Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Come back! Need discussion...2020 PresidentialFollow

#102 Jul 23 2019 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,639 posts
I think it was mostly older people that think they know best that voted for trump. They're scared of moving forward.

Things change - that's a fact.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#103 Jul 23 2019 at 4:25 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,517 posts
Elinda wrote:
I think it was mostly older people that think they know best that voted for trump. They're scared of moving forward.



I think about that every time someone in their 60s or older dies when their fat clogged arteries give out. With every day that passes there are fewer of them.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#104 Jul 24 2019 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,639 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:


I think about that every time someone in their 60s or older dies when their fat clogged arteries give out. With every day that passes there are fewer of them.
That's disgusting and I don't believe that this is the generation that suffers from fat clogged arteries. That would be your generation.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#105 Jul 25 2019 at 11:42 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,677 posts
Elinda wrote:
Kuwoobie wrote:
I think about that every time someone in their 60s or older dies when their fat clogged arteries evil, black hearts give out. With every day that passes there are fewer of them.
That's disgusting and I don't believe that this is the generation that suffers from fat clogged arteries. That would be your generation.
There, I fix'd it.
Smiley: schooled
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#106 Aug 09 2019 at 6:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,417 posts
Bit late, but whatever...

laviont wrote:

The new pictures of the camps are worse than the stock photos they used from Obama's time.

By all accounts, when Obama had kids in cages, they only kept them for a few days, not years, before letting them go. AKA Catch and release, because of the Ninth Circuit Court's reinterpretation of the Flores agreement which requires that children could not be detained for more than 20 days, with or without an adult. After that long they are required to put them in shelters, or release them inside the country to await their court date, because that's the humane Jesus way of doing it. He even shut down shelters when they weren't up to humane standards.


Trump is keeping the kids in detention for the same period of time. Nothing has changed from a legal or standard point of view in terms of how ICE manages these detention facilities. What has changed is the Left's very public and very media driven outcry about these things, specifically with the cries about "separating children from their parents", which was happening under Obama too (had to happen since the kids could only be held for 20 days, right?). The Left just decided to make hay out of the same thing when Trump was president that they didn't care about when Obama was president. Which is kind of the point I've been making here. It's manufactured outrage. If you weren't pissed off about it 5 years ago, but you are today, then it's not really you being upset about it, but you deciding to be upset based on who the president is right now. Which makes it not about the policy, but the person.

Quote:
Trump's zero tolerance policy is arresting more than they can hold, care for, and feed, keeping them for longer than they should. On top of that 2/3 of the agents are in a facebook group bragging about how badly they treat the people they interact with daily.


Literally, nothing in that statement is true.

Quote:
Quote:
45's administration also destroyed documents that are legally required to be kept.

Page 18 of the Mueller report, and the 5 boxes of evidence from Omarosa's office.


Page 18 of the Mueller report is entirely blanked out except for one line defining "troll". Care to try again?

A word search of the pdf does not find any match of the name Omarosa. "Newman" shows up only once as a reference in the appendix. It's not "in the report". This comes from claims she made on various Left leaning news programs after the fact, and even then in extremely vague and purely speculative terms. Funny thing. I don't take the word of disgruntled former employees very seriously. They always make claims like this. They were treated unfairly, there was unspecified dubious stuff going on, etc. Always. Take with huge grain of salt here.

Quote:
Quote:
That's not why he fired Comey though.


Quote:
Holt, May 11: Monday you met with the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Trump: Right.

Holt: Did you ask for a recommendation?

Trump: What I did is, I was going to fire Comey. My decision. It was not —

Holt: You had made the decision before they came in the room.

Trump: I was going to fire Comey. There’s no good time to do it, by the way.

Holt: Because in your letter you said, “I accepted their recommendation.”

Trump: Well, they also —

Holt: So, you had already made the decision.

Trump: Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.
...

Trump: [Rosenstein] made a recommendation, but regardless of recommendation I was going to fire Comey, knowing there was no good time to do it,” Trump said. “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.


I'm sorry. Where in there is there any evidence that Trump fired Comey in order to prevent an investigation of his campaign vis-a-vis "collaboration with the Russians to rig the election"? If anything, he's saying that he wanted to fire Comey anyway, and the calculation was that the claims about the collusion were BS, but nothing he could do would change that, so there was no good time to fire Comey anyway, so may as well just do it now.

Which is what I was arguing. Trump knew that Comey was a loose cannon, who was playing political games. The wildly veering actions he took in 2016 showed that he wasn't acting on evidence in cases, but on which direction he thought the political winds were blowing at any given moment and in the process had alienated both sides of the political spectrum. He had to go. And as Trump himself said. There was no good time to do it. Any time would have been seen as some kind of political play, payback, etc. It can even be argued that Comey's actions at the time were designed specifically to make it more difficult for Trump to fire him. Think about it. He knows he's screwed up. He knows he's pissed too many people off. So he jumps on the "Russian collusion" bandwagon, pushes publicly for an investigation, so that if Trump fires him, it'll look like exactly the form of retaliation or opposition you are claiming (ie: You're being played here). It was a gambit to make Trump think twice about firing him.

Trump doesn't play those games though, and fired him anyway. At least, that's how I read the entire scenario. You're free to fall head first into the political trickery if you want, however.

Quote:
It's not the number of connections, it's what kind.


Uh hun. And past presidential candidates haven't had folks on their campaign staff with similar "kinds" of past relationships with foreign governments? You still haven't bothered to establish this. Carter Page's background is not uncommon for the kind of people who are picked up and tasked to be foreign policy experts in campaigns and administrations. You don't get that experience without having those kinds of connections.

Once again, it's false outrage by pretending that something that is common and ordinary is rare and extraordinary but only when your political enemies do it. That's selective. It's also false.

Quote:
Another tu quoque fallacy with a bit of special pleading fallacy sprinkled on top.


That fallacy only applies if the action of the first party is actually "wrong". Given that Page was investigated as a result of "attempts to recruit him", but was found to have not been successfully recruited, he didn't do anything wrong or illegal. So saying "he didn't do anything wrong, just like lots of other people who did the same thing didn't do anything wrong", isn't a fallacy.

I'll point out, for the record, that the Mueller report also found that Page did not commit any crimes, and was therefore not indicted for anything. Shocking, right? So the guy you're hinging this entire line of argument on, didn't do anything wrong, thus his connections were not illegal or wrong, thus anyone else doing the same thing wasn't doing anything illegal or wrong (You know, like I've been saying all along), and thus arguing that Trumps campaign was somehow doing something wrong by merely having him there is also... wait for it. WRONG.

Crazy, huh? See how the house of cards falls apart when facts show up?

Quote:
You're literally avoiding seeing that trump actually has been begging for Kremlin's favor his whole life, and then Russians do something awful for him that they can gain from. He is weakening our country for personal gain. The voting machines are hacked, and you don't care because "your team" is winning. That's as unamerican as it gets.


No, I'm not. I'm saying that it's irrelevant. The charge here isn't: "Had past business dealings in Russia (as well as numerous other countries around the world), which involved blowing the usual smoke up people's butts to make them like you that people who do business around the world do". The charge is "colluding with the Russians to affect the outcome of the election in Trump's favor". Nothing you've said comes anywhere close to this. I'll also point out that the Intelligence report on this clearly stated that no election machines were hacked, by the Russians or anyone else. So I'm not sure where that's even coming from. You're just spewing garbage and hoping something sticks.

Quote:
quasi-timeline for you to try to wrap your head around why trump was investigated:
trump tries to get a hotel in moscow
carter page loves russia too much for any normal american
manafort does some bad stuff for russia
trump runs for president with roger stone, rick gates, paul manafort, george papadopoulos at his back
papadopoulos sets up meetings with kremlin, hears about some emails
roger stone gets into contact with guccifer 2.0 about them emails
wikileaks drops the emails
russian social media propaganda machine intensifies, anyone but hillary
trump asks russia for the rest of the emails on live tv
within hours russia responds by getting those emails
2 days after trump is "elected" obama warns him not to put flynn in there
trump does anyway
flynn gets investigated
trump asks comey to stop
comey indicts flynn
trump fires comey
meuller is appointed
jeff sessions recuses himself
trump rebukes him for not keeping a chilling effect on the department of justice
trump tells mcgahn to fire meuller
mcgahn resigns
trump bullies sessions until he quits
barr shuts down meuller investigation


Ok. Where's the collusion in there? Nothing in there is illegal. Want to try again, this time actually making something remotely close to an argument in support of your position?

Quote:
What does it take for you to see that this is a lot of crap to just let slide?


Um... The point that it is, as you say, crap. It doesn't mean anything. It's a bunch of random stuff you've listed, that doesn't paint any sort of picture at all.

Edited, Aug 9th 2019 4:03pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#107 Aug 09 2019 at 11:41 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,677 posts
gbaji wrote:
Once again, it's false outrage by pretending that something that is common and ordinary is rare and extraordinary but only when your political enemies do it. That's selective. It's also false.
Hey, just admit your side does it too and it cancels out, right?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#108 Aug 10 2019 at 5:03 PM Rating: Good
***
3,051 posts
While I have been gone I forgot how things work in Thailand and thought that he was a follower of George Will and not sell out like McConnell. Guess thank drank the kool_aid when 45 got the tax cuts passed, even though it won't ever help him.

Then thank and 45 seem to agree on what shall qualify as date rape.

What happened to the party of moral standards? I guess it only counts if the Democratic party does it.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#109 Aug 11 2019 at 2:42 PM Rating: Good
***
1,108 posts
That's disgusting

Yeah, well, sometimes the truth is disgusting. Look at a piece of cheese under a microscope and you'll see what I mean.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#110 Aug 11 2019 at 8:34 PM Rating: Good
***
3,051 posts
Autocorrect changed gbaji to thank and gbajiland to Thailand. If I noticed it last night I was too tired to correct it.

I'm now living in the outskirts of Washington DC with an older man who is a member of the American Socialist Party. I call him my Red Diaper baby, as his father was even more of a Socialist than he is. He seems to be leaning towards Warren over Bernie right now, which maybe my Democratic party influence on him.

Of course we both will vote for whoever wins the Democratic primary come November. Only someone who's been drinking the right wing kool-aid would vote for Trump in the general election.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#111 Aug 13 2019 at 4:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,417 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Once again, it's false outrage by pretending that something that is common and ordinary is rare and extraordinary but only when your political enemies do it. That's selective. It's also false.
Hey, just admit your side does it too and it cancels out, right?


Hey Laviont? Here's that tu quoque fallacy you were looking for.


Bijou: on the rare occasion when "my side" does this, I call them out on it as well, and certainly don't fall in line with it. By all means, find an example of me supporting this kind of selective/false outrage when done by the Right. I'm reasonably certain you wont find one in the couple decades I've been posting here, but you're free to try.

And before you go there, something you *think* is "false" doesn't match this case. It has to be something where the action was clearly taking place by the GOP previously, but they're angry about it later when the same exact thing is done by the Dems. And no, false claims of "this is the same thing the GOP did!" don't count either. So a DoE program under Bush which was limited to funding research into alternative energy which was then expanded under Obama to directly subsidize production of end products, does not count. Neither does an DoJ program to sell guns to straw buyers that was shut down due to concerns over the risk of loosing track of them under the Bush administration which later gets re-started by the Obama administration with the "fix" to the risk of loosing track of the guns being to just not bother to try to track them at all (and compartmentalization of the program so that the agents involved aren't even aware of this fact). Those are legitimate cases to be outraged over, as the programs were significantly altered in ways that changed them from one thing to something completely different (and in one case, a half a billion dollars of tax payer money lost, and in the second one Border Patrol officer dying and uncounted numbers of Mexican citizens killed, but who's counting, right?).

In the case we're talking about, the regulations ICE is following have not changed at all. Which is why the initial photos of kids in cages taken during the Obama era looked exactly like the ones taken more recently. Same detention facilities. Same cages. Same everything. Being outraged now while not caring then is absolutely selective. Now, maybe you would have been outraged then if you'd known about it, but then that just shifts the selectivity from you to the media and political pundits who didn't tell you then, but are screaming at you to be outraged about it now. Either way, it's selective outrage. Your first question should be "why are you making a big deal about this right now?". Every answer to that question circles back to "Because the GOP is in power and we want to make it seem like they are big meanies".

Edited, Aug 13th 2019 2:09pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112 Aug 13 2019 at 5:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,417 posts
ElneClare wrote:
Autocorrect changed gbaji to thank and gbajiland to Thailand. If I noticed it last night I was too tired to correct it.


Ah. That makes more sense now. Whew! That was beyond even the normal ElneClaresse.

ElneClare wrote:
While I have been gone I forgot how things work in Thailand and thought that he was a follower of George Will and not sell out like McConnell. Guess thank drank the kool_aid when 45 got the tax cuts passed, even though it won't ever help him.


I'm not sure what you're talking about. My positions on various political issues have not changed. And certainly not due to who happens to be sitting in the Oval Office at the moment. What's funny is that it appears as though my unwillingness to change my position based on the person in power is what most people get upset at. I've always been for small government, lower taxes, pro gun rights, strong immigration enforcement (although I'd like to see more focus on alternative visa methodologies to go along with making it harder to illegally cross the border, which I've *also* been very consistent on). I've always been of the opinion that the federal government should focus on issues only it can do (national defense, national trade policy, international treaties, etc), and not much on the domestic except in a limited regulatory manner to deal with interstate issues.

I also, unlike most folks on the Left, don't think tax policy should be about what is best for me personally, but what is actually best in general. One of the things that always baffles me is when Liberals point out Conservatives and say something like "why would you support a tax change that doesn't benefit you". Um... All you're doing is pointing out how self centered you are if you think it should always be about what's best for "me". And while folks decry any tax cut as "tax cuts for the rich", the reality is that while a person who pays $1million in taxes who gets a 1% decrease saves $10,000 dollars, and a person who pays $10,000 in taxes who gets a 10% decrease only saves $1,000 (which is where the whole "OMG! Rich people get the lions share of tax cuts!" argument comes from), the money saved by the latter person actually benefits him far far more than the rich guy's tax cut does. The wealthier someone is, the lower the percentage of their income they actually use to provide for themselves directly. Most "rich" people essentially give themselves a living allowance, with everything made past that point going into some form of investment. So the "tax cuts for the rich" overwhelmingly result in more money in the investment side of the economy, which if we assume a consistent ratio of short term versus long term investment in portfolios across this segment, will result in a consistent increase in investments which result in economic growth, job creation, and new product development, all of which go a long way towards improving the lives of everyone who is *not* rich.

I get that many people out there just don't believe this, and thus reject it, but you could at least accept that I *do*, and thus isn't not inconsistent nor "evil" for me to support such policies, even if they don't appear to benefit me directly initially. Maybe even especially so.

Quote:
Then thank and 45 seem to agree on what shall qualify as date rape.


Not sure where this is coming from at all. If I was a Bill Clinton supporter, you might have a point. We'll except for us agreeing on such things. But you'd be right in terms of which guy has a long history of sexual assault.

Quote:
What happened to the party of moral standards? I guess it only counts if the Democratic party does it.


What specifically are you talking about? It's amusing to me how often these sorts of claims are tossed out there by folks on the Left, but they can never seem to be specific. Just declaring the GOP to be "immoral", doesn't make it true. Heck, you notice how the media suddenly stopped showing all these images of Trump with Epstein? Want to know why? Because all of the photos and videos with both of them in it, were back when Trump was a Democrat, and they are all at Dem party events where both of them were big donors to that party. Um... Which "side" has a morality problem again?

Hint: It's not the GOP. The Dems are so used to positive media coverage and even cover ups, that they've become comfortable assuming they will just get away with stuff they do, and over time have become so blatant about it that it's getting ridiculous. The GOP, on the other hand, will get nailed for anything the media can possibly spin into a scandal, and thus have become increasingly squeaky clean. The morality delta between the two parties is massive.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#113 Aug 15 2019 at 10:46 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,639 posts
Hickenlooper is out. But another seemingly entitled white dude signed on (can't remember name).

How's everyone feeling about their favorite democratic candidate for pres?

I'm still with Warren. Harris my second choice replacing Klobuchar; I like her courageous bluntness. Biden as made some old age oopsies, but they haven't seemed to hurt him in polls - yet.

Gbajis (test)
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#114 Aug 15 2019 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,639 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
That's disgusting

Yeah, well, sometimes the truth is disgusting. Look at a piece of cheese under a microscope and you'll see what I mean.
I was at my local farmers market early on in the season. I asked one of the vendors why there was no cheese/yogurt farmer there this year. His response was, "buy some goats and make your own".

So, I'm thinking of buying goats. But how many???
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 15 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (15)