by the wishes of their constituents.


This is also true, and if you can name with a straight face a single politician who has done this in our lifetimes, then I will quietly exit this pointless conversation. Including this statement as part of your argument makes you sound foolish.

Lastly, the rumblings in the news today seem to indicate that the President's tweet about transgenders in the military was at best (as usual) ready-fire-aim, as none of his subordinates in the actual military or defense department have anything resembling marching orders regarding this policy. Is it too much to ask to keep policy decisions off twitter until they are finalized? Speaking of twitter, this guy's tweet history is packed full of gems. A few industrious people with an axe to grind mine and regularly post them here when he flatly contradicts himself. Amusing.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/27/17 08:26 PM

Yes, lets get real indeed. This didn't happen because Democratic policies were just so very popular.

If you want to know who looks foolish, it's Democrats who will not admit to their current electoral collapse.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...ats-gop-dominance-state-legislatures-all
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/27/17 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
If you want to know who looks foolish, it's Democrats who will not admit to their current electoral collapse.


I still think its funny that when Trump is criticized, you just lower the bar by pointing to bad Dems.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 07/27/17 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by Derid
Originally Posted by Owain
If you want to know who looks foolish, it's Democrats who will not admit to their current electoral collapse.


I still think its funny that when Trump is criticized, you just lower the bar by pointing to bad Dems.


And you keep turning the conversation away from the point he is making with Trump is bad statements.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by Helemoto
Originally Posted by Derid
Originally Posted by Owain
If you want to know who looks foolish, it's Democrats who will not admit to their current electoral collapse.


I still think its funny that when Trump is criticized, you just lower the bar by pointing to bad Dems.


And you keep turning the conversation away from the point he is making with Trump is bad statements.


Wait, what?

Considering I'm responding directly to his statements, your assertion seems extremely odd, to be quite generous. His point is that the "other party" is also shit, which is frankly true. I just find it extremely sad that many people seem content with being slightly less shit than the "other"

I'm kinda surprised you're on the Trumpwagon though.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by Derid
Originally Posted by Owain
If you want to know who looks foolish, it's Democrats who will not admit to their current electoral collapse.


I still think its funny that when Trump is criticized, you just lower the bar by pointing to bad Dems.

And I think it's hilarious that Democrats have lost over 1000 seats nationwide, and are in the worst shape than any political party in the history of the Republic.

That didn't happen because Hillary was a horrible candidate, although that is true. It happened because voters have rejected the Democratic party and their failed policies.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Derid
Originally Posted by Owain
If you want to know who looks foolish, it's Democrats who will not admit to their current electoral collapse.


I still think its funny that when Trump is criticized, you just lower the bar by pointing to bad Dems.

And I think it's hilarious that Democrats have lost over 1000 seats nationwide, and are in the worst shape than any political party in the history of the Republic.

That didn't happen because Hillary was a horrible candidate, although that is true. It happened because voters have rejected the Democratic party and their failed policies.


And after this debacle, they are going to reject the GOP again, just like after W Bush, but probably on an even larger scale. So what?

Further emphasizing my point that both major parties are utter dogshit, because neither wants to actually police themselves or be held accountable when they are the ones holding the whip.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 02:20 AM

Based on election trends over the last eight years, that seems unlikely. Current riots, violence, and other Democratic tantrums are unlikely to impress voters, either. You need effective policies, not just hate.

And you need effective candidates. With the collapse of the Democratic farm team, all you have is septegenarians like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

Democrats have no bench, and few positions for candidates to gain the necessary experience. That is what happens when you are rejected by voters and have nothing of worth to offer.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 04:38 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
Based on election trends over the last eight years, that seems unlikely. Current riots, violence, and other Democratic tantrums are unlikely to impress voters, either. You need effective policies, not just hate.

And you need effective candidates. With the collapse of the Democratic farm team, all you have is septegenarians like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

Democrats have no bench, and few positions for candidates to gain the necessary experience. That is what happens when you are rejected by voters and have nothing of worth to offer.


Last eight years.. what an incredibly arbitrary timeframe to examine. Its kinda interesting though, because if you examine the prior eight-year time period, a similar trend can be seen. Further back, and yet again, a similar trend.

Somehow Trump is managing to tank harder, faster, than his two immediate predecessors. Considering he can't even keep his own tweets straight, let alone coordinate them with his actual team, it's pretty hard to imagine that trend reversing.

If you examine things in proper context, its pretty easy to see that few people are happy with either party. If you examine Trump in historical context, anyone concerned with well-being of GOP should be extremely concerned. The rate at which he is tanking, why, and the demographics he is tanking with should be cause for panic. Whatever numbnuts the Dems manage to cough up to replace Trump (in the unlikely event Trump makes it through the first four years without resigning in the face of impeachment) might not even screw things up badly enough to wash the taste out of voters' mouths.

Beating Trump will be like beating Hillary, you just have to show up.

Hardcore GOPers should be praying that Paul Ryan finds his nutsuck and gives us President Pence, and the sooner the better.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Derid
Originally Posted by Helemoto
Originally Posted by Derid
Originally Posted by Owain
If you want to know who looks foolish, it's Democrats who will not admit to their current electoral collapse.


I still think its funny that when Trump is criticized, you just lower the bar by pointing to bad Dems.


And you keep turning the conversation away from the point he is making with Trump is bad statements.


Wait, what?

Considering I'm responding directly to his statements, your assertion seems extremely odd, to be quite generous. His point is that the "other party" is also shit, which is frankly true. I just find it extremely sad that many people seem content with being slightly less shit than the "other"

I'm kinda surprised you're on the Trumpwagon though.



I was on the Gary Johnson wagon.
I am just pointing out he never said they were "shit". He said they had failed policy's that were losing them elections and Trump was the one they drew to, at least that is my interpretation.
Now that Trumps tweet storms and unfiltered comments are what gives him low approval ratings is a different story. I once dated a girl who seemed perfect in the beginning but turned out she
is batshit crazy didn't mean I had to stick with her, I just had to keep her till a less crazy one came along.
Posted By: Kaotic

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 12:00 PM

Not to distract from the current convo, but I found this interesting.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Derid
Originally Posted by Owain
Based on election trends over the last eight years, that seems unlikely. Current riots, violence, and other Democratic tantrums are unlikely to impress voters, either. You need effective policies, not just hate.

And you need effective candidates. With the collapse of the Democratic farm team, all you have is septegenarians like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

Democrats have no bench, and few positions for candidates to gain the necessary experience. That is what happens when you are rejected by voters and have nothing of worth to offer.


Last eight years.. what an incredibly arbitrary timeframe to examine.

Actually, it's a very pertinent time frame. Eight years ago, Democrats controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House. It is the 8 year period after Obama was elected that Democrats lost the White House, lost the Senate, lost the House, lost most governors offices, and lost over 1000 seats in state legislatures when voters abandoned the Democratic party.

Obama very nearly destroyed the Democratic party single handed.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 03:28 PM

Have we forgotten that the Majority of Americans did not vote for this administration? In fact Trump lost the popular vote lol?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Derid
Originally Posted by Owain
Based on election trends over the last eight years, that seems unlikely. Current riots, violence, and other Democratic tantrums are unlikely to impress voters, either. You need effective policies, not just hate.

And you need effective candidates. With the collapse of the Democratic farm team, all you have is septegenarians like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

Democrats have no bench, and few positions for candidates to gain the necessary experience. That is what happens when you are rejected by voters and have nothing of worth to offer.


Last eight years.. what an incredibly arbitrary timeframe to examine.

Actually, it's a very pertinent time frame. Eight years ago, Democrats controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House. It is the 8 year period after Obama was elected that Democrats lost the White House, lost the Senate, lost the House, lost most governors offices, and lost over 1000 seats in state legislatures when voters abandoned the Democratic party.

Obama very nearly destroyed the Democratic party single handed.


And by those metrics, W Bush almost destroyed the GOP singled handed. The problem with your assertions here isn't that they are wrong, but that they don't go far enough. When analyzing a problem, if you just look at data that gives you the picture you want to see, you are almost always going to end up making inaccurate conclusions and poor judgements.

Surely with all the talk about repealing Obamacare, you recall how it got passed in the first place: The Bush era GOP lost enough seats that the Dems didn't need (or use) a single GOP vote.

You should go back in time even further to an even more applicable example: how Carter got elected in the wake on Nixon's impeachment. Ergo, even installing Pence might not be enough to save the party from disaster, just like Ford wasn't enough.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Helemoto


I was on the Gary Johnson wagon.
I am just pointing out he never said they were "shit". He said they had failed policy's that were losing them elections and Trump was the one they drew to, at least that is my interpretation.
Now that Trumps tweet storms and unfiltered comments are what gives him low approval ratings is a different story. I once dated a girl who seemed perfect in the beginning but turned out she
is batshit crazy didn't mean I had to stick with her, I just had to keep her till a less crazy one came along.


I was paraphrasing, and in the case of Democrats and his examples with DWS et al, I doubt he would disagree with my summary of calling them shit. I am calling the current GOP shit, and unless I mistyped something it should be clear that I am the one calling them such. If it wasn't clear, then oops.

Point being that just because you can show how bad the Dems are all day and night, that still isn't an argument in favor of anyone else. It just means that both parties are garbage.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 03:52 PM

Well, while you look forward to what might happen, I'll enjoy what has happened.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Well, while you look forward to what might happen, I'll enjoy what has happened.


Speaking of former presidents..... your statement here reminds me a lot of something.

[Linked Image]
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 04:40 PM

And it was, for that carrier. The crew put that up to signify the end if their cruise. Bush had nothing to do with it.

Got anything equally lame?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 05:00 PM

That is probably the most creative answer I have seen in a while, major props.

Unless you somehow actually forgot about the infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 05:22 PM

Well, I hope posting pictures of George W Bush provides adequate compensation for the current failure of the Democratic party across the nation.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 05:25 PM

In the meantime, we get to follow actual crimes within the Democratic party.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/28/w...since-awan-arrest/?utm_source=site-share
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Well, I hope posting pictures of George W Bush provides adequate compensation for the current failure of the Democratic party across the nation.



Sense make please more thanks.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Derid
Originally Posted by Owain
Well, I hope posting pictures of George W Bush provides adequate compensation for the current failure of the Democratic party across the nation.



Sense make please more thanks.

Does this help?

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306736-dems-hit-new-low-in-state-legislatures
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Derid
Originally Posted by Owain
Well, I hope posting pictures of George W Bush provides adequate compensation for the current failure of the Democratic party across the nation.



Sense make please more thanks.

Does this help?

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306736-dems-hit-new-low-in-state-legislatures


The part that doesn't make a lick of sense isn't the part about the electoral shortcomings, but rather the rest of it.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/28/17 06:15 PM

Ok, why do YOU think that voters have rejected the Democratic party?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Derid
Originally Posted by Owain
If you want to know who looks foolish, it's Democrats who will not admit to their current electoral collapse.


I still think its funny that when Trump is criticized, you just lower the bar by pointing to bad Dems.


Careful there, you are going to get RINOed for this.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Derid
I'm kinda surprised you're on the Trumpwagon though.


I am surprised that you are surprised. I think well-established record and past conduct should have equipped you to predict this turn of events.

Perhaps you can now see significant drawback of your past "my team" approach.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Derid
Whatever numbnuts the Dems manage to cough up to replace Trump (in the unlikely event Trump makes it through the first four years without resigning in the face of impeachment) might not even screw things up badly enough to wash the taste out of voters' mouths.


About the only democrat capable of losing to Trump in the next election is Hillary, and unfortunately she is not off the table.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Stupid hypotheticals are stupid.


So I think after 3 dodges in a row, it can be safely part of the record that Owain is unconditional Trump supporter.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Derid
I'm kinda surprised you're on the Trumpwagon though.


I am surprised that you are surprised. I think well-established record and past conduct should have equipped you to predict this turn of events.

Perhaps you can now see significant drawback of your past "my people" approach.



I see Sini is finally back out of his box with well made progressive blinders on.

I assume you still make policy's for the left like; sucker punch people you don't like and if you say it enough people will start to believe you and truth and facts don't matter just catchy slogans
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 06:00 PM

Hele, when people in black helicopters show up to take away your guns, it will be easy to trace such outcome to your support of Trump. Causationally.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Ok, why do YOU think that voters have rejected the Democratic party?


Derid has made it pretty clear, and I agree with him 100%, that the Democrat party is shit. It's shit now, it was shit 8 years ago, and it was shit 40 years before that. The issue is not the Democrat party, because as you are keen to point out, they are currently not relevant. The issue is the Republican party and the President. He was elected on a promise to "drain the swamp" and "make America great again" but all we've seen since his election is a spike in cronyism, infighting (within his own party and cabinet mind, not between himself and dems), and a steady stream of embarrassing tweets, speeches, etc.

Voters rejected the Democrat candidate because she is a criminal, and the part is a shit show. They ran to the only viable alternative they were given. My argument is that the alternative isn't really any better (and that's saying something), and that the conversation needs to be about how to get rid of ALL OF THEM. What has to happen for the voting public to realize what's happening and what's at stake? I've been ashamed of the government many times before, but for the first time in my 37 years I'm actually ashamed of my country.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 07:17 PM

Trump is draining the swamp in things he can do unilaterally, such as the elimination of much of regulatory state, elimination of Obama's abusive executive orders, and enforcing laws as written.

Things that require action by Congress, a coequal branch of government, he cannot do unilaterally, nor should anyone want him to be able to do so.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 07:21 PM


Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain
Stupid hypotheticals are stupid.


So I think after 3 dodges in a row, it can be safely part of the record that Owain is unconditional Trump supporter.

OK, now you are just lying.

If you want to swap hypotheticals, what is your stand on the subject of Elizabeth Warren and canibalism? If you would disapprove of that, what crime against humanity would you be willing to accept?

Do you see why I think that hypotheticals are stupid?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 07:42 PM

Hillary remains in felony violation of several federal laws. Do you think she should be prosecuted, or are an unconditional Hillary supporter?

Members of the Obama administration are in felony violation of FISA laws covering unmasking of U.S. citizens. Do you think they should be prosecuted, or are you an unconditional Obama supporter.

These are not hypothetical situations, but actual felony violations of federal law.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 08:08 PM

Who are you asking this of? I'm not an unconditional support of anyone, much less Hillary, Obama, Trump, or any other politician or their appointees. And yes, I think that any of them that violate(d) the law should be prosecuted. Any of them
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by Owain

what is your stand on the subject of Elizabeth Warren and canibalism?


If Warren is believed to be engaged in cannibalism, based on the balance of probabilities, I would not support her holding any elected office.

Your turn.

If Trump is believed to be engaged in collusion with Russia, based on the balance of probabilities, would you still support him?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Hillary remains in felony violation of several federal laws. Do you think she should be prosecuted, or are an unconditional Hillary supporter?


I think she should be prosecuted for any felonies she committed. There is likely a lot of skeletons in a lot of Saudi closets. However, in case of email server scandal, the chance of conviction from impartial trial is extremely low - the intent to harm is simply not there. As such, incompetence in this case will likely be unbeatable defense.

Email scandal is evidence of incompetence, unfitness to be POTUS, but not of any kind criminal behavior.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 09:15 PM

Collusion is not a crime, so no.

Hillary colluded with the Russians with her Reset Button. Obama colluded with the Russians when he promised greater 'flexibility' after the election.

Why didn't you object to either of those?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Collusion is not a crime, so no.

Hillary colluded with the Russians with her Reset Button. Obama colluded with the Russians when he promised greater 'flexibility' after the election.

Why didn't you object to either of those?


I don't think we have same definition of collusion.

I have no problem with Trump trying to reset diplomatic relationship with Russia. I actually think it is good idea, considering that cooperation with Russia could be beneficial in Middle East.

I would have a problem with Trump receiving assistance, in form of intel and leaks, from Russian spies during elections. I also believe doing so is criminal, not simply amoral.

Now, if Trump, already POTUS, received intel from Russian spies. That would be diplomacy.

The difference is that in one case Trump personally benefited, and in another case he is acting on behalf of US government.

Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 09:29 PM

Cite for me the federal criminal statute that makes collusion, if any, a crime?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 09:32 PM

Was candidate Obama colluding here?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jul/18/barackobama.uselections2008
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Cite for me the federal criminal statute that makes collusion, if any, a crime?

The Federal Election Campaign Act

It isn't that Trump talked with Russians that is the issue here. It is that he is quite possibly received help from Russians to get elected.

Talking = OK, Talking and lying about talking - Maybe OK, Getting help = not OK, knowingly getting help = felony.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by Owain


Did he receive something from foreign representatives?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain


Did he receive something from foreign representatives?

He might have, but since I have no proof, I won't make stupid accusations.

With respect to the federal elections act, what clause did you have in mind?

If you need a hint, start at 52 USC 10101.

I don't see anything that applies. I assume you know what you are talking about.

Do you?
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Hele, when people in black helicopters show up to take away your guns, it will be easy to trace such outcome to your support of Trump. Causation-ally.



This is why I don't take what you say seriously.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 11:12 PM

Reminds me of one of my favorite series.

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."
-- Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain
Collusion is not a crime, so no.

Hillary colluded with the Russians with her Reset Button. Obama colluded with the Russians when he promised greater 'flexibility' after the election.

Why didn't you object to either of those?


I don't think we have same definition of collusion.

I have no problem with Trump trying to reset diplomatic relationship with Russia. I actually think it is good idea, considering that cooperation with Russia could be beneficial in Middle East.

I would have a problem with Trump receiving assistance, in form of intel and leaks, from Russian spies during elections. I also believe doing so is criminal, not simply amoral.

Now, if Trump, already POTUS, received intel from Russian spies. That would be diplomacy.

The difference is that in one case Trump personally benefited, and in another case he is acting on behalf of US government.



If he received the "assistance" without knowing or asking for it or physically receiving it, is that the same thing you consider collusion?
We are talking about hack emails here. Which most would say is illegal. But when it gets put up on wikileaks do we blame the person who gets the most benefit?
There have been many "October surprises" in many elections. Are these collusions?

The issue here is not if it were Russians, they have been meddling with US elections since Kennedy. The issue is if they received and knew before hand.
There is no evidence that this happened and only the sad faced people are getting worked up what I am guessing to be just one of the witch hunts the real politicians are going to have to try and get rid of a outsider.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/29/17 11:39 PM

Are we talking about hack emails? I didn't think that was the case. The meeting with Trump Jr took place before the DNC hack, unless you have a different hack in mind.

But again, collusion is not illegal. Conspiracy is, but for there to be a criminal conspiracy, there has to be a violation of criminal law SOMEWHERE.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/30/17 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by Helemoto
If he received the "assistance" without knowing or asking for it


It would not, and I don't count him running his mouth on twitter as asking.

If decision was made for him, clearly he shouldn't be held personally criminally responsible. Morally responsible? Perhaps. But that line was crossed on so many issues that it seems pointless to even bring it up.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 07/30/17 01:57 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Helemoto
If he received the "assistance" without knowing or asking for it


It would not, and I don't count him running his mouth on twitter as asking.

If decision was made for him, clearly he shouldn't be held personally criminally responsible. Morally responsible? Perhaps. But that line was crossed on so many issues that it seems pointless to even bring it up.



I know you have a list. So what lines were crossed????
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/30/17 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
Trump is draining the swamp in things he can do unilaterally, such as the elimination of much of regulatory state, elimination of Obama's abusive executive orders, and enforcing laws as written.

Things that require action by Congress, a coequal branch of government, he cannot do unilaterally, nor should anyone want him to be able to do so.


By draining the Swamp, you mean draining it right into the White House, right?

How many people from Goldman Sachs are in his admin? I think its at least seven in the upper echelons. Not to mention handing them Treasury.

In fact, a great many appointees, like Adjit Pai, are known to be crooked as fuck. Trump is not draining anything, he is simply heading up a new round of looting.

Yes, he is a looter. Just like when he was using govt to obtain private property by force via abuse of broken eminent domain laws and corrupt officials during his private career, he is now installing and enabling a cronyist, looter govt in his public career.

There is a pretty huge difference between the messaging, and the reality when it comes to the Trump administration. Not that his is alone in this, there was plenty of graft and glad-handed gifts of Federal largesse in the previous administrations as well. But that is one of the things I think most people would like to have seen change, not worsen.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/30/17 03:01 PM

So you say, as a reaction to your electoral butthurt, but without evidence, I remain unconvinced.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 07/30/17 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Helemoto
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain
Collusion is not a crime, so no.

Hillary colluded with the Russians with her Reset Button. Obama colluded with the Russians when he promised greater 'flexibility' after the election.

Why didn't you object to either of those?


I don't think we have same definition of collusion.

I have no problem with Trump trying to reset diplomatic relationship with Russia. I actually think it is good idea, considering that cooperation with Russia could be beneficial in Middle East.

I would have a problem with Trump receiving assistance, in form of intel and leaks, from Russian spies during elections. I also believe doing so is criminal, not simply amoral.

Now, if Trump, already POTUS, received intel from Russian spies. That would be diplomacy.

The difference is that in one case Trump personally benefited, and in another case he is acting on behalf of US government.



If he received the "assistance" without knowing or asking for it or physically receiving it, is that the same thing you consider collusion?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 07/30/17 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Collusion is not a crime, so no.

Hillary colluded with the Russians with her Reset Button. Obama colluded with the Russians when he promised greater 'flexibility' after the election.

Why didn't you object to either of those?


I love this. This is a perfect example of how the conversation keeps changing and the goal posts keep moving. Remember when it was, TRUMP NEVER COLLUDED?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/30/17 03:46 PM

People not me.

Actions that are not criminal in nature require no attention, certainly not the appointment of a special prosecutor.

Now Hillary actually violated federal law in her criminal conspiracy with the Ukrainians. That is an act that deserves prosecution.

And the Obama administration was in felony violation of FISA laws in their illegal unmasking of individuals in the Russian Diversion designed to shift attention away from Hillary's humiliating defeat. Those violations also deserve prosecution.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 07/30/17 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
So you say, as a reaction to your electoral butthurt, but without evidence, I remain unconvinced.




You realize that this is the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and shouting 'neener neener' right?

Theres more evidence than anyone would care for, let alone verifying most things takes an entire five seconds to type into Google. Most of it isn't even particularly hidden.

I mean, fuck, do I need to go back and dig up Trumps statements about Goldman Sachs and Hillary from the election before he appointed them to run his govt? Surely your memory is good enough that I don't need to spoonfeed you like that.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/30/17 04:38 PM

There's evidence? More than anyone would care for?

Sweet. Provide some.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/31/17 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by Derid
I mean, fuck, do I need to go back and dig up


While Owain is impervious to reason, his mental gymnastics approach the level of performance art. So please do.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 07/31/17 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by Goriom
I love this.


I know, right? We will be soon listening to "Knowingly receiving information from foreign agents is not a crime as long as he didn't act on it" contortions.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 07/31/17 01:35 AM

See, this is why I don't just take people's word for things, even in so august an organization as the KGB. If the evidence was so prevalent, why is it such a big deal to present some?

First, I don't know what evidence you might have in mind. I am not clairvoyant. If you think you have compelling evidence, it is not unreasonable to ask that you present what you have.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 08/01/17 03:12 PM

Holy shit

http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-told-fox-news-to-publish-seth-rich-murder-hoax-lawsuit-claims

Private investigator Rod Wheeler sued the cable-TV network in federal court on Tuesday, alleging it falsely quoted him in an article saying slain DNC staffer Seth Rich had contact with Julian Assange’s rogue publishing operation. Wheeler accuses Fox News regular and pro-Trump money manager Ed Butowsky of coordinating between the channel and the White House in an effort to frame Rich for the leaks and imply Democrats had a hand in his death.

Wheeler’s lawsuit includes screenshots of text messages with Butowsky, including an exchange two days before the article was published in which Butowsky wrote: “president [Trump] just read the article. He wants the article out immediately. It’s now all up to you. But don’t feel the pressure.”
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 08/01/17 03:16 PM

The news keeps on coming.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...n-trying-to-cover-up-the-russia-scandal/

So, to put this together: The president of the United States personally wrote a statement about this meeting with the Russians, a statement that everyone involved knew to be false. Going further, he then either lied to his own lawyer about his involvement so that the lawyer would repeat that lie publicly (highly likely) or was candid with his lawyer and persuaded him to lie to the media on his behalf (much less likely).
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 08/01/17 04:19 PM

Still looking for evidence -- EVIDENCE -- of violations of any law. Articles from a media opposed to the President are not evidence.

If President Trump is so tight with the Russians, why are they expelling 750 U.S. diplomats, and why is Putin making threats in response to U.S. sanctions?

Ignore what people say. Observe what people do.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 08/01/17 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Still looking for evidence -- EVIDENCE -- of violations of any law. Articles from a media opposed to the President are not evidence.

If President Trump is so tight with the Russians, why are they expelling 750 U.S. diplomats, and why is Putin making threats in response to U.S. sanctions?

Ignore what people say. Observe what people do.


I never said I have tangible evidence. I am not doing the investigating, that shit wont come out for years. All I know is what you said, LOOK AT ACTIONS. Does the Actions Trump takes look like an innocent man? I mean, the dude was in bed with the mob. He will do anything to make money. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-mob-organized-crime-213910

Also, have you never heard of Political theater before lol?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 08/01/17 04:56 PM

Actions that violate no laws are permissible in a free country.

Why would you want it any other way?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 08/01/17 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
See, this is why I don't just take people's word for things, even in so august an organization as the KGB. If the evidence was so prevalent, why is it such a big deal to present some?

First, I don't know what evidence you might have in mind. I am not clairvoyant. If you think you have compelling evidence, it is not unreasonable to ask that you present what you have.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...omic-initiatives/?utm_term=.cf5b2366daeb

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/15/inv...ump-treasury-deputy-secretary/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/25/investing/trump-adviser-gary-cohn-goldman-sachs-payout/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/23/investing/jay-clayton-sec-confirmation-hearing/index.html (btw Jay Clayton was Goldman Sach's bailout lawyer. Now he's looking to head the SEC. Heh.)

I could keep going, I didn't even link Mnuchin specifically or Bannon - I'm pretty damn sure you know their background without me having to spell it out.


The New Yorker gives a pretty good account of the whole situation, which I just found while randomly googling for links.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/from-drain-the-swamp-to-government-sachs

Considering Goldman Sachs and their cronies are literally robbing every single one of us, and pulling off the biggest looting spree in literally the history of the world, I don't think more needs really be said. I suppose I could dig up one of Trumps many attacks against Goldman Sachs vis a vis Ted Cruz or Hillary Clinton, but why bother. If you actually deny they exist then I will.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 08/02/17 01:58 AM

I see nothing illegal. I see news organizations opposed to the President.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 08/02/17 02:01 AM

My suggestion to you?

Next election, vote for someone else.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 08/02/17 03:02 PM


Owain gets the cognitive dissonance award for 2017

Calling it now.

The money section of CNN is pretty bland TBH, and even the WaPo article I linked says not a single solitary negative word about the appointee, though it does factually point out that Trump ran a negative campaign against Goldman Sachs and the ties Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton had with it. Or, are you denying that happened?

So which Trump was right? The one who pointed out that Goldman Sachs was robbing everyone? Or the Trump that has turned over his administration to them? Or do you even think about it, and just follow whatever emanates from underneath the orange toupee on that particular day?

I also find it interesting how you keep falling back on legal/illegal, as if you would even know - or more importantly, as if it matters. Morality and legality are very different concepts, and in the current USA, increasingly divergent concepts.

In any case, I have to admit that I find your unquestioning support of the Goldman Sachs administration pure comedy, after they spent so much effort bribing the shit out of Hillary all those years. Pretty sure top execs like Cohn had a hand in that.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 08/02/17 03:09 PM

I still think your best option is to vote for someone else. It worked very well for me, since I didn't want a continuation of failed Democratic policies.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/mar/17/obamas-lobbyist-rules-promise-broken/
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 08/02/17 03:15 PM

What I also find disturbing is Trumps total disrespect of some of are veterans and armed forces.

I'm paraphrasing here but...

"Military suicides happen to service members who 'can't handle it, strong veterans don't deal with PTSD."

"Trans are too costly and don't contribute to our military"

"He was not a war hero" (on McCain)

All that shit with Khizr Khan?

I guess my question would be... why do you support a President who hates our Armed forces and disrespects our veterans?

Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 08/02/17 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
I still think your best option is to vote for someone else. It worked very well for me, since I didn't want a continuation of failed Democratic policies.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/mar/17/obamas-lobbyist-rules-promise-broken/


Tea, China, price.

The question here is wtf those, or anything you have said have to do with anything.

Go Google the term "non sequitur"
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 08/02/17 08:10 PM

People are losing their shit over this, but Obama did the same, and I don't see a 58 page thread moaning about how bad Obama was.

When people start being serious about Democrats doing the exact same things, maybe I'll start taking them seriously.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/03/17 03:23 AM

As many already pointed out, Trump run on the campaign to explicitly act differently than Obama. When you bring up "but Obama did the same", while I disagree your comparison is valid, you at the very least must concede that Trump is breaking his campaign promises. Do you agree to that much?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/03/17 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by Derid

Owain gets the cognitive dissonance award for 2017


I think he is just trolling, and it is some of the best work on this forum. Probably better than my Ron & UN assistance thread.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 08/03/17 02:01 PM

When you realize you can't get Mexico to pay for the wall.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...xico-transcripts/?utm_term=.e75c9312965d
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 08/03/17 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
As many already pointed out, Trump run on the campaign to explicitly act differently than Obama. When you bring up "but Obama did the same", while I disagree your comparison is valid, you at the very least must concede that Trump is breaking his campaign promises. Do you agree to that much?

I guess Trump is more of a politician than people give him credit.

But what is your complaint about him, then, if he does the same things as do other politicians? You hold no one else to the same standard you hold Trump. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

When people start complaining about Obama (and others) for doing the exact same things as Trump, maybe I'll start taking them seriously.

If you look at the major policy shifts that have taken place since Trump was inaugurated, where it counts, he has performed entirely different, and I would say better than Obama.

Performance and policy are what matters.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/07/17 01:43 AM

Trump proposes merit-based immigration instead of lottery. Good idea.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 08/07/17 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Owain


When people start complaining about Obama (and others) for doing the exact same things as Trump, maybe I'll start taking them seriously.




Someone apparently missed several years worth of posts on this forum despite replying in the same threads, and is now claiming they don't exist.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 08/07/17 07:43 PM

Why then are there not several years of posts in a thread dedicated to Obama during his eight year administration? You were saving them up for this thread?

How prescient.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 08/08/17 06:02 PM

Sense make more plz k thnx.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 08/09/17 04:48 PM

https://tinyurl.com/ya59xtzo
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/10/17 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by Derid
Sense make more plz k thnx.

You see, this is why the concept of marketplace of ideas wasn't thought all the way through. It didn't account for blatant BS peddling.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 08/10/17 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by Derid
Sense make more plz k thnx.

English is not your first language? Perhaps you should study harder.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 08/10/17 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Derid
Sense make more plz k thnx.

English is not your first language? Perhaps you should study harder.




Seriously though, you were making zero sense.

Insulting people over English when you aren't putting together cogent thoughts is not a good look.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/10/17 02:28 AM

My Duty As An American

Quote
Before attacking the president by pointing out the many flaws in his reasoning, why don’t you try agreeing with everything he says? The only people complaining about Trump are biased against Trump according to Trump, so you can’t trust anyone that questions the president, even when that person is you. This is America. If you’re not prepared to sell your values down the river to spew President Trump’s talking points word for word, well, you can find a different country to live in.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 08/10/17 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Derid
Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Derid
Sense make more plz k thnx.

English is not your first language? Perhaps you should study harder.




Seriously though, you were making zero sense.

Insulting people over English when you aren't putting together cogent thoughts is not a good look.

I think I was making perfect sense, which is why you responded with a non argument.

Obama was in office eight years, but I don't recall any 60 page threads in that time, but when I point out now that Obama did EXACTLY what Trump is being accused of, "Well he was wrong too, and I'm sure we complained about him, too".

Not 60 pages worth.

How am I insulting your english when you chose to speak...poorly.

If you don't want people mistake you for being ignorant, don't write as if you were ignorant.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 08/10/17 03:41 PM

What is this argument? Boo hoo people didn't shit talk Obama as much as Trump. Is this some sort of deflection because its a rather lame attempt.

The reason this thread is over 60 pgs long is because you keep coming back here defending President Scam artist. So my question is, why didn't you try harder in the Obama threads and keep them alive? Maybe because people were agreeing with your views lol?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 08/10/17 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Derid
Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Derid
Sense make more plz k thnx.

English is not your first language? Perhaps you should study harder.




Seriously though, you were making zero sense.

Insulting people over English when you aren't putting together cogent thoughts is not a good look.

I think I was making perfect sense, which is why you responded with a non argument.

Obama was in office eight years, but I don't recall any 60 page threads in that time, but when I point out now that Obama did EXACTLY what Trump is being accused of, "Well he was wrong too, and I'm sure we complained about him, too".

Not 60 pages worth.

How am I insulting your english when you chose to speak...poorly.

If you don't want people mistake you for being ignorant, don't write as if you were ignorant.



The key problem here is your memory, which I already said earlier. What you recall or do not recall has already been shown on multiple occasions to have no credibility.

Whether any one single thread other than the comic thread, which lives to this day and was started and maintained mostly on the Obama tangent for many years, made it to 60 pages - I'm not sure. It's a worthless metric anyhow, because the number of replies is dependent on the level of back-and-forth, not the veracity of the criticism contained within.

I'm not sure what possessed you to try and imply I did not take issue with Obama and a great many of his actions. A quick check of this very forum would, however, quickly dispel such an absurd assertion - even if you somehow don't remember. Another check of the public forum, which we used before this one was created, would further enlighten - even though some of the public forum threads ended up being purged IIRC. Like the ones where Vuldan went apeshit, pretty sure those threads were removed.

I have to admit, I am pretty disappointed. You don't even make any attempt to defend your positions, and instead fall back to ad hominem attacks based on absurd and provably false premises.

If your goal was to distract people from remarking on Trump's ability to say absurd and provably false things by demonstrating your own ability to do so, well, then, I guess you succeeded? Mission Accomplished?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/10/17 10:49 PM

The longer you argue this tangent, the longer you are not holding Owain accountable for unconditional support of Trump.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 08/10/17 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
The longer you argue this tangent, the longer you are not holding Owain accountable for unconditional support of Trump.




Lets be honest. If we took out 75% of Sini pointless post the amount of resources that these forums would save could save the world.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 08/11/17 01:08 AM

Is supporting the President
Originally Posted by Sini
The longer you argue this tangent, the longer you are not holding Owain accountable for unconditional support of Trump.

Is supporting the President now a crime? Are we trying to villify people for thought crime?

I don't need your fucking permission.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 08/12/17 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
Is supporting the President
Originally Posted by Sini
The longer you argue this tangent, the longer you are not holding Owain accountable for unconditional support of Trump.

Is supporting the President now a crime? Are we trying to villify people for thought crime?

I don't need your fucking permission.



Only if he doesn't approve of what you say. New Progressives work on innuendo and full blown hate speech,as in if you say what i want you to say then we hate you, then mix in violence and boom you have the new left. There is no more middle ground for a socialistic group.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/12/17 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
Is supporting the President
Originally Posted by Sini
The longer you argue this tangent, the longer you are not holding Owain accountable for unconditional support of Trump.

Is supporting the President now a crime? Are we trying to villify people for thought crime?

I don't need your fucking permission.


You really gave that strawman good thrashing.

So Owain, what kind of criminal action by Trump would have you stop supporting him. Murder? Treason? Tax fraud? Perjury? Clear violation of election laws?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/12/17 02:04 AM

Originally Posted by Helemoto
Originally Posted by Sini
The longer you argue this tangent, the longer you are not holding Owain accountable for unconditional support of Trump.


Lets be honest. If we took out 75% of Sini pointless post the amount of resources that these forums would save could save the world.


Hele, you do know that personal attacks don't work on me. I am very comfortable in the gutter. We have been there together on many dates and I always enjoyed myself.

I have to wonder, after all these years together, when did this approach ever worked out for you? Help me understand, how did you arrive to "this time will be different" conclusion?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/12/17 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by Helemoto
Only if he doesn't approve of what you say. New Progressives work on innuendo and full blown hate speech,as in if you say what i want you to say then we hate you, then mix in violence and boom you have the new left. There is no more middle ground for a socialistic group.


While some of what you say about regressive left is accurate, what does any of this has to do with unconditionally supporting Trump? Could you consider that there might be in-between positions between regressive left and unconditional Trump support? That is, for example, according to your proposed standard questioning Trump's integrity automatically puts you in the same category as SJW?
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 08/12/17 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Helemoto
Only if he doesn't approve of what you say. New Progressives work on innuendo and full blown hate speech,as in if you say what i want you to say then we hate you, then mix in violence and boom you have the new left. There is no more middle ground for a socialistic group.


While some of what you say about regressive left is accurate, what does any of this has to do with unconditionally supporting Trump? Could you consider that there might be in-between positions between regressive left and unconditional Trump support? That is, for example, according to your proposed standard questioning Trump's integrity automatically puts you in the same category as SJW?


Every point you try to make and how you say it puts you into the SJW group. Putting words into the mouths of people you don't agree with. Unconditional Trump support???? No one said they unconditionally support anyone. That was your invention. Like a true SJW.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/12/17 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by Helemoto
Originally Posted by Sini
That is, for example, according to your proposed standard questioning Trump's integrity automatically puts you in the same category as SJW?

Every point you try to make and how you say it puts you into the SJW group.

I will take that as a Yes.

This "only true believers" approach is problematic. You either delegate your thinking or your integrity. If enough people do that you end up with a nation of fools and liars.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 08/12/17 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Helemoto
Originally Posted by Sini
That is, for example, according to your proposed standard questioning Trump's integrity automatically puts you in the same category as SJW?

Every point you try to make and how you say it puts you into the SJW group.

I will take that as a Yes.

This "only true believers" approach is problematic. You either delegate your thinking or your integrity. If enough people do that you end up with a nation of fools and liars.



Yes that is what you do. Thanks for finally seeing the light.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 08/13/17 02:06 PM

Not to go off topic here but if Sini is considered an SJW, than that term has lost all its meaning lol.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/13/17 05:59 PM

Check your gender normative white privilege! Also stop raping my safe space with your manspreading microagressions.

I kid, I kid.

Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/13/17 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Helemoto
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Helemoto
Originally Posted by Sini
That is, for example, according to your proposed standard questioning Trump's integrity automatically puts you in the same category as SJW?

Every point you try to make and how you say it puts you into the SJW group.

I will take that as a Yes.

This "only true believers" approach is problematic. You either delegate your thinking or your integrity. If enough people do that you end up with a nation of fools and liars.

Yes that is what you do.


This is equivalent to saying that the only reason to vote against Hillary is misogynism. While some people will voice such opinions, we rightfully ridicule them. That is, such view narrows us vs. them to absurd levels.

The same must be true in Trump situation. There are epistemically justified (valid) reasons to support or oppose him. However, both unconditional support and unconditional opposition is an expression of pure tribalism indicative of defective thinking.

While you might disagree, to me holding rational beliefs is more important than what these beliefs actually are.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 08/15/17 11:07 AM

While what you say is true, you do not practice what you preach. If someone supports a certain person you automatically call him a unconditional supporter.
You sir are a label maker. You play identity politics and that reduces us. You make people commodities without hopes and dreams. You make groups to be labeled and courted and pandered to.
You say you hold rational beliefs but you don't want shared beliefs or values you only want multiple interest groups who are told what to think and be divided. That results in only speaking to the "groups" and being the only valid and true way to think.
You want to divide and set us against each other. To classify and categorize us by all sorts of measurements and standards. Identity politics should be the class you teach.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/16/17 01:31 AM

I don't automatically call anyone an unconditional supporter. After seeing Owain move goalpost (no contact with Russians, to contact with Russians is not collusion, to collusion is not illegal) multiple times, I asked him to define what would be the red line for him. I asked multiple times and he keep dodging.

Helemoto, if Trump substantially raises income taxes on poor and middle class, would you still support him? What if he increases immigration and make it easier to displace American jobs?

These are very easy to answer questions and I tried to make them as fair as possible. If you don't think these fair, define your own. Unless you don't want to answer any questions because doing so would remove any ambiguity about your position on Trump.

By comparison, I stopped supporting Obama when he didn't do anything about financial fraud that lead to the crash and when he didn't do anything about checking surveillance state. I am on record here being vocal. I think I even used "Third Bush's term" verbiage.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 08/16/17 03:54 AM

Were did I ever say I support or supported Trump??? This is what I mean. You assume to much. I have only ever said I wanted Trump to win so D.C. would burn to the ground and I dont think I ever put it in here. As I said before I voted for Johnson. Once again you prove my point.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/17/17 01:34 AM

Speaking of Trump, why is everyone going into hysterics over his Charlotesville press brief? Why is it controversial to state that KKK/Nazi were also attacked by opponents? If you actually look at many pictures, you can see that shields they brought with them were well-used. WTF. Why such obvious event is being denied, and why Trump, who is for a change factual is villainized over this?
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 08/17/17 02:17 PM

Multifaceted issue that would take too much energy and time to properly address.

To be very brief, I would explain it as, when one side ends up killing a member of their opposition, you don't go around saying, well both sides are equally bad. That's kind of classless. You condemn the violence and attempt to begin the healing process, not equate someones death in such a way that it sounds like the victim almost had it coming.

“You had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent," he said. "No one wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now: You had a group on the other side that came charging in without a permit and they were very, very violent.”

Oh and by the way, the counter protesters did have permits. Yet again Trump just spews shit and blames the media.

Lets not forget that the alt-right decided to stand together with Neo-Nazi's which is bad on its own, like wtf dude? You wanna say your not racist but you stand toe to toe with these idiots? I know, I know. What about freeze peaches? sure they have every right to be ignorant and spew their stupidity but so did the counter protesters.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/18/17 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by Goriom
You wanna say your not racist but you stand toe to toe with these idiots?


This is guilt by association. There much better reasons and more coherent ways to criticize alt-right.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 08/18/17 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Goriom
You wanna say your not racist but you stand toe to toe with these idiots?


This is guilt by association. There much better reasons and more coherent ways to criticize alt-right.


Yes I very much agree it is guilt by association. The real question is why are they associating with Neo-Nazis?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/18/17 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Goriom
You wanna say your not racist but you stand toe to toe with these idiots?


This is guilt by association. There much better reasons and more coherent ways to criticize alt-right.


Yes I very much agree it is guilt by association. The real question is why are they associating with Neo-Nazis?

This is a cringe-worthy reply.

My concern with today's left is that it has too much McCarthyism in it. How could you not draw parallels between hunting for communists with hunting for sexists/racists that going on today? Do you also have a list with the names of over 200 members of the Department of State that are known alt-right? Oh wait, the list is doxxed on Twitter.

Of multitude reasons you could criticize alt-right, to name some - disproven trickle-down, anti-trade, anti-science, you chose and when called out doubled-down on, guilt by association?! As intelligent individual, I expect you to do better than that. Start working on your mental hygiene or you will end up in the peanut gallery with the usual suspects here.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/18/17 09:04 PM

Bannon was pushed out.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 08/19/17 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Goriom
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Goriom
You wanna say your not racist but you stand toe to toe with these idiots?


This is guilt by association. There much better reasons and more coherent ways to criticize alt-right.


Yes I very much agree it is guilt by association. The real question is why are they associating with Neo-Nazis?

This is a cringe-worthy reply.

My concern with today's left is that it has too much McCarthyism in it. How could you not draw parallels between hunting for communists with hunting for sexists/racists that going on today? Do you also have a list with the names of over 200 members of the Department of State that are known alt-right? Oh wait, the list is doxxed on Twitter.

Of multitude reasons you could criticize alt-right, to name some - disproven trickle-down, anti-trade, anti-science, you chose and when called out doubled-down on, guilt by association?! As intelligent individual, I expect you to do better than that. Start working on your mental hygiene or you will end up in the peanut gallery with the usual suspects here.


I'm not advocating violence or jailing people based on their views. I'm just calling a rose a rose. You can call my response cringe worthy all you want, doesn't change the fact they decided to stand and protest with people that advocate ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/19/17 02:24 PM

You are attempting to equate "stand with" as endorsing views. This is faulty thinking. For example, I stand with my KGB brothers Hele and Owain, but I do not endorse their political views on many subjects.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/19/17 05:46 PM

Another example, I oppose removal of confederate statues. I see this as revisionism. History happened, it was much more complex than simply slavery vs. abolitionist, attempting to white wash it is not only pointless, it is dangerous, as it becomes easier to repeat mistakes that lead to a civil war. Plus, removing monuments will do absolutely nothing to fight today's racism.

Does this view makes me a Nazi/Racist fellow traveler in your view?
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 08/20/17 03:43 PM

No it does not
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 08/23/17 03:20 AM

They are monuments to racism, not reminders of history. They were mostly erected during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights eras. The impacts of the history of slavery and white nationalism belong in contextualized museums, not outdoor public monuments. That is the line between sympathizer and historian.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 08/23/17 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
They are monuments to racism, not reminders of history. They were mostly erected during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights eras. The impacts of the history of slavery and white nationalism belong in contextualized museums, not outdoor public monuments. That is the line between sympathizer and historian.


^
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/25/17 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
They are monuments to racism, not reminders of history. They were mostly erected during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights eras. The impacts of the history of slavery and white nationalism belong in contextualized museums, not outdoor public monuments. That is the line between sympathizer and historian.

Welcome to the human race, our whole history is racism, violence, conquest and so on. Nobody is innocent. Today we live in uniquely peaceful times by historical standards, but you can't wipe everything that came before. Trying to do that is stupid and dangerous, because lack of understand of what happened makes it more likely to repeat itself. The best way to revive Jim Crow is to pretend it never happened.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 08/25/17 05:59 AM

You're intentionally avoiding my point, as if I never made one. I'm saying insisting we keep monuments to racism on government lands because that is the only way we can learn from history is de facto sympathetic to the agenda of the racists who put them there in the first place. https://twitter.com/libshipwreck/status/898214705403236355
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/25/17 12:35 PM

I am not avoiding your point, I was giving you benefit of the doubt and interpreted your words in a charitable way.

You *assert* that these are monuments to racism and poison the well by insisting that there is no other possible reason these exist but to celebrate racism. Since you have done this twice, and it is core of your argument, I want you to demonstrate that these monuments: a) are there to celebrate characters uniquely racist by standards of their own time and/or b) used today to promote racism and removing them will lead to direct reduction in racism.

Again, we are not talking about tearing down statues of robed grand wizard or statue of a burning cross, we are talking about tearing down statues of historical figures.

List of statues include Robert E. Lee, who was key figure in reconstruction and who supported his wife in freeing and educating slaves.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/25/17 12:51 PM

Let me attempt to demonstrate historical context with a hypothetical. In 200 years humanity develops technology to vat grow meat-like substance and phases out livestock. As a result, killing animals for food and leather becomes highly unacceptable practice. Anti animal cruelty protesters decide to tear down statues of Obama everywhere because he ate meat and wore leather shoes. Would you consider this appropriate, considering that today eating meat isn't unusual?
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 08/25/17 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
They are monuments to racism, not reminders of history. They were mostly erected during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights eras. The impacts of the history of slavery and white nationalism belong in contextualized museums, not outdoor public monuments. That is the line between sympathizer and historian.

Welcome to the human race, our whole history is racism, violence, conquest and so on. Nobody is innocent. Today we live in uniquely peaceful times by historical standards, but you can't wipe everything that came before. Trying to do that is stupid and dangerous, because lack of understand of what happened makes it more likely to repeat itself. The best way to revive Jim Crow is to pretend it never happened.

This is something we can agree on. When you make things like this out of sight and out of mind people seem to forget. This isn't something new it's everyday in the life of mankind. I do not agree with any kind of White Supremacy or Supremacy of any type. As you stated we do not get out of the racial tensions by pretending it never happened.
Posted By: Wolfgang

Re: Trump card - 08/25/17 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
They are monuments to racism, not reminders of history. They were mostly erected during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights eras. The impacts of the history of slavery and white nationalism belong in contextualized museums, not outdoor public monuments. That is the line between sympathizer and historian.

What about Grant... he owned slaves are we to take down statues of him and erase him from the books of being President?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/25/17 08:06 PM

Washington also owned slaves. That is, if we apply TODAY'S standards to historical figures, we going to be left only with Gandhi statues. Well, not even him, as he had some very sexist views by today's standards.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 08/25/17 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
You *assert* that these are monuments to racism and poison the well by insisting that there is no other possible reason these exist but to celebrate racism. Since you have done this twice, and it is core of your argument, I want you to demonstrate that these monuments: a) are there to celebrate characters uniquely racist by standards of their own time and/or b) used today to promote racism and removing them will lead to direct reduction in racism.

Again, we are not talking about tearing down statues of robed grand wizard or statue of a burning cross, we are talking about tearing down statues of historical figures.


[Linked Image]

Many of these were erected by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. This is a white supremacist organization, which contemporaneously defended the KKK. The monuments romanticize the era of slavery and glorify those who fought to defend it. Whatever historical value they have is not balanced by the tacit approval of their symbolism through their prominence in public spaces. This contributes to an overall normalization of racist attitudes which directly contributes to racism. Moreover, their removal from public spaces does not equate to erasing history, and nobody is arguing that it should.

Your straw man about Obama misses the point because he did not literally fight in a war to protect his ownership of humans. I guess if he took a lot of money from the Beef lobby, and critically future cows become sentient, and in direct response Big BBQ puts up a giant Obama statue, then maybe you might have a point.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 08/26/17 12:17 AM

Not sure on the number but I would guess around 1 is the amount of countries that fought a war and the losers erected statues of the losing side leaders.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/26/17 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Many of these were erected by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. This is a white supremacist organization, which contemporaneously defended the KKK. The monuments romanticize the era of slavery and glorify those who fought to defend it. Whatever historical value they have is not balanced by the tacit approval of their symbolism through their prominence in public spaces. This contributes to an overall normalization of racist attitudes which directly contributes to racism. Moreover, their removal from public spaces does not equate to erasing history, and nobody is arguing that it should.


Interesting graph. Civil war ended in 1865, but the peak statue construction appears to be 40 years later. I know nothing about the United Daughters of the Confederacy, other than about anyone from South in that era would be considered full blown racist by modern standards. The biggest spike appears to be from 1900 to 1915. What factors would you attribute it to?

Building of statues around civil right movement could be considered suspicious, I'd support removal of any confederate statue put up in that era. Say 1960 and newer should go. But statues erected more than 100 years ago? To me, that is history.

You also make another logical jump in stating "this contributes to an overall normalization of racist attitudes". You reductive view of the civil war leads you to conclude it was racist vs. non-racists, therefore anyone celebrating confederacy must be automatically racist. The reality is much more complex, with racists on both sides.

I lived in Texas for couple years, I have seen Southern Pride firsthand and don't consider it inherently racist. Both racists and non-racist people show it. Many people there genuinely associate with Texas more than with US. For example, they take pride in the Battle of the Alamo and victory over Mexico. Does that make them anti-Mexican racists?


Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 08/26/17 06:13 AM

Yeah, I dont understand all this whataboutism. We aren't talking about American Generals and the father of our country here. We are talking about statues of literal traitors to this country. They belong in a museums and historical battle sites and no where else.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 08/26/17 06:18 AM

https://apnews.com/fd2f3f72f49d45ae...-to-former-Sheriff-Joe-Arpaio-of-Arizona

lol
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 08/26/17 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Many of these were erected by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. This is a white supremacist organization, which contemporaneously defended the KKK. The monuments romanticize the era of slavery and glorify those who fought to defend it. Whatever historical value they have is not balanced by the tacit approval of their symbolism through their prominence in public spaces. This contributes to an overall normalization of racist attitudes which directly contributes to racism. Moreover, their removal from public spaces does not equate to erasing history, and nobody is arguing that it should.


Seems like an odd thing to focus on to be honest. Honestly, to me the whole dealio about statues looks to be coming from people who generally disdain, don't understand, and don't want to understand the people who live in areas and/or are of a contemporary culture that they dislike. Seems to me its more about simply throwing stones at the "other" than it is about any notion of outrage at symbolizing a slavery that ended quite a long time ago. If only all this effort was directed at the Drug War, or a dozen other heavy handed statist policies that actually perpetuated grossly unfair treatment of certain disadvantaged demographics.


Originally Posted by Sini

Interesting graph. Civil war ended in 1865, but the peak statue construction appears to be 40 years later. I know nothing about the United Daughters of the Confederacy, other than about anyone from South in that era would be considered full blown racist by modern standards. The biggest spike appears to be from 1900 to 1915. What factors would you attribute it to?



The war generation was aging and dying off, and their children and grandchildren were revering the Age of their elders, as well as looking back to a time that was romanticized (through very rose colored lenses) as an era where things were good for them. It bears remembering as well that the war and Reconstruction policies that followed it doomed large swaths of the South to endemic poverty and backwardness that continues to this day. Sure, the Old, Pre-war South certainly had its ugliness. But that doesn't change the fact that they were and still mired in poverty, and all the ignorance that comes with it. Unfortunately, many seem to have just decided, then and now, that they are all inherently bad people beyond enlightenment. Which seems to me to be rather similar to the racist views that some hold towards certain minorities - as in the folks who think that some minorities are more likely to become hardened criminals simply because they are of said minority, not because they grew up in a situation of generational poverty and ignorance.

So funny how people tend to become what they purport to hate. Or, it would be funny if it hadn't given us Trump.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/26/17 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Derid
looks to be coming from people who generally disdain, don't understand, and don't want to understand the people who live in areas and/or are of a contemporary culture that they dislike. Seems to me its more about simply throwing stones at the "other" than it is about any notion of outrage at symbolizing a slavery


I fully agree with you.

To add, this will likely push more people to racism, as "these carpetbaggers coming over and trying to erase our identity and out history" will play out all over South. Moderates, who care about southern identity will be pushed into supremacists hands as these are viewed as a response.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 08/28/17 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Interesting graph. Civil war ended in 1865, but the peak statue construction appears to be 40 years later. I know nothing about the United Daughters of the Confederacy, other than about anyone from South in that era would be considered full blown racist by modern standards. The biggest spike appears to be from 1900 to 1915. What factors would you attribute it to?



[Linked Image]



Originally Posted by Sini
Building of statues around civil right movement could be considered suspicious, I'd support removal of any confederate statue put up in that era. Say 1960 and newer should go. But statues erected more than 100 years ago? To me, that is history.


Quit moving the fucking goal post.



Originally Posted by Sini
You also make another logical jump in stating "this contributes to an overall normalization of racist attitudes". You reductive view of the civil war leads you to conclude it was racist vs. non-racists, therefore anyone celebrating confederacy must be automatically racist. The reality is much more complex, with racists on both sides.


The war was complex, these statues are not.

Originally Posted by Derid
Seems like an odd thing to focus on to be honest. Honestly, to me the whole dealio about statues looks to be coming from people who generally disdain, don't understand, and don't want to understand the people who live in areas and/or are of a contemporary culture that they dislike.


GTFO of here with this bullshit. How about some sympathy with people whose entire ancestry is caught up in the slave trade.


Originally Posted by Derid
an era where things were good for them.


Precisely why the war was fought.


Originally Posted by Sini
I fully agree with you.



This, of all things, is the reductionist attitude in this thread.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 08/28/17 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Derid
Unfortunately, many seem to have just decided, then and now, that they are all inherently bad people beyond enlightenment.


To your argument: How do statues of racists and slavers in their communities, schools and courthouses serve to enlighten these people?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/29/17 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
Interesting graph. Civil war ended in 1865, but the peak statue construction appears to be 40 years later. I know nothing about the United Daughters of the Confederacy, other than about anyone from South in that era would be considered full blown racist by modern standards. The biggest spike appears to be from 1900 to 1915. What factors would you attribute it to?



[Linked Image]



Bad stuff happened last century and every century before that. The graph zeroed out around 1940s, so almost nobody alive today experienced this. What does this has to do with tearing down statues in 2017?



Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
Building of statues around civil right movement could be considered suspicious, I'd support removal of any confederate statue put up in that era. Say 1960 and newer should go. But statues erected more than 100 years ago? To me, that is history.


Quit moving the fucking goal post.


The goal posts are still at "statues have nothing to do with racism in 2017". You made a point that some of them were built around civil rights movement. I decided to grant you a point, as clear majority of these statues more than 100 years old and have nothing to do with civil rights movement.



Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
You also make another logical jump in stating "this contributes to an overall normalization of racist attitudes". You reductive view of the civil war leads you to conclude it was racist vs. non-racists, therefore anyone celebrating confederacy must be automatically racist. The reality is much more complex, with racists on both sides.

The war was complex, these statues are not.


How is that even possible? If the war was complex, over complex issues, how statues related to it are suddenly not? What in erecting statues simplifies the issue? What other issues could be simplified with statues? Could I make a statue to life's meaning and suddenly have it all cleared up?


Quote
Originally Posted by Derid
Seems like an odd thing to focus on to be honest. Honestly, to me the whole dealio about statues looks to be coming from people who generally disdain, don't understand, and don't want to understand the people who live in areas and/or are of a contemporary culture that they dislike.


How about some sympathy with people whose entire ancestry is caught up in the slave trade.


Everyone got ancestry. The dead don't care about your sympathy.

We are still talking about tearing down 100 year old statues today, in 2017, and all you can come up with as rationale is selectively pointing out that bad stuff happened in the past. You are still unable to show how torn down statues would help anybody today. You are still unwilling to accept that societal norms changed since 1800s.

Maybe stronger example would better highlight how norms change. For example,Socrates was known for pederasty (sex with young boys) and that was normal practice in Athens. So the founder of Western philosophy would be a criminal pedophile by modern standards. Should we start destroying classical Greek statues over this and other similar "crimes" as well?

Also, what other historical grievances should we consider? What about Native Americans, do they get your permission to tear down Plymouth Rock and statues to Columbus, as these monuments symbolize and celebrate the start of what would be considered a genocide by a modern standard? How about some sympathy there as well?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 08/29/17 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh

Originally Posted by Derid
Seems like an odd thing to focus on to be honest. Honestly, to me the whole dealio about statues looks to be coming from people who generally disdain, don't understand, and don't want to understand the people who live in areas and/or are of a contemporary culture that they dislike.


GTFO of here with this bullshit. How about some sympathy with people whose entire ancestry is caught up in the slave trade.


Originally Posted by Derid
an era where things were good for them.


Precisely why the war was fought.


Originally Posted by Sini
I fully agree with you.



This, of all things, is the reductionist attitude in this thread.


What does having sympathy for people have to do with anything? Don't tell me that's the primary motive in picking up the pitchforks and torches over some old statues, cause frankly that's laughable. The real furor over statues didn't start bubbling out until Trump won the election and rage at the "Trump people" reached a crescendo and you know it. If you have sympathy for people afflicted by generational poverty, it seems like common sense to attack policies that perpetuate that situation instead of statues of people long since dead and gone.

The question here is what attempting to remove the statues actually is going to accomplish. All I see stemming from it is more mutual hatred and greater divisions. Just like you responded with some emotion laden silliness to my observation about the nature of the attack on monuments, so will people who still identify with the South be likely to respond in a similar manner.

You saying that the civil war was fought because "things were good for Southerners" just belies a lack of understanding of the entire affair. The war was actually fought because Lincoln decided that he wouldn't take secession lying down, and the Emancipation Proclamation only made because it was thought that it would be a boon to the Union in terms of winning the war. As much as some people like to paint the war as some great moral crusade against slavery, the truth is nowhere close. It's true that the expansion of slavery was a major flash point of contention between the states, and that it was a major issue of the day - but if the Confederacy hadn't taken the initiative to secede and shell Fort Sumter, its very possible that the sordid institution would still exist today.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 08/29/17 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Derid
Unfortunately, many seem to have just decided, then and now, that they are all inherently bad people beyond enlightenment.


To your argument: How do statues of racists and slavers in their communities, schools and courthouses serve to enlighten these people?


A better question is what good will starting controversy about tearing them down serve.

The burden is actually on people who want to throw out the status quo.

Personally, I don't care whether the statues are there or not. It really doesn't matter to me. I just find the gross hypocrisy and actual motives of those stirring up the controversy as repulsive as they are counter-productive to actually improving life for anyone in the nation.

Jeff Sessions can hold a huge press conference with the FOP about re-starting the militarization of local police while congratulating them on the great job they do in minority communities, and tell them how being armed like a US Army Cavalry Division will help them continue to do it even more forcefully. Yet so many "progressives" simply want to gripe about hundred year old statues and how backwards and racist they are, and wonder "why can't people have some sympathy for people whose ancestry was caught up in the slave trade?"

Ridiculous.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 08/31/17 01:48 AM

I am not optimistic about the future of Left. In the past, late 90s to early 2000s I took glee in pointing out that intellectual conservatism fell off couple exits prior. When TP rose, I could genuinely point to demagogy and outright ignorance on the right and say that at least we are better than that. This is no longer the case. Left's ideology has been hijacked by censorious, divisive attention seekers that care not for any of the core values. They would rather tear down random statues than tackle the problem of run-away wealth inequality.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 09/01/17 02:44 PM

You guys keep bringing up such irrelevant bullshit. It's incredibly disturbing how willing you guys are to defend Trump's talking points.

- Many of the statues were put up by WHITE SUPREMACISTS after the war was lost, who insisted on spreading their ideology in any way possible
- The statues and the ideology still exist today and these facts are related
- Rallies are being held by WHITE SUPREMACISTS to CREATE controversy over local governments quietly trying to align public monuments with modern ideology

The burden is on both of you to prove you are not sympathetic with their ideology in your defense of it.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 09/01/17 02:52 PM

Seriously, I don't often participate here because I know most of you are of the republican or libertarian persuasion and my voice will be drowned out. When it comes to single payer healthcare or whatever, I respect your differences. I was glad to see that most of you rejected Trump during his rise. But your alignment with Trump on this particular issue has me really disgusted to even be associated with you. This is a matter of respect for humanity and you are demonstrating incredible stretches of logic to avoid it.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/01/17 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
The burden is on both of you to prove you are not sympathetic with their ideology in your defense of it.


Yep, rhaikh just went there.

If this is not a clear example of "with us or against us", I don't know what is. This is also why Trump has a chance to get reelected - unthinking tribalism allows demagogues exploit rifts. They don't even need to create these wedges - rahikh is perfectly happy to do the leg work for them. More so, this also normalizes white supremacy - more you misuse and stretch the definitions, less damning the label becomes.

You fail to consider implications of your stand, you are duplicating what Republicans were doing with RINO and TP, only with more toxic vitriol, and by doing so pushing people out of our tent. You might as well be working on Trump's reelection campaign.


Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 09/02/17 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
But your alignment with Trump on this particular issue has me really disgusted to even be associated with you. This is a matter of respect for humanity and you are demonstrating incredible stretches of logic to avoid it.



This is exactly the type of thinking that makes me shake my head in despair for the future.

You even make my point by coming back around and saying it is about siding with/against Trump. Despite saying that I am stretching logic, no logic has been offered in rebuttal. Your only rebuttals thus far have been an appeal to pity, which is a clear logical fallacy. Just because bad things have happened to people does not mean that your particular thoughts on the matter are correct. What has been offered are attempts at shaming, which is neither logical nor convincing.

Especially considering that the impetus of everything I've said here has been towards simple prioritization, reason for the focus on the issue, and consideration for real ramifications. I offer examples of things that I think people should be caring about, and instead of thoughtful rebuttal or debate on the topic I get called a white supremacist that people should be disgusted to be associated with.

This is exactly the type of behavior I am thinking of when I mock the Coastal Left, and is in fact the type of thinking I chimed in to criticize. That I wrote here not in support of statues, but rather to criticize the SJW Left and end up getting called a white supremacist for it is justification in of itself for continuing criticism of the SJW Left.

It also represents a sense of haughty self-righteousness so strong that it transcends ideology and becomes faith. This is far more dangerous than a handful of actual white supremacist wingnuts showing up at some rally with tiki torches and stupid chants. Most death and destruction that can be found in the annals of human history that did not derive from simple conflicts over resources, can in fact be attributed to this type of unreflective faith in one's own moral authority - and in fact a great many simple conflicts for resources were in fact publicly justified along such lines.

I still remain convinced that your style of thinking and pernicious labeling is counter productive to any actual social gains, and your social prerogatives inferior in terms of benefit were they to be actualized.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 09/02/17 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
You guys keep bringing up such irrelevant bullshit. It's incredibly disturbing how willing you guys are to defend Trump's talking points.

- Many of the statues were put up by WHITE SUPREMACISTS after the war was lost, who insisted on spreading their ideology in any way possible
- The statues and the ideology still exist today and these facts are related
- Rallies are being held by WHITE SUPREMACISTS to CREATE controversy over local governments quietly trying to align public monuments with modern ideology

The burden is on both of you to prove you are not sympathetic with their ideology in your defense of it.


Seems odd that you don't even realize that allowing said local governments to deal with the issue on their own would have reflected some actual progress, and injecting the angry voices and violence of the SJW Left in an attempt to force the issue (and steal credit, where localities were quietly trying to change their public face) simply reframes the argument into an "us vs them" and "antifa fascist vs Trumpster fascist" shitfest.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/03/17 12:48 AM

Derid, for the record I condemn rhaikh behavior in this discussion. He doesn't speak for me or the left. Sadly, his behavior is not atypical these days and there is nothing I can do about idiotic SJWs other than repeatedly call them out.

Social Justice and their form of divisive relativism is the poison that will kill our society. You can't substitute reverse anything for actual problem solving. 27th century historians, studying the fall of American Empire, will conclude "they just gave up" and brought on dark ages. Actual cataclysm that would make the fall would be inconsequential.
Posted By: Kaotic

Re: Trump card - 09/05/17 09:01 PM

[yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes]
Originally Posted by Sini
Social Justice and their form of divisive relativism is the poison that will kill our society. You can't substitute reverse anything for actual problem solving. 27th century historians, studying the fall of American Empire, will conclude "they just gave up" and brought on dark ages. Actual cataclysm that would make the fall would be inconsequential.

[yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes] [yes]
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/05/17 10:44 PM

To demonstrate that good-faith argument on both sides are possible, and that shaming and emotional circle-jerk is optional, I am offering to Derid to assume 'pro removal' side of argument.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 09/06/17 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
To demonstrate that good-faith argument on both sides are possible, and that shaming and emotional circle-jerk is optional, I am offering to Derid to assume 'pro removal' side of argument.


The statues should come down because the symbolism presented in public places, by and on behalf of the government, ought be representative of the entire constituency served by that government. Although the historical significance is noted, it is also apparent that the statues represent a mentality and history that is diametrically opposed to the best interests of a good portion of our citizenry. Where those statues of Confederate leaders in particular reside on public grounds, particularly courthouses and other government buildings, it is understandable where a good portion of the citizenry receives a message, intended or not, that the proceedings in said buildings reflect the will of a culture that is unfavorable to them and thereby lose trust in said institutions. As trust that our institutions reflect justice served in the interest of the whole society overrides other considerations, the statues ought be removed to send a signal that the mindset of the Confederacy is in the forgotten past.

---

At first I read that as "I am offering Derid to assume" and missed the preceding "to" but meh its w/e.

I could also offer an argument that remembering the past is important because it serves as both a benchmark for the progress we've gained, and a reminder that no matter the situation today, recidivism is always possible if not actively strived against. Also, the respect for the dead and of history itself. Conversely in such an argument I would suggest adding more statues to reflect the current social paradigm and values, and show the march of history as it has happened. Even if the Robert E Lee statue stands, there is no reason not to erect a MLK statue across the courtyard. Then in another 60 years, hopefully add another. That way in 1000 years when the ruins of our cities are unearthed from the ashes of global war, or discovered on the bottom of an ocean that rose 50 feet, or our robot overlords are finally defeated by the returning colonists we put into space, future historians will have even better context to work with as far as reconstructing our social trajectory - even if nuclear EMPs, solar flares, and time have damaged or eliminated most of the digital records of the era.

Criticizing the SJW/antifa left was in fact my impetus for typing on the issue, I'm pretty agnostic as far as the actual statues go. As most people who know me should understand, I don't tend to believe that ends justify means - and the means adopted by certain segments of our society are rather unpleasant. I also find them hypocritical for injecting themselves into a relatively minor local issue to oppose the tacit support of statues by Trump, while ignoring major national issues with actual, hard, racial implications that are being actively pushed into policy by the Trump administration. To me this makes zero logical sense, unless the actual goal is simply to feel good about yourself for "denouncing racism". Of course pointing this out makes you a sympathizer for white supremacists in their eyes.

What a world we live in.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/07/17 12:50 AM

Another good-faith argument is based on values. We all, hopefully, agree that on balance supremacist values are contemptible. The protesters mainly oppose supremacists, removal of statues is just a battle field that happen to be selected by supremacists. The end goal of protesters isn't to remove statues, but to oppose supremacists. It is these supremacists who happened to make these historical statues a battleground and issue today, therefore it isn't historical context but today's context that should matter. Unmistakably, today's context is largely defined by supremacists and their values unmistakably make it racist.

---

However, going full retard and calling Derid a racists provides for better entertainment value.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 09/08/17 04:28 AM

Well, enjoy your debate club then. Out in the real world, people are being killed for the color of their skin, and the wistful and hollow appeals to history your impeccable logic has brought you to is propping it up. Frankly I discontinued sparring on your level because you still have yet to realize this fact.

I understand your objections about SJWs and identity politics, I am less likely to support social arguments based wholly on that than your average "coastal liberal," but again a line must be drawn somewhere and I'm drawing it at fucking nazis.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 09/08/17 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Well, enjoy your debate club then. Out in the real world, people are being killed for the color of their skin, and the wistful and hollow appeals to history your impeccable logic has brought you to is propping it up. Frankly I discontinued sparri[b][/b]ng on your level because you still have yet to realize this fact.


No, I am arguing that my methods and priorities are superior to yours towards combatting that.

Probably at least a third of my posts here if not more relate directly or indirectly to policies that do in fact target, or disproportionately affect minority communities. I don't think anyone here has been more critical of Jeff Sessions or his prerogatives then myself, as one example.

Why would you rather focus on a handful of wingnuts, while demonizing people who give a shit about real issues? Focusing on the wingnuts just gives them power. They want to get mass media attention, and fill up the airwaves with their bullshit. Totally powerless in of themselves, they are given power and airtime by the very people who ostensibly oppose them. In my view, you are the one giving the Nazis what they want.

If you genuinely feel that Jeff Sessions and his implementing of racially disproportionate policies from his seat as head of the DOJ should take a back seat to a couple dozen fast food workers with tiki torches, and that people who don't focus on the latter are the real problem, then so be it. But, trying to falsely associate those of us who care more about the former with the idiocy of the latter, probably isn't going to sway many people towards your point of view.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/09/17 01:35 AM

rhaikh, let do another hypothetical. As a supremacist, what is the best way to achieve supremacist's goals? Think this through, now afterwards ask yourself - are my actions playing into this? So far, I think they are.

Say my goal is to re-implement some version of Crow. No politician will go for it outright now matter how sympathetic they might be. They will take donations, dog whistle, but do absolutely nothing of the sort. At most, they will be able to do more 'tough on crime' and 'war on drugs' that criminalizes black population. However, that won't get me all the way to Crow and it is expensive as incarcerating cost a lot of money.
Instead, I need to get people scared of black people so there is a call for action. That action then could provide a cover to move toward Crow. How to get people scared? Provoke more violent protests, ideally with looting at shooting at the cops, from the likes of BLM and ANTIFA.

Civil rights movement worked because it was predominantly non-violent. Most people don't care about racism or anti racism, they just want to go on with their lives. You disrupt their lives and they just react by turning to whomever sells simplest solution loudest. This is how Trump got elected. This is how Mussolini got elected.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 09/10/17 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Derid
Why would you rather


false dichotomy

Originally Posted by Sini
rhaikh, let do another hypothetical.


ignoring the argument
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/11/17 12:10 AM

So I asked Owain, it is only fair I ask you. Where is your red line on this issue? You are perfectly fine with being ineffective and polarizing. What about property destruction? What about violence? What about modifying First Amendment to make it inapplicable in some clear cases of racist speech?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 09/11/17 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Derid
Why would you rather


false dichotomy

Originally Posted by Sini
rhaikh, let do another hypothetical.


ignoring the argument


That one has to care about either/or might be a false dichotomy - the issue here is you have clearly expressed a hard preference and projected two "sides" onto others, where those who don't share your views and prerogatives are immediately labeled and shamed as being white supremacists or sympathizers. I'm simply speaking to your own behavior, using your own framework.

As far as your claims of ignoring the argument, it seems that the problem here is that you haven't really made an argument - but rather, have instead made assertions that seem to stem from faith in your own position. If there is sound reasoning or an argument present, you have yet to share.

LifeProTip: "If you don't agree with me, you're a Nazi" is an assertion, not an argument.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/12/17 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by Derid
"If you don't agree with me, you're a Nazi" is an assertion, not an argument.


Derid, I think I forgot my copy of Mein Kampf at your place. Could you please bring it to the next meeting and leave it by white hood and robes wardrobe at the back? Thanks.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/15/17 02:23 PM

Trump is working across party lines, something that Obama found difficult. Is this one off, or the death kneel of party of No?
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 09/18/17 04:25 AM

Get my assertion right: If you use bullshit arguments about equating the destruction of racists monuments to the destruction of history, you are de facto sympathizing with racists.

Feel free to reply with long winded explanations about why the monuments aren't racist, don't contribute to racism, are essential to the preservation of history, and how you have a few black friends
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/19/17 02:32 AM

Quote
If you use bullshit arguments about equating the destruction of racists monuments to the destruction of history, you are de facto sympathizing with racists.


Quote
Presenting arguments equating destruction of monuments to destruction of history makes one a racist.


No it doesn't. Your assertion isn't more valid now than the first dozen times you tried it. This is classical poison the well fallacy.

We explained to you, at length, why this is flawed thinking. I personally offered examples of how to argue better. I also showed how counter productive your approach to reaching your stated goals.

After all of that you are still doing the same thing hoping it turns out better. I could only assume this is so because you are yearning for mocking. I am glad to oblige.



Posted By: Sethan

Re: Trump card - 09/19/17 03:06 PM

I always figured Sini and Derid were racist sympathizers.....

I bet they don't even have black friends
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/19/17 11:50 PM

Domestic violence is under-reported and most common type of violence that women are exposed to. Often times women are trapped in an abusive relationship without a way out. A good indicator of a violent and abusive personality is arguing in bad faith. This indicative of general pattern of deceitfulness and manipulative behavior that leads to physical and emotional abuse of close family members. So Sethan, have you stopped beating your wife?
Posted By: Sethan

Re: Trump card - 09/20/17 01:10 AM

[Linked Image]

Of course not...I still beat her every Thursday when I hang out with my black friends so I don't feel racist.

I should expect a Nazi sympathizer like yourself to confuse an ENTP personality type with someone who makes bad faith arguments.

Back to beating my wife, raising kids, paying bills and climbing the corporate ladder of white privilege.

Hope you are doing well in life. Over and out
Posted By: Banshee

Re: Trump card - 09/20/17 05:07 PM

I don't really care if you take down the statues and monuments, I don't even know who most of them are much less what they did. I have spent the last 20 years living within a few miles of the Chickamauga Battlefield....I drive through and think "damn a lot of guys died here" and keep on going.

Can someone please tell me how focusing on old statues is going to rebuild families and communities? Communities where the leading cause of death is each other not the man? I see stories about how the whole community is outraged a police officer kills a black man, even if the officer is black but rampant murder of each other is par for the course? Now that's what I would be outraged over....it just seems all the attention is focused on the wrong points.

I guess it's easier to blame someone else for your situation in life than to take a hard look at yourself and the choices you have made. Just a side note...all my life I have understood that when a police officer tells me to do something I do it because at that moment he has all the power and I don't want to get arrested or shot....seems simple and it's worked for me.
Posted By: Vuldan

Re: Trump card - 09/22/17 03:48 AM

I always love how Sini speaks as if he is a wealth of knowledge on just about every subject known to man, let alone to crawl within the walls of KGB. And if you don't think like him, well, look out, you are probably intelligent and gifted in life, which will further infuriate him. Ignorance personified

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Get my assertion right: If you use bullshit arguments about equating the destruction of racists monuments to the destruction of history, you are de facto sympathizing with racists.

Feel free to reply with long winded explanations about why the monuments aren't racist, don't contribute to racism, are essential to the preservation of history, and how you have a few black friends


Were you born ignorant and stupid Rhaikh or have you worked hard at being this ignorant as well. Please, enlighten me on how a monument to General Robert E. Lee is racist, make certain you use complete sentences and by all means, reference material to support the ridiculous nature of that argument will be required. Unbelievable.
Posted By: Donkleaps

Re: Trump card - 09/22/17 04:13 PM

It's pretty simple to me.

Soldier memorials in public owned areas should remain. Statues should be moved to museums or private land. Easy work around...(this was in national news a while back and is from the town I went to school in) http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-tiny-portion-of-land-to-a-local-church/

So with this, you will get to see if the outrage over the statues is actually over them being on public land, or if it really is a different agenda. The racism accusations have no bearing on anything to do with the statues directly.
Posted By: Sethan

Re: Trump card - 09/22/17 06:22 PM

America woke to a miracle this morning.
Blacks suddenly all had comfortable, middle-class existences.
Crime has plummeted, and economic equality has been achieved.
All racism and prejudice appears to have ended.
Experts believe the cause of this miracle may be the destruction of a 93 year old bronze monument commemorating Robert E Lee, which was personally keeping the entire black race down.
World peace is expected to be achieved next once the Ulysses Grant statue is destroyed, and some experts believe cancer cured by removing the Lincoln Memorial.
Posted By: Sethan

Re: Trump card - 09/22/17 06:25 PM

"The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling."

Thomas Sowell


The culture war generals will pick a new target to become outraged with in a few months and no one will care about Civil War statues again. I just laugh at them and go on about my day.



Posted By: Vuldan

Re: Trump card - 09/23/17 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Donkleaps
It's pretty simple to me.

Soldier memorials in public owned areas should remain. Statues should be moved to museums or private land. Easy work around...(this was in national news a while back and is from the town I went to school in) http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-tiny-portion-of-land-to-a-local-church/

So with this, you will get to see if the outrage over the statues is actually over them being on public land, or if it really is a different agenda. The racism accusations have no bearing on anything to do with the statues directly.



Interesting perspective, I had not heard that one. It would be reasonable and certainly lessen the crazy that has erupted over this. Well stated Donk.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 09/26/17 04:46 AM

Originally Posted by Donkleaps
It's pretty simple to me.

Soldier memorials in public owned areas should remain. Statues should be moved to museums or private land. Easy work around...(this was in national news a while back and is from the town I went to school in) http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-tiny-portion-of-land-to-a-local-church/

So with this, you will get to see if the outrage over the statues is actually over them being on public land, or if it really is a different agenda. The racism accusations have no bearing on anything to do with the statues directly.



Advocating for this type of solution is exactly on par with the entire racist history of these statues. The people who really want them to stay up take off their hoods and put on a United Daughters of the Confederacy badge, the mayor's sash, and the president's twitter account and justify their necessity with a 20x20 parcel of bullshit.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Trump card - 09/27/17 04:53 PM

Listen, I know this forum is designed to spark debate, and we often get passionate about our stance or opinion. But I hope I speak for the majority here when I say that stooping to a level where you outright insinuate that people who disagree with you are members of a hate group is crossing the line. I have no dog in this hunt, don't care one way or the other, but please try to refrain from ad hominem attacks.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 09/28/17 01:22 AM

If this needs clarification then I'll provide it. I don't think any of you are actually nazis, but I do think these positions in this debate are the same as those held by actual nazis, and I am disturbed by that.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/28/17 01:25 AM

Brutal, while I appreciate your kind words, this isn't my first rodeo and this isn't the first rodeo clown I had to deal with. Unlike Rhaikh's usual Facbook and Twitter echo chamber that he is accustomed to operate in, people here, while disagree on many things, can usually see through such blatant bullshit. As such, the longer Rhaikh herps the derp, the less credibility he has. So far he herped all of it.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 09/28/17 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
If this needs clarification then I'll provide it. I don't think any of you are actually nazis, but I do think these positions in this debate are the same as those held by actual nazis, and I am disturbed by that.


The only disturbing position in this argument is your disregard for analytical thinking and unthinking support of your dogma. I have asked you a number of times to justify your position. You failed to do so, instead you attempted to shame without first establishing moral authority to do so. More so, your bad faith arguments demonstrate that you have no moral authority on this subject and should be disregarded either as a dishonest person with an agenda or unthinking simpleton. I am not yet convinced that you are dishonest person. In that line...

I asked you previously where you draw a line in these events. Many ANTIFA members were filmed engaging in attacks on journalist, exercising hecklers veto to suppress speakers in public places like campuses, and destruction of property other than statues in question. Do you believe that their stated goals justify the means? Do you believe that these stated goals and actual goals align?

When Trump stated that both sides should be condemned for initiating violence, do you believe him to be categorically wrong?
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 09/28/17 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
dogma


I wholly reject that I have not already laid out this argument in this thread, which is why I've been continually ignoring you saying that I have, but for sake of reference I will do so one more time.

The statues were put up by essentially Klansmen, in direct response to the events in the United States years AFTER the civil war and leading up to and after the Civil Rights Movement, and in whole or in part to signal that the communities they reside in stand for the ideology of white supremacy and white nationalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

Nazis today wish to maintain the status quo, to further their own cause of white nationalism.

Besides blatant racism, spurious dog-whistle arguments about the historical value of these statues are being uses by Nazis and others to maintain the status quo.

Aside from being disingenuous, these arguments are demonstrably false because history books and museums will continue to exist among other incredibly obvious reasons. At bare minimum, in my opinion, these statues should be interpreted and contextualized and not allowed to continue their romanticization of the culture of slavery unchecked.

By supporting these arguments and rejecting their clear purpose, you are therefore de facto, in action if not in spirit, supporting the cause of white nationalism.

You also continually suggest that I have not given justification as to the necessity for the statues to be removed. Aside from the fact that it opposes nazis, I think it's clear that having symbols of racism and oppression prominently featured on government lands and in public spaces serves as an unnecessary reminder to African Americans of the lengths to which our culture and society still need to go to truly accept them. Additionally they serve as false signals to white people that racism is normal, which when combined with all other sources of normalization, contributes to the perpetuation of racism and systemic oppression.

No, removing the statues will not solve all of the worlds problems. Yes, there are other problems to concern yourselves with, in addition to this one. This is just one step along a generational journey of tolerance. A step you are opposing to no fruitful benefit.

Quote

Consider these four monuments from the perspective of an African American mother or father trying to explain to their fifth-grade daughter who Robert E. Lee is and why he stands atop of our beautiful city. Can you do it?

Can you look into that young girl’s eyes and convince her that Robert E. Lee is there to encourage her? Do you think she will feel inspired and hopeful by that story? Do these monuments help her see a future with limitless potential?

Have you ever thought that if her potential is limited, yours and mine are too? We all know the answer to these very simple questions. When you look into this child's eyes is the moment when the searing truth comes into focus for us. This is the moment when we know what is right and what we must do. We can't walk away from this truth.

Mayor of New Orleans Mitch Landrieu


https://theoutline.com/post/2182/after-the-statues-fall


Originally Posted by Sini
I asked you previously

I have no interest in debating other topics in part due to what I observe as lack of engagement on my core argument.
Posted By: Banshee

Re: Trump card - 09/28/17 01:16 PM

I thought almost everyone agreed that the Civil War was about much more than slavery, so knowing that why is Robert E. Lee a symbol of racism?

That you think there is a status quo southern communities in mass are trying to maintain is just stupid honestly and speaks more to your bias.

Who in goods name does this "to continue their romanticization of the culture of slavery unchecked." besides the extreme groups we all know like the KKK.

Slavery bad... I think we get it. These statues are just the latest cause of the day to be offended by, just wait a couple weeks it will be old news and there will be some other cause of the week keeping down some group in America. Everyone is always looking for someone to blame besides themselves.

This just in... hard work and good choices will get you ahead in life, you are not entitled to anything but you can improve your situation. That is all anyone can really ask for.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 09/28/17 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by Banshee
I thought almost everyone agreed that the Civil War was about much more than slavery, so knowing that why is Robert E. Lee a symbol of racism?

Who in goods name does this "to continue their romanticization of the culture of slavery unchecked." besides the extreme groups we all know like the KKK.


Read or watch the entirety of Mitch Landrieu's speech. Specifically this part:

Quote
The historic record is clear: The Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and P.G.T. Beauregard statues were not erected just to honor these men, but as part of the movement which became known as The Cult of the Lost Cause. This “cult” had one goal—through monuments and through other means—to rewrite history to hide the truth, which is that the Confederacy was on the wrong side of humanity.



Originally Posted by Banshee
That you think there is a status quo southern communities in mass are trying to maintain is just stupid honestly and speaks more to your bias.


I am referring specifically to the status quo of maintaining the presence of statues which were erected by Klansmen.


Please read about White Fragility. The evidence of its accuracy is oozing out of this thread.

https://www.salon.com/2016/07/18/wh...hemselves_during_discussions_about_race/
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 09/28/17 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
dogma


I wholly reject that I have not already laid out this argument in this thread, which is why I've been continually ignoring you saying that I have, but for sake of reference I will do so one more time.

The statues were put up by essentially Klansmen, in direct response to the events in the United States years AFTER the civil war and leading up to and after the Civil Rights Movement, and in whole or in part to signal that the communities they reside in stand for the ideology of white supremacy and white nationalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

Nazis today wish to maintain the status quo, to further their own cause of white nationalism.

Besides blatant racism, spurious dog-whistle arguments about the historical value of these statues are being uses by Nazis and others to maintain the status quo.

Aside from being disingenuous, these arguments are demonstrably false because history books and museums will continue to exist among other incredibly obvious reasons. At bare minimum, in my opinion, these statues should be interpreted and contextualized and not allowed to continue their romanticization of the culture of slavery unchecked.

By supporting these arguments and rejecting their clear purpose, you are therefore de facto, in action if not in spirit, supporting the cause of white nationalism.

You also continually suggest that I have not given justification as to the necessity for the statues to be removed. Aside from the fact that it opposes nazis, I think it's clear that having symbols of racism and oppression prominently featured on government lands and in public spaces serves as an unnecessary reminder to African Americans of the lengths to which our culture and society still need to go to truly accept them. Additionally they serve as false signals to white people that racism is normal, which when combined with all other sources of normalization, contributes to the perpetuation of racism and systemic oppression.

No, removing the statues will not solve all of the worlds problems. Yes, there are other problems to concern yourselves with, in addition to this one. This is just one step along a generational journey of tolerance. A step you are opposing to no fruitful benefit.



There are a few problems with your reasoning though, as well as your base assumptions.

The first and most important is your assertion that Nazis place a lot of import on the statues themselves. This is fundamentally incorrect. What Nazis and white nationalists actually seek is attention. What they fear is marginalization and being ignored.

When people and go make a big deal about 20 of them gathering, and when a bunch of violent counter-protestors appear at their rallies, and the home pages of digital newspapers are filled with copious stories about them - they aren't saying to themselves "Aw, shucks. It looks like people don't like us, this isn't good." No, what they are saying is "OMG THIS IS AWESOME, WE LOOK SO HUGE AND POWERFUL AND EVERYONE IS PAYING ATTENTION TO US!"

The status quo for the past several decades had actually been a decline in racism to the point where Southern localities will even attempt to remove statues on their own, which is not in the interest of the white nationalists at all. What they seek is conflict and attention, and by giving it to them you are feeding the troll, not defeating it. Stepping into the debate as the leftist, commie, coastal "other" just puts the locals who do want to remove the statues in a bad spot. Appearing to cave to ANTIFA pressure on anything is a recipe for political suicide.

White nationalists are basically sock puppets, dressed up in ridiculous fashion and holding little get-togethers with the few other sock puppet aficionados, and hoping other people come to watch the show. By shining a huge spotlight of attention on them, the sock puppets cast monstrous shadow puppets on the wall - appearing large and frightening - while giving them that which they most desire.

The danger here is that people see how easy it is to troll the world, and decide to join the trolls.

The moral of the story here is that you shouldn't base any of your actions on what you think Nazis want, especially if you don't know what they actually want. You might wake up one day to realize that you'd been playing into their hands all along. This is also an example of why ends don't justify means.

What you should be doing, is confronting the ANTIFA types and sympathizers in your own circle, because criticism from outside isn't going to matter - but rather feed them in the same manner attention feeds the Nazi-wannabes.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 09/28/17 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Banshee
I thought almost everyone agreed that the Civil War was about much more than slavery, so knowing that why is Robert E. Lee a symbol of racism?

Who in goods name does this "to continue their romanticization of the culture of slavery unchecked." besides the extreme groups we all know like the KKK.


Read or watch the entirety of Mitch Landrieu's speech. Specifically this part:

Quote
The historic record is clear: The Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and P.G.T. Beauregard statues were not erected just to honor these men, but as part of the movement which became known as The Cult of the Lost Cause. This “cult” had one goal—through monuments and through other means—to rewrite history to hide the truth, which is that the Confederacy was on the wrong side of humanity.



Originally Posted by Banshee
That you think there is a status quo southern communities in mass are trying to maintain is just stupid honestly and speaks more to your bias.


I am referring specifically to the status quo of maintaining the presence of statues which were erected by Klansmen.


Please read about White Fragility. The evidence of its accuracy is oozing out of this thread.

https://www.salon.com/2016/07/18/wh...hemselves_during_discussions_about_race/


I don't think anyone is of a mind that modern slavery is on the right side of history.

The article about white fragility is a pretty good example of the ridiculousness that tries to pass itself off as intellectualism these days. Especially the part about avoiding the issue, which is pure drivel.

There are good reasons for many whites to dislike discussing race, and it has nothing to do with any repressed feelings of guilt. It directly stems from the fact that quite often, the people trying to talk about race are the type to make junk assertions and bad-faith arguments, then switch to social shaming tactics if the recipients of their attention don't immediately knuckle over and loudly proclaim the correctness and moral wisdom of the person trying to push their view.

If you want an example of this type of behavior I'm referring to, I suggest grabbing a mirror.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 09/28/17 11:07 PM

"We should do nothing about this problem because it will go away on its own and talking about it is part of the problem and also there are other things to worry about"

ref. pg1 white fragility brochure

What do Nazis stand to gain if everyone who quote "didn't care either way" simply agreed that the statues should go away? If you really don't care, then why do you care enough to say we shouldn't oppose Nazis?
Posted By: Banshee

Re: Trump card - 09/29/17 12:55 PM

I only care because I am a middle aged white guy from the south and apparently I am a racist. I really don't care about a bunch of statues, what I do care about is this constant moaning about how I am the cause of all the problems minorities face. I work 50 hours a week or more to provide for my family, I am not rich, not college educated (obviously), I did not own slave's...my family is not from a line of southern wealth that did own slaves. My family was poor and everything I have has been earned at jobs you would think are beneath you from the sounds of it...I don't owe anyone anything. I spent 10 years in the Army serving this country so I resent the implication that I am a Nazi sympathizer or racist in any shape...I have always judged men on who they are and how they act not what they look like.

This is America, you want something you work toward it..you may not get what you want but maybe your kids will by learning from your example...that is the American Dream. We as Americans are not owed anything, the only guarantee in life is that it will end. People need to quit living in the past, in America if you are good at what you do you will prosper, maybe just maybe people today have too high of an opinion of what life owes them.

America is not perfect, we have issues, we have been very hard on every group of immigrants that has ever landed on our shores not to mention what we did to the people who were here first. America is a dream, an idea and in working toward it we all improve and things get better, not overnight but over time and yes sometimes over a long period of time. We need to know our history and learn from it but we do not need to dwell on it, wallow in self pity or rage at the moon. We start again every day trying/hoping to do better.

I am not the only person who feels this way...that is why we rail at east/west coast liberal elites who tell us how bad we are not some love of a bygone era.

Sermon over...pardon the lack of debate club reasoning.

Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 09/29/17 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
"We should do nothing about this problem because it will go away on its own and talking about it is part of the problem and also there are other things to worry about"

ref. pg1 white fragility brochure

What do Nazis stand to gain if everyone who quote "didn't care either way" simply agreed that the statues should go away? If you really don't care, then why do you care enough to say we shouldn't oppose Nazis?


My entire broadside against your faction and thinking targeted the means, not the ends.

The "how" is important, and that is where you are failing.

Purported ends do not justify the means. If your approach to dealing with racism actually ends up creating more division, and providing safe haven for the racists, then shouldn't you rethink the tactics? This is a widespread problem with the larger left, where addressing real instances of racial injustice in a thoughtful manner have taken a back seat to finding ways to self-flagellate over white guilt and touting one's own supposed moral enlightenment.

Rhetorical questions like "what if everyone simply agreed to X" are reminiscent of hippy magical thinking "what if everyone just decided to make love not war, wouldn't the world suddenly be great". Sure, it would be, now lets deal with a reality that is drastically more complex.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/01/17 01:45 AM

I personally can't stand knee-jerk shaming. He could be advocating for a feasible solution for a world peace, and the moment he attempted shaming I'd be against it.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/01/17 02:16 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
The statues were put up by essentially Klansmen, in direct response to the events in the United States years AFTER the civil war


While I disagree with this, as your definition of Klansmen pretty much includes any Southerner from that era, I will grant you this point for sake of argument. However, considering most of these statues were built quite some time ago, all these Klansmen are dead.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
in whole or in part to signal that the communities they reside in stand for the ideology of white supremacy and white nationalism.


This is unsubstantiated assertion. There are other possibilities that you have to consider - that this was at one point true, but with time no longer the case; that it might intend to signal such, but is ineffective at doing so; that for many different people it stands for different things, while you might be correct in case of supremacists, there are many non-supremacists that take different meaning from these.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Nazis today wish to maintain the status quo, to further their own cause of white nationalism.

Status quo is irrelevance and powerlessness of Nazis. Why would they want to maintain this? They can't even openly advocate their view in a public sphere without getting condemned. In this way ANTIFA violence is completely unnecessary and actually counter-productive.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
spurious dog-whistle arguments about the historical value of these statues

You might not like it, but these statues do have historical value. You can't argue it away, the best you can do is present arguments why we should disregard this value.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Aside from being disingenuous, these arguments are demonstrably false because history books and museums will continue to exist

It is very easy to demonstrate that a great deal of historical artifacts, places, monuments and so on exist outside of museums. To use your flawed logic - lets tear down White House and replace it with a soulless modern office building, after all it will still exist in museums and history books.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
By supporting these arguments and rejecting their clear purpose, you are therefore de facto, in action if not in spirit, supporting the cause of white nationalism.

This is fallacy.

What you say can by transcribed as follows:

Nazi argue monuments are historical
You argue monuments are historical
Therefore you are a Nazi

or

Nazi like cheese
You like cheese
Therefore you are a Nazi

I hope even you can see how ridiculous and broken such arguments are.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Additionally they serve as false signals to white people that racism is normal, which when combined with all other sources of normalization, contributes to the perpetuation of racism and systemic oppression.


How do you see this actually working? That is, you keep asserting that these statues lead to increased racism. However, you fail to outline any mechanism for this.

Two can play this game: These statues serve as a reminders of regretful past and the necessity to not repeat it to everyone involved. This contributes to reduction of racism and deeper understanding between different racial groups.

Both of these arguments are pure BS. These statues do not change how people treat each other.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
No, removing the statues will not solve all of the worlds problems.

Have you paused to consider that removing these statues would CREATE more problems than it solves? One problem I keep bringing up, and you keep ignoring, that reaction to tearing down statues would actually push some, people that see these statues as part of Southern Identity, to sympathize/side with supremacists?
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 10/02/17 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by Banshee
I have always judged men on who they are and how they act not what they look like.


I don't know what any of you look like. I am just pointing out that the appeal to history aligns itself with Nazi ideology.

I appreciate your perspective Banshee. I think you need to realize that despite the hardships you face, if you were African American you would have statistically been starting at a disadvantage. Part of that comes from the persistence of racist attitudes stemming from the civil war and specifically the presence of symbols and acts of racism in our government. This is part of the struggle that African Americans face, and they say that removing these statues is an important step for them to help even the field for their persuit of the American dream. For them, this is not pointless whining, but rather a clear physical manifestation of their disadvantage, one that can be easily addressed immediately, unlike the systemic prejudice it helps perpetuate.


Originally Posted by Derid

My entire broadside against your faction and thinking targeted the means, not the ends.

The "how" is important, and that is where you are failing.

Purported ends do not justify the means. If your approach to dealing with racism actually ends up creating more division, and providing safe haven for the racists, then shouldn't you rethink the tactics? This is a widespread problem with the larger left, where addressing real instances of racial injustice in a thoughtful manner have taken a back seat to finding ways to self-flagellate over white guilt and touting one's own supposed moral enlightenment.

Rhetorical questions like "what if everyone simply agreed to X" are reminiscent of hippy magical thinking "what if everyone just decided to make love not war, wouldn't the world suddenly be great". Sure, it would be, now lets deal with a reality that is drastically more complex.


I am arguing about the "why," not the "how." I appreciate that there is a debate about the "how," but it is separate from the "why." However, I will say that I support Goriom's analysis of Trump's speech immediately following Charlottesville, and again I believe that inaction and dismissal of the issue is itself indicative of the problem.

This is not a hypothetical argument. That we have statues romanticizing traitors and slavers in government property is one of the most literal, and tangible, instances of racial injustice I can think of. Many people in this thread, including yourself, and in America generally have literally stated that they don't actually care about the statues. Fine, but then please get out of the way instead of aligning yourself with Nazis.

Originally Posted by Sini
I personally can't stand knee-jerk shaming. He could be advocating for a feasible solution for a world peace, and the moment he attempted shaming I'd be against it.


Yes, we've already established that you care more about the attendance of debate club than the agenda.

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
in whole or in part to signal that the communities they reside in stand for the ideology of white supremacy and white nationalism.


This is unsubstantiated assertion. There are other possibilities that you have to consider - that this was at one point true, but with time no longer the case; that it might intend to signal such, but is ineffective at doing so; that for many different people it stands for different things, while you might be correct in case of supremacists, there are many non-supremacists that take different meaning from these.


If you want me to prove that people agree with me that the statues are racist in the present, then just turn on the news. I grant that some people dismiss any debate about race as an unncessary distraction, although they are wrong, and I'll accept that you grant that they were contemporaneously racist.

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Nazis today wish to maintain the status quo, to further their own cause of white nationalism.

Status quo is irrelevance and powerlessness of Nazis.


As I said earlier, I am referring to the status quo of having racist monuments in prominent public places.


Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
spurious dog-whistle arguments about the historical value of these statues

You might not like it, but these statues do have historical value. You can't argue it away, the best you can do is present arguments why we should disregard this value.


Since many of these monuments were mass produced, they have as much historical value as an old fashioned sardine can. But for the rest of them, since these people can be most generously described as traitors, and this obvious description is not provided in a contexualized way, then it's clear that the historical value does not outweigh the recurring cost to society. I don't even really need to invoke issues of race to prove this point.

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Aside from being disingenuous, these arguments are demonstrably false because history books and museums will continue to exist

It is very easy to demonstrate that a great deal of historical artifacts, places, monuments and so on exist outside of museums. To use your flawed logic - lets tear down White House and replace it with a soulless modern office building, after all it will still exist in museums and history books.


I honestly don't understand your argument. If a certain local government decided to remove their symbols of slavery, and gave the United Daughters of the Confederacy or the KKK or whomever desired to foot the bill the authority to move them into a museum, I am not opposed.

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
By supporting these arguments and rejecting their clear purpose, you are therefore de facto, in action if not in spirit, supporting the cause of white nationalism.

This is fallacy.

What you say can by transcribed as follows:

Nazi argue monuments are historical
You argue monuments are historical
Therefore you are a Nazi

or

Nazi like cheese
You like cheese
Therefore you are a Nazi

I hope even you can see how ridiculous and broken such arguments are.
...
One problem I keep bringing up, and you keep ignoring, that reaction to tearing down statues would actually push some, people that see these statues as part of Southern Identity, to sympathize/side with supremacists?


Opinions on cheese are ideologically orthogonal to the ideology of white supremacy. Arguments about historical value of symbols of slavery are parallel. I'm not going to check under people's shirts for swastika tattoos before I challenge white supremacist ideology and call it out for what it is. I don't care what their motivation is.

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Additionally they serve as false signals to white people that racism is normal, which when combined with all other sources of normalization, contributes to the perpetuation of racism and systemic oppression.


How do you see this actually working? That is, you keep asserting that these statues lead to increased racism. However, you fail to outline any mechanism for this.

Two can play this game: These statues serve as a reminders of regretful past and the necessity to not repeat it to everyone involved. This contributes to reduction of racism and deeper understanding between different racial groups.

Both of these arguments are pure BS. These statues do not change how people treat each other.


Yeah, your argument is BS because the statues are not solemn symbols of regret, they are presented as heroic romanticizations.

People aren't born racist. If your father is a Nazi and you walk around town and there are grandiose symbols aligned with his world view in the public square, you are more likely to end up just like him, and the inverse is also true.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/03/17 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
I personally can't stand knee-jerk shaming. He could be advocating for a feasible solution for a world peace, and the moment he attempted shaming I'd be against it.


Yes, we've already established that you care more about the attendance of debate club than the agenda.


You at least have to pause to consider that there might be others that would feel that way. Wait, what if there was a better way to convince others... No, that is crazy talk. More shaming got to do the tick.


Quote
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
in whole or in part to signal that the communities they reside in stand for the ideology of white supremacy and white nationalism.


This is unsubstantiated assertion. There are other possibilities that you have to consider - that this was at one point true, but with time no longer the case; that it might intend to signal such, but is ineffective at doing so; that for many different people it stands for different things, while you might be correct in case of supremacists, there are many non-supremacists that take different meaning from these.


If you want me to prove that people agree with me that the statues are racist in the present, then just turn on the news.


So we now settle debate by media frenzy? Need I remind you that this approach brought us Trump? He would still be peddling stakes if less people "just turn on the news".



Quote
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Nazis today wish to maintain the status quo, to further their own cause of white nationalism.

Status quo is irrelevance and powerlessness of Nazis.


As I said earlier, I am referring to the status quo of having racist monuments in prominent public places.


You repeatedly failed to establish that they are racists. Simply stating it again won't do it. I hope you eventually catch on and stop doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different outcome.


Quote
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
spurious dog-whistle arguments about the historical value of these statues

You might not like it, but these statues do have historical value. You can't argue it away, the best you can do is present arguments why we should disregard this value.


Since many of these monuments were mass produced, they have as much historical value as an old fashioned sardine can.


This is actually a good argument, I am glad you are trying. Less shaming, and couple more arguments and you might start convincing people.


Quote
since these people can be most generously described as traitors


This is not a good argument. Many people from south see them as patriots and this has nothing to do with slavery. Southern Identity is a real thing and your attempts to deny it exists would be seen as an attack. Since it isn't core of your argument, you are better off not mentioning it to not unnecessary alienate people.


Quote
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Aside from being disingenuous, these arguments are demonstrably false because history books and museums will continue to exist

It is very easy to demonstrate that a great deal of historical artifacts, places, monuments and so on exist outside of museums. To use your flawed logic - lets tear down White House and replace it with a soulless modern office building, after all it will still exist in museums and history books.

If a certain local government decided to remove their symbols of slavery, and gave the United Daughters of the Confederacy or the KKK or whomever desired to foot the bill the authority to move them into a museum, I am not opposed.


I am not opposed to that either, but this is not what we were talking about up to this point. It was lawless and often violent demonstrators that were not local that pulled down these statues in front of cameras while yelling various endearing phrases like "down with white privilege!"

Quote
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
By supporting these arguments and rejecting their clear purpose, you are therefore de facto, in action if not in spirit, supporting the cause of white nationalism.

This is fallacy.

What you say can by transcribed as follows:

Nazi argue monuments are historical
You argue monuments are historical
Therefore you are a Nazi

or

Nazi like cheese
You like cheese
Therefore you are a Nazi

I hope even you can see how ridiculous and broken such arguments are.
...
One problem I keep bringing up, and you keep ignoring, that reaction to tearing down statues would actually push some, people that see these statues as part of Southern Identity, to sympathize/side with supremacists?


Opinions on cheese are ideologically orthogonal to the ideology of white supremacy. Arguments about historical value of symbols of slavery are parallel.


You can't fix your broken argument without adding another premise. I won't fix it for you, as it is sufficient to point out that:

1. Nazi argue monuments are historical
2. You argue monuments are historical
Therefore you are a Nazi

Is fallacious. That is, you can't conclude I am a nazi based on 1. and 2. alone. Even if you have pictures of me in a white robe in a front of a burning cross doing nazi salute while holding a copy of mein kampf the argument is wrong.




Quote
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Additionally they serve as false signals to white people that racism is normal, which when combined with all other sources of normalization, contributes to the perpetuation of racism and systemic oppression.


How do you see this actually working? That is, you keep asserting that these statues lead to increased racism. However, you fail to outline any mechanism for this.

Two can play this game: These statues serve as a reminders of regretful past and the necessity to not repeat it to everyone involved. This contributes to reduction of racism and deeper understanding between different racial groups.

Both of these arguments are pure BS. These statues do not change how people treat each other.


Yeah, your argument is BS


My argument is BS because it is unsubstantiated. So is yours.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 10/03/17 02:44 AM

They are monuments to losers, they shouldn't even be up. They are racist because racist put them up.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Trump card - 10/03/17 11:50 AM

The Arc de Triomphe was commissioned by Napoleon, who also ended up being a loser.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/03/17 12:29 PM

Magna Carta is signed by a loser.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/03/17 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh


I am arguing about the "why," not the "how." I appreciate that there is a debate about the "how," but it is separate from the "why." However, I will say that I support Goriom's analysis of Trump's speech immediately following Charlottesville, and again I believe that inaction and dismissal of the issue is itself indicative of the problem.

This is not a hypothetical argument. That we have statues romanticizing traitors and slavers in government property is one of the most literal, and tangible, instances of racial injustice I can think of. Many people in this thread, including yourself, and in America generally have literally stated that they don't actually care about the statues. Fine, but then please get out of the way instead of aligning yourself with Nazis.


By telling me that I am somehow "in your way" and aligned with Nazis for criticizing your methods, you are implicitly stating that purported ends justify the means which is not only incorrect - it is a far, far more dangerous manner of thinking than simply supporting, not supporting, or not caring about statues.

If only the purported ends matter, and not the means (or the real consequences) then you can literally self-justify any action in favor of something you feel strongly about. Like an Aryan utopia, or a communist paradise. Your type of emotional thinking is how those kinds of grand tragedies can happen in the first place.

You are correct that I don't care about the statues. There are a lot of things in this world, and I won't pretend to care about all of them. There are a lot of people in this world, and I won't pretend to care about all of them either. Humans aren't built to care about everything. I've found that people who claim to do so are usually either broken sociopaths, or self-aggrandizing hypocrites who mistake their selective outrage for doing good. Hence all the emotion-laden assertions and non-arguments, because the real goal isn't doing good - it's forwarding ones own sense of superiority. It's a highbrow version of watching Ricki Lake or those other sordid daytime TV shows - people didn't watch them because of any sympathy, they watched them so they could look down on others and feel better about themselves.

Similarly, I don't think people who want to focus the world on some statues feel any real sympathy for those purportedly impacted by them. If they did, they'd care more about means, and real consequences.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 10/05/17 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by Brutal
The Arc de Triomphe was commissioned by Napoleon, who also ended up being a loser.


Well since the guy who commissioned it was a national hero I don't think this really applies here. Also, it was to commemorate a victory.


Originally Posted by Sini
Magna Carta is signed by a loser.


Magna Carta was his attempt to keep the peace. Also, it is not a monument.

My limited education in history may be wrong.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Trump card - 10/05/17 01:06 PM

I've never seen or heard of Napoleon depicted as a French national hero, at least not by anything other than a small minority. And I could list all the confederate victories, but that's not the point I was making. I'm simply pointing out that if your argument "They are monuments to losers" were valid, it would apply to quite a lot of monuments.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 10/06/17 12:17 AM

One of the greatest military commanders of history, he is studied today in military schools. He won almost all of his battle and wars. Not to mention the social side and his Civil Code and Napoleon Code all of which laid the foundation of modern Europe. There are monuments erected to him in other countries. If you don't think the French love him you need to read more.

It doesn't matter how many confederate victories there were. They lost. Only in American could these monuments have been erected.

What other monuments are you talking about? I am really interested not trolling
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Trump card - 10/06/17 02:12 AM

Just google "monuments to losers" (add -confederate if you want to try to weed those out) if you want to see some lists. Your arguments in support of Napoleon are fascinating, but still beside the point.

1. "They are monuments to losers"
2. "Here are other monuments to losers"
3. "But those are good losers"

This is how the argument breaks down. If you wish to amend your original argument feel free; my only point was that, when stated as broadly as you did, your argument doesn't make a great deal of sense.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 10/06/17 02:19 AM

My argument was they lost why are we putting up monuments to losers. If that doesn't make sense then we sense differently

Also, my argument is losers in a war. Not lost cause granny that people felt bad about.

So your counter argument goggle yourself.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Trump card - 10/06/17 05:55 PM

Ok man, if this will get us back to the actual argument, here you go (taken from the first link when googling as I mentioned):

Statue of Charles I, who was King of England and was deposed and beheaded after the English Civil War. Displayed in London.
The Obelisk of Sao Paulo commemorates the losers of the failed 1932 Sao Paulo Civil War.
The Wolfe-Montcalm Monument in Quebec commemorates both the winner and loser of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham.
The Tecumseh Monument (for that matter, just about ANY Native American Monument would apply) in Ontario

Originally Posted by some guy on Quora
The Province of Quebec even has a holiday (and monuments) to the ‘Patriotes’ of the failed 1838 rebellion in Lower Canada (Quebec). Some people have even put up memorials to the failed Upper Canada rebellion as well. There are even monuments to the Fenian raids, which failed of course.


The Glenfinnan Monument commemorates the failed Jacobite Rising by Prince Charles Edward Stuart in Scotland

I'm not going to waste any more of my life on this argument, but by all means feel free to dissect these few examples I've listed and tell me why these are all good losers, more worthy of commemoration than any other loser.

edit: Hilariously, the first link I opened on reddit after submitting this post was this image, which sums up the danger of forgetting about the losers in history, whether they deserved to lose or not.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/06/17 11:19 PM

You can't string a bunch of flawed arguments, half-reasons, and emotional knee-jerks and call yourself justified. Doesn't mean that removing these statues isn't the right things to do, but anyone here is yet to present a sound justification to do so. Be it lack or reasons or lack of ability to articulate these reasons, but as someone who doesn't passionately care about these statues I am still convinced that removing them for wrong reasons is counter-productive.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 10/06/17 11:59 PM

The charles statue was made when he was still alive. It was sent off to be melted down but was hidden till the restoration of the monarchy system. This has no relevance to my statement.

The obelisk was from a revolt , not a war. This has no relevance to my statement.

The Wolfe-Montcalm doesn't even factor into my statement.

Native American monuments I can partially give into that one.

The Glenfinnan was just The last dying gasp of the Catholics trying to keep control. And it wasn't for a battle or a war just him placing his standard when he arrived on shore

My statement still stands your goggle barrage. The North won. The South lost. Hundreds of statues are erected to the loser of a war and place on public land. Nowhere or in history has this happened other than in America.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 10/07/17 12:07 AM

The taking down of the monuments is a local issue. If the city decided they don't want it there anymore it is the right of the city to do so. It doesn't matter if it's a racist statue or a 20 foot dick. I live in a state the doesn't have a single memorial of the civil war and I know the right side won. People don't need statues to figure it out.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/08/17 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Helemoto
The taking down of the monuments is a local issue. If the city decided they don't want it there anymore it is the right of the city to do so. It doesn't matter if it's a racist statue or a 20 foot dick.


Absolutely, but this isn't what is happening, and this isn't what we discussing. We are talking here about outsider activists coming in and pressuring, or sometimes just tearing it down themselves. At that point it becomes a clusterfuck of social signaling and displays of dominance between far right and far left groups.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 10/09/17 07:32 AM

More moving the goalpost, straw men and manifestations of defense mechanisms. Whatever.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/09/17 03:12 PM

Rhaikh, so your attempts at good-faith arguments turned out to be short lived. However, I will keep asking these questions and will continue pointing out that you cannot be justified in your position, whatever it happens to be, until you have answers to these.

1. Where is your red line on actions of the protesters? Is destruction of property unrelated to statues acceptable? Attacks on journalists? Initiating violence?
2. Do you acknowledge that these statues have non-zero historical value?
3. Do you acknowledge that Civil War was fought over significantly broader set of issues than just slavery vs. anti-slavery?
4. Are you willing to accept that different points of view, other than slavery vs. anti-slavery, could exists in relation to statues? That is, are these statues only represent slavery, and nothing else?

Take your time.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 10/10/17 03:44 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Helemoto
The taking down of the monuments is a local issue. If the city decided they don't want it there anymore it is the right of the city to do so. It doesn't matter if it's a racist statue or a 20 foot dick.


Absolutely, but this isn't what is happening, and this isn't what we discussing. We are talking here about outsider activists coming in and pressuring, or sometimes just tearing it down themselves. At that point it becomes a clusterfuck of social signaling and displays of dominance between far right and far left groups.



Does it really matter if an outside group comes to town to help the people of that town protest the monuments? I think not. This is what this country is about. I am pretty sure the ones coming to keep them up are not all from the same town.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/10/17 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by Helemoto
Does it really matter if an outside group comes to town to help the people of that town protest the monuments?


To me it does. It creates sense of false consensus and it does impose outside influence on the locale. I see ANTIFA protests as mostly intimidation tactic and show of power from the radical left. Tearing down of statues is a display of muscle and a message - "Look, we can come into your community, do whatever we want lawlessly and get away with it. You better fall in line."

Think of it this way, how would you react if a bunch of Californians chose your neighborhood to protest Trump because your neighborhood voted for him? Along with property destruction and masked thugs intimidating local newspaper reporter? The same arguments - it is anti-racism, for promotion of equality and so on can be made.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 10/10/17 10:08 PM

So when Martin Luther King Left Alabama to help others protest, you see that as bad? We have a long history of people going to other areas of the country to help protest. Imagine what the country would look like if everyone stayed only in the areas you see fit to keep them.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 10/11/17 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Rhaikh, so your attempts at good-faith arguments turned out to be short lived. However, I will keep asking these questions and will continue pointing out that you cannot be justified in your position, whatever it happens to be, until you have answers to these.


I'm glad someone here is the official arbiter of valid positions.

Originally Posted by Sini

1. Where is your red line on actions of the protesters? Is destruction of property unrelated to statues acceptable? Attacks on journalists? Initiating violence?
2. Do you acknowledge that these statues have non-zero historical value?
3. Do you acknowledge that Civil War was fought over significantly broader set of issues than just slavery vs. anti-slavery?
4. Are you willing to accept that different points of view, other than slavery vs. anti-slavery, could exists in relation to statues? That is, are these statues only represent slavery, and nothing else?

Take your time.


1. My opinion on this is tangential to the issue of whether or not the statues deserve to remain where they are and I'm not going to go there just because that's the debate you'd rather have
2. Case by case basis, majority no, vast majority are providing insincere/whitewashed representations of history
3. My opinion on this is tangential to the issue of whether or not the statues deserve to remain where they are and I'm not going to go there just because that's the debate you'd rather have
4. Are you trying to say that your sexual fetish is being near a statue of a confederate soldier? More power to you, but for a huge swath of Americans they represent systemic oppression and racism, and that interpretation is not only objectively accurate but contemporaneously by the people who put them up, and currently by some people who want them to stay up, the desired interpretation. On balance, the consideration of your sexual fetish and the well-meaning but misguided ancestors of confederate soldiers simply do not measure up, given the alternative compromises (relocation and reinterpretation) that exist.


Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 10/11/17 07:31 PM

You know, now that I think of it, Nazi cosplay is a fairly common sexual fetish that is not necessarily rooted in white supremacy. Charlottesville was just a sexual lib display, and therefore we should stop all attempts at denouncing them
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/11/17 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini

1. Where is your red line on actions of the protesters? Is destruction of property unrelated to statues acceptable? Attacks on journalists? Initiating violence?
2. Do you acknowledge that these statues have non-zero historical value?
3. Do you acknowledge that Civil War was fought over significantly broader set of issues than just slavery vs. anti-slavery?
4. Are you willing to accept that different points of view, other than slavery vs. anti-slavery, could exists in relation to statues? That is, are these statues only represent slavery, and nothing else?

Take your time.


1. My opinion on this is tangential to the issue of whether or not the statues deserve to remain where they are and I'm not going to go there just because that's the debate you'd rather have
2. Case by case basis, majority no, vast majority are providing insincere/whitewashed representations of history
3. My opinion on this is tangential to the issue of whether or not the statues deserve to remain where they are and I'm not going to go there just because that's the debate you'd rather have
4. Are you trying to say that your sexual fetish is being near a statue of a confederate soldier? More power to you, but for a huge swath of Americans they represent systemic oppression and racism, and that interpretation is not only objectively accurate but contemporaneously by the people who put them up, and currently by some people who want them to stay up, the desired interpretation. On balance, the consideration of your sexual fetish and the well-meaning but misguided ancestors of confederate soldiers simply do not measure up, given the alternative compromises (relocation and reinterpretation) that exist.



On #1. Could you think of anything that would be unacceptable action in getting these statues removed? This isn't a side debate, as we largely agree on overall goals - reducing racism, but disagree on methods - removal of statues.

On #2. If some of these statues have non-zero value, this value should be considered against benefits of removal of these statues. Earlier, you mentioned reducing racism as a benefit. Can you outline how it would work? Could you think of any other benefits?

On #3. How discussion of Civil War statues could be tangential to issues of Civil War?

I am still waiting for your answer to #4.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/11/17 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by Helemoto
So when Martin Luther King Left Alabama to help others protest, you see that as bad? We have a long history of people going to other areas of the country to help protest. Imagine what the country would look like if everyone stayed only in the areas you see fit to keep them.


This is actually a very good point on locale. The key difference is that MLK advocated and practiced non-violence, while current crop of protesters relies on violence. So in a way, it is a hypothetical one, like discussing militaristic Ghandi that raised an army and fought bloody civil war against British.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 10/12/17 10:45 AM

1) Nearly every modern leftist protest I've ever seen has had some element of violence, as far as I can tell some people think violence is a solution to all problems, therefore whether or not this particular controversial issue incites people to violence is tangential because it is guaranteed to due to the nature of controversy itself.

2) I've already given an outline as to how statues and other forms of symbology contribute to racism and how, therefore, their removal would contribute to tolerance. It is a multifaceted, nuanced issue and I'll leave the specifics to researchers of sociology.

3) Again, the statues are forms of symbolism, of a kind which represents issues stemming from the aftermath of the civil war and not directly from the causes of the civil war.

4) I've given you my answer, I grant that for some people they are statues of great great great grandpop and for some other people they are items of sexual fetish.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/12/17 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
1) Nearly every modern leftist protest I've ever seen has had some element of violence, as far as I can tell some people think violence is a solution to all problems, therefore whether or not this particular controversial issue incites people to violence is tangential because it is guaranteed to due to the nature of controversy itself.


Your continued avoidance of direct answer on this leads me to believe that you condone this violence. Otherwise why wouldn't you just state "I disagree that violence is acceptable tool in reaching these goals" and we could agree and move on. Derid covered why this is important at length.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
2) I've already given an outline as to how statues and other forms of symbology contribute to racism and how, therefore, their removal would contribute to tolerance. It is a multifaceted, nuanced issue and I'll leave the specifics to researchers of sociology.


You did no such thing. You repeatedly stated that they contribute to racism, and that removing them will reduce racism. I do not require you to cite papers, I simply want you to outline how you believe this would work. Do you think these statues incite white people to hurl racial slurs at minorities? Do you think KKK membership will be reduced if these come down? Do you think police would stop targeting minorities? Please explain your view.

Quote
4) I've given you my answer, I grant that for some people they are statues of great great great grandpop and for some other people they are items of sexual fetish.


So you agree that Civil War was fought over multitude of complex issues, that statues represent different things to different people, that some of these statues may have historical value... yet you go right back to reducing it all to "racists vs. anti-racists". Why?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/12/17 03:41 PM

Trump displays outrageous censorious behavior and no outrage follows from GOP or Dems.

Free press, and yes that includes various fake news outlets, is a cornerstone of Liberal Democracy.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 10/12/17 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Trump displays outrageous censorious behavior and no outrage follows from GOP or Dems.



What rock are you living under.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 10/13/17 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Derid covered why this is important at length.


It's a distraction from the actual issue, and with issues of race the tactic of distraction is the most insidious one used by those who personally feel no pressure to address the issue, which is why I refuse to allow it in my response.

Originally Posted by Sini
You did no such thing.


Yeah, I did.

Originally Posted by Sini
yet you go right back to reducing it all to "racists vs. anti-racists". Why?


Because the concerns of those who sexually fetishize statues are not as important to our society as matters of race.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/13/17 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
Derid covered why this is important at length.


It's a distraction from the actual issue, and with issues of race the tactic of distraction is the most insidious one used by those who personally feel no pressure to address the issue, which is why I refuse to allow it in my response.



Telling you that you are doing it wrong is not distracting from the issue of race. Pretending that it is, is intellectually dishonest.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/14/17 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh

Originally Posted by Sini
You did no such thing.


Yeah, I did.



Please quote your own post to point it to me.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/14/17 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Derid
Pretending that it is, is intellectually dishonest.


This is endemic problem with many movements, and the root of derision pointed at SJW. They take up a cause and use it as an excuse to harass, censor, cause mayhem and violence and have people like rhaikh blindly endorse it because it is "for a cause". Interestingly, I recently read an expose on ANTIFA where a number of ex-fascists joined their ranks because it was easier to get away with violence as ANTIFA.

For example, ANTIFA attacking journalists covering their protests. Straight out of brown shirts book. Yet you have rhaikh condoning such behaviors because it is for a good cause. Then he will be asking himself where we went wrong when we slide to Erdogan-style totalitarianism.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 10/15/17 05:29 PM

Tell you what, in the interest of ending this unproductive """debate""" I propose a resolution. I feel this is a good resolution because I honestly don't believe anymore that either of you actually espouse the positions you are defending, but would rather argue about SJWs or Antifa or some other nonsense.

I'll donate $50 to the Southern Poverty Law Center.


If you can make a convincing case that they deserve it, I'll donate $50 in your name(s) to one of the "neo-confederate" organizations listed here (including the UDC):

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2000/neo-confederates


Or, if you prefer, an additional donation to SPLC.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/16/17 11:27 PM

I have no idea what neo-confederate organizations are out there, I doubt any of them are worthwhile. Personally I support ACLU and EFF.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/23/17 11:55 PM

Interesting read:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/on-safari-in-trumps-america/543288/
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/24/17 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Tell you what, in the interest of ending this unproductive """debate""" I propose a resolution. I feel this is a good resolution because I honestly don't believe anymore that either of you actually espouse the positions you are defending, but would rather argue about SJWs or Antifa or some other nonsense.

I'll donate $50 to the Southern Poverty Law Center.


If you can make a convincing case that they deserve it, I'll donate $50 in your name(s) to one of the "neo-confederate" organizations listed here (including the UDC):

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2000/neo-confederates


Or, if you prefer, an additional donation to SPLC.



I'm genuinely curious which position you think I am defending?

Statues and flags were never the important part of this discussion, that's what you don't seem to understand.

WAPO: Corrosion of support for First Amendment

Quote
Bizarrely, 62 percent of college students had the mistaken belief that, under the First Amendment, an on-campus organization hosting an “offensive” speaker is legally required to ensure that there is also a speaker who presents an opposing viewpoint.


Quote
Most disconcerting, the Brookings survey found that 19 percent said it is acceptable for a student group to use violence to prevent a guest speaker it opposes from appearing on campus.


Quote
In this same vein, a Pew Research Center study from 2015 found that 40 percent of millennials are okay with government preventing people from making unspecified statements that are “offensive to minority groups.”


The issue here has and always has been the tactics of the psycho left, and the response generated and/or embolded from the wacked right.

Quote
Republicans were most intolerant of speech and most likely to favor authoritarian laws to punish it on the subject of burning or desecrating the American flag: Seventy-two percent of Republicans believe that should be illegal (along with 46 percent of Democrats).


Quote
Only 59 percent believe that religious freedom should apply to all religious groups. Among those between the ages of 18 to 29, just 49 percent support equal protection for all religious faiths, compared to over 60 percent for every other age group.


Quote
Just 37 percent of Americans think the mainstream media does not invent stories, while the rest are undecided.


You cry straw man and all sorts of other BS when confronted with the tactics, and emphasis of the psycho-left, while doing your best to dodge the real issues. Which aren't statues. Our Republic is in grave danger, and the people who are fixating on both sides of the statue issue are the symptoms.

As an aside, did it really never occur to you that using your own logic, you could be accused of a more insidious racism and propagation of "white power" than anyone here? By diverting attention away from real issues of incarceration and treatment of minorities by law enforcement, it could easily be said that you are supporting pursuit of red herrings in favor of keeping public scrutiny away from things that actually matter in peoples' lives, and are the one truly distracting from real issues of race.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/24/17 01:11 AM

Future historians and archeologist will attribute fall of American empire to this or that disaster or war. In reality it is getting to the point that defending what we collectively have is less important than sticking it to the other side is what going to bring it down. Collectively, so far, right have done a lot more damage than left - just look at the office of POTUS for evidence.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Trump card - 10/24/17 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Future historians and archeologist will attribute fall of American empire to this or that disaster or war. In reality it is getting to the point that defending what we collectively have is less important than sticking it to the other side is what going to bring it down. Collectively, so far, right have done a lot more damage than left - just look at the office of POTUS for evidence.


Yeah, Trump has been pretty damaging. Honestly, doling out exact proportions of blame feels a bit like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic at this point. Or trying to figure out whose responsibility it was to dodge that iceberg as icy waters begin seeping into the bridge.

The wacked right's electoral success has been greater in recent years, but the outsized corrosive effects on education and media by the psycho-left cannot be discounted either.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 10/24/17 10:53 PM

I fondly remember past when it was clearly all your fault.

Degradation of civics in education is simply unforgivable. I can't even attempt to defend it. Today's left is exactly what Berkeley protested in 60s.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Trump card - 10/25/17 09:51 PM

I'm tired of your false dichotomy Derid. I chimed in when I saw broad support, or at bare minimum tolerance, in this forum for the right's bullshit dog whistle historical argument to keep racist statues. Of course I care about free speech, the justice system, health care, near earth asteroids and all the rest. I just refused to let you take my debate elsewhere, because that's not the reason I'm here. I paid my $50 to SPLC and I hope they use it to continue to fight hate groups and their tactics, in all forms, including statues.


The Nazis in Charlottesville chant "you will not replace us." Not "this statue."
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/01/17 12:29 AM

Manafort indictment is very damning, if true shows clear connection between Trump and Russia.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 11/01/17 03:48 AM

"The most striking news is that none of this involves the 2016 election campaign. The indictment makes clear that Mr. Manafort’s work for Ukraine and his money transfers ended in 2014. The 2016 charges are related to false statements Mr. Manafort made to the Justice Department."
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/01/17 11:43 PM

So we are still in search of Helemoto's red line. Turns out collusion with Russia isn't it.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 11/02/17 02:53 AM

Nice try buttercup. This is about Trump. His Russian issue was before Trump. Try reading before commenting.
Posted By: Helemoto

Re: Trump card - 11/02/17 03:05 AM

Speaking of Manafort....That dude runs deep in Washington. How many buttholes do you think puckered in one day
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/05/17 03:33 PM

It's beginning to look like the only collusion in the election took place between the Russians, the DNC, and the Clinton campaign.

Speaking of the DNC, it also looks like they collectively betrayed the trust of the American people based on the information only now being revealed by former Chairperson Donna Brazile.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/05/17 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Speaking of the DNC, it also looks like they collectively betrayed the trust of the American people based on the information only now being revealed by former Chairperson Donna Brazile.


Betrayed the trust of Democrats, and shows that Bernie was correct with his complaints. This is definitive proof that Hillary is unethical political operator and entrenched insider. Thankfully, this all but kills any kind of talk of Hillary 2020.

None of this absolves Trump from having his campaign managed by a Russian lobbyist. So two obvious possibilities - Trump is incompetent and didn't know this, Trump knew about this and is OK with having this type of ties to Russia.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/05/17 10:01 PM

After nearly two years, extensive investigation of the Trump Campaign has revealed no wrong doing, but instead has revealed collusion by both the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

This is one of the worst self inflicted wounds in American politics I am aware of. The biggest ties to Russia have been shown to be with Democrats.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/05/17 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by Sini

None of this absolves Trump from having his campaign managed by a Russian lobbyist. So two obvious possibilities - Trump is incompetent and didn't know this, Trump knew about this and is OK with having this type of ties to Russia.

Are you sure you aren't talking about Hillary's campaign manager?

"The FBI and Justice Department have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta Group, the lobbying and public relations firm co-founded by Hillary Clinton presidential campaign chairman John Podesta, has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych."

https://www.technocracy.news/index....roup-under-investigation-by-fbi-and-doj/
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/05/17 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by Sini

None of this absolves Trump from having his campaign managed by a Russian lobbyist. So two obvious possibilities - Trump is incompetent and didn't know this, Trump knew about this and is OK with having this type of ties to Russia.

So was Hillary incompetent and didn't know about John Podesta's Russian ties, or was she OK with that?

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/07/john-podestas-russia-connection.php
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/05/17 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Manafort indictment is very damning, if true shows clear connection between Trump and Russia.

Since the indictment covers activities undertaken by Manafort prior to his joining the Trump campaign, what is the clear connection?
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 11/06/17 04:14 PM

Trump Jr: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...a-law-may-be-reviewed-moscow-lawyer-says

Papadopoulos: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...c-bdb3-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html

Kushner: http://www.businessinsider.com/russ...book-through-yuri-milner-kushner-2017-11

Sessions: http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/al-franken-jeff-sessions/index.html

Tillerson: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...tor-bahamas-based-us-russian-oil-company

I mean at this point you have to be trolling Owain.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/06/17 05:28 PM

I guess I am, if you define trolling as presenting accurate information. Is the Podesta group cofounded by Tony Podesta, Hillary's campaign manager, not under investigation, and did he not have contacts with Russians and the Russian government?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/05/t...one-and-did-not-file-as-a-foreign-agent/

Now I am of the opinion that it is not illegal to do business with Russia, but if Democrats want to get their panties in a twist over those who do, don't just twist up your panties about Republicans. Democrats are just as involved.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 11/06/17 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
I guess I am, if you define trolling as presenting accurate information. Is the Podesta group cofounded by Tony Podesta, Hillary's campaign manager, not under investigation, and did he not have contacts with Russians and the Russian government?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/05/t...one-and-did-not-file-as-a-foreign-agent/

Now I am of the opinion that it is not illegal to do business with Russia, but if Democrats want to get their panties in a twist over those who do, don't just twist up your panties about Republicans. Democrats are just as involved.



Yes but what you're guilty of is whataboutism. This thread is called "Trump card" where we discuss the Trump administration. All you have been doing this entire thread is go, "so what, democrats do it as well" That may be true, and that is also a no go in my book, its why I voted for Bernie but it certainly does not absolve Trump and his cronies of any crimes.

People will be going to jail and you will be sorely disappointed when its not Hillary but Trump lackeys.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/06/17 07:28 PM

Yes, but you are blatantly hypocritical if you condemn Trump for things but do not condemn Democrats for the same things.

If you want to be blatantly hypocritical, that's up to you, but expect to be called for it.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/06/17 07:31 PM

Speaking of Democrats going to jail, Anthony "Carlos Danger" Weiner, starts his term of imprisonment this week.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...sexting-conviction/ar-AAuu1I3?li=BBnbfcL
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/07/17 12:29 AM

I don't think Owain could do a better "Hey, look here!" impersonation if he tried. However, with insane political climate we live in I am still not 100% sure he is trolling. Sadly, he could be serious.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/07/17 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
I don't think Owain could do a better "Hey, look here!" impersonation if he tried. However, with insane political climate we live in I am still not 100% sure he is trolling. Sadly, he could be serious.

Well, you may not be sure if I am serious, but it appears the FBI certainly is, unless you geniuses think they are just trolling.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 11/13/17 11:46 PM

But her emails. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/545738/
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/13/17 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom
But her emails. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/545738/


Interesting, but no smoking gun. However, this keeps adding to the body of work.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 11/14/17 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Goriom
But her emails. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/545738/


Interesting, but no smoking gun. However, this keeps adding to the body of work.

Maybe not but this speaks volumes.

“Hey Don. We have an unusual idea,” Wikileaks wrote on October 21, 2016. “Leak us one or more of your father’s tax returns.” Wikileaks then laid out three reasons why this would benefit both the Trumps and Wikileaks. One, The New York Times had already published a fragment of Trump’s tax returns on October 1; two, the rest could come out any time “through the most biased source (e.g. NYT/MSNBC).”

It is the third reason, though, Wikileaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” Wikileaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.” It then provided an email address and link where the Trump campaign could send the tax returns, and adds, “The same for any other negative stuff (documents, recordings) that you think has a decent chance of coming out. Let us put it out.”
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/14/17 02:24 AM

Speaking of her emails, the Justice Department is reconsidering that, along with many other things.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...breaking-news&utm_term=.87a52ba1f307
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 11/14/17 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Speaking of her emails, the Justice Department is reconsidering that, along with many other things.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...breaking-news&utm_term=.87a52ba1f307


That deflection though, hahahahahha
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/14/17 01:08 PM

Tell it to the Justice Department prosecutors.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 11/14/17 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Tell it to the Justice Department prosecutors.


How long have the Republicans been trying to nail Hillary and yet every time it ends the same exact way? Ya'll got a raging hard on for her.

Meanwhile, don't look behind the curtain because you might see Trump giving Putin a BJ back there while Assange gives Trump a reach around.

Let me ask you a hypothetical. If it was proven that Trump 100% colluded with Russia using wikileaks to push the election in his favor, would that even matter to you?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/14/17 07:06 PM

Yes it would matter, but that seems less likely as time goes on.

Would it matter to you if the DNC and Hillarly colluded with the Russians, which is far more likely, hence the directive to Justice Department prosecutors to start looking into them?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/14/17 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Goriom
But her emails. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/545738/


Interesting, but no smoking gun. However, this keeps adding to the body of work.

Maybe not but this speaks volumes.

“Hey Don. We have an unusual idea,” Wikileaks wrote on October 21, 2016. “Leak us one or more of your father’s tax returns.” Wikileaks then laid out three reasons why this would benefit both the Trumps and Wikileaks. One, The New York Times had already published a fragment of Trump’s tax returns on October 1; two, the rest could come out any time “through the most biased source (e.g. NYT/MSNBC).”

It is the third reason, though, Wikileaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” Wikileaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.” It then provided an email address and link where the Trump campaign could send the tax returns, and adds, “The same for any other negative stuff (documents, recordings) that you think has a decent chance of coming out. Let us put it out.”



Yes, but other side of this conversation, by not responding over Twitter with "Sure, sounds like a great idea, see attached document" has plausible deniability. We need to be always critical. What is this was attempted entrapment? Also, how come, Assange, a known paranoidac and competent opsec practitioner had these kind of conversations over unencrypted third-party channel?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/14/17 11:14 PM

Owain, the first step is admitting that you have a credibility problem. We are always going to be here to help you get back your dignity and self-respect. You don't need to keep living like this.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/15/17 12:38 AM

The directive from the Attorney General to Justice Department prosecutors to scrutinize the DNC and Hillary Clinton is quite independent of me. If you want to plug your ears and close your eyes, that is your business. Then, just as when Trump won the election, you can be shocked and dismayed when things go badly for the Democratic party, but it won't be because I didn't try to bring it to your attention.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/15/17 12:48 AM

I don't know if it will help, but maybe you can try screaming helplessly at the sky. That's always good for a laugh.

http://www.newsweek.com/americans-scream-helplessly-sky-donald-trump-election-anniversary-690889
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 11/15/17 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
Yes it would matter, but that seems less likely as time goes on.

Would it matter to you if the DNC and Hillarly colluded with the Russians, which is far more likely, hence the directive to Justice Department prosecutors to start looking into them?


Of course it would but after so many years of trying to pin anything on her, It seems that all Republicans can do is waste my money attempting to drag her name through the dirt.
Remember, I voted for Bernie, not Hillary.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/15/17 01:35 AM

Well, it helped her to have a corrupt FBI director who decided before the investigation was complete to exonerate Clinton.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/31/politics/comey-clinton-investigation/index.html
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/15/17 01:38 AM

And it helped Hillary that a corrupt Attorney General met secretly with Bill Clinton while she was under investigation.

That is also being investigated now.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...-under-more-fbi-scrutiny/article/2631759
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/15/17 01:40 AM

You may have voted for Bernie, but it is still the Democratic party as a whole that is hopelessly corrupt.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/15/17 02:43 AM

Owain, because we have zero interest talking about Hillary, I will grant you any and all points and agree to any conspiracy theory you manage to drag out of Breitbart fever swamps. What this has to do with Trump and why are you predominantly posting about Hillary in a Trump thread? Did you somehow misunderstood "Trump Card" thread title? Please stop this spam.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/15/17 02:47 AM

Back on the topic, we were discussing Correspondence Between Donald Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks

I still think that it would require another source/additional information to be damnable. It reads more like Assange talking at Trump Jr. rather than with. It also makes Assange look a lot more like acting on behalf of Russia.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/15/17 03:06 AM

Of course you don't want anyone to talk about the corruption of the entire Democratic party. That is, after all, why Trump was elected in the first place, that and failed Democratic policies. What other option do you have? Admit to both your corruption and your many failures? Maybe you should pathetically lay claim to victim status? As suggested earlier, you might try helplessly screaming at the sky.

The FBI is currently investigating the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Justice Department prosecutors are scrutinizing Clinton herself.

Of course you desperately want to change the subject. I don't blame you. Unfortunately for you, I think that neither the FBI nor the Justice Department care about what you want.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/15/17 03:45 AM

Originally Posted by Goriom
But her emails. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/545738/

But if you want to know who to thank for the direction the discussion has taken, you can thank Goriom. He opened the door. Bitch at him for straying, not me.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Trump card - 11/15/17 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
You may have voted for Bernie, but it is still the Democratic party as a whole that is hopelessly corrupt.


I agree with this statement, but I also find it laughable bordering on stupefying that you can even imply that Republican party isn't also corrupt, which is how this statement comes across. American federal politics are all corrupt, and we see more and more of it every day.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/15/17 06:11 PM

There is corruption and there is corruption. What the FBI is investigating and what Justice Department prosecutors are looking at the direction of the Attorney General is beginning to sound more like violations of criminal law.

The FBI investigates crimes, and prosecutors examine issues with a view to prosecute.

Posted By: Brutal

Re: Trump card - 11/15/17 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
There is corruption and there is corruption...


This is like comparing rapists to murderers by saying, "There is crime and there is crime."
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/15/17 07:00 PM

More like jaywalking as a misdemeanor offense and premeditated murder as a capitol crime.

Would you rather be locked in a room with a jaywalker, or a murderer?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/16/17 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
Of course you don't want anyone to talk about ...


Stop spamming. I created thread for you to talk about non-Trump issues elsewhere. This thread is about Trump and it is painfully obvious that you would rather talk about anything else but Trump. No such luck for you.

http://oracle.the-kgb.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/142065/clinton-campaign-investigation#Post142065
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/16/17 12:38 AM

Back on the topic, we were discussing Correspondence Between Donald Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks

I still think that it would require another source/additional information to be damnable. It reads more like Assange talking at Trump Jr. rather than with. It also makes Assange look a lot more like acting on behalf of Russia.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/16/17 01:03 AM

If you post nonsense, then rebuttal is appropriate. Trump is one side of the coin. Hillary is the opposite side.

You don't care much for Trump. That's OK. The country dodged a bullet when most states rejected Hillary.

This is an open forum. If you fear open discussion, perhaps an open forum is too rich a diet for you to stomach.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/16/17 01:14 AM

With respect to the article in the Atlantic, if Julian Assange contacted Don Jr, so what? I have Nigerian Princes and government officials contact me all the time.

Assange initiated the contact. This was an Assange agenda being pursued, not a Trump agenda.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 11/16/17 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
If you post nonsense, then rebuttal is appropriate. Trump is one side of the coin. Hillary is the opposite side.

You don't care much for Trump. That's OK. The country dodged a bullet when most states rejected Hillary.

This is an open forum. If you fear open discussion, perhaps an open forum is too rich a diet for you to stomach.


Dodged a bullet to only step on a landmine. I mean 8 more years of Obama or a Clinton presidency would have been a good thing. The country has been getting better every year we distanced ourselves from a previous Republican presidency.

Back to a recession I guess. Hope your rich owain because those tax cuts are going to be off the hook for us.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/16/17 07:54 PM

Got any more rakes you want to step on, Goriam?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/30/trump-gdp-second-quarter-2017-242171
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/16/17 07:57 PM

Goriam illustrates what I mean by nonsense posts that require rebuttal.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/12/sp-...rillion-since-donald-trump-election.html
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/16/17 07:58 PM

More...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/03/news/economy/october-jobs-report/index.html
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/16/17 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
With respect to the article in the Atlantic, if Julian Assange contacted Don Jr, so what? I have Nigerian Princes and government officials contact me all the time.

Assange initiated the contact. This was an Assange agenda being pursued, not a Trump agenda.


I agree with this, unless there are additional relevations, this by itself is not damning. However, you have to admit that Assange actions put his neutrality out of question. You can clearly attribute agenda to his leaks (anti-US), and he believed that Trump would further that agenda.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/16/17 11:24 PM

I think it is premature to judge Trump's economic legacy. However, the first year he managed to avoid creating major economic disasters. His pick of reserve chair is also turned out to be very reasonable.

However, Trump can easily undo it all by blowing up NAFTA.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/17/17 01:50 AM

It certainly is premature to try to predict the final economic outcome of the Trump administration, but in the face of current historically positive indicators, it is remarkably foolish to be predicting recession.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/17/17 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain
With respect to the article in the Atlantic, if Julian Assange contacted Don Jr, so what? I have Nigerian Princes and government officials contact me all the time.

Assange initiated the contact. This was an Assange agenda being pursued, not a Trump agenda.


I agree with this, unless there are additional relevations, this by itself is not damning. However, you have to admit that Assange actions put his neutrality out of question. You can clearly attribute agenda to his leaks (anti-US), and he believed that Trump would further that agenda.

Assange might firmly believe the Earth is flat, but whatever is batting about inside Assange's head, that is governed only by Assange, and neither you, nor I, nor Trump can be held responsible or take either credit or blame.

Do you really want to ever take responsibility for thoughts or beliefs of someone else? Exactly how would that work?

So, let me send you a PM outlining my thoughts in favor of the repeal of Obamcare. Does that put your neutrality or opposition out of question? Should everyone now consider you a supporter of my personal opinions?

A nonsensical position, right?
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 11/17/17 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain
With respect to the article in the Atlantic, if Julian Assange contacted Don Jr, so what? I have Nigerian Princes and government officials contact me all the time.

Assange initiated the contact. This was an Assange agenda being pursued, not a Trump agenda.


I agree with this, unless there are additional relevations, this by itself is not damning. However, you have to admit that Assange actions put his neutrality out of question. You can clearly attribute agenda to his leaks (anti-US), and he believed that Trump would further that agenda.

Assange might firmly believe the Earth is flat, but whatever is batting about inside Assange's head, that is governed only by Assange, and neither you, nor I, nor Trump can be held responsible or take either credit or blame.

Do you really want to ever take responsibility for thoughts or beliefs of someone else? Exactly how would that work?

So, let me send you a PM outlining my thoughts in favor of the repeal of Obamcare. Does that put your neutrality or opposition out of question? Should everyone now consider you a supporter of my personal opinions?

A nonsensical position, right?


but... they... acted... on.... wikileaks requests... wtf?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/17/17 03:09 PM

Where do you get that?
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 11/17/17 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Where do you get that?


Re: article I posted regarding this story.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/17/17 07:39 PM

How many pages up?
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 11/17/17 07:53 PM

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/545738/

Though Trump Jr. mostly ignored the frequent messages from WikiLeaks, he at times appears to have acted on its requests. When WikiLeaks first reached out to Trump Jr. about putintrump.org, for instance, Trump Jr. followed up on his promise to “ask around.”

Trump Jr. did not respond to this message. But just 15 minutes after it was sent, as The Wall Street Journal’s Byron Tau pointed out, Donald Trump himself tweeted, “Very little pick-up by the dishonest media of incredible information provided by WikiLeaks. So dishonest! Rigged system!”
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/17/17 08:30 PM

APPEARS to have acted on its request? Is that the best you can do?

Even if someone you despise gives you information about something that may be bad for you, will you not investigate it just because you don't care for the individual who provided the tip? That would be stupid of you, wouldn't it? His checking out putintrump.org seems to be a reasonable act of self interest rather than working with Wikileaks in general.

Don's tweet was an accurate observation of the behavior of the media. In case you hadn't noticed, everyone in the campaign was very critical of the media.

I think The Atlantic article is a big nothing burger. As I observed earlier, I regularly get emails from Nigerian princes. Should The Atlantic do an article on that as well? If Assange initiated the contact with Don Jr, maybe The Atlantic should be interested in Assange's motives. Other than deleting spam when I get it, I don't have much control over what pops into my in box. Neither does Don Jr.

I think your argument can best be described as a logical fallacy. Correlation is not causation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questionable_cause
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/18/17 03:46 AM

I have to agree with Owain, the linked article doesn't mention anything by Trump Jr. that is by itself is damnable.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 11/18/17 03:49 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
So, let me send you a PM outlining my thoughts in favor of the repeal of Obamcare. Does that put your neutrality or opposition out of question?


No, but it puts your neutrality of the question, and if my mailbox is found to be choke-full of these from different people, where I could be shown to cultivate such relationships, it would be circumstantial evidence of me sharing such opinion.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 11/18/17 04:31 AM

Yes, it would put Assange's neutrality out of question, but it would say nothing about Trump. That is exactly my point.

This is a story about Julian Assange and Wikileaks trying to insert itself into the Trump campaign. That has everything to do with Assange, and nothing to do with either Don Jr, or Trump himself.

No doubt the Trump campaign received unsolicted communications from many people. Trump can't be blamed for what people sent his campaign.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/02/17 04:00 AM

So Flynn tells us that Trump's team knew about his meeting with Russians. So far, nothing damning other than good old "lie to feds" bullish, but I expect more will come out. This is too mild to plead guilty about.

Never talk to cops, only way to make sure you don't get charged that way.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/02/17 04:08 AM

Update:
archives/2017/12/01/abc-hugely-damning-report-trump-flynn-earlier-might-gotten-one-tiny-detail-wrong/
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/05/17 02:47 AM

Trump endorses Moore .

Quote
The endorsement comes after nearly a full month of turmoil. In early November, several women alleged that Moore had pursued them when they were teenagers and he was in his early 30s; two women say that Moore assaulted them. Moore has so far acknowledged that he pursued teenagers, but has denied the assault allegations and maintains that none of the girls were younger than the legal age of consent.


In Alabama the age of consent is 16.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/05/17 02:52 AM

Unsubstantiated allegations remain unsubstantiated.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/05/17 02:54 AM

Does confession sufficient in your book? Aside from assaults, he didn't even deny it.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/10/17 02:54 PM

Trump attends opening of Civil Rights Museum.

Good behavior should be rewarded, instead deranged left criticizes him for this.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/19/17 01:55 AM

BBC on Trump security strategy

Quote
The four themes are protecting the homeland, promoting American prosperity, demonstrating peace through strength and advancing American influence.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/20/17 04:10 AM

What happened to balance the budget and spending cuts for every $1 of deficit?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...sses-sweeping-republican-tax-cut/548804/
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/20/17 04:55 PM

Legislation in steps. Taxes are the first step, to further stimulate the economy. Spending is the next step.

It would help if for every legislative proposal made if Democrats would stop screaming helplessly at the sky, predicting that everyone is going to die.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/363642-ryan-pledges-entitlement-reform-in-2018
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/20/17 05:36 PM

This tax bill is pure garbage. Its so garbage that it needed to be passed 2 separate times in the House. Rushed thru the house and senate because it would inconvenience them to work closer to Christmas. Million's of Americans are gonna get fucked healthcare wise, while corporations make out again.

What happened to Republicans hating borrowing? what about the debt ceiling, our deficit? oh wait it was all a sham? damn, could have fooled me that Republicans are a bunch of liars.

Say it with me folks, Horse and Sparrow, aka trickle down, does not work!


Originally Posted by Owain
It would help if for every legislative proposal made if Democrats would stop screaming helplessly at the sky, predicting that everyone is going to die.


Disingenuous as fuck. Stop being a snowflake and making up alternative facts. Or should I remind you about death panels LOL
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/20/17 05:37 PM

Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/20/17 05:42 PM

Looks like there seems to be a correlation between Republican's being in charge and recessions.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html



https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-19/infiltrators-body-snatchers-and-more-emails
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/20/17 06:22 PM

How is everyone going to die as a result of this, when everyone already died as a result of pulling out of the Paris Accords/ObamaCare/Net Neutrality?

Everyone can only not die so often before voters realize that Democrats are full of shit.

But I think voters have already figured that out.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/20/17 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom
Looks like there seems to be a correlation between Republican's being in charge and recessions.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html



https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-19/infiltrators-body-snatchers-and-more-emails

Like I say. Democrats are full of shit.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...idence-through-sweeping-economic-reform/
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/20/17 06:29 PM

Gdp continues to climb.

https://www.frbatlanta.org/cqer/research/gdpnow.aspx
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/20/17 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
How is everyone going to die as a result of this, when everyone already died as a result of pulling out of the Paris Accords/ObamaCare/Net Neutrality?

Everyone can only not die so often before voters realize that Democrats are full of shit.

But I think voters have already figured that out.


You keep saying the democrats say this, the democrats say that. Do they all really say that or are you making up alternative facts again?
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/20/17 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Goriom
Looks like there seems to be a correlation between Republican's being in charge and recessions.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html



https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-19/infiltrators-body-snatchers-and-more-emails

Like I say. Democrats are full of shit.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...idence-through-sweeping-economic-reform/



How does this bullshit article refute the facts that there is a correlation between Republicans and recessions? Maybe my link confuses you?

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/20/17 08:09 PM

You know, I'm also starting to think that Trump may have been born in Germany. I think he may need to release his birth certificate. I mean, he can't even get his birth date correct on some simple forms. I guess its kind of hard to keep facts straight when you are a pathological liar.

One example is how this shit GOP Tax Hike is somehow the "Largest tax cut in history". I guess Trump supporters are dumb enough to believe anything that comes out of that guys mouth. I mean he did say he could get away with shooting someone in the middle of Manhattan. Cult like followings are intriguing and scary.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/11/largest-tax-cut-history/
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/20/17 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom

You keep saying the democrats say this, the democrats say that. Do they all really say that or are you making up alternative facts again?

I keep saying things like this to give you an opportunity to stomp on a succession of rakes when you ask about it, demonstrating how little you know.

Paris Accords

Jerry Brown
https://www.dailywire.com/news/1710...ll-die-thanks-trump-amanda-prestigiacomo

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/01/15-top-reactions-trumps-withdrawal-paris-climate-deal/

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-repeal-deaths-20170623-htmlstory.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ers-projection-thousands-added-deaths-g/

http://www.newsweek.com/obamacare-a...t-kathleen-sebelius-alyssa-milano-695436

Net neutrality. LGBTQ Community hardest hit.

“The internet is a lifeline for LGBTQ people to build community support networks and access LGBTQ resources on history, suicide prevention, and health.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...cates-slam-net-neutrality-repeal-n830826

Tax cuts...

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...ople-will-die-annually-from-gop-tax-bill
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/20/17 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom

How does this bullshit article refute the facts that there is a correlation between Republicans and recessions? Maybe my link confuses you?

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

I think the article is guilty of making a logical fallacy.

Edit: Actually, the article doesn't try to make any correlation, so I think that the logical fallacy is all yours.

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

I don't think anyone is going to give a shit about your fallacious attempt at correlation if Trump keeps posting successive 3%+ GDP quarters.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/20/17 09:53 PM

But swinging back to Democratic Death Hyperbole, this is more stupid shit.

Democrats during the Senate vote.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
Legislation in steps. Taxes are the first step, to further stimulate the economy. Spending is the next step.


So what are you going to do when there is no next step and deficit simply keep growing? Is that going to be that elusive red line on Trump for you?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 12:54 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
I think the article is guilty of making a logical fallacy.

Edit: Actually, the article doesn't try to make any correlation, so I think that the logical fallacy is all yours.

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


I am impressed, you are making an actual attempt to use logic.

Originally Posted by Owain
I don't think anyone is going to give a shit about your fallacious attempt at correlation if Trump keeps posting successive 3%+ GDP quarters.


Unfortunately, your honeymoon with logic didn't last. Because clearly, correlation implies causation in this case, because MAGA.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 02:06 AM

I'll admit I don't know if Trump is responsible for the terrific improvement in the economy after 8 years of flat performance under Obama, but it is suggestive since the only thing to change is the election of a Republican.

So while the true cause might be chaos theory linked to a butterfly flapping wings in Africa, I'm just happy that the economy is performing well, unlike liberal assholes who are butthurt because it's happenening during the Trump administration.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 02:09 AM

"So what are you going to do when there is no next step and deficit simply keep growing? Is that going to be that elusive red line on Trump for you?"

I don't know, but I suspect you will be far more butthurt if the economy continues to thrive, because your irrational hatred of Trump overrides what is good for the country.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 02:23 AM

But if the economy does continue to thrive, and Democrats continue to deny that Republican policies are responsible for that growth, right or wrong, voters will be justified to think that Democrats remain full of shit.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain
I think the article is guilty of making a logical fallacy.

Edit: Actually, the article doesn't try to make any correlation, so I think that the logical fallacy is all yours.

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


I am impressed, you are making an actual attempt to use logic.


Except I'm pretty sure I chose my words correctly. I said correlation, not causation.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
"So what are you going to do when there is no next step and deficit simply keep growing? Is that going to be that elusive red line on Trump for you?"

I don't know, but I suspect you will be far more butthurt if the economy continues to thrive, because your irrational hatred of Trump overrides what is good for the country.


and your cult like love for the guy blinds you to the scumbag that he truly is. There is a reason that New Yorkers don't like him. He doesn't actually care about people, he likes "winning". He's the type of person that gets off at showing up in a bigger Jet than his fellow millionaires. For gods sake, the dude has ties to the mob here in NYC and has screwed countless people over. This is the guy you choose as your champion? well I got bad news for you, the blue wave has started and we are riding it well into the 2018. Hopefully we can scale back the amount of looting he will do of the Treasury directly into his pocket until, and I am being very very hopeful here, Bernie decides to run again.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 02:06 PM

While talking about the corporate tax rate being cut from 35 percent to 21 percent, Trump said, “That's probably the biggest factor in our plan.”

I thought this bill was touted as saving the middle class? but i guess giving himself tax cuts was the biggest factor in the plan lol... out of his own mouth. Or do we not take what he says at face value? I don't know how things work anymore in a post alternative facts world.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-middle-classes-obamacare-a8121751.html
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom


Except I'm pretty sure I chose my words correctly. I said correlation, not causation.

Then what is the point of your stupid post if there is no causation?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom
Originally Posted by Owain
"So what are you going to do when there is no next step and deficit simply keep growing? Is that going to be that elusive red line on Trump for you?"

I don't know, but I suspect you will be far more butthurt if the economy continues to thrive, because your irrational hatred of Trump overrides what is good for the country.


and your cult like love for the guy blinds you to the scumbag that he truly is. There is a reason that New Yorkers don't like him. He doesn't actually care about people, he likes "winning". He's the type of person that gets off at showing up in a bigger Jet than his fellow millionaires. For gods sake, the dude has ties to the mob here in NYC and has screwed countless people over. This is the guy you choose as your champion? well I got bad news for you, the blue wave has started and we are riding it well into the 2018. Hopefully we can scale back the amount of looting he will do of the Treasury directly into his pocket until, and I am being very very hopeful here, Bernie decides to run again.

The thing that has Democrats running scared is what will they do if he just keeps on winning? What if makes good on his promises? What if he really does Make America Great Again?

In other news, butterfly wing chaos theory strikes again. In a remarkable coincidence unrelated to the election of a Republican administration, black unemployment is at an historic low.

Democrats hardest hit by the news.


https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/black-unemployment-rate-lowest-17-years

Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Goriom


Except I'm pretty sure I chose my words correctly. I said correlation, not causation.

Then what is the point of your stupid post if there is no causation?


It's simple really, we are going to be heading back towards a rescission. The results usually reflect the real world.

Look, the republicans are adding to the deficit, putting more money in the hands of the 1%, and giving a small stipend to the middle class that will soon be far outweighed by this disastrous bill when we will be paying more in taxes in a few years. You want to see a micro experiment of this tax cut plan? look at the Kansas Experiment.

We get it, you hate paying taxes, the government is bad, corporations are good! I find it a privilege to pay taxes because that's the price you pay to live in a civilized society that you are proud to be apart of. I am proud of this country, that's why I am ok with being taxed higher and this is coming from someone who is well off.

Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Goriom
Originally Posted by Owain
"So what are you going to do when there is no next step and deficit simply keep growing? Is that going to be that elusive red line on Trump for you?"

I don't know, but I suspect you will be far more butthurt if the economy continues to thrive, because your irrational hatred of Trump overrides what is good for the country.


and your cult like love for the guy blinds you to the scumbag that he truly is. There is a reason that New Yorkers don't like him. He doesn't actually care about people, he likes "winning". He's the type of person that gets off at showing up in a bigger Jet than his fellow millionaires. For gods sake, the dude has ties to the mob here in NYC and has screwed countless people over. This is the guy you choose as your champion? well I got bad news for you, the blue wave has started and we are riding it well into the 2018. Hopefully we can scale back the amount of looting he will do of the Treasury directly into his pocket until, and I am being very very hopeful here, Bernie decides to run again.

The thing that has Democrats running scared is what will they do if he just keeps on winning? What if makes good on his promises? What if he really does Make America Great Again?

In other news, butterfly wing chaos theory strikes again. In a remarkable coincidence unrelated to the election of a Republican administration, black unemployment is at an historic low.

Democrats hardest hit by the news.


https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/black-unemployment-rate-lowest-17-years



This hurts to read. When Obama came into his Presidency, black unemployment was hovering around 15%. When he left, 7.7%.

Trump is essentially taking credit for someone else's work and you're taking the bait. When will you get it through you head that there is such a thing as policy lag.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/what-president-trump-inherits/

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm


Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom
Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Goriom


Except I'm pretty sure I chose my words correctly. I said correlation, not causation.

Then what is the point of your stupid post if there is no causation?


It's simple really, we are going to be heading back towards a rescission. The results usually reflect the real world.

Upon what is your opinion based, given that currently the economy is growing at a rate not seen for over a decade?

Originally Posted by Goriom
Look, the republicans are adding to the deficit, putting more money in the hands of the 1%, and giving a small stipend to the middle class that will soon be far outweighed by this disastrous bill when we will be paying more in taxes in a few years. You want to see a micro experiment of this tax cut plan? look at the Kansas Experiment.

If adding to the deficit would push us into a recession, is that why growth was so bad under Obama, given that he added $10 trillion to the deficit? Why didn't you complain about that? Why would allowing both corporations and individuals to keep more of their own money mean that they will have to pay more in taxes? It's a tax cut, not a tax raise.

The only way we will be paying more in taxes in a few years is if wages rise significantly. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

Originally Posted by Goriom

We get it, you hate paying taxes, the government is bad, corporations are good! I find it a privilege to pay taxes because that's the price you pay to live in a civilized society that you are proud to be apart of. I am proud of this country, that's why I am ok with being taxed higher and this is coming from someone who is well of.

You are free to give to the treasury whatever you might retain as the result of the tax cuts. You are free to give even more above and beyond what you might save in taxes if you really want to feel extra special privileged to do so.

Be proud. Tax the snot out of yourself. In the meantime, individual Americans will be better able to better provide for themselves and their families by keeping more of their own money rather than being forced to fork that money over to the government in the form of taxes. Trump ran in part on tax reform, and in part, tax reform is among the reasons why Trump was elected.

The voters got exactly what they wanted. Maybe Democrats should consider that as part of their strategy going forward rather than bitterly clinging to their current failed policies.

BUT...

You didn't answer my question. What was the point of your previous stupid post about Republicans supposedly causing recessions if you now admit that there was no actual causation?
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Owain

If adding to the deficit would push us into a recession, is that why growth was so bad under Obama, given that he added $10 trillion to the deficit? Why didn't you complain about that? Why would allowing both corporations and individuals to keep more of their own money mean that they will have to pay more in taxes? It's a tax cut, not a tax raise.


Don't talk for me. I was actually against the 800 billion dollar give out to corporations that fucked us. Under this president, we are going to continue to get fucked but lets not kid ourselves here. President Bush increased federal spending by more than twice what Obama had.

Let me say it again for you since you don't understand. Horse and Sparrow theory of economics does not work. Very few CEO's are going to give that money back to the people, whats going on with Boeing and AT&T right now is nothing more than a PR stunt. They are making Billions now thanks to lower tax rates and they are handing out a fraction of what they are saving to the people in "bonuses" for one year. Once we pass this PR stage, we will be right back to corporations fucking us like they have been for years, sitting on record levels of money in their accounts.

This adding to the deficit is going to harm the country was a talking point of the republican party for years. The pure obstructionists that did everything they could to stall and hurt the American people because "hur dur" Obama is in office.

Originally Posted by Owain

The voters got exactly what they wanted. Maybe Democrats should consider that as part of their strategy going forward rather than bitterly clinging to their current failed policies.


Did they though? check out pg 52.
http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-con...ember_Registered-Voters_Topline-Memo.pdf

Originally Posted by Owain

You didn't answer my question. What was the point of your previous stupid post about Republicans supposedly causing recessions if you now admit that there was no actual causation?


My point is that I am willing to point out that there is a correlation between Republicans and recessions but not willing to go far enough to say they necessarily caused all of them. Correlation shows strong pairs of variables have a relation. It's an interesting thing to look at over the years. There is something odd there.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 05:59 PM

Here we can start saving money this way. Trump spent almost a quarter of his time in 2017 playing golf. Almost 100M of tax payer money wasted on a guy that just gave himself a nice bonus.

[Linked Image]
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 06:57 PM

" President Bush increased federal spending by more than twice what Obama had. "

Throwing the bullshit flag on that one. Citation, please.

Edit:

Here, let me save you some time.

When Bush took office in 2000, the debt was $5.67 trillion. When he left office in 2008, it was $10 Trillion. He added $4.33 trillion to the debt, which was bad enough.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

When Obama left office in 2016, the debt was almost $20 trillion. Obama added nearly $10 trillion to the debt.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-04/us-ends-2016-1998-trillion-federal-debt-105464794162691

So you got that backwards. Obama added more than twice the amount to the debt than did Bush.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 07:00 PM

" They are making Billions now thanks to lower tax rates and they are handing out a fraction of what they are saving to the people in "bonuses" for one year."

It's their money to do with as they please. It's not the government's money. It's their money. If they want to give it out, fine. If they want to invest it back in the company, fine. If they want to fill a vault with it and dive in like Scrooge McDuck, that's fine, too, since it's THEIR MONEY. It certainly isn't yours.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 07:01 PM

"Once we pass this PR stage, we will be right back to corporations fucking us like they have been for years, sitting on record levels of money in their accounts. "

Do I need to remind you, it's their money. If they use their own money as they see fit, how does that fuck you over in any way?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 07:03 PM

Maybe Trump should spend more time golfing, and things would be even better. If he reduces his handicap, maybe GDP growth will exceed 4%.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 07:06 PM

"My point is that I am willing to point out that there is a correlation between Republicans and recessions but not willing to go far enough to say they necessarily caused all of them. Correlation shows strong pairs of variables have a relation. It's an interesting thing to look at over the years. There is something odd there."


If you want to be coy and back door claim a causation, you are still back to the logical fallacy.

There is either a causation, or not. If the causation cannot be established, it's a coincidence and nothing more. Trying to claim otherwise is fallacious. Trying to claim otherwise after the fallacy has been pointed out is dishonest.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 07:23 PM

"Did they though? check out pg 52."

A poll! Well then...

Why do people rely on polls?

You know what makes me think voters got what they wanted? Because Trump is President, and not Hillary Clinton, despite what was predicted by the polls.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 07:49 PM


https://nypost.com/2017/12/18/att-lays-off-directv-workers-despite-pledge-to-create-jobs/

I'm so tired of winning.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 08:16 PM

Companies are in the business of business, not charity. Sometimes, layoffs are necessary, even if tax cut legislation is enacted.

Fortune thinks AT&T is a great company for being willing to retrain 100,000 workers rather than letting many of them go.

That move on their part must make good business sense. Retaining the Direct TV employees must not have made good business sense. I don't know what shape Direct TV is in, but it seems AT&T does. It is their business, after all.


http://fortune.com/att-hr-retrain-employees-jobs-best-companies/
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 09:21 PM

"Very few CEO's are going to give that money back to the people, whats going on with Boeing and AT&T right now is nothing more than a PR stunt."

In the case of AT&T, regardless of Direct TV layoff, they announced they are paying out $200 million in bonuses.

That's quite a PR stunt. I think they might have gotten more for their money with just an infomercial, if it was PR they were seeking.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
" They are making Billions now thanks to lower tax rates and they are handing out a fraction of what they are saving to the people in "bonuses" for one year."

It's their money to do with as they please. It's not the government's money. It's their money. If they want to give it out, fine. If they want to invest it back in the company, fine. If they want to fill a vault with it and dive in like Scrooge McDuck, that's fine, too, since it's THEIR MONEY. It certainly isn't yours.


This could only be true in a free market environment, which US isn't with all bailouts, subsidies, government no bid contracts and so on. If you Scrooge McDuck does 50% government contracts, than he is 50% on the dole and a big portion of his gold is taxpayers money.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/21/17 11:38 PM

If...

How much of Boeing business is based upon no bid government contracts?

If you are going to pull numbers out of your ass, back them up with something, please.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/22/17 02:23 AM

laugh

Boeing received $457 million in grants and $64 billion in federal loans from 2000 to 2014. With a revenue of about $20B/year and operating margin about 10% it would be in the red without these.

It is almost comical that you picked Boeing, as this company is a poster child for corporate welfare. About the only worse example to undermine your point would have been ExxonMobil.

Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/22/17 03:08 AM

Source?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/22/17 03:45 AM

While you are looking for the source, what does that have to do with the billions they are making on no bid contracts?

You guys need to make up your minds. Are they running in the red, and thus could benefit from federal tax breaks, or are they making billions in profits, and thus are undeserving of any tax breaks.

It can't be both.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/22/17 01:28 PM

Attempt to reframe argument denied. Stick to your original point - taxation of corporations is taking away their money. I clearly shown that "their money" is often the same thing as "taxpayer's money". As such, there is nothing inherently unjust in taxation of corporations.

As to source: http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/UncleSamsFavoriteCorporations.pdf See Table 7.


Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/22/17 03:57 PM

We seriously have the most transparent liar in chief folks, don't we? bigly transparent.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/...will-benefit-from-tax-bill-1122168899507

inb4 regular ol'joe makes excuses for the millionaires / billionaires. This for-the-1% tax cut bill is definitely good for America, trust me!
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/22/17 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Attempt to reframe argument denied. Stick to your original point - taxation of corporations is taking away their money. I clearly shown that "their money" is often the same thing as "taxpayer's money". As such, there is nothing inherently unjust in taxation of corporations.

As to source: http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/UncleSamsFavoriteCorporations.pdf See Table 7.



I have yet to see a source for your allegation. Like your 50% of no bid contracts post, I suspect this is more nonsense pulled out of your ass.

Edit: Checking your link now.

In the meantime, you still haven't answered my question about your 50% no bid contract bullshit.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/22/17 04:22 PM

From your link:

Quote
The federal contractor ... with the most loans and loan guarantees is Boeing, with $64 billion in assistance from the Export-Import Bank.


If the loans were repaid, that is no taxpayer money lost. The government probably made money on the deal. So what is the problem?

But if the Export-Import Bank is so terrible, by is it so strongly supported by Democrats?

https://democrats-financialservices.house.gov/issues/extending-import-export-bank-charter.htm

You clearly must be a closet Tea Party member.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-c...a-party-opposition-to-export-bank-119213

Quote
I clearly shown that "their money" is often the same thing as "taxpayer's money".

You clearly show nothing of the kind, so I think my point stands.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/22/17 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom
We seriously have the most transparent liar in chief folks, don't we? bigly transparent.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/...will-benefit-from-tax-bill-1122168899507

inb4 regular ol'joe makes excuses for the millionaires / billionaires. This for-the-1% tax cut bill is definitely good for America, trust me!

That was probably Trumps intent, but Trump doesn't write legislation. Congress writes legislation, and they didn't see fit to include a Trump Carve Out Exception.

Since Trump donated his salary last year to the National Parks, and further donated $1 million to hurricane relief, and donated to many more worth causes as well, I think we can cut him some slack for the legislative oversight.

But if he pays taxes, and the legislation cuts taxes, how would it not affect him? Perhaps what he plans to do is once his taxes are calculated, any amount that he would save on taxes he might donate to the treasury. Maybe we should wait to see what he does before posting stupid shit.

You can donate to the treasury as well, as I think I suggested to you previously. If you really want to pay more in taxes, cut a check to the Treasury Department. They will accept it gladly.

Knock yourself out...
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/22/17 06:22 PM

Ahh I see, the one time bonus's given out by these big telecom companies are being offset by the rising prices they are going to dick us over with. Basically the one time bonus's some of their employees are receiving is nothing but a PR stunt.

https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html?partner=LinkShare&siteId=TnL5HPStwNw-99RnAwDncld42gYFrVagnQ#!/directv/KM1240211

https://tvanswerman.com/2017/12/18/dish-becomes-fourth-major-pay-tv-op-to-hike-prices/

God damn we are MAGA'ing hard right now.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/22/17 06:43 PM

For $200 million, that is some PR stunt.

Why do you hate AT&T workers so much that you begrudge them their bonuses?

If you don't like Direct TV, don't pay for their services. I just stream through a ROKU, and that works fine by me.

I don't know if the Direct TV decision makes good business sense or not. Consumers will decide that for themselves. If their customers decide they offer good value for the price and are willing to pay it, I don't see that it's any of your business. If consumers decide to go elsewhere, that is fine, too.

Either way, just because you are butthurt about Trump's legislative success, I don't see why anyone should care what you think.

Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/22/17 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
For $200 million, that is some PR stunt.

Why do you hate AT&T workers so much that you begrudge them their bonuses?

If you don't like Direct TV, don't pay for their services. I just stream through a ROKU, and that works fine by me.

I don't know if the Direct TV decision makes good business sense or not. Consumers will decide that for themselves. If their customers decide they offer good value for the price and are willing to pay it, I don't see that it's any of your business. If consumers decide to go elsewhere, that is fine, too.

Either way, just because you are butthurt about Trump's legislative success, I don't see why anyone should care what you think.



I know 200 Million might seem like a lot to an individual but the amount they will be getting back by raising the prices on us and what they are saving in this new tax scam outweighs this enormously. As usually the shortsightedness and ignorance of conservatives shock me.

If I don't like DirectTV / Verizon / AT&T / Comcast, don't pay for their services, unless you need that silly little thing called internet to get your ROKU to stream anything. Guess it's MAGA now that we got rid of that silly little thing called Net Neutrality, and they can tier off the internet, or ransom Netflix to pay them money for bandwidth, which would just be reflected in a Netflix price increase. No matter what the consumer pays more.

Say facepalm it facepalm with facepalm me facepalm ISP's facepalm are facepalm monopolies facepalm due facepalm to facepalm the facepalm high facepalm cost facepalm barrier facepalm into facepalm the facepalm market. A lot of people don't even have a choice of providers.

And who said I hate AT&T workers? is this projection from you? You seem to have some weird hatred of the lower / middle class. Your shortsightedness is staggering. They deserve to have their wages increased but instead they get a PR stunt that will see them getting 1000 dollars once, which over a year turns out to be nothing.

But hey, lets keep shoveling and funneling money to the top, its gotta come down eventually right?
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 12/22/17 08:04 PM

so fucking MAGA right here dude.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...tructurally-changed-america-in-2017.html
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/22/17 08:18 PM

People who disagree with his policies won't like his policies.

What is your point? People who support his policies elected him to do those things, near as I can see, especially the ones that restrict immigration from countries that pose a threat to the American people.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/22/17 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Sini
Attempt to reframe argument denied. Stick to your original point - taxation of corporations is taking away their money. I clearly shown that "their money" is often the same thing as "taxpayer's money". As such, there is nothing inherently unjust in taxation of corporations.

As to source: http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/UncleSamsFavoriteCorporations.pdf See Table 7.



I have yet to see a source for your allegation. Like your 50% of no bid contracts post, I suspect this is more nonsense pulled out of your ass.

Edit: Checking your link now.

In the meantime, you still haven't answered my question about your 50% no bid contract bullshit.


Refraining of discussion denied.

Have you read the link? Have you seen BILLIONS of taxpayers money going to corporations? Do you have any questions or disagreements on presented sources?

Therefore, your point on taxation of corporations is invalid. It isn't their money. No more than your available credit card balance and welfare check is your earnings.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/22/17 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by Sini

Have you seen BILLIONS of taxpayers money going to corporations?

Not exactly. With respect to Boeing, the company that most drew your ire, I responded above. The thread has been active, so you need to back up a page or so.

Loans from the import export bank that are repaid do not take taxpayers money. Loans that are paid off add money to the treasury, so your point there is invalid.

Even so, did you ever figure out if Boeing is operating in the red, or is making billions? It can't be both.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/22/17 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom
Say facepalm it facepalm with facepalm me facepalm ISP's facepalm are facepalm monopolies facepalm due facepalm to facepalm the facepalm high facepalm cost facepalm barrier facepalm into facepalm the facepalm market.


It is even worse than that. ISPs collected Government funds to build up infrastructure, purchased state and municipal legislation making it impossible for anyone else to create alternative last mile, and are now trying to corral everyone into walled gardens. Insofar as data connection, US is a through and through third-world banana republic.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/22/17 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Loans from the import export bank that are repaid do not take taxpayers money.


This is categorically not true. To issue these almost interest-free loans, government prints money. This devalues everyone else money. You can visualize it the following way - to lend 10 Bil at 0.5% government steals 1c from everyone, and we never get it back.

Quote
Even so, did you ever figure out if Boeing is operating in the red, or is making billions? It can't be both.

It can be both. Boeing is making billions because of government loans, grants, and government contracts. Take away that and they will be deeply in red.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/22/17 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain
Loans from the import export bank that are repaid do not take taxpayers money.


This is categorically not true. To issue these almost interest-free loans, government prints money. This devalues everyone else money. You can visualize it the following way - to lend 10 Bil at 0.5% government steals 1c from everyone, and we never get it back.

Upon what basis do you claim that the loans are almost interest free.

Show your work, please.


Quote
Even so, did you ever figure out if Boeing is operating in the red, or is making billions? It can't be both.

Quote
It can be both. Boeing is making billions because of government loans, grants, and government contracts. Take away that and they will be deeply in red.

Not on the basis of loans through the Ex Im bank. But your source does not state that Boeing makes billions from grants.

Originally Posted by Sini
Boeing received $457 million in grants ... from 2000 to 2014.

That works out to $32.6 per year. Not exactly billions by a large measure.

Further, how does Boeing make billions upon loans that are paid back, with interest?

With respect to contracts, if Boeing supplies the government with necessary weapon systems at a cost negotiated to the mutual advantage of both the government and Boeing, where is the problem with that? The government needs to acquire weapons system from someone, and if through a competitive process, Boeing offers the government the best value for the dollar, that is beneficial.


Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 02:20 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain
Loans from the import export bank that are repaid do not take taxpayers money.


This is categorically not true. To issue these almost interest-free loans, government prints money. This devalues everyone else money. You can visualize it the following way - to lend 10 Bil at 0.5% government steals 1c from everyone, and we never get it back.

Upon what basis do you claim that the loans are almost interest free.


These loans are usually made at a prime rate. Up until very recently prime rate has been nearly zero.

It amazes me how much of your pride you are willing to swallow to defend Trump. You are trying to argue here that bailouts and handouts are a good thing. What kind of a conservative are you?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 02:25 AM

Do you have a source for that opinion?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 02:26 AM

The United States of subsidies: The biggest corporate winners in each state

Quote
Some big corporations are also big double- and triple-dippers in federal and state funds.

Five corporations have achieved a trifecta, ranking among the 50 largest recipients of three kinds of funds: state subsidies; federal grants and tax credits; and federal loans, loan guarantees and bailout assistance. Those businesses are Boeing, Ford Motor, General Electric, General Motors and JPMorgan Chase.


Read the graph - Boeing $13.4B in subsidies.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 02:29 AM

65.4% of Loan Guarantees Made by U.S. Government Bank Benefited Boeing

Quote
The Ex-Im Bank has posted its annual reports going back to 1997 on its official website. They show that between 1997 and 2013, this federal government bank guaranteed $142,870,200,824 in loans made by private banks to foreign organizations that used the money to buy U.S. manufactured products. $93,468,763,440 of these loan guarantees--or 65.4 percent of the total amount guaranteed by the U.S. government-- went to foreign organizations that were purchasing Boeing products.


Another Report

Quote
The first chart displays the top ten exporter beneficiaries for all combined Export-Import Bank interventions during FY 2013. The chart shows that the Bank truly lives up to its nickname, “Boeing’s Bank.” Boeing was by far the biggest exporter beneficiary of all Bank activity, raking in over $8 billion in assistance during FY 2013.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 02:31 AM

So like the Tea Party, you oppose the way the Ex Im bank operates?

Better complain to members of your Congressional delegation. Do they agree with your views?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 02:33 AM

Trump filling the swamp with Export-Import Bank

Quote
Wilbur Ross, President Donald Trump’s secretary of commerce, said in his confirmation hearing that there could be justifications for keeping the Export-Import Bank going. He appears to have convinced the president, who in mid-April said he supported keeping the bank, after having denounced it on the campaign trail.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 02:37 AM

The Ex Im bank has strong bipartisan support. Perhaps upon learning more about their function, the President changed his mind, which is a good thing, dont you think?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
So like the Tea Party, you oppose the way the Ex Im bank operates?

Better complain to members of your Congressional delegation. Do they agree with your views?


Your attempt at reframing argument denied.

I asked you in an earlier post:

Quote
You are trying to argue here that bailouts and handouts are a good thing. What kind of a conservative are you?


A MAGA kind "conservative". You wouldn't even qualify to be called a RINO. Disgraceful.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 02:43 AM

Will you cry if I persist?

Sorry if the argument isn't going your way, but really, I don't think the Ex Im bank is a winner for you. They do serve a useful function, with strong support on both sides of the aisle.

But you brought them up, not me.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
"Once we pass this PR stage, we will be right back to corporations fucking us like they have been for years, sitting on record levels of money in their accounts. "

Do I need to remind you, it's their money. If they use their own money as they see fit, how does that fuck you over in any way?


I think your question was answered in excruciating detail over last couple pages of this thread.

In the process, we also established that your conservative credentials are not worth the paper they are printed on.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 02:50 AM

So explain to me how you personally have been fucked over. Other than the butthurt you feel over things not going as you wish?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 02:52 AM

Does Boeing receiving and repaying loans really harm you?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 03:36 AM

Seeing how you gracefully conceded to being wrong on corporate taxes, lets move on to the next topic.

Boeing on the dole harms me in the following way:

1. Airplane tickets cost more, since due to lack of competition airlines have to pay more for airplanes
2. My taxes are higher, since these handouts come out taxed income
3. My earnings and savings are reduced by inflation, as these loans are printed money that increase inflation
4. It would reduce profitability of any company I'd start that directly compete with Boeing, as I would not benefit from handouts
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 03:58 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Boeing on the dole harms me in the following way:

1. Airplane tickets cost more, since due to lack of competition airlines have to pay more for airplanes
Airbus is a competitor, and from recent reports I've read, Airbus is even, or perhaps in the lead in the world market. Boeing has an advantage in the U S market because companies like Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas couldn't match Boeing successes

If Boeing is underselling their competitors, how does that make ticket costs go up? Airlines bought Boeing in this country because they offered the best value.
Quote

2. My taxes are higher, since these handouts come out taxed income.
You have a line item on your 1040 to pay for Boeing handouts? How odd.

Luckily, your taxes are probably lower now due to the recent legislation.

But really, I defy you to demonstrate how your taxes are any higher. Ex Im loans paid with interest earn money for the Treasury, and the pittance recieved in grants are nothing, and represent a sunk cost anyway. If not Boeing, the grants would be awarded regardless.

Quote

3. My earnings and savings are reduced by inflation, as these loans are printed money that increase inflation

How do loans that are repaid with interest drive up inflation?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 04:04 AM

The competition between Airbus and Boeing is intense, but it seems Airbus has a slight edge in market share.

Quote
Flight Global fleet forecasts 26,860 single aisle deliveries for a $1,360 Bn value at a compound annual growth rate of 5% for the 2016-2035 period, with a 45% market share for Airbus (12090), 43% for Boeing (11550), 5% for Bombardier Aerospace (1340), 4% for COMAC (1070) and 3% for Irkut Corporation (810) ;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Seeing how you gracefully conceded to being wrong on corporate taxes, lets move on to the next topic.


Stealth edit? How dishonest...

Where did I concede anything?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Owain

Where did I concede anything?


I was sarcastic. You are absolutely incapable of admitting to being wrong even when faced with insurmountable evidence to the the contrary. They only time we move on with conversations when others get tired of winning. In this way you are like an NPC - designed to lose repeatedly. However, personally I prefer PvP against capable opponents and not PvE against Owain.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Sini
Boeing on the dole harms me in the following way:

1. Airplane tickets cost more, since due to lack of competition airlines have to pay more for airplanes
Airbus is a competitor, and from recent reports I've read, Airbus is even, or perhaps in the lead in the world market. Boeing has an advantage in the U S market because companies like Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas couldn't match Boeing successes


Airbus is heavily subsidized by EU. It should be telling that the only direct competitor is also on the dole.

A much better point to bring up would be that it is unlikely aircraft industry could survive in present international climate without subsidies. You can point to Australia's disappearing automotive market as a likely outcome of stopping subsidies.

Quote
You have a line item on your 1040 to pay for Boeing handouts? How odd.


I do, on line 78.

Quote
Quote
3. My earnings and savings are reduced by inflation, as these loans are printed money that increase inflation

How do loans that are repaid with interest drive up inflation?


If you have in a bank $10, but a loaf of bread costs go up from $1 to $1.50 overnight, while you still have $10 in the bank, now you can buy fewer loaves of bread.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain

Where did I concede anything?


I was sarcastic. You are absolutely incapable of admitting to being wrong even when faced with insurmountable evidence to the the contrary. They only time we move on with conversations when others get tired of winning. In this way you are like an NPC - designed to lose repeatedly. However, personally I prefer PvP against capable opponents and not PvE against Owain.

Insurmountable evidence that apparently exists only in your mind.

You made a big deal about Boeing, about the billions of dollars they are raking in in grants, but in the very link you offered, instead of billions in grants, they get instead something like $37 million a year.

Show of hands. Who knows the difference between billions (plural) and $37 million.

Apparently not Sini.

Then you try to make it out as being a horrible burden to the taxpayer that Boeing receives loans from the Ex Im bank. That they pay back. With interest. Earning the Treasury additional income.

I don't know about your PvP capabilities, but at this game, you suck.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/23/17 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Sini
Boeing on the dole harms me in the following way:

1. Airplane tickets cost more, since due to lack of competition airlines have to pay more for airplanes
Airbus is a competitor, and from recent reports I've read, Airbus is even, or perhaps in the lead in the world market. Boeing has an advantage in the U S market because companies like Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas couldn't match Boeing successes


Airbus is heavily subsidized by EU. It should be telling that the only direct competitor is also on the dole.

But doesn't that make your stupid whine about Boeing driving up the cost of tickets ridiculous. Boeing can't be abusing their terrible monopoly powers (which exist only in your mind) to overcharge airlines, because if they did the heavily subsidized Airbus would undercut them and erode Boeings market share even further. Instead, Boeing very successfully competes with the heavily subsidized Airbus based upon the merits of their products and services.

Quote
You have a line item on your 1040 to pay for Boeing handouts? How odd.

Quote

I do, on line 78.

Quantify the amount you pay extra in taxes as a result of Boeing operations. Show your work.

If you can't, then one can only presume you are now lying.

Quote
Quote
3. My earnings and savings are reduced by inflation, as these loans are printed money that increase inflation

How do loans that are repaid with interest drive up inflation?

Quote

If you have in a bank $10, but a loaf of bread costs go up from $1 to $1.50 overnight, while you still have $10 in the bank, now you can buy fewer loaves of bread.


This would be true if inflation were standing at 50%, but at the moment, it's only 1.7%, which is negligable, and has been very low for about a decade or so now.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SA0L1E?output_view=pct_12mths

Inflation in 1974 stood at over 12%. Yes that sucked, but this is not 1974, and people who are ignorant of current inflation figures think that all they have to do is throw out the word INFLATION, and people will run screaming from the boogy man.

Every point you raise is just an example of someone desperately trying to claim victim status.

No, you are not a victim of Boeing raising ticket prices through non existent monopoly powers. That is pathetically stupid.

No, inflation is eating up neither your buying power nor the value of you savings or investment due to the Evil Boeing. Inflation is at historic lows, and has been for a decade.

No, your taxes are not going up because of Boeing paying off loans with interest.

In fact, if we can believe this article from the Washington Post from a few years ago, your taxes are amazingly low, which they use as a justification for raising taxes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/11/your-taxes-are-really-low-in-one-chart/

The only thing you have demonstrated is that you are incredibly whiny, and desperate to be classified as a victim, somehow. Any how. By any argument, no matter how stupid.

Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/24/17 04:23 PM



Originally Posted by Owain


You made a big deal about Boeing, about the billions of dollars they are raking in in grants, but in the very link you offered, instead of billions in grants, they get instead something like $37 million a year.

Show of hands. Who knows the difference between billions (plural) and $37 million.

Apparently not Sini.


Critical failure of your reading comprehension is NOT my problem. Re-read links. Google yourself if you don't like the links I provided. Boeing received BILLIONS in subsidies and handouts. This is on top of BILLIONS of government loans. This is NOT how free and open market supposed to work.

Also:

Originally Posted by Sini

It amazes me how much of your pride you are willing to swallow to defend Trump. You are trying to argue here that bailouts and handouts are a good thing. What kind of a conservative are you?

Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/24/17 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain
Originally Posted by Sini
Boeing on the dole harms me in the following way:

1. Airplane tickets cost more, since due to lack of competition airlines have to pay more for airplanes
Airbus is a competitor, and from recent reports I've read, Airbus is even, or perhaps in the lead in the world market. Boeing has an advantage in the U S market because companies like Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas couldn't match Boeing successes


Airbus is heavily subsidized by EU. It should be telling that the only direct competitor is also on the dole.

But doesn't that make your stupid whine about Boeing driving up the cost of tickets ridiculous. Boeing can't be abusing their terrible monopoly powers (which exist only in your mind) to overcharge airlines, because if they did the heavily subsidized Airbus would undercut them and erode Boeings market share even further. Instead, Boeing very successfully competes with the heavily subsidized Airbus based upon the merits of their products and services.


This is nonsense. Lack of competition due to few entrenched players on the government dole is book definition of unfree markets. Economics 101.


Quote
Quote
You have a line item on your 1040 to pay for Boeing handouts? How odd.

Quote

I do, on line 78.

Quantify the amount you pay extra in taxes as a result of Boeing operations. Show your work.


This is nonsense, as we are not arguing about specific amount, instead we are discussing this categorically. You are escalating standard of proof well into absurd territory.



Quote
Quote
Quote
3. My earnings and savings are reduced by inflation, as these loans are printed money that increase inflation

How do loans that are repaid with interest drive up inflation?

Quote

If you have in a bank $10, but a loaf of bread costs go up from $1 to $1.50 overnight, while you still have $10 in the bank, now you can buy fewer loaves of bread.


This would be true if inflation were standing at 50%, but at the moment, it's only 1.7%, which is negligable, and has been very low for about a decade or so now.


Government inflation measurements are meaningless, real purchasing power decrease is about 5% a year. The way the measured inflation during 70s and today are different.

See: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts


Quote
Every point you raise is just an example of someone desperately trying to claim victim status.


This is again nonsense. You repeatedly asked me via direct question about this.


Quote
No, you are not a victim of Boeing raising ticket prices through non existent monopoly powers. That is pathetically stupid.

No, inflation is eating up neither your buying power nor the value of you savings or investment due to the Evil Boeing. Inflation is at historic lows, and has been for a decade.

No, your taxes are not going up because of Boeing paying off loans with interest.


Yes they are. Now what?

Quote
The only thing you have demonstrated is that you are incredibly whiny, and desperate to be classified as a victim, somehow. Any how. By any argument, no matter how stupid.


This line of attack would have worked much better if you didn't repeatedly badger me with side questions. What is truly and mind-bogglingly stupid is you selling your values down the river to support Trump. Two years ago you could pass for a conservative. Today, you are deficit-cheering, big government bailouts approving, constitution desecrating Trumpster. Not even a RINO or CINO, worse - a reactionary neocon of the worst kind.

Rethink how you live your life.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/24/17 09:21 PM

Sini, I didn't choose Boeing to be the hill you die on. You did that all by yourself.

If your ego wont permit you to admit you are wrong, that doesn't bother me a bit. So I'll just leave you go weep quietly (or maybe not quietly) over imagined crippling air fares that no one else seems to be worried about (at least not as it pertains to Boeing), taxes that are now reduced, and low inflation that is of concern to no one but you.

Life is just going to suck for you, because I don't see any of that changing any time soon, because no one cares but deranged lefties.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/24/17 09:26 PM

If I am wrong about that, I look forward to your links to articles from anyone complaining about high air fares caused by a Boeing monopoly, high taxes caused by Ex Im loans, or the current crippling rate of inflation.

I'll wait...
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/25/17 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Sini, I didn't choose Boeing to be the hill you die on. You did that all by yourself.


You started running your mouth about how Trump's tax policy of redistributing wealth from the middle class to multinational corporations and wealthy is returning money these bad actors supposedly earned. Then you blundered to pick Boeing as an example of upstanding corporate citizen. I proceeded to demonstrate that Boeing is a poster child for corporate welfare. So no, you picked Boeing, and now you won't admit that your argument was taken apart at every turn. At this point you doubled-down about dozen times, and well into "la la la I am not listening" denial.

Originally Posted by Owain
If your ego wont permit you to admit you are wrong, that doesn't bother me a bit.


No, I simply like arguing about politics. However, discussing anything with you reminds me of talking to my cat. Sure, the cat is there, and appear to listen, but all it really is interested in is feeding.

Originally Posted by Owain
Life is just going to suck for you, because I don't see any of that changing any time soon, because no one cares but deranged lefties.


Thing is, I started at the left of center. As I got older and wealthier, I moved right of center. During 80s, my today's views would be considered mainstream conservatism. You know, stuff like don't spend too much of borrowed money, don't intentionally write bad laws, don't be too greedy at the trough. If you see me as "deranged lefties", then you lost all perspective. Our last argument was over corporate welfare, where my position is that it is bad thing and distorts markets, and your position that it doesn't matter, and let us cut taxes on them some more. Yet, despite opposing "spend baby, spend!" Trump tax policy I am labeled the irresponsible one.


Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/25/17 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
If I am wrong about that


You are being modest. You are wrong just about everything.

Originally Posted by Owain
I look forward to your links to articles from anyone complaining about high air fares caused by a Boeing monopoly, high taxes caused by Ex Im loans, or the current crippling rate of inflation.


I am not sure you read any of the articles I linked, but here are some more:

Brookings on aircraft industry. This Brookings Institution

Quote
The basic logic behind trade enforcement mechanisms, whether pursued unilaterally or multilaterally through the WTO, is an attempt to “level the playing field,” or to correct the market for the distortions of government interventions. The problem is, when it comes to aircraft manufacturing, there’s never been anything close to a perfectly competitive, distortion-free market: It’s politics and subsidies all the way down.

Given how governments are so deeply and fundamentally involved in the industry, asking what a jet would cost in the absence of government distortions to the market is an impossible question. Government distortions constitute the aircraft market; take them away, and there’s nothing left.


[PDF] List of Boeing Subsidies challenged by EU . This is list where EU has sufficient evidence to start trade dispute.

The Economist: Boeing vs Bombardier
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/25/17 02:54 PM

Where in that does anyone cite the things you claim that specifically are the most damaging? Does anyone, anywhere on the planet, share your concerns? No one at all, out of 7 billion people?

Psychiatrists have a name for people who worry excessively about things that concern no one else at all.

Delusional.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/25/17 06:10 PM

So Owain, when other people ask you about your political alignment, do you lie through your teeth and tell them you are a conservative? Because even you must know that if you admit to your actual political views to everyone, they will finally have a definitive proof that you are not of a sound mind? Stuff you post here could probably be used as evidence by your relatives to get power of attorney over you. So wipe that browser cache and make sure nobody sees you post this shit here.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/25/17 08:13 PM

Ad hominem. Must have hit a nerve.
[Linked Image]
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/26/17 04:35 PM

Did you had to practice to get this hypocritical, or does it come naturally to you? I suspect you would make an excellent White House Press Secretary. Try applying, if you need references - this thread can be your reference.

Just a post above, you called me delusional. You also called me much worse throughout this thread. If you are too fragile to handle your own medicine, maybe you should behaved better yourself?

Back to my question, I want to know:

Originally Posted by Sini
So Owain, when other people ask you about your political alignment, do you lie through your teeth and tell them you are a conservative?

Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/26/17 08:30 PM

Based upon your posts, where you complain about things that are of no apparent concern to anyone but you, delusional might be an accurate description.

But that is a reference to your nonsensical arguments. I cannot help it if you choose to employ nonsensical argument. When you do, all one can do is point that out.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/26/17 08:32 PM

But before I can answer your question, I need a clarification. What is a violation of conservatism in what I have talked about?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/26/17 09:53 PM

Lets start with naming some of your conservative values. You do have values, don't you?

I will even start with an example, to making it easier for you to understand this question. I believe that direct government intervention into free markets with cash injections, free loans, and targeted tax cuts distorts the markets and ultimately increases costs to anyone participating in the markets.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/26/17 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
Based upon... hurf dur dur.


So it is perfectly OK for you to freely throw insults, but when some come back around you clutch your pearls?

I'd ask if you had any self-respect left if I didn't already knew the answer.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/27/17 01:30 AM

The charter of the EX IM Bank specifies that they can only offer loans that do not interfere with public markets. They make loans that other lenders cannot make, or do not want to make.

For example, Citibank may not have the means to offer loans for billions of dollars to a single client. Or they not want to be involved in weapons acquisition, as it would cause them to lose customers in other markets.

The government still needs companies to provide weapons acquisition, which is why the Ex Im Bank was created with bipartisan support. It isn't a liberal/conservative issue. Companies found that they were unable to get necessary financing, so the government stepped in to provide financing that the private sector was unwilling or unable to provide.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/30/17 02:12 PM

I am sure there were many good intentions for EX IM Bank, but do you think private businesses should have this kind of government support? That is, should ACME INC have access to Uncle Sam's unlimited credit card?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/30/17 04:06 PM

Under the limitations imposed by the charter of the Ex Im Bank as authorized by the bipartisan legislation authorizing its operation, sure. It serves the function I describe, which is both necessary and useful. If you object, contact your elected representatives and let them know if your displeasure.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/30/17 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
It serves the function I describe, which is both necessary and useful.


So you think Ex Im Bank is "both necessary and useful".

This view is inconsistent with your cheering for Trump's attempted deregulation. Your position was that laws that result in regulations are bad because they interfere with commerce. Now you are saying that laws that take shape as direct monetary interference with commerce, as with Ex Im Bank and Boeing subsidies, are good.

So please explain to me, why regulations are bad and subsidies and taxpayers underwriting loans are good? How are these different?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/30/17 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Lets start with naming some of your conservative values. You do have values, don't you?


I am still waiting for your answer.

From your recent posts in this thread we know that you support Trump without reservations, you support deregulation of any kind, you support subsidies, underwriting loans, and cutting taxes on multinational corporations.

How do you map these positions to conservative values ?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/30/17 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Owain
It serves the function I describe, which is both necessary and useful.

So you think Ex Im Bank is "both necessary and useful".

This view is inconsistent with your cheering for Trump's attempted deregulation.

No, it isn't. I never say that all regulation is bad, but even so, this is not a regulatory act.

Quote
Your position was that laws that result in regulations are bad because they interfere with commerce. Now you are saying that laws that take shape as direct monetary interference with commerce, as with Ex Im Bank and Boeing subsidies, are good.

As stated previously, the charter of the Ex Im Bank states that loans are made on a non interference basis when the private sector is unable or unwilling to provide financing.
Quote
So please explain to me, why regulations are bad and subsidies and taxpayers underwriting loans are good? How are these different?

Not all regulations are bad, but the operations of the Ex Im Bank are not regulatory in nature. Your basic premise is flawed.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/30/17 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Sini
Lets start with naming some of your conservative values. You do have values, don't you?


I am still waiting for your answer.

From your recent posts in this thread we know that you support Trump without reservations, you support deregulation of any kind, you support subsidies, underwriting loans, and cutting taxes on multinational corporations.

You make several statements contrary to fact.

I do not support Trump without Reservation.

I do not support deregulation of any kind.

Loans from the Ex Im bank are not subsidies, but they are financing offered on a non interference basis when the private sector is unable or unwilling to offer loans to companies like Boeing who are doing work that supports United States national policies, such as national defense and necessary weapons acquisition.

I do support cutting taxes, not only for corporations, but also for individuals for money that they have earned. It is their money. It is not the government's money.

Quote
How do you map these positions to conservative values ?

I support the deregulation undertaken by Trump in cases where regulation has overstepped the bounds of the legislation that authorizes the regulatory agency, such as the EPA, and where regulation becomes excessive and counterproductive.

The operation of the Ex Im Bank is not a conservative/liberal issue, so your question is a non sequitur.


Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 12/31/17 12:45 AM

So Owain, after you sent me deranged private messages, you actually expect me to engage with you?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/31/17 01:43 AM

I'm not particularly interested in what you do, other than when you post things contrary to fact, I will still point that out.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 12/31/17 01:52 AM

I sent you a PM, as suggested by General Order 1, based on a misunderstanding. That demonstrates the wisdom of General Order 1, which is something you should take note of. I have already resolved the misunderstanding with Jetstar. I consider the matter closed, since it was a misunderstanding based on my error. You might consider doing the same, but if not, that's fine too.
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 01/03/18 09:09 PM

side stepping the snowflake drama lets get back on topic.


Bannon has turned on Trump and now Trump claims Bannon was nothing more than a Coffee boy.

Only 3 more years of this bullshit but honestly I don't discredit the idea of Trump pulling us into a really bad war soon.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/03/18 10:26 PM

Trump did fire him, so I think it's safe to say he thought his performance was sub par. From this article, the reason might be that Bannon was mostly promoting Bannon, and not Trump.

Quote
He was furious with his chief strategist after he was quoted in an interview with the American Prospect contradicting Trump on North Korea and asserting that Bannon was able to make personnel changes at the State Department.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/politics/steve-bannon-white-house/index.html
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Trump card - 01/04/18 03:33 PM

https://apnews.com/19f6bfec15a74733b40eaf0ff9162bfa

Originally Posted by AP
The Obama administration in 2013 announced it would not stand in the way of states that legalize marijuana, so long as officials acted to keep it from migrating to places where it remained outlawed and out of the hands of criminal gangs and children. Sessions is rescinding that memo, written by then-Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, which had cleared up some of the uncertainty about how the federal government would respond as states began allowing sales for recreational and medical purposes.


Curious to know how you all feel about this? Personally, I believe state law should almost always take precedent over federal law, and that the move made by the Obama administration was beneficial to that approach. This appears to be an attempt to erode the weight of states' laws. Jeff Sessions' thoughts about marijuana are probably worthy of a separate discussion; that guy is off his fucking rocker comparing it to heroin.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/04/18 04:08 PM

The Obama administration decided arbitrarily not to enforce Federal law. If the laws remain on the books, they should be enforced. If we as a country don't want those laws to be enforced, then our elected representatives in Congress should amend or repeal those laws. But until that happens, the Justice Department is not empowered to pick and choose which laws to enforce, and which they will ignore, particularly if the choice rests on politically corrupt decisions.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/04/18 04:16 PM

The Obama administration decided arbitrarily not to enforce Federal law. If the laws remain on the books, they should be enforced. If we as a country don't want those laws to be enforced, then our elected representatives in Congress should amend or repeal those laws. But until that happens, the Justice Department is not empowered to pick and choose which laws to enforce, and which they will ignore, particularly if the choice rests on politically corrupt decisions.

Moderator: posting from my phone and for some reason this double posted, and I can't delete it. Delete it for me, please.
Posted By: doggernaut

Re: Trump card - 01/04/18 08:30 PM

So, from your argument, it would also follow that states should also not be able to overstep federal authority and overly enforce federal laws. Thus the additional restrictions on the sale of alcohol that many states enact should be disallowed. Of course, that is a minor overstep of authority if we look at how red states are trying to the subvert the SCOTUS decision on Roe v. Wade and institute bans on abortions.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Trump card - 01/04/18 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
The Obama administration decided arbitrarily not to enforce Federal law. If the laws remain on the books, they should be enforced. If we as a country don't want those laws to be enforced, then our elected representatives in Congress should amend or repeal those laws. But until that happens, the Justice Department is not empowered to pick and choose which laws to enforce, and which they will ignore, particularly if the choice rests on politically corrupt decisions.


The issue is that marijuana is classified as a schedule 1 substance, lumping it in with all of the hard narcotics that fall under the Controlled Substance Act, which isn't getting repealed any time soon. This is so because they consider marijuana to be highly addictive, and of no medical use, an opinion that (recent data suggest) a majority of Americans do not hold. This classification makes it impossible to use medical marijuana (nevermind recreational) in states that have legalized it, since federal law allows for prosecution regardless of state law. One alternative is reclassifying marijuana as something other than a schedule 1 substance, but this may not be popular in some states. The other is to do exactly what was done (in a bi-partisan manner mind you) during the Obama administration, which is to advise prosecutors not to pursue charges against users who are abiding by state law, provided they meet certain standards. That was the goal of the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, which essentially removed any federal funding for the justice department to use in preventing states from enacting medical marijuana laws. That amendment was signed into law in 2014 and is still on the books.

This feels like a good middle ground, where state law can matter, and a federal law that would be extremely hard to change is still relevant in states that have no legalized medical/recreational marijuana. Sessions' rescinding of the memorandum advising prosecutors not to pursue charges against (state) legal users is a slap in the face to this law, and to state enacted marijuana laws.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by doggernaut
So, from your argument, it would also follow that states should also not be able to overstep federal authority and overly enforce federal laws. Thus the additional restrictions on the sale of alcohol that many states enact should be disallowed. Of course, that is a minor overstep of authority if we look at how red states are trying to the subvert the SCOTUS decision on Roe v. Wade and institute bans on abortions.

Generally speaking, as long as no federal law is violated, particularly not the Constitution, state law can be more prohibitive than federal law, but not less prohibitive.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 12:31 AM

Marijuana is classified as a class 1 substance by law, and the Obama administration should not have been able to set that aside legally, but the Obama administration frequently didn't abide by what was legal.

The Controlled Substances Act is the controlling legislation, and changing that would require legislation passed by both the Senate and the House, and signed into law by the President to either amend or repeal that law.

If that is what we want as a country, then first Congress must act.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/controlled-substances-act-csa-overview.html
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by Goriom
Bannon has turned on Trump and now Trump claims Bannon was nothing more than a Coffee boy.


Interestingly, Trump is threatening lawsuits to stop any further commenting. Too bad, as POTUS, saying any kind of crap about him, no matter how wrong is protected speech. The same reason Trump was able to call Obama a Kenyan Muslim without repercussions.

Sweet, sweet karma.
Posted By: doggernaut

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 03:11 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
Generally speaking, as long as no federal law is violated, particularly not the Constitution, state law can be more prohibitive than federal law, but not less prohibitive.


This is true. However, it is also true that laws are only as enforceable as the desire or will of people to enforce them. Many states (such as California) do not see the value of throwing money at this issue or clogging up our penitentiaries with people who shouldn't be there. If you look at how the government has classified marijuana it is obviously ridiculous. FFS, by their classification, marijuana is more dangerous than fentanyl and oxycodone?!?! I would much rather someone take a bongrip after a day at work than have them be strung out on fantanyl or oxycodone.

https://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 03:14 AM

Then it should be no problem getting the federal law changed, right?
Posted By: doggernaut

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 03:29 AM

It will change when they realize that no matter how much they stomp their feet that it wont be enforced.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 03:39 AM

I hope they don't need federal funding for anything important.
Posted By: doggernaut

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 04:10 AM

Don't worry, the federal government gets a good chunk of its funding from California. We'll just hold on to it for them.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 04:20 AM

Given the red ink in California government spending already, they still need other people's money badly.

Maybe I should invest in popcorn commodites. This will be interesting to watch.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 04:24 AM

San Francisco is worried, and that was last year. Should they be more worried this year?

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...california-gov-jerry-brown-disaster-aid/
Posted By: doggernaut

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 04:53 AM

Well, I suppose if we still had the over 405 billion that California residents paid to the federal government, we would have plenty of money to cover that. Of course it might make covering the costs of those pesky hurricanes a bit tougher for the rest of the country.

You think the federal government is going to take our toys away if we don't enforce marijuana laws? I suppose we'll find out, but somehow I don't see it going that way.
Posted By: doggernaut

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by Owain
Given the red ink in California government spending already, they still need other people's money badly.

Maybe I should invest in popcorn commodites. This will be interesting to watch.


And I am not quite sure that a deficit (the first in five years) that equates to 0.06% of the California GDP puts California in a bad place.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 03:25 PM

Personally, I don't think much will change. If William Morris decides to try to distribute marijuana cigarettes nationwide, or if someone creates a huge marijuana farm somewhere, they might be prosecuted.

The Justice Department is reopening their investigation of both the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's violations of federal security laws. I think both represent a better use of Justice Department resources.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by doggernaut
Originally Posted by Owain
Given the red ink in California government spending already, they still need other people's money badly.

Maybe I should invest in popcorn commodites. This will be interesting to watch.


And I am not quite sure that a deficit (the first in five years) that equates to 0.06% of the California GDP puts California in a bad place.

This article is a year old. Have things changed since then? $1.6 billion still seems like a lot of red ink.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-jerry-brown-budget-trump-risks-20170110-story.html
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 05:34 PM

That feel when you are waiting for the Audio book version of Fire and Fury, narrated by Hillary Clinton

[Linked Image]
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 06:59 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/...le-dossier-judiciary-committee.html?_r=0

The right is starting to show their true colors. Straight up Authoritarian. Da comrades, das vadanya!
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 07:03 PM

Democrats fund development of a phony dossier, and use it to fraudulently obtain FISA warrants to spy on their opponents in an election.

I think that under these circumstances, prosecution is justified.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom



Quote
Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a senior committee member, told the Justice Department they had reason to believe that a former British spy, Christopher Steele, lied to federal authorities about his contacts with reporters regarding information in the dossier, and they urged the department to investigate.


I hope with this they just signed up for a free stay and meals at a federal penitentiary next to Trump, as this is clear obstruction. Nixon was impeached for less. Even Bannon let it slip that he thinks it is treason.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 11:02 PM

BBC: Trump seen as a child by staff, says Fire and Fury author Michael Wolff

Quote
The author of a controversial book on Donald Trump says that all his White House aides see him as a "child" who needs "immediate gratification". Wolff said that White House staff described the president as childlike because "he has the need for immediate gratification. It's all about him... This man does not read, does not listen. He's like a pinball just shooting off the sides.

The book cites former top aide Steve Bannon as describing a meeting at Trump Tower in New York between a Russian lawyer and Trump election campaign officials, including Mr Trump's son Donald Jr, as "treasonous"
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Goriom



Quote
Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a senior committee member, told the Justice Department they had reason to believe that a former British spy, Christopher Steele, lied to federal authorities about his contacts with reporters regarding information in the dossier, and they urged the department to investigate.


I hope with this they just signed up for a free stay and meals at a federal penitentiary next to Trump, as this is clear obstruction. Nixon was impeached for less. Even Bannon let it slip that he thinks it is treason.

They, who? The former British spy who lied to federal authorities? If he did lie to authorities, why shouldn't the Justice Department investigate? Their investigation is probably what uncovered that Democrats financed the dossiers creation, and it's subsequent fraudulent use to obtain FISA warrants.

People definitely should be prosecuted, but not the people you are thinking of.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/05/18 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
BBC: Trump seen as a child by staff, says Fire and Fury author Michael Wolff

Quote
The author of a controversial book on Donald Trump says that all his White House aides see him as a "child" who needs "immediate gratification". Wolff said that White House staff described the president as childlike because "he has the need for immediate gratification. It's all about him... This man does not read, does not listen. He's like a pinball just shooting off the sides.

The book cites former top aide Steve Bannon as describing a meeting at Trump Tower in New York between a Russian lawyer and Trump election campaign officials, including Mr Trump's son Donald Jr, as "treasonous"

Authors selling books say all sorts of goofy things in order to sell books.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/06/18 06:16 PM

An update about the author Sini is so thrilled about...

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analy...-in-his-book-puts-him-in-legal-jeopardy/
Posted By: Goriom

Re: Trump card - 01/06/18 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Owain
An update about the author Sini is so thrilled about...

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analy...-in-his-book-puts-him-in-legal-jeopardy/


Did you actually read and comprehend what that statement says?
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/07/18 12:53 AM

What is not to understand. Wolfe admits that much of what he puts in his book may be false, but he published it anyway, which leaves him open to libel suits.

If you guys want to get all giddy about a book that the author admits is largely bullshit, have at it.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 01/07/18 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Goriom
Did you actually read and comprehend what that statement says?


What in the past 90+ pages of this thread suggested to you that comprehension is actually possible? I firmly established that for these partisans there is no red line, they will support Trump no matter what. Such support requires intentional misunderstanding and misinterpretation of statements, events, and recorded facts.

I will translate to simpler words the statement from the prologue, but I fully expect this signal will not be received in the fever swamps.

Quote
Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another;


Translation: People described to Wolff different versions of the same event.

Quote
many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue.


Translation: Just like Trump, many people in his administration make stuff up.

Quote
These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.


Translation: Understanding alternative-facts reality of Trump administration is the purpose of this book.

Quote
Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them.


Translation: When people were making stuff up, Wolff wrote it down for the record.

Quote
In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true.


Translation: Wolff occasionally fact-checked these statements.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 01/07/18 04:12 PM

Using the Justice Department to Investigate Trump's Enemies

Quote
Although the president is the head of the executive branch and selects the attorney general, it has been taboo for a president to direct the department to launch specific investigations since Richard Nixon’s Watergate-era abuses—a taboo that’s especially strong in the case of one’s political enemies, as in the Trump-Clinton case.

The Clinton cases seem more like a more obviously worrisome example of presidential interference to punish a political enemy, but there’s always the chance that there might be bona fide criminal conduct. Where Trump can’t prevent a damaging investigation into himself, he can at least create a fog of confusion.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Trump card - 01/07/18 04:22 PM

Deregulating the Financial Industry

Remember bank bailouts, foreclosures, market crash? Well, apparently not Trump administration.

Quote
The agency also announced that it was paring back requirements for the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, which was put in place in 1975, and the authority to make rules related to the act was transferred to the CFPB via the Dodd-Frank Act. In 2015, the bureau set out to update what is known as Regulation C, the provision that governs how information on mortgages is collected, reported, and disclosed.


Just a reminder, a big issue was toxic derivatives where mortgage ownership could not be traced to an actual issuer of the loan. As a result, a number of people in good standing got foreclosed on, and some deadbeats managed to annul their mortgages via courts.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/07/18 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
BBC: Trump seen as a child by staff, says Fire and Fury author Michael Wolff

Quote
The author of a controversial book on Donald Trump says that all his White House aides see him as a "child" who needs "immediate gratification". Wolff said that White House staff described the president as childlike because "he has the need for immediate gratification. It's all about him... This man does not read, does not listen. He's like a pinball just shooting off the sides.

The book cites former top aide Steve Bannon as describing a meeting at Trump Tower in New York between a Russian lawyer and Trump election campaign officials, including Mr Trump's son Donald Jr, as "treasonous"

So is this quote from the book that you were so excited about just a lie? If there is a good chance that it's a lie, why be excited about it? Because even if it is a lie, it serves to confirm your bias, your prejudice and your bigoted false opinions.

This is why the book is a worthless piece of trash. Not even the author can say if any of it is true. But it does serve to get people like you excited.

That doesn't say anything good about people like you.

Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/07/18 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
[quote=Goriom]

Quote
In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true.


Translation: Wolff occasionally fact-checked these statements.

Belief is not evidence. If he has evidence and not just belief, Wolfe should explain what parts of the book are true. But then he would have to admit that most of his book is shit, and that would be poor marketing.
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/07/18 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Deregulating the Financial Industry

Remember bank bailouts, foreclosures, market crash? Well, apparently not Trump administration.

Quote
The agency also announced that it was paring back requirements for the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, which was put in place in 1975, and the authority to make rules related to the act was transferred to the CFPB via the Dodd-Frank Act. In 2015, the bureau set out to update what is known as Regulation C, the provision that governs how information on mortgages is collected, reported, and disclosed.


Just a reminder, a big issue was toxic derivatives where mortgage ownership could not be traced to an actual issuer of the loan. As a result, a number of people in good standing got foreclosed on, and some deadbeats managed to annul their mortgages via courts.

Yes, because the actual issuer of the loans were pressured by the government to make loans to people who could not repay them, so that more diverse segments of the population could enjoy the wonderfulness of home ownership.

Government regulation of markets like that we do not need.

"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

"Before that time [1992], these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs)[Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators."

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...ent-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/
Posted By: Owain

Re: Trump card - 01/07/18 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Sini