Real World Event Discussions

Is Trump Nuts?

POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 00:47
VIEWED: 120824
PAGE 6 of 11

SECOND

Friday, April 14, 2017 5:03 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
Yep. Sounds to me like Trump is turning into Clinton a little bit more everyday.

Looks like maybe you win Second. No need to gloat about it.

Trump is more right-wing than ever. Trump’s current policies now point toward orthodox conservatism: a return to the days of light-touch regulation on Wall Street and standard Republican business-friendliness. That is completely the opposite of Hillary.

It was never clear exactly what Trump's populism was supposed to amount to, but it sincerely discomfited America’s CEO class and drove the unusual dynamics of the 2016 general election — with Hillary Clinton largely choosing to accept Trump’s characterization of himself as something fresh and new. She simply argued that it was fresh and new and dangerous, rather than primarily casting Trump as a fraud who would pursue an agenda of enriching his fellow rich businessmen.

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/13/15281232/trump-pivot-session
s-cohn

Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:

Our last two presidents at least thought it was about ruining the economy back home while starting never-ending wars. Glad he's on board with you guys now.

Those never-ending wars that Trump will push forward with encouragement of Republican Congressmen, who give him the money for wars? Those are opportunities for rich businessmen. All that is very orthodox Republicanism. It is as old as Nixon's Vietnam War. There are thousands of old men in Texas that have stories of how they got rich from the Vietnam War. That is the true meaning of "Make America Great Again". It was not really about unemployed coal miners going back to the mines once Trump is President.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, April 14, 2017 5:28 AM (P)

The press agrees with 6, 2. Trump shifts moderate.
So far, though, this is a lot of noise. IDK if it turns into war or if it's all staged. I'm also a little worried about the backpedaling on trade. Globalist Trump?

6STRINGJOKER

Friday, April 14, 2017 5:35 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Those never-ending wars that Trump will push forward with encouragement of Republican Congressmen, who give him the money for wars?

What did Obama and a majority Dems running the place do about our never-ending wars after he got the Nobel Peace Prize?

Oh, that's right. Start a few more never-ending illegal wars.

Mr. Obama. The first president in a while we've had that spent his entire time behind the desk while the country was at war.

That's a pretty low bar he set for Trump. I'm hoping that maybe we see a time of peace in the next 8 years, but since Trump seems more and more everyday to do what you wanted when you voted for Hillary, I really doubt it.

SECOND

Friday, April 14, 2017 6:10 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:

Mr. Obama. The first president in a while we've had that spent his entire time behind the desk while the country was at war.

That's a pretty low bar he set for Trump. I'm hoping that maybe we see a time of peace in the next 8 years, but since Trump seems more and more everyday to do what you wanted when you voted for Hillary, I really doubt it.

It was a choice between Hillary, who was just more of the same old Obama, or Trump, the guy who paid a $25,000,000 penalty in 2017 (you have not forgotten already, have you?) for committing fraud. It was an easy choice for me. Trump was constantly lying. His life history was one lawsuit after another, proving to me he is a lying sack of nuts. It was no surprise to me (and should not have been to you) when he acts like a fraud once he was President. That's Trump's main personality trait. He calls it the art of the deal. I call it lying and in his more restrained moments, Trump is using misdirection rather than outright lies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

Can you see the difference in how Trump speaks truthfully? I can:

www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/nov/01/truth-check-clint
on-and-trump-truth-o-meter-1-week/

6STRINGJOKER

Friday, April 14, 2017 6:15 AM (P)

lol... so I guess it was okay to overlook all of that lying about the servers and all of the stuff on record that Hillary and Bill had been doing for decades while actually in public office?

Trump may be no different, but even democrats agree that every single thing that came out of Hillary's mouth was a lie.

THGRRI

Friday, April 14, 2017 7:47 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:

It was a choice between Hillary, who was just more of the same old Obama, or Trump, the guy who paid a $25,000,000 penalty in 2017 (you have not forgotten already, have you?) for committing fraud. It was an easy choice for me. Trump was constantly lying. His life history was one lawsuit after another, proving to me he is a lying sack of nuts. It was no surprise to me (and should not have been to you) when he acts like a fraud once he was President. That's Trump's main personality trait. He calls it the art of the deal. I call it lying and in his more restrained moments, Trump is using misdirection rather than outright lies.

SECOND

Friday, April 14, 2017 7:49 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
lol... so I guess it was okay to overlook all of that lying about the servers and all of the stuff on record that Hillary and Bill had been doing for decades while actually in public office?

The people who said that were lying for money. You are old enough to know that Americans get less and less honest as more and more money is involved.
https://qz.com/953908/susan-bordos-the-destruction-of-hillary-clinton-
why-did-hillary-clinton-lose-the-2016-election/

Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:

Trump may be no different, but even democrats agree that every single thing that came out of Hillary's mouth was a lie.

No, no, 6stringJoker, Democrats do not agree with what you wrote. You missed the point completely, didn't you? Trump is different; he is a world-class liar, at a far higher level than Bernie or Hillary. It is no surprise that Trump was believed while campaigning. That was also the secret to his business successes.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-c
ity.html

www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/nov/01/truth-check-clint
on-and-trump-truth-o-meter-1-week/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

DREAMTROVE

Friday, April 14, 2017 8:41 AM (P)

A choice between Hillary and anyone is anyone. It's "Bring back George W. Bush" if necessary. It's true, too. In the Bush years, Hillary headed the committee for the Patriot Act, she was the lead dem in the push for war, she wanted to use nuclear weapons, to push for war with Iran, and under Obama, she was a funder and armer of international terrorists, pushing for war with Russia, and the architect of Arab Spring. IOW, She was the worst part of the Bush admin and then the worst part of the Obama admin. And her husband's admin was pretyt bad as well. Esp. from a Rwandan or Yugoslav perspective.

Any site that doesn't put Hillary's facts as a 90+% pants on fire has pretty much just permanently shot their credibility with me.

THGRRI

Friday, April 14, 2017 9:12 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
A choice between Hillary and anyone is anyone. It's "Bring back George W. Bush" if necessary. It's true, too. In the Bush years, Hillary headed the committee for the Patriot Act, she was the lead dem in the push for war, she wanted to use nuclear weapons, to push for war with Iran, and under Obama, she was a funder and armer of international terrorists, pushing for war with Russia, and the architect of Arab Spring. IOW, She was the worst part of the Bush admin and then the worst part of the Obama admin. And her husband's admin was pretyt bad as well. Esp. from a Rwandan or Yugoslav perspective.

Any site that doesn't put Hillary's facts as a 90+% pants on fire has pretty much just permanently shot their credibility with me.

Straight out of fake news and the RT play book. We have been reading this shit here for years.

6STRINGJOKER

Friday, April 14, 2017 9:32 AM (P)

You guys are just crazy, or at least you have no idea what you want or are even bitching about.

If you were happy with the Obama years, it doesn't make any sense at all that you were unhappy with the GWB years. All signs right now point to Trump turning on everything he said he was going to do and fall right in line with the last 16 years of action.

Looks like you guys won the election either way. Hope it's all you ever dreamed of.

1KIKI

Friday, April 14, 2017 9:50 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:
https://qz.com/953908/susan-bordos-the-destruction-of-hillary-clinton-
why-did-hillary-clinton-lose-the-2016-election/

Quote:
Bordo’s central premise, she explains, is “that the Hillary Clinton who was ‘defeated’ in the 2016 election was, indeed, not a real person at all, but a caricature forged out of the stew of unexamined sexism, unprincipled partisanship, irresponsible politics, and a mass media too absorbed in ‘optics’ to pay enough attention to separating facts from rumors, lies, and speculation.”

I've read books that completely changed my mind about such basic assumptions as 'Mother Love'. But they were filled with historic data, statistics, records of personal accounts, and a logical explanation that made sense of it all.

As rare as that kind of book is, this could be one of them. But, more likely, given the overwhelming tide, this book is probably just another histrionic, hyperventilating load of bull.

Quote:
And, after eight years of a contemplative scholar-president—a black man who embodies the aloha spirit—

Was that characterization of Obama actually in the book? Did they not notice the large number of drone strikes Obama had to personally sign off? Or the multitude of countries left literally blown apart and smoldering? Things aren't looking so good for the integrity of the argument.

Quote:
The magnitude of America’s misogyny was writ large when the nation—abetted by the Electoral College, and perhaps the nefarious handiwork of a few international entities—selected a grossly inexperienced man over an experienced woman.

This is a logical falsity. They're assuming misogyny is the cause, when it's the point they need to prove. And ... did the authors not notice the failed economy?

Quote:
Bordo’s feminist analysis is concise and incisive. She moves from the double standards faced by female politicians, often in the form of the likeability penalty, through to a discussion of the ultimate red herring, “the emails”... The fact is that it was perfectly legal for Clinton to use a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state ...

This has been DIRECTLY contradicted by the IG report. Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

And at this point I bailed. Either the author is sloppy, stupid, or lying. Why should I read any further?

And why should I put any trust is anyone who believes this crap?

Can you answer, SECOND?

Care to try addressing the facts, again?

Or do you shoot nothing but blanks?

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

SECOND

Friday, April 14, 2017 7:25 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Can you answer, SECOND?

Trump has tasted human blood and he craves more and more. Is he nuts?

Trump is getting a taste for pulling the trigger.

In just the last week, the rookie commander in chief has presided over the use of some of the most powerful weaponry in the US arsenal, sending a signal that he is one President who relishes ordering the use of deadly force. It's clear that he believes Washington and the rest of the world are watching.

First, Trump dispatched Tomahawk cruise missiles to slam into an airfield belonging to President Bashar al-Assad's Syrian government forces, to punish what the US says is their use of chemical weapons.

On Thursday, the military dropped one of its most powerful non-nuclear bombs -- a 21,600-pound behemoth -- over a warren of ISIS tunnels in Afghanistan. Afghan officials said 36 militants were killed in the strike.

www.cnn.com/2017/04/14/politics/donald-trump-military-afghanistan/inde
x.html

DREAMTROVE

Friday, April 14, 2017 7:54 PM (P)

Or it's reality. HRC lost because she's a genocidal lunatic who killed millions of people. Only she's still there pulling more stings than Putin.

THGRRI

Friday, April 14, 2017 7:58 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And why should I put any trust is anyone who believes this crap?

And why should we put any trust is someone who lies in every post?

==============================

That is the point isn't it? That some here just lie and spin. Then they say, why bother, all you do is lie and spin. They spew ideological dribble and are allied with trolls and Russian sympathizers.

The most incredible thing is what they post, comment about, and claim to be factual information. No matter how outrageous the claim, they shamelessly continue. They post endless subjective nonsense which is off topic, or use fallacy of relative privation when at a loss. They attempt to make someone's perspective appear bad by comparing it with something else. Usually something not applicable to the conversation.

They don't seem to care that facts mixed with spin is false. They don't seem to care when they are outed as liars. They just move onto the next post with a self righteous indignation. An obstinate dogmatism, which prevents solutions to the myriad of world problems they claim to be concerned about. All they do here is spin their wheels.

SECOND

Friday, April 14, 2017 9:18 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Or it's reality. HRC lost because she's a genocidal lunatic who killed millions of people. Only she's still there pulling more stings than Putin.

There actually is an explanation of why Hillary, Trump, and the old fogies in Congress, both Dem and GOP, are too eager to kill foreigners. You can read about it in the article "Few Democratic voters back Syria bombings. So why do so many Democrats in Congress?"
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/14/15289772/democratic-voters-p
oliticians-syria

This is how the Beltway establishment, Republicans and Democrats alike, think about American foreign policy:
America’s role is to lead the world. Be it under the slogan of America’s “benevolent global hegemony,” the neoconservative version, or “the indispensable nation,” the neoliberal variant, the party in power scarcely matters. Anything that happens across the globe is potentially a critical American concern.
www.vox.com/first-person/2017/4/14/15293136/syria-strikes-trump-war

DREAMTROVE

Friday, April 14, 2017 9:44 PM (P)

Second,

I'll take a look. I don't have any faith in neocons or neolibs, they're both globalist commies and have no interest in what's good for America.

THGRRI

Friday, April 14, 2017 9:58 PM (P)

I like that you post some good facts and opinions here SECOND. However, Vox is a left leaning publication. Sometimes factual, sometimes political in nature. This means it is important to separate reporting from far left opinions and agendas. I'll admit, some Trump supporters are annoyed by Trumps apparent change in policy, from America first, and are responding to that when asked about Syria. Many Democrats voted for Trump as well for the same reasons. Not the police men of the world, remember?

SECOND

Friday, April 14, 2017 10:53 PM (P)

Vox is leftwing you say. The Vox article was "I voted for Trump. After the Syria strikes, I'm second-guessing my choice."

No one knew who wrote Trump's speeches or if he consulted with any experts on foreign policy. He didn’t speak as if he had read non-interventionist thinkers like George Kennan or Andrew Bacevich — it’s really quite unlikely he has ever heard of them. But nonetheless, his message was clear: We needed to focus on America, not countries abroad.

And so someone like me came to support and vote for Trump for foreign policy reasons alone. As a founding editor of the American Conservative, I had been working to lay the groundwork for a more realist, less military interventionist Republican candidate for 15 years, without obvious success.

. . .
Madeleine Albright, a Democrat, had said on CBS that “the price is worth it” for the deaths of half a million Iraqi children in order to restrict Saddam Hussein’s access to international commerce. Though she later apologized for the statement and said it was taken out of context, it clearly articulated her priorities — a statement to remember whenever the Beltway establishment, Dem or GOP or Trump, pulls out its violins over dead children.
www.vox.com/first-person/2017/4/14/15293136/syria-strikes-trump-war

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
I like that you post some good facts and opinions here SECOND. However, Vox is a left leaning publication. Sometimes factual, sometimes political in nature. This means it is important to separate reporting from far left opinions and agendas.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

THGRRI

Friday, April 14, 2017 11:09 PM (P)

Yes, but my point is that because of his America first positions, it should be easy to find someone who is second guessing their vote after his bombing of Syria. It's anecdotal and means little.

A vast amount of Trumps supporters were Bernie supports. They reside in the Appalachians and Rust belt. They are democrats who have lost everything, are fed up, and want our politicians to get out of the foreign policy game. They may also be afraid because Trump is unpredictable. They may be worried a bump in his poll numbers over the bombing may push him to go all in.

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Vox is leftwing you say. The Vox article was "I voted for Trump. After the Syria strikes, I'm second-guessing my choice."

No one knew who wrote Trump's speeches or if he consulted with any experts on foreign policy. He didn’t speak as if he had read non-interventionist thinkers like George Kennan or Andrew Bacevich — it’s really quite unlikely he has ever heard of them. But nonetheless, his message was clear: We needed to focus on America, not countries abroad.

And so someone like me came to support and vote for Trump for foreign policy reasons alone. As a founding editor of the American Conservative, I had been working to lay the groundwork for a more realist, less military interventionist Republican candidate for 15 years, without obvious success.
www.vox.com/first-person/2017/4/14/15293136/syria-strikes-trump-war
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
I like that you post some good facts and opinions here SECOND. However, Vox is a left leaning publication. Sometimes factual, sometimes political in nature. This means it is important to separate reporting from far left opinions and agendas.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SECOND

Friday, April 14, 2017 11:37 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
A vast amount of Trump's supporters were Bernie supporters. They reside in the Appalachians and Rust belt. They are democrats who have lost everything, are fed up, and want our politicians to get out of the foreign policy game. They may also be afraid because Trump is unpredictable. They may be worried a bump in his poll numbers over the bombing may push him to go all in.

I am calling bullshit on that idea that Democrats switched to Trump when they could not get Bernie. They went to third parties.

Gary Johnson got 2 to 7% of the vote in various states. He had 0% chance of being elected. Voting for Johnson was pure protest voting by Democrats, not Republicans. The Republicans come out and vote for the Republicans, exclusively, while the Democrats do stupid things like voting Libertarian or, their favorite suicidal tactic to make themselves irrelevant to American politics, Democrats are not voting at all. That really teaches the establishment. What it teaches is that many Democrats are nuts about how elections work.
www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

To simplify things into their broadest terms, in recent elections the Republican always gets around 60 million votes; the question is whether the Democrat can bring out more voters or not. If they can, as Obama did twice, they win. If they can’t, as Clinton and John Kerry failed to, they lose.

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/10/why-did-trump-win
-in-part-because-voter-turnout-plunged/?utm_term=.fc53bf7b4907

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

THGRRI

Saturday, April 15, 2017 12:08 AM (P)

In November, Donald Trump would be the choice of 44 percent of West Virginia Democratic primary voters who supported Bernie Sanders Tuesday, CBS News early exit polling found.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/over-four-in-10-sanders-voters-in-west-vir
ginia-would-vote-for-trump/

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, April 15, 2017 1:44 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Yes, but my point is that because of his America first positions, it should be easy to find someone who is second guessing their vote after his bombing of Syria. It's anecdotal and means little.

A vast amount of Trumps supporters were Bernie supports. They reside in the Appalachians and Rust belt. They are democrats who have lost everything, are fed up, and want our politicians to get out of the foreign policy game. They may also be afraid because Trump is unpredictable. They may be worried a bump in his poll numbers over the bombing may push him to go all in.

Spot on. This is pretty much it. I didn't vote for Trump, but I know a lot of people who did. Frankly, in platform points, Trump was a lot closer to Bernie. Half of it was that Trump deliberately copied Sanders' talking points while HRC was busy voting them off the Dem. Party Platform, or her clintonistas were, but Trump took them on because he wanted to win. The larger part is that Trump, like Sanders, is anti-establishment. They represent a vote against the status quo. Hillary really was the status quo.

About 40% of Sanders voters went Trump, only 20% went Hillary. Also, a lot of the normally non-voting population in the rust belt also came out for Trump.

And thanks, T, that is what's really going on. There's no need for Russian hackers or white nationalists, etc.

I find Trump really very predictable. He's running the same sort of scam he ran in NY for years. But who has more pull over him is the question. As long as it's family first, it'll probably be fine. If the McMasters of the world get control of the Donald, we're going to be in a lot of trouble. My take on Clinton would be that she is one of the McMasters, so you're better off with a chance of that than the certainty of it.

That said, it wasn't enough for him to get my vote. I like him more now than I did when he was running, but he would have to actually do something for me to vote for him next time. Like improve the economy. End some wars. And the dems would have to stay on the suicide stampede that they've been on since November. If they nominate someone sane like Warren, i'll probably vote for her. No power in the verse could make me vote for Hillary.

Going to the bar with a buddy tonight who is going to tell me all about how Trump is Clinton's hired fallguy. I'm not drinking that koolaid, but I'm willing to hear the argument.

THGRRI

Saturday, April 15, 2017 3:08 AM (P)

Again with the defense of Russia. What I posted does not excuse what Russia did. The smear campaign waged by the Russians and their trolls against Hillary was relentless, and still is. Our threads are full of it. The contacts between Trumps team and Russia that they denied are still under investigation. Two of his team has had to register as foreign agents since news of their connections to Russia broke. His son in laws security clearance is being challenged because he lied about his meeting with Russian agents. And their pulling the same shit with our allies.

No dreamtrove, some of us here can think and chew gun at the same time.

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Yes, but my point is that because of his America first positions, it should be easy to find someone who is second guessing their vote after his bombing of Syria. It's anecdotal and means little.

A vast amount of Trumps supporters were Bernie supports. They reside in the Appalachians and Rust belt. They are democrats who have lost everything, are fed up, and want our politicians to get out of the foreign policy game. They may also be afraid because Trump is unpredictable. They may be worried a bump in his poll numbers over the bombing may push him to go all in.

Spot on. This is pretty much it. I didn't vote for Trump, but I know a lot of people who did. Frankly, in platform points, Trump was a lot closer to Bernie. Half of it was that Trump deliberately copied Sanders' talking points while HRC was busy voting them off the Dem. Party Platform, or her clintonistas were, but Trump took them on because he wanted to win. The larger part is that Trump, like Sanders, is anti-establishment. They represent a vote against the status quo. Hillary really was the status quo.

About 40% of Sanders voters went Trump, only 20% went Hillary. Also, a lot of the normally non-voting population in the rust belt also came out for Trump.

And thanks, T, that is what's really going on. There's no need for Russian hackers or white nationalists, etc.

I find Trump really very predictable. He's running the same sort of scam he ran in NY for years. But who has more pull over him is the question. As long as it's family first, it'll probably be fine. If the McMasters of the world get control of the Donald, we're going to be in a lot of trouble. My take on Clinton would be that she is one of the McMasters, so you're better off with a chance of that than the certainty of it.

That said, it wasn't enough for him to get my vote. I like him more now than I did when he was running, but he would have to actually do something for me to vote for him next time. Like improve the economy. End some wars. And the dems would have to stay on the suicide stampede that they've been on since November. If they nominate someone sane like Warren, i'll probably vote for her. No power in the verse could make me vote for Hillary.

Going to the bar with a buddy tonight who is going to tell me all about how Trump is Clinton's hired fallguy. I'm not drinking that koolaid, but I'm willing to hear the argument.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, April 15, 2017 3:12 AM (P)

T,

A tired false narrative, give it up. People have been hating Hillary since Russia was the Soviet Union, an evil empire if you recall. And she doesn't disappoint. She's the world's most accomplished serial killer, and still committing terrorist attacks in Syria. And that's the truth. Feel free to lie about it now, I know you will.

BTW, I also knew you would find a way to disagree with me agreeing with you.

1KIKI

Saturday, April 15, 2017 3:20 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
blah blah blah

You troll me because I've proven you wrong too many times. Trolling is all you have left, troll.

THGRRI

Saturday, April 15, 2017 3:32 AM (P)

It's about the Russians' attempt to undermine the worlds democracies. It's global and your constant defense of Russia as the world points it's finger at them, is what's tired. What gave you away? Your not being able to let anything negative about Russia pass. You gotta hit it. It's like dangling a worm in front of a hungry fish. It's what blew the cover of 1kiki and SIG as well comrade. Think about it. I tied you to your Polish heritage, and pegged you as a Russia sympathizer not weeks after you started posting again. Your constant defense of Russia is what gives weight to my claim.

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
T,

A tired false narrative, give it up. People have been hating Hillary since Russia was the Soviet Union, an evil empire if you recall. And she doesn't disappoint. She's the world's most accomplished serial killer, and still committing terrorist attacks in Syria. And that's the truth. Feel free to lie about it now, I know you will.

BTW, I also knew you would find a way to disagree with me agreeing with you.

1KIKI

Saturday, April 15, 2017 4:23 AM (P)

THGRRI

Saturday, April 15, 2017 4:25 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Care to try addressing the facts, again? Or do you shoot nothing but blanks?

I'm good

1KIKI

Saturday, April 15, 2017 4:45 AM (P)

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, April 15, 2017 5:17 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Care to try addressing the facts, again? Or do you shoot nothing but blanks?

I'm good

Lol. T, happy in the fact-free zone, spouting mischaracterizations and lies about everyone else. At least he admits it, while hiding behind his sockpuppet.

THGRRI

Saturday, April 15, 2017 5:30 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Care to try addressing the facts, again? Or do you shoot nothing but blanks?

I'm good

Lol. T, happy in the fact-free zone, spouting mischaracterizations and lies about everyone else. At least he admits it, while hiding behind his sockpuppet.

Me and the worlds free press. I think I'm in good company. What's your excuse for not being on board with the worlds free press comrade?

SECOND

Saturday, April 15, 2017 5:13 PM (P)

Is it finally time to take Twitter away from Trump? Or is he too nuts to stop?

Trump’s use of the social network to bully foreign governments is dangerous, as the Chinese government seemed to say today. “We call on all parties to refrain from provoking and threatening each other, whether in words or actions, and not let the situation get to an irreversible and unmanageable stage,” China’s foreign minister warned.

On Twitter, policy statements that would normally go through layers of diplomatic experts have been unleashed by Trump with no apparent vetting. Earlier this week, Trump tweeted from his own account and from the official @POTUS one that North Korea was “looking for trouble,” and threatened to “solve the problem.”

Such statements have fueled a “vicious cycle” of tensions on the Korean peninsula, North Korea’s vice foreign minister told the Associated Press in an interview.

https://qz.com/959639/north-korea-tensions-show-its-time-to-take-twitt
er-away-from-donald-trump/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SECOND

Saturday, April 15, 2017 5:29 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
In November, Donald Trump would be the choice of 44 percent of West Virginia Democratic primary voters who supported Bernie Sanders Tuesday, CBS News early exit polling found.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/over-four-in-10-sanders-voters-in-west-vir
ginia-would-vote-for-trump/

Trump voters saying “Oh, we would have voted for Bernie rather than Trump” are talking baloney.

West Virginia has been reliably voting more and more for the Republicans. Same phenomenon goes on in Texas, too, except with a twist: when a completely nuts and utterly unsuitable third party candidate like H. Ross Perot comes along, he will still drew 22 percent of the state's vote. In Texas, they like ‘em crazy or Republican. Any Democrat, no matter how sane or conservative, is wasting their time campaigning in Texas.
www.texastribune.org/2016/11/08/heres-how-texas-voted-every-presidenti
al-election-/

West Virginia from Wiki
51.9% Bush vs Gore 45.6% West Virginia, 2000
56.1% Bush vs Kerry 43.2% West Virginia, 2004
55.6% McCain vs Obama 42.5% West Virginia, 2008
62.3% Mitt vs Obama 35.54 West Virginia, 2012
68.5% Trump vs Hillary 26.4% West Virginia, 2016

I see a trend in West Virginia. Democrats get less and less and Republicans more and more of the vote. Does not matter who the Democrat (even Bernie) or who the Republican (even Trump the nut).

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

THGRRI

Saturday, April 15, 2017 7:29 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
In November, Donald Trump would be the choice of 44 percent of West Virginia Democratic primary voters who supported Bernie Sanders Tuesday, CBS News early exit polling found.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/over-four-in-10-sanders-voters-in-west-vir
ginia-would-vote-for-trump/
Trump voters saying “Oh, we would have voted for Bernie rather than Trump” are talking baloney.

Sorry, I'm not going to go deeper than I have. We disagree about this except to say, millennials. We are talking about millennials, born in the 80's and 90's raised on reality TV. Many did vote Trump, many were democrats.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, April 15, 2017 9:24 PM (P)

Just going to way in here to say 6 is right, 2nd. You're re-electing Trump right now. "No Drama Obama" is a nice Johnny Cochran, but anything that is flagged as "opposite of Obama" is going to win, just like "opposite of HRC" What we (dems) need is to re-evaluate what we stand for, the way the GOP did in 2010, after Bush. Because the opposite of Bush also automatically got elected. Some republicans were able to redefine themselves as the opposite of Bush.

I give the dems about two years to re-align themselves. If they don't come out with a strong independent progress or moderate message in 2018, then I say any actual liberals should work on electing people into congress in a new liberal party. I humbly suggest something along the lines of the UK's LibDems, that would be my choice. But anything that distances them from the all around disaster that reigned for 8 years and jsut ran for office, which might've been "bush lite" or maybe it was "busy heavy"

SECOND

Sunday, April 16, 2017 7:14 PM (P)

You're talking crazy. Trump will win Texas in 2020 and there is nothing the Democrats can do, there is no argument they can make or super-duper Democratic candidate or promises Democrats can put before the public to change that Trump is guaranteed a win in Texas in 2020. As for the other 49 states, probably the same. The same people who voted Republican in 2016 will vote the same in 2020, if they don't die in-between.

Your entire suggested strategy for the Democrats is ridiculous. It will no more be a winner for Democrats than would a revised strategy for Libertarians where they disavow Ayn Rand will help Libertarians win Texas.

A majority of Americans, and especially Texans, are addicted to the drug, the snake-oil, that the Republicans are selling and the elderly American baby-boomers will keep buying until it kills them or makes them sick enough to notice their mistake. (Think Bush and Iraq, Nixon and Vietnam, but Bush and Nixon still won a second term by bigger margins than their first elections. If Trump starts a war, his second term margin of victory over the Democrat will be HUGH.) But if the voters do change their minds for one short moment in the voting booth, soon enough they will change right back again to voting Republican. They love their Republican snake-oil. They believe in its healing power.

And your third party idea? "a new liberal party"? You have not gone crazy but you have misunderstood how the Constitution works. The USA is not a Parliamentary system and 3rd parties cannot win even a thin little sliver of power.
http://observer.com/2016/07/why-third-party-candidates-cant-win/
www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/american-government/poli
tical-parties/section3.rhtml
www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/02/could-a-third-pa
rty-candidate-win-the-u-s-presidency-very-unlikely/

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Just going to way in here to say 6 is right, 2nd. You're re-electing Trump right now. "No Drama Obama" is a nice Johnny Cochran, but anything that is flagged as "opposite of Obama" is going to win, just like "opposite of HRC" What we (dems) need is to re-evaluate what we stand for, the way the GOP did in 2010, after Bush. Because the opposite of Bush also automatically got elected. Some republicans were able to redefine themselves as the opposite of Bush.

I give the dems about two years to re-align themselves. If they don't come out with a strong independent progress or moderate message in 2018, then I say any actual liberals should work on electing people into congress in a new liberal party. I humbly suggest something along the lines of the UK's LibDems, that would be my choice. But anything that distances them from the all around disaster that reigned for 8 years and jsut ran for office, which might've been "bush lite" or maybe it was "busy heavy"

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SECOND

Sunday, April 16, 2017 7:16 PM (P)

“When I hear the president talk about the wall, I think he’s speaking metaphorically.”
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas

www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/us/article/Down-payment-on-bord
er-wall-in-doubt-in-Congress-11075986.php

6STRINGJOKER

Sunday, April 16, 2017 8:27 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Sorry, I'm not going to go deeper than I have. We disagree about this except to say, millennials. We are talking about millennials, born in the 80's and 90's raised on reality TV. Many did vote Trump, many were democrats.

I hate that they started calling me a Millennial when I was in my mid-thirties. I was going to tell you that you got your generations mixed up, but I guess Generation Y isn't a thing anymore and somehow I'm lumped in with kids that are in College still today.

I was never a big fan of the "Generation Y" moniker, but I was already going to college before the first season of Survivor aired, I still had dial-up, my friends and I were playing Mario Kart 64 and Goldeneye, Emo wasn't a thing yet, crystal meth was only on the West Coast, gas was 88 cents a gallon, minimum wage was $5.25 and bought a shit ton more, Karaoke was still cool, Trump hadn't done reality TV yet, Bill Clinton was still president, we wouldn't see our first black president for almost a decade and nobody even knew who Barack Obama was, the Twin Towers were still a thing, rap still wasn't mainstream, Auto-Tune wasn't a thing yet, mp3 players weren't a thing yet, Napster was thriving, Metallica hated Napster, kids knew who Metallica was, nobody dreamed that pot would ever be legalized even for medicinal purposes, Facebook wasn't a thing, YouTube wasn't a thing, MySpace wasn't even a thing, smart phones weren't a thing, flip phones weren't even a thing.... I could seriously go on all day about this....

Putting people my age into the same box as college kids today is crazy.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, April 16, 2017 9:14 PM (P)

Second,

You're holding a bucket of FAIL, complaining about it, and asking how you got it. Here's how: you pick of a package of FAIL from the shelf and dutifully mixed the ingredients.

Dems made their own suicide pact with HRC and Bill Maher called it out years ago. To blindly follow team Democrat and hope liberalism will follow is cognitive dissonance.

Trump got a large number of first time votes and first time republican votes. Only half of his voters were traditional republicans. But keep beeping that horn, I'm sure the traffic will move your way.

As for third parties, I disagree. The major problem with third parties is internal. We don't have opposition that believes in being the opposition. We have aux dems and aux gop. To win you have to start with the realization that it doesn't matter who becomes president, because we're never going to get a liberal into the presidency. The closest we ever came was a corporate dixiecrat. Unless it was Trump.

So, screw the presidency. It's still a congressional republic. Elect some liberals to the house and senate, even governors. Reform got Jesse Ventura in. could've kept him if they hadn't fallen apart. We just have to stop being afraid of the splitter mentality. In what way is Hillary Clinton even teh remotest bit a liberal? I mean, like Obama, she's probably a "libtard" as JSF would say, but not in any way liberal. Obama himself said in his campaign that his presidency would offer "no real policy change" over that of George W Bush. So, we elected Bush.lite for 8 years. Big accomplishment. We got an admitted neocon on a democratic ticket, who did so little for liberalism that even his own neighborhood in chicago remained a war torn ghetto. In fact, got worse. Which is why he's not back there. Despite having his own right hand man as mayor. Democrats can't fix it either because they can't or they won't and why does it really matter which?

So, you can go beating the drum for republican.lite, but recognize that Trump's appeal was being not the status quo, in spite of being a billionaire. Pink cat hats are not going to do it.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, April 17, 2017 1:31 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:
“When I hear the president talk about the wall, I think he’s speaking metaphorically.”
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas

www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/us/article/Down-payment-on-bord
er-wall-in-doubt-in-Congress-11075986.php

Yes, I'm with Cornyn. Please, no wall, Trump, it's not good. I know, it was gonna= be yuge, the biggest, china's got a wall, but ours was going to reach to the moon. Better to just reach of the moon and forget about the wall. It didn't stop the Mongols, after all. Besides, the Mexicans, great people. Not the greatest people. Americans are still the greatest. But Mexicans, great hotels, great food, and hard working people. Fantastic people. Love 'em. But if they want to come over here, they're going to have to apply for citizenship. We got a lot of peopel here from the Mexico. We love 'em. Ven aquí si tú quieres trabajar. ¡Viva Mexico!

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, April 17, 2017 4:52 AM (P)

There's no need for a wall if you don't give free shit away and allow them to send it back home. No free healthcare, no welfare and no education unless you came here legally. No more anchor babies. Don't send the ones here already home. Set a date 1 year from now. That will give them 3 months to create one and then never again. Don't allow any wire transfers to Mexico unless you have an established bank account that only a citizen could get.

I have changed my mind about the wall. It's stupid.

Do that other shit and the only people who will want to come here are people who want to work.

SECOND

Monday, April 17, 2017 4:10 PM (P)

www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/04/16/former_us_ambassador_to_sou
th_korea_trump_trying_to_out-north_korea_the_north_koreans.html

CHRISTOPHER HILL, FMR. U.S. AMBASSADOR TO SOUTH KOREA: Well, I think Trump is trying to out-North Koreans the North Koreans. So let's see if that works. Certainly it makes people nervous when they're not quite sure what he means by it. And, you know, great powers can't really bluff.

So when you talk in those terms, you have got to be prepared to back it up. And I guess that's what worries people the most.

That said, I certainly appreciate the fact that he has understood this is a major issue. I mean, if I were President Trump, I wouldn't want to go before the American people in 2020 and say, well, you know, we gave it the junior college try and we decided there is nothing we can do about this...

I think it is -- we have come to a moment where this is kind of different from the past. First of all, they have had over 25 missile tests. They're working on a whole new generation of missiles. Of course, one of them failed in the last 24 hours. But that doesn't mean they'll try again.

So it's a new generation of missiles. And clearly, they're working on a warhead design for nuclear devices. So this is, I think, a very serious matter. And it's coming down the tracks.

And people often take the view, well, somehow, this is all about their regime survival. This is how they'll survive being a nuclear weapons country. Actually, I think they're more ambitious about it. They see this as a means to somehow decouple the U.S. from its ally in South Korea, from its ally in Japan, and somehow create a situation whereby, at least in theory, holding the U.S. at risk, the U.S. would be less willing to participate in a conflict on the Korean Peninsula, were it to come to that.

So they have ambitious plans for this. And I think we need to be very clear about the need to stop them. And I'm particularly discouraged when I hear people talking about, well, maybe we can freeze their tests in return for freezing our exercises with South Korea.

SECOND

Monday, April 17, 2017 4:40 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
There's no need for a wall if you don't give free shit away and allow them to send it back home. No free healthcare, no welfare and no education unless you came here legally. No more anchor babies. Don't send the ones here already home. Set a date 1 year from now. That will give them 3 months to create one and then never again. Don't allow any wire transfers to Mexico unless you have an established bank account that only a citizen could get.

I have changed my mind about the wall. It's stupid.

Do that other shit and the only people who will want to come here are people who want to work.

You are worried about anchor babies. You will see that Republicans writing the 14th Amendment were confused about anchor babies back in 1866 if you check the debate about the Citizenship Clause. Only a very few in Congress correctly understood what they voted for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause

You wrote: "Don't allow any wire transfers to Mexico unless you have an established bank account that only a citizen could get." That just means that American citizens will become intermediaries between banks in Mexico and illegal Mexicans. They will start businesses of making wire transfers to a third country and then to Mexico and take a fat fee from the illegals for doing it, unless that is what you really want. Forget wire transfers. Maybe Americans will smuggle tons and tons of cash to Mexico, kind of like the drug cartels are already doing with drugs going in the other direction.

If you really want to stop illegals from any country, not just Mexico, working in the USA, jail their bosses. Throw a few thousand bosses in jail every year and the rest will get the message. I believe the Republican Party won't be doing that even though there are already laws that could be much better enforced.
www.fairus.org/issue/employer-sanctions
www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/legal-pitfalls-hiring-undocumented-imm
igrants.html

Really good jobs that US Citizens want, but can't have because of illegal aliens:
www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/04/03/three-waste-management-bosses-sente
nced-illegal-alien-hires-encouraging-id-theft/

SECOND

Monday, April 17, 2017 7:08 PM (P)

Trump’s big problem is he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

At least it’s one of his problems. This became clear when he said he realized dealing with North Korea was “not so easy” after 10 minutes with the Chinese president.

Dealing with complicated problems is an occupational hazard faced by outsiders in all fields — and there’s never been a president who is more of an outsider. Consequently, a lot of his assertions about critical matters of public concern are based on ... nothing at all. As president, he is fitfully coming into contact with concrete policy choices, actual information, and well-informed people. And it’s making a difference.

That’s the dynamic behind many of this spring’s jarring policy reversals on backing out of NATO, Chinese currency manipulation, and relations with Russia.

And to the extent that Trump is replacing ignorance with information and bad policy with good policy, it deserves to be celebrated rather than mocked. But the wild swings themselves are disturbing and have consequences. And Trump’s actual habit of failing to obtain sound information don’t appear to have changed. That leaves him easily manipulated, like when Paul Ryan convinced him Republicans had to do health care reform before tax reform. As his equal-opportunity openness to both new information and fake “information” become clearer to all interested parties, the race will be on to manipulate the president and incite further chaos in American public policy.

The fact that it keeps happening suggests Trump has not really internalized the key lesson.

Peter Baker of the New York Times reports that only after he publicly accused Mr. Obama of having wiretapped his telephones last year did Trump ask aides how the system of obtaining eavesdropping warrants from a special foreign intelligence court worked.

One particularly chilling example of Trump’s casualness about information gathering is that Michael Crowley and Josh Dawsey report he was asking aides for information about why Assad would use banned chemical weapons only after American Tomahawk missiles had destroyed Syrian military targets. The shocking truth is that it’s probably Trump’s own rhetoric about Syria in particular and chemical weapons in general that led Assad to think there would be no consequences for violating his 2013 agreement.

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/17/15304212/trump-ignorant

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, April 17, 2017 9:39 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
If you really want to stop illegals from any country, not just Mexico, working in the USA, jail their bosses. Throw a few thousand bosses in jail every year and the rest will get the message.

Yup. Do that too.

And throw out a few elected officials creating sanctuary cities for illegals too.

Quote:
I believe the Republican Party won't be doing that even though there are already laws that could be much better enforced.

Why does it always come down to that with you? 8 years of Obama and it didn't happen. It would never have happened with him, and you know that. At least now there might be a chance.

The wall is just symbolic. It's pointless.

How do we fund the preventative measures that will work?

There is that 1.6 billion in "Wall Money" still sitting there since the Bush administration for starters. We could also end the "war" on drugs and re-direct some of the DEA to this instead of outright firing all of them too.

And once the jails are being emptied of their free prison labor for non violent "criminals" who did nothing but provide a service that shouldn't have been illegal in the first place you'll have plenty of space for actual criminals. The added bonus is that when jobs aren't being done for virtually free with the prison labor, wages in general might actually see a bump too.

THGRRI

Monday, April 17, 2017 10:14 PM (P)

Great post SECOND. I enjoyed reading it, but times are a troubling.

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/04/16/former_us_ambassador_to_sou
th_korea_trump_trying_to_out-north_korea_the_north_koreans.html

CHRISTOPHER HILL, FMR. U.S. AMBASSADOR TO SOUTH KOREA: Well, I think Trump is trying to out-North Koreans the North Koreans. So let's see if that works. Certainly it makes people nervous when they're not quite sure what he means by it. And, you know, great powers can't really bluff.

So when you talk in those terms, you have got to be prepared to back it up. And I guess that's what worries people the most.

That said, I certainly appreciate the fact that he has understood this is a major issue. I mean, if I were President Trump, I wouldn't want to go before the American people in 2020 and say, well, you know, we gave it the junior college try and we decided there is nothing we can do about this...

I think it is -- we have come to a moment where this is kind of different from the past. First of all, they have had over 25 missile tests. They're working on a whole new generation of missiles. Of course, one of them failed in the last 24 hours. But that doesn't mean they'll try again.

So it's a new generation of missiles. And clearly, they're working on a warhead design for nuclear devices. So this is, I think, a very serious matter. And it's coming down the tracks.

And people often take the view, well, somehow, this is all about their regime survival. This is how they'll survive being a nuclear weapons country. Actually, I think they're more ambitious about it. They see this as a means to somehow decouple the U.S. from its ally in South Korea, from its ally in Japan, and somehow create a situation whereby, at least in theory, holding the U.S. at risk, the U.S. would be less willing to participate in a conflict on the Korean Peninsula, were it to come to that.

So they have ambitious plans for this. And I think we need to be very clear about the need to stop them. And I'm particularly discouraged when I hear people talking about, well, maybe we can freeze their tests in return for freezing our exercises with South Korea.

THGRRI

Monday, April 17, 2017 10:19 PM (P)

More please

SECOND

Monday, April 17, 2017 10:22 PM (P)

Trump should keep his campaign promise to build a wall between Texas and Mexico. WWII was won in 4 years and Trump can build a Wall in 4 years. Republicans have been whining since 2001 that terrorists could cross as easily as Mexicans. Build the wall and stop the whining forever. And it needs to be well designed and constructed so that maintenance of the Trump Texas/Mexico Wall does not become an issue for future elections.

Like the Wall, the Sanctuary City is another Trump brainstorm. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in March said the Justice Department may withhold federal grant money from cities that don't comply with ICE detainer requests. That move followed Trump's executive order to cut federal funds for cities and counties that provide sanctuary to undocumented immigrants.

Supporters of the crackdown say these sanctuary policies allow undocumented immigrants to be released back into society rather than turned over to federal authorities. Those who oppose it say forcing local and county officials to comply will make victims and witnesses less likely to come forward for fear of deportation and reduce the immigrant labor pool that businesses rely on. Texas' GOP lawmakers have tried since 2011 to pass a sanctuary cities ban.

"What we are trying to do is protect the trust relationship that exists between law enforcement and our community," Austin Mayor Steve Adler says. "That's why we're one of the safest communities in the country. We've invested a lot of time and a lot of money in building that trust and we're trying to preserve and protect it."

"There is no law that says you have to honor an ICE detainer," says Austin's Travis County District Attorney Margaret Moore, who handles felony cases. A legal review by the local county attorney found Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez' policy was "crafted carefully to be in compliance with that law."
www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-04-17/texas-targeting-sa
nctuary-cities

Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
If you really want to stop illegals from any country, not just Mexico, working in the USA, jail their bosses. Throw a few thousand bosses in jail every year and the rest will get the message.

Yup. Do that too.

And throw out a few elected officials creating sanctuary cities for illegals too.

Quote:
I believe the Republican Party won't be doing that even though there are already laws that could be much better enforced.

Why does it always come down to that with you? 8 years of Obama and it didn't happen. It would never have happened with him, and you know that. At least now there might be a chance.

The wall is just symbolic. It's pointless.

How do we fund the preventative measures that will work?

There is that 1.6 billion in "Wall Money" still sitting there since the Bush administration for starters. We could also end the "war" on drugs and re-direct some of the DEA to this instead of outright firing all of them too.

And once the jails are being emptied of their free prison labor for non violent "criminals" who did nothing but provide a service that shouldn't have been illegal in the first place you'll have plenty of space for actual criminals. The added bonus is that when jobs aren't being done for virtually free with the prison labor, wages in general might actually see a bump too.

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, April 17, 2017 10:23 PM (P)

Go dig up some more Russian dirt kid. The adults are talking.

-----

That was posted to T, obviously, but you snuck your post in right under me Second.

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, April 17, 2017 10:30 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Trump should keep his campaign promise to build a wall between Texas and Mexico. WWII was won in 4 years and Trump can build a Wall in 4 years. Republicans have been whining since 2001 that terrorists could cross as easily as Mexicans. Build the wall and stop the whining forever. And it needs to be well designed and constructed so that maintenance of the Trump Texas/Mexico Wall does not become an issue for future elections.

It's still only symbolic if none of those other things we talked about are done, but you do have a point here. Sure. Put it up and be done with it. I'm really bored about hearing about it too.

Quote:
Like the Wall, the Sanctuary City is another Trump brainstorm.

No it wasn't. Read the rest of what you just posted. I'll highlight the important part.

Quote:
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in March said the Justice Department may withhold federal grant money from cities that don't comply with ICE detainer requests. That move followed Trump's executive order to cut federal funds for cities and counties that provide sanctuary to undocumented immigrants.

Supporters of the crackdown say these sanctuary policies allow undocumented immigrants to be released back into society rather than turned over to federal authorities. Those who oppose it say forcing local and county officials to comply will make victims and witnesses less likely to come forward for fear of deportation and reduce the immigrant labor pool that businesses rely on. Texas' GOP lawmakers have tried since 2011 to pass a sanctuary cities ban.

SECOND

Monday, April 17, 2017 10:49 PM (P)

Immigration was a big deal in the 2016 election. All the budget and regulation and Obamacare and climate change stuff was just noise that voters didn't take very seriously. But building a wall was nice and simple, and they thought it would bring back their jobs and keep their towns safe. Trump is nuts to not do it. The Wall is why he is President according to www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/04/its-wall-wot-won-it

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, April 17, 2017 10:53 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Immigration was a big deal in the 2016 election. All the budget and regulation and Obamacare and climate change stuff was just noise that voters didn't take very seriously. But building a wall was nice and simple, and they thought it would bring back their jobs and keep their towns safe. Trump is nuts to not do it. The Wall is why he is President according to www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/04/its-wall-wot-won-it

Well thanks for adding motherjones to the list of sites not worth ever reading.

There were many reasons why Trump is the president now. The wall is only one of them. The biggest reason that this happened was because the Democrats have become so terrible that Hillary was their only choice.

While Trump is building that wall, you should work on re-building your party and getting somebody who could actually run against him in 2020.

I'll take your silence on the matter of the sanctuary city as your concession that you were wrong about what you posted.

SECOND

Monday, April 17, 2017 10:55 PM (P)

According to Pollster, Trump's approval rating has been improving for the past couple of weeks. I guess a couple of high-profile bombings can do wonders even if people don't really trust you to keep your promises anymore. If Trump won't build the Wall, he better drop many more bombs for the sake of his approval ratings. I suggest North Korea. I just want to be helpful.
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/04/views-trump-down-job-approval

Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Immigration was a big deal in the 2016 election. All the budget and regulation and Obamacare and climate change stuff was just noise that voters didn't take very seriously. But building a wall was nice and simple, and they thought it would bring back their jobs and keep their towns safe. Trump is nuts to not do it. The Wall is why he is President according to www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/04/its-wall-wot-won-it

Well thanks for adding motherjones to the list of sites not worth ever reading.

There were many reasons why Trump is the president now. The wall is only one of them. The biggest reason that this happened was because the Democrats have become so terrible that Hillary was their only choice.

While Trump is building that wall, you should work on re-building your party and getting somebody who could actually run against him in 2020.

I'll take your silence on the matter of the sanctuary city as your concession that you were wrong about what you posted.

1KIKI

Monday, April 17, 2017 10:58 PM (P)

6-string

SECOND is a fanatic. You can't discuss anything with a fanatic.

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, April 17, 2017 11:00 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
According to Pollster, Trump's approval rating has been improving for the past couple of weeks. I guess a couple of high-profile bombings can do wonders even if people don't really trust you to keep your promises anymore. If Trump won't build the Wall, he better drop many more bombs for the sake of his approval ratings. I suggest North Korea. I just want to be helpful.
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/04/views-trump-down-job-approval

Yep... The MSM got what it wanted and the sheeple are settling down because the media isn't triggering them every day.

Good lesson that trump is learning there Second.

Maybe now would be a good time to reflect on the MSM yourself and ask why after dropping bombs do they back off of him after being so relentless for the last 3 months?

SECOND

Tuesday, April 18, 2017 12:23 AM (P)

The Simpsons on Immigration
http://angrybearblog.com/2017/04/the-simpsons-on-immigration.html

Simpsons aficionados among you already know that the Simpsons addressed the issue of immigration back in 1996, in the episode “Much Apu About Nothing”. Here’s a summary of the beginning of the episode, thanks to Wikipedia.

On an ordinary day, a bear strolls onto Evergreen Terrace. It is quickly subdued by the police, not before accidentally shooting and capturing Barney Gumble. Homer rants about these “constant bear attacks”, even though this is the very first bear Ned has seen in his forty years of living on that street. Homer then leads an angry mob and demands that Mayor Quimby do something about this. Soon, the Bear Patrol is created, a useless organization which even makes use of a B-2 Spirit. Homer then gets just as shocked [as] when he saw the bear when he discovers that taxes have been raised five dollars to maintain the Bear Patrol.

After that, the angry mob returns to the mayor’s office, yelling “Down with taxes! Down with taxes!” The mayor has to do something…

Quimby: Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?

Assistant: [Takes a moment to check his clipboard] Dumber, sir.

Quimby: They want the bear patrol but they won’t pay taxes for it. This is a situation that calls for real leadership. [Opens the door to his office to confront the angry mob.]

People, your taxes are high because of illegal immigrants!

Moe Szyslak: Immigants! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.

Let’s not confuse fiction with reality, though. I certainly can’t believe that politicians in real life would ever raise the issue of immigration to cover up for their failures in other areas of policy, such as taxes, government spending, income inequality, education, health care…

Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
According to Pollster, Trump's approval rating has been improving for the past couple of weeks. I guess a couple of high-profile bombings can do wonders even if people don't really trust you to keep your promises anymore. If Trump won't build the Wall, he better drop many more bombs for the sake of his approval ratings. I suggest North Korea. I just want to be helpful.
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/04/views-trump-down-job-approval

Yep... The MSM got what it wanted and the sheeple are settling down because the media isn't triggering them every day.

Good lesson that trump is learning there Second.

Maybe now would be a good time to reflect on the MSM yourself and ask why after dropping bombs do they back off of him after being so relentless for the last 3 months?

1KIKI

Tuesday, April 18, 2017 3:50 AM (P)

6STRINGJOKER

Tuesday, April 18, 2017 4:33 AM (P)

I think it's Aspergers. You can't argue anything with second because she will constantly change the subject on you when you're right. Notice in our exchange she never once contested any of my points, nor conceded any. At least 5 replies there were links to new stories and points that only vaguely had anything to do with what we were talking about.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, April 18, 2017 5:38 AM (P)

Nah, Second's okay. I think she takes in a lot of lefty media, and has some things that she takes in which come from reading other people's opinions, which is like what you said in the other thread about partisan stuff. It just tilts things.

SECOND

Tuesday, April 18, 2017 4:32 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
I think it's Aspergers. You can't argue anything with second because she will constantly change the subject on you when you're right. Notice in our exchange she never once contested any of my points, nor conceded any. At least 5 replies there were links to new stories and points that only vaguely had anything to do with what we were talking about.

Did you get the point of the Simpson reference?

Quote:
The angry mob returns to the mayor’s office, yelling “Down with taxes! Down with taxes!” The mayor has to do something…

Quimby: Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?

Assistant: [Takes a moment to check his clipboard] Dumber, sir.

Do you see yourself as Mayor Quimby or the Mob? I see myself as the Assistant and you are not Quimby.

I don't discuss it because actually talking to a Republican about politics is like talking to them about evolution. (Keep in mind I'm in Texas. In your state, you may have people with Republican leanings, you may be one yourself, who are open to "conversion" to evolution, to "belief" in science. I'm using evolution as an example of a topic that is not worth discussing in an open forum with somebody that is just looking for an excuse to say Liar! or fanatic! or Autistic!) The Texas Republicans respond to evolution with "You've got your fossils created by Satan (substitute 'fake facts' if it was about politics) from your non-Christian (substitute ‘leftist’ if it is about politics) scientists with their theories of evolution (there is often sneering at the word theory) but the only true facts are in the books of the Holy Bible." Bejesus to all that.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SECOND

Tuesday, April 18, 2017 4:32 PM (P)

A major problem with Trump’s pledge to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants
www.vox.com/2017/4/17/15294810/trump-immigration-enforcement-crackdown
-problem

The fundamental problem with removing 11 million unauthorized people from the country is immigration courts have a massive backlog. If you have not previously been deported from the US, and you aren’t caught within a certain distance from the border — or you are caught within that distance but you’ve been living here for several years — you have the right to an immigration court hearing before you’re deported. And that means that over the last several years, because Congress realized it wanted to put a lot more funding toward immigration enforcement, it put it toward DHS [Department of Homeland Security]. It didn’t put it toward DOJ [Department of Justice], where the immigration courts were.

So, over the entire Obama administration, the court backlog went from a year, a year and a half, to two and a half years. So if you nab a longtime resident in Chicago— that’s two and a half years where they’re going to be out in the community, where in theory they could abscond and not show up for their hearings. Or that’s two and a half years that you have to keep them in detention, which gets extremely expensive, even if you’re cutting costs by putting them in private facilities.

One of the ways you could root around it is by expanding the exception — the “Oh, you’re not entitled to an immigration court hearing.” And there should be regulations coming down soon about that. Some people are worried that it’s going to allow anyone who gets caught anywhere in the US to, if they can’t prove they’ve been here for a couple of years, to get deported without a hearing. We don’t know for sure that’s what’s going to happen, but that’s the rumor that’s been going around.

Another way to get around it is to use federal criminal court, which is not as backlogged as immigration courts generally, and charge and convict you of a crime. And once you’ve been convicted of a crime, it is much more easy to ship you through immigration court in a jail or prison and deport you.

6STRINGJOKER

Tuesday, April 18, 2017 6:43 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Did you get the point of the Simpson reference?

Yes.

Quote:
Do you see yourself as Mayor Quimby or the Mob? I see myself as the Assistant and you are not Quimby.

LOL... I'm not the assistant or Quimby, and I'm certainly not the Mob.

Quote:
I don't discuss it because actually talking to a Republican about politics is like talking to them about evolution. (Keep in mind I'm in Texas. In your state, you may have people with Republican leanings, you may be one yourself, who are open to "conversion" to evolution, to "belief" in science. I'm using evolution as an example of a topic that is not worth discussing in an open forum with somebody that is just looking for an excuse to say Liar! or fanatic! or Autistic!) The Texas Republicans respond to evolution with "You've got your fossils created by Satan (substitute 'fake facts' if it was about politics) from your non-Christian (substitute ‘leftist’ if it is about politics) scientists with their theories of evolution (there is often sneering at the word theory) but the only true facts are in the books of the Holy Bible." Bejesus to all that.

I'm open to evolution. I'm open to the idea of God. I wasn't there. I didn't see it happen. Both ideas are impossible to disprove, at least at this point in time.

Anybody who is 100% convinced in either is funny to me, especially if they preach about it outside of their own collective. They are doubly funny if they believe that one idea precludes the other. I see no reason why they are mutually exclusive.

I'm not a Republican, although I usually tend to vote that way. Most of those online tests put me to the right fiscally and the middle left socially. The problem with Democrats today are that they've been infested with this ultra-liberal mentality and SJWishness that is poisoning the minds of the college kids in their gender studies and racial sensitivity courses. I have no problem with anybody teaching the Theory of Evolution in class, but I do have a problem with them teaching that the white male is evil and should be systematically removed from the equation.

http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/white-professor-says-all-white-peop
le-are-evil-some-only-less-bad-than-others/

http://socawlege.com/boston-university-assistant-professor-saida-grund
y-attacks-whites-makes-false-statements-on-twitter/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/13/cornell-professor-majo
rity-white-people-are-racist/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/12/26/drexel-professor-draws-ire-after-
posting-white-genocide-tweet-on-christmas.html

This type of stuff is the reason that Trump won. I'm sure the wall didn't hurt, but to try to say that the wall was the reason is just stupid.

He also did not brainstorm the Sanctuary City. As I pointed out before, your own post refuted that statement only two paragraphs below.

I said you have Aspergers, because you behave as if you have Aspergers.

Twice in our conversation yesterday I conceded ideas. At least twice I showed you why you were wrong about something yourself and rather than admit that you were wrong you just posted some vaguely related idea with a story behind it.

You don't have intellectual conversations with anybody. You talk at them. You talk down to them. Everything you post is an argument you've already won in your mind because you have all the answers. You end up doing exactly what you accuse the Texas Republicans of doing when it comes to the theory of evolution.

SECOND

Tuesday, April 18, 2017 8:05 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:

You talk down to them. Everything you post is an argument you've already won in your mind because you have all the answers. You end up doing exactly what you accuse the Texas Republicans of doing when it comes to the theory of evolution.

A lot of bile coming from you, 6stringJoker. Are you offended that the 1% doesn’t change paths, swerve around you, just because you are getting run over by them in the real world? But Trump is a completely different kind of 1 percenter. Oh yes! He is considerate of your delicate sensibilities. Actually, he has got your pride and vulnerabilities figured out. He knows what will persuade you. To him, you are a vote. To me, you are a drain.

Since today is a deadline for taxes:

Trump’s unreleased tax returns may doom his tax overhaul effort
www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/us/politics/tax-code-overhaul-trump.html

Democrats have pledged not to cooperate on rewriting the tax code unless they know how it would benefit the billionaire president and his family.

Republicans, more than a dozen of whom are also calling for President Trump to release his taxes, remain sharply divided on possible legislation.

Trump continues to adamantly keep his old taxes returns, the ones no longer being audited, a top secret. I see no way around it: that is nuts if he was serious about passing his version of tax reform. Historically, that’s also nuts on his part because other Presidents made their tax returns public knowledge.
www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6STRINGJOKER

Tuesday, April 18, 2017 8:12 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:A lot of bile coming from you, 6stringJoker. Are you offended that the 1% doesn’t change paths, swerve around you, just because you are getting run over by them in the real world?

Nope. I didn't say anything at all about 1%. I was talking to you about something completely different.

I guess we're going to veer completely off course again, huh?

Sorry... stopped reading the rest of your post because you can't stay on topic.

You're welcome to try again.

THGRRI

Tuesday, April 18, 2017 9:14 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:

You talk down to them. Everything you post is an argument you've already won in your mind because you have all the answers. You end up doing exactly what you accuse the Texas Republicans of doing when it comes to the theory of evolution.
A lot of bile coming from you, 6stringJoker. Are you offended that the 1% doesn’t change paths, swerve around you, just because you are getting run over by them in the real world? But Trump is a completely different kind of 1 percenter. Oh yes! He is considerate of your delicate sensibilities. Actually, he has got your pride and vulnerabilities figured out. He knows what will persuade you. To him, you are a vote. To me, you are a drain.

Trumps supporters here post their differing versions of the truth. In actuality, the truth is what they find themselves continuously running away from. It is what's dismantling their agenda here.

SECOND

Tuesday, April 18, 2017 9:51 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:

Nope. I didn't say anything at all about 1%. I was talking to you about something completely different.

I guess we're going to veer completely off course again, huh?

Sorry... stopped reading the rest of your post because you can't stay on topic.

You're welcome to try again.

I'm not staying on your preferred topics because the topic is Is Trump nuts? The subtopic is Are Trump Voters nuts? Here I go again with an explanation of why Trump Voters are nuts. It is a historic explanation, and it even covers your particular case of being young, yet unemployable due to whatever is haunting your brain.

Why the USA is so unhappy despite having so much wealth
https://qz.com/842613/why-the-us-and-uk-are-so-unhappy-despite-having-
so-much-wealth/

Moykr points out this has happened before—when farmers lost their jobs to factories:

“The American progressive movement in the 1890s was driven by farmers. They were angry that farm jobs were disappearing. They didn’t stop progress—technological change is going to keep happening. And we should expect that this always brings anger and frustration. People don’t like their lives being destroyed—there is very little we can do, but the alternative is stasis. Technology moves forward, but leaves lots of corpses along the road.”

In some ways, the effects of heightened uncertainty are worse now because people live longer. “As you get older it is harder to learn new tricks,” Moykr says. “Before, if you were displaced at 45, you only had five or 10 years of work left, it wasn’t such a big deal. But now you might still have another 40 years. All of this causes more uncertainty.”

Moykr’s theory might be why higher rates of dissatisfaction are recorded even among people who keep their jobs. Studies show one of Trump’s more reliable groups of supporters are relatively high earners in economically depressed areas. They still have good jobs, but the poor economy that surrounds them may make them nervous about their family’s future.

SECOND

Tuesday, April 18, 2017 10:38 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:

I guess we're going to veer completely off course again, huh?

I really can't resist this story about Trump and his aircraft carrier. He truly went to heights on nuttiness:

Asked about the deployment of the Carl Vinson in an interview with Fox Business Network that aired April 12, President Trump said: “We are sending an armada, very powerful.” The U.S. media went into overdrive and Fox reported on April 14 that the armada was “steaming” toward North Korea.

Sending a carrier somewhere is a standard way of huffing and puffing without really doing anything of substance. Every president has done it. Trump, however, has brought it to new levels of irrelevant theater. Defense News tells us where the carrier and its strike group were really headed:

www.defensenews.com/articles/us-carrier-still-thousands-of-miles-from-
korea
Rather, the ships were actually operating several hundred miles south of Singapore, taking part in scheduled exercises with Australian forces in the Indian Ocean. On Saturday — according to photographs released by the U.S. Navy — the carrier passed north through the Sunda Strait, the passage between the Indonesian islands of Sumatra and Java. It's about 3,500 miles from Korea.

Yes sir, Trump's nuts. North Korea was not fooled since they can access the same information I can, but Trump Voters were fooled into believing. In fairness, neither Trump nor the Navy said when the Carl Vinson was going to head north, so technically no one lied here, as if that has ever been a concern for Trump or his voters. Trump's "very powerful" armada will make its way to the Korean Peninsula eventually, but apparently he's in no rush.

6STRINGJOKER

Tuesday, April 18, 2017 11:17 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
I'm not staying on your preferred topics because the topic is Is Trump nuts?

What prefered topic?

You brought something up, we were discussing it. I proved you wrong on several occasions, and I also admitted that I was wrong about something. You then brought up 5 other things that had nothing to do with what we were talking about.

I can't have a conversation with you because you are just all over the map. This is a problem I've pointed out before, and others have noticed as well.

SECOND

Wednesday, April 19, 2017 5:20 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:

I can't have a conversation with you because you are just all over the map. This is a problem I've pointed out before, and others have noticed as well.

It's a technical problem because we are not at the same spot on Earth at the same time having a conversation. This is not like emails sent back and forth to colleagues. Not like a business letter sent by US Postal Service. For me it is more like I'm sending vacation postcards from an exotic land and you are a stranger who momentarily got your hands on a message not written specially for you, then you scribble a note on my postcard and send on it along, thinking you are making a positive contribution to humanity. You're not.

"Conversation" is possible between like minded people who have the time and indicate they want to "converse". I come here to post some oddity I find about Trump's mind, or the minds of his voters, or the minds of people that think Trump is not half nuts. I'm not here to read your opinion then post my response to the peculiar way your mind works. That would be more effort than you are worth to me. You're just some stranger scribbling notes on post cards I'm sending to the future. I'm going to do what I came here to do one more time:

www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/books/review/knowledge-illusion-steven-slom
an-philip-fernbach.html

. . . Most people don’t like too many facts, and they certainly don’t like to feel stupid. If you think that you can convince Donald Trump of the truth of global warming by presenting him with the relevant facts — think again.

Indeed, scientists who believe that facts can change public opinion may themselves be the victims of scientific groupthink. The scientific community believes in the efficacy of facts, hence those loyal to that community continue to believe they can win public debates by marshaling the right facts, despite much empirical evidence to the contrary. Similarly, the traditional belief in individual rationality may itself be the product of groupthink rather than of empirical evidence. In one of the climactic moments of Monty Python’s “Life of Brian,” a huge crowd of starry-eyed followers mistakes Brian for the Messiah. Caught in a corner, Brian tells his disciples: “You don’t need to follow me, you don’t need to follow anybody! You’ve got to think for yourselves! You’re all individuals!” The enthusiastic crowd then chants in unison: “Yes! We’re all individuals!” Monty Python was parodying the counterculture orthodoxy of the 1960s, but the point may be true of the belief in rational individualism in other ages too.

In the coming decades, the world will probably become far more complex than it is today. Individual humans will consequently know even less about the technological gadgets, the economic currents and the political dynamics that shape the world. How could we then vest authority in voters and customers who are so ignorant and susceptible to manipulation? If Sloman and Fernbach (S&F) are correct, providing future voters and customers with more and better facts would hardly solve the problem. So what’s the alternative? S&F don’t have a solution. They suggest a few remedies like offering people simple rules of thumb (“Save 15 percent of your income,” say), educating people on a just-in-time basis (teaching them how to handle unemployment immediately when they are laid off) and encouraging people to be more realistic about their ignorance. This will hardly be enough, of course. True to their own advice, S&F are well aware of the limits of their own understanding, and they know they don’t know the answer. In all likelihood, nobody knows.

Is the Truth Still Out There?
April 18, 2017
http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2017/04/is-the-truth-still-ou
t-there.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6STRINGJOKER

Wednesday, April 19, 2017 5:53 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:

I can't have a conversation with you because you are just all over the map. This is a problem I've pointed out before, and others have noticed as well.
...thinking you are making a positive contribution to humanity. You're not.

"Conversation" is possible between like minded people who have the time and indicate they want to "converse". I come here to post some oddity I find about Trump's mind, or the minds of his voters, or the minds of people that think Trump is not half nuts. I'm not here to read your opinion then post my response to the peculiar way your mind works. That would be more effort than you are worth to me.

Well then. Go fuck yourself.

By all means, continue to post your ill thought out ramblings about nothing then. Don't let me stop you.

To "The Future":

Do your own fact checking when reading the bullshit that Second posts. A lot of times she makes it pretty easy by posting things that argue her own points in the very same post.

SECOND

Wednesday, April 19, 2017 6:35 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:

Well then. Go fuck yourself.

By all means, continue to post your ill thought out ramblings about nothing then. Don't let me stop you.

To "The Future":

Do your own fact checking when reading the bullshit that Second posts. A lot of times she makes it pretty easy by posting things that argue her own points in the very same post.

Hey, 6stringJoker! I actually read what you wrote on another post at www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61597&mid=1029240#
1029240 You did not understand the article (assuming you read it) because your comment was

Quote:
Maybe if they stopped lying, they'd stop being called liars.

I have a better title to this article...

Talking To Myself: The Sound of a Tree Falling in a Forest When No One is There to Hear it

Real world Texas Republicans that I am familiar with, and you, pull out the ultimate defense every day when you are caught lying or deliberately misrepresenting facts: You accuse the other person of being the liar or not understanding. It is a very useful technique if the truthful one, the knowledgeable one, won't take it up a level to murder, or at least punch in the nose, the liar. Moses knew of this nasty and primitive technique used by liars to defend their lies. That is why the 8th Commandment that Moses brought down from God is “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” because if the liar does bear false witness, the neighbor might break the 5th Commandment: “Thou shalt not murder”. The Commandments are there for your protection, 6stringJoker.

www.dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/catholicism-and-the-
ten-commandments/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6STRINGJOKER

Wednesday, April 19, 2017 6:47 PM (P)

LOL...

Show me once where I have lied about anything here.

The rest of that post sounds like a death threat.

That wasn't a threat on my life now, was it Second?

THGRRI

Wednesday, April 19, 2017 8:05 PM (P)

A quote from SECOND

This is way over his head SECOND. Don't drop him from this height, he won't survive.

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:

I can't have a conversation with you because you are just all over the map. This is a problem I've pointed out before, and others have noticed as well.
It's a technical problem because we are not at the same spot on Earth at the same time having a conversation. This is not like emails sent back and forth to colleagues. Not like a business letter sent by US Postal Service. For me it is more like I'm sending vacation postcards from an exotic land and you are a stranger who momentarily got your hands on a message not written specially for you, then you scribble a note on my postcard and send on it along, thinking you are making a positive contribution to humanity. You're not.

"Conversation" is possible between like minded people who have the time and indicate they want to "converse". I come here to post some oddity I find about Trump's mind, or the minds of his voters, or the minds of people that think Trump is not half nuts. I'm not here to read your opinion then post my response to the peculiar way your mind works. That would be more effort than you are worth to me. You're just some stranger scribbling notes on post cards I'm sending to the future. I'm going to do what I came here to do one more time:

www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/books/review/knowledge-illusion-steven-slom
an-philip-fernbach.html

. . . Most people don’t like too many facts, and they certainly don’t like to feel stupid. If you think that you can convince Donald Trump of the truth of global warming by presenting him with the relevant facts — think again.

Indeed, scientists who believe that facts can change public opinion may themselves be the victims of scientific groupthink. The scientific community believes in the efficacy of facts, hence those loyal to that community continue to believe they can win public debates by marshaling the right facts, despite much empirical evidence to the contrary. Similarly, the traditional belief in individual rationality may itself be the product of groupthink rather than of empirical evidence. In one of the climactic moments of Monty Python’s “Life of Brian,” a huge crowd of starry-eyed followers mistakes Brian for the Messiah. Caught in a corner, Brian tells his disciples: “You don’t need to follow me, you don’t need to follow anybody! You’ve got to think for yourselves! You’re all individuals!” The enthusiastic crowd then chants in unison: “Yes! We’re all individuals!” Monty Python was parodying the counterculture orthodoxy of the 1960s, but the point may be true of the belief in rational individualism in other ages too.

In the coming decades, the world will probably become far more complex than it is today. Individual humans will consequently know even less about the technological gadgets, the economic currents and the political dynamics that shape the world. How could we then vest authority in voters and customers who are so ignorant and susceptible to manipulation? If Sloman and Fernbach (S&F) are correct, providing future voters and customers with more and better facts would hardly solve the problem. So what’s the alternative? S&F don’t

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

6STRINGJOKER

Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:16 PM (P)

Your way out of your league kid. The only way you could ever hope to match wits with me is if I were to fall off the wagon.

SECOND

Thursday, April 20, 2017 3:59 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
Your way out of your league kid. The only way you could ever hope to match wits with me is if I were to fall off the wagon.

What We Do Best
https://nplusonemag.com/online-only/online-only/what-we-do-best/

“What Does Trump Really Want?” has become the great question of our time—the center of an entire cottage industry. Everything Trump says and tweets, no matter how trivial, is instantly transformed into an utterance of major import: fodder for endless, breathless speculation and feverish interpretation. To whom was he sending a message with that tweet? While we’re playing checkers, he’s playing 4-dimensional chess—what’s his next play? What Does Trump’s Refusal to Shake Angela Merkel’s Hand Reveal About His Foreign Policy? Are his desires really the desires of some Other (Putin, Bannon, and in recent days, Kushner)? One question underwrites and energizes all the takes and the commentary: what does Trump want from you? What does he want to call your attention to? What does he want to distract you from? The sheer intellectual labor given over to tracking Trump’s behavior, to say nothing of the amateur Trump Kremlinology, has been exhausting.

But now, at last, Trump has undertaken something familiar and understandable—even comforting—to 21st-century Americans: War. The particulars of this attack will be subjected to various hermeneutics of suspicion (why were the Russians informed beforehand?). Its broader geopolitical significance will provoke debate (what happens next?). And the coverage will fixate overwhelmingly on Trump himself. But even if in every substantive way the question of what Trump wants remains just as opaque the day after the strikes as it did the day before, the simple fact that the strikes occurred is decisive. He acted, and now, at last, we have clarity about what we’re supposed to do. And what we’re supposed to do is adopt a series of postures and justifications about what we feel we need to do, all of which presuppose as an unquestioned necessity the fact of war itself.

Fortunately, we have a lot of practice at this—it’s what we do best. In America the question has long since ceased to be whether or not we should go to war. Instead, we argue over how we go about maintaining and expanding an already endless landscape of wars. For many politicians, this means falling into fine-grained debates over the value of various targets, air strikes versus “boots on the ground,” the question of an “exit strategy,” and so forth. Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi may express the requisite desire for congressional debate on the conduct of escalation going forward. But they cede any advantage and show their weak hand when they immediately cosign the strikes as “the right thing to do” and a “proportional response.” Republicans like Marco Rubio, for their part, can trot out familiar fearmongering about supposed threats to American soil, echoing Condoleeza Rice circa 2003, while John McCain can appeal to the legitimizing mandate of the 2001 AUMF. Dissenting figures like Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders may point to the disastrous legacy of past US interventions in the Middle East and challenge the constitutionality of the strikes, but their voices will simply offer light counterpoint to the backdrop of a broader symphony of jingoism, cowardice, resignation, and greed.

Media figures, for their part, have already begun to fall in line, too. Last month’s bipartisan yearning to anoint Trump’s horrific State of the Union congressional address as a sign of the President’s finally becoming “presidential” may have been temporarily frustrated by embarrassing news involving Jeff Sessions twenty-four hours later. But now pundits Left and Right can seize this nonpareil opportunity to proclaim Trump suddenly mature, demonstrate their own capacity to see the supposed bigger picture, or just marvel at the beauty of the American war machine. The belief that the office of commander in chief must necessarily activate reservoirs of responsibility and strength in

6STRINGJOKER

Friday, April 21, 2017 1:22 AM (P)

Well I wasn't talking to you Second, so I'm not sure why you quoted me before posting the rest of that. But I'll respond. Not for your sake, but for the sake of "The Future" that your posting to.

Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:
It might seem ludicrous that only hours after many of us called Trump a Russian spy, a new Hitler, a feckless idiot, a psychopath, a sun-downing, pill-popping monster, we fell in line and rallied behind him and our troops because, after all, he is our President and Presidents lead and the troops must be supported. But we’ve done it all before—in 2001, again in 2003, and in too many other instances to count. War has become a given in American political life, and in the process it has become depoliticized. And thus the bitter irony: for all the many warnings to not “normalize” Trump lest we court disaster, it is his turn to war that will seal his normalization and mark our return to “normalcy,” even if it means ruin. Uncle Sam and Donald Trump do not demand that we wage wars for them; instead, for the sake of a return to normal, we need them to wage war for us.

One of the first smart things I've seen you post here Second, although I don't know where you actually lie on this.

Why has the MSM backed off of Trump when we went back to "normal" and went back to war?

The wars and the massive deficits were the reason I called GWB the worst president we ever had and then Obama came in and put Bush to shame by showing how good he could fuck it all up and everybody applauded him for it. Now that it looks like Trump might do the same, the media is falling in step.

Funny how you and T and G only leave a few token posts around here since the bombs too. Sure... I bet you still have a lot of anti-trump in you. You just have very little new stories to share since the Media is slowly leaving you and falling in step with our new Warlord in Chief.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, April 21, 2017 4:35 AM (P)

Normalize Trump is a talking point of the HRC crowd, still pretending that he's a Hitler, abnormal, and a white supremacist, that the PC lingo for what you're not supposed to do with Nazis, meaning, don't talk to them or treat them like people. Or Trump, because he's one of them. Sorry, it's nonsense. Please, normalize Trump, he's pretty normal. Stop pretending he isn't. He's not perfect, in fact, very flawed, but not Hillary level of flawed. We've considered that genocidal loon "normal" for years.

Also, Second, don't pretend the war machine is not in your camp, because I'm looking around me, and that's what I see. You guys are the war machine. I did my best to explain this, and you're still beating the drum. If you want to talk Trump too warlike, we had a lot of threads on that and no one on the left ever came to any of them except a couple of posts from G.

I tire of the talking points and the stopped clock partisans. Trump. No War. Now try to keep Trump in No War, when everyone in Deep State, including HRC, are trying to make Trump=War Criminal, so they can both have the war they're yearning for and then run against it, and then not change course. This is exactly what the dems did with Obama. They demonized Bush, who was very evil, and then ran against the boogeyman, and then just expanded the war. almost immeasurably. But Trump seems to so far be none of what they, and you, say he is. He's no hero, but I could see this guy on the dem ticket, the old dem ticket, you know, that had Carter on it. I don't think it's that far off. I'm not on board, but it's what I might consider, I don't know, normal.

SECOND

Sunday, April 23, 2017 12:09 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Normalize Trump is a talking point of the HRC crowd, still pretending that he's a Hitler, abnormal, and a white supremacist, that the PC lingo for what you're not supposed to do with Nazis, meaning, don't talk to them or treat them like people. Or Trump, because he's one of them. Sorry, it's nonsense. Please, normalize Trump, he's pretty normal. Stop pretending he isn't. He's not perfect, in fact, very flawed, but not Hillary level of flawed. We've considered that genocidal loon "normal" for years.

I'll ignore the last two paragraphs of your comment that, removing your extra verbiage and your conspiracy theory, is more of the same old shit that the Democratic Party is no different than the GOP.

I'll hit Trump in the spot where he lives -- New York, and his boldest character trait that he cannot stop displaying -- his eternal lying. NYPD politely calls Trump a lying sack of nuts. The Police Commissioner has made it very plain and clear that Trump is NOT merely flawed. What Trump's Justice Department did is NOT normal. It is not about different values of Republicans and Democrats or the Deep State attempting to ruin Trump. It is about Trump lying his head off, nonstop, to people who don't live in NYC and therefore don't know Trump is lying about the City. I think Trump's lack of good character has infected the Federal departments working for him.

Statement from NYPD Police Commissioner O'Neill
http://nypdnews.com/2017/04/watch-mayor-bill-de-blasio-police-commissi
oner-oneill-host-press-conference/

April 21, 2017

"The Justice Department's release this afternoon stating that New York City is somehow "soft on crime" and continues to see "gang murder after gang murder," demonstrates a willful disregard for the facts.

New York City is experiencing a steady decline in overall crime that includes major reductions in murder and shootings. In fact, 2016 saw the fewest shootings ever in New York City history since record keeping began. Year to date the City is down an additional 17% from last year's record low.

Since 1993, murder has decreased 82%, shootings have decreased 81%, and overall crime has decreased 76%. These are the facts.

Additionally, over the past year the NYPD has hosted dozens of other police departments from across the world to share our best practices of precision policing, which focuses on the most serious criminals."

Police Commissioner James P. O'Neill

Background data

1993:1,927 murders; 5,269 shooting incidents; 430,460 total index crimes

1994:1,582 murders; 4,411 shooting incidents; 377,466 total index crimes

2016: 335 murders; 998 shooting incidents; 101,716 total index crimes

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

1KIKI

Sunday, April 23, 2017 4:25 AM (P)

SECOND

You guys ARE the war machine.

Care to address that?

6STRINGJOKER

Sunday, April 23, 2017 4:30 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
SECOND

You guys ARE the war machine.

Agreed.

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 23, 2017 5:17 AM (P)

Quote:
You guys ARE the war machine.- KIKI

Agreed.- SIX

But certainly will not be addressed by any self-respecting Democrat/ liberal.

Hey, I remember back to the Vietnam war days, and the Dems used to be anti-war. What the hell happened???

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

6STRINGJOKER

Sunday, April 23, 2017 5:34 AM (P)

Obama made war cool again.

I remember being on the side of most Democrats in here back when GWB was president. I was one of his loudest detractors for that and the economy and especially the Patriot Act.

lol... now I'm a Republican or a Nazi or a Communist or whatever incompatible names they throw out depending on their mood that day.

1KIKI

Sunday, April 23, 2017 6:31 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

I remember being on the side of most Democrats in here back when GWB was president. I was one of his loudest detractors for that and the economy and especially the Patriot Act.

lol... now I'm a Republican or a Nazi or a Communist or whatever incompatible names they throw out depending on their mood that day.

I'm in the same position.

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

JO753

Sunday, April 23, 2017 2:54 PM (P)

The latest departure frum reality:

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

SECOND

Sunday, April 23, 2017 7:34 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
SECOND

You guys ARE the war machine.

Care to address that?

I am not happy to address that. I find most of my neighbors' in Texas attitude about war to be unrealistic. They imagine they know what it is without actually having killed anyone, like on Firefly every other episode. Come to think of it, Nathan Fillion and Summer Glau have not actually killed anyone, although they have done it many times on TV. We could ask Nathan and Summer what Mal, Castle, River and Cameron the Terminator's opinion was, but what do the actors really know? Nothing. Here is my informed opinion:

Not all voters here in Texas are Republican, but the majority are. Those voters want “Strong Defense”. What they mean by “Strong” is to constantly threaten foreign enemies and occasionally go to war without too many American dead. You can be certain most Texans won't be personally going to war. Not every last one of them wants “Strong Defense”, but it is knee-jerk with most because there really is no risk for their skin.

The minority voters, the Democrats, also want “Strong Defense”. Not all of them, but more than enough to make any Democratic politician feel safe when voting a big budget for the Dept. of Defense and the CIA and the NSA and . . . There is not much anti-war sentiment in Congress or Texas. If there is a state or Senator that is anti-war, shout out the names! Provide proof. Where is the Sen. George McGovern for this century?

Is there a group of voters declaring they will kill, next election, their Congressman's chances of winning if he votes for a “Strong Defense” budget? It is imaginable yet absurd to think there is a political group defending their anti-war principles with violence, like the example of anti-abortionists who have killed doctors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

The armed forces volunteered to kill for the USA. That is not the same as die for the USA because the wars are unsymmetrical with a kill ratio between enemy dead/wounded and USA dead/wounded of ten, twenty, or a hundred, depending on where and when. You won’t find much anti-war sentiment in the Army. Anybody remember Chelsea Manning? I’m not even sure about Manning being anti-war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning#Military_service

The American Generals and Admirals say they are ready for war all the time. Luckily for the USA, the upper echelons are aware of the limitations of “Strong Defense”. Some of them have read about the Vietnam War and even the first Korean War. They know it is better for their careers (followed by their retirement in their early fifties) if they don’t leap into most opportunities for war.

The American Generals and Admirals are protecting us from our worst impulses to go to a major war by giving us minor wars to keep us distracted. If the military isn’t killing somebody every month and making threats every week the taxpayers might think 90% of the money for a “Strong Defense” is being wasted. Congress and Trump do not want them to start thinking carefully or clearly on this subject or any other, do they?

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, April 24, 2017 12:19 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Congress and Trump do not want them to start thinking carefully or clearly on this subject or any other, do they?

How is that any different than Congress and Obama? How would it have been any different than Congress and Clinton?

Again, I agree with a lot of what you said here, but your problem is that you believe that Democrats are somehow better or have the higher moral ground.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 24, 2017 2:27 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
SECOND

You guys ARE the war machine.

Care to address that?
I am not happy to address that. I find most of my neighbors' in Texas attitude about war to be unrealistic. They imagine they know what it is without actually having killed anyone, like on Firefly every other episode. Come to think of it, Nathan Fillion and Summer Glau have not actually killed anyone, although they have done it many times on TV. We could ask Nathan and Summer what Mal, Castle, River and Cameron the Terminator's opinion was, but what do the actors really know? Nothing. Here is my informed opinion:

Not all voters here in Texas are Republican, but the majority are. Those voters want “Strong Defense”. What they mean by “Strong” is to constantly threaten foreign enemies and occasionally go to war without too many American dead. You can be certain most Texans won't be personally going to war. Not every last one of them wants “Strong Defense”, but it is knee-jerk with most because there really is no risk for their skin.

The minority voters, the Democrats, also want “Strong Defense”. Not all of them, but more than enough to make any Democratic politician feel safe when voting a big budget for the Dept. of Defense and the CIA and the NSA and . . . There is not much anti-war sentiment in Congress or Texas. If there is a state or Senator that is anti-war, shout out the names! Provide proof. Where is the Sen. George McGovern for this century?

Is there a group of voters declaring they will kill, next election, their Congressman's chances of winning if he votes for a “Strong Defense” budget? It is imaginable yet absurd to think there is a political group defending their anti-war principles with violence, like the example of anti-abortionists who have killed doctors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

The armed forces volunteered to kill for the USA. That is not the same as die for the USA because the wars are unsymmetrical with a kill ratio between enemy dead/wounded and USA dead/wounded of ten, twenty, or a hundred, depending on where and when. You won’t find much anti-war sentiment in the Army. Anybody remember Chelsea Manning? I’m not even sure about Manning being anti-war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning#Military_service

The American Generals and Admirals say they are ready for war all the time. Luckily for the USA, the upper echelons are aware of the limitations of “Strong Defense”. Some of them have read about the Vietnam War and even the first Korean War. They know it is better for their careers (followed by their retirement in their early fifties) if they don’t leap into most opportunities for war.

The American Generals and Admirals are protecting us from our worst impulses to go to a major war by giving us minor wars to keep us distracted. If the military isn’t killing somebody every month and making threats every week the taxpayers might think 90% of the money for a “Strong Defense” is being wasted. Congress and Trump do not want them to start thinking carefully or clearly on this subject or any other, do they?

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

I have heard said that almost all General Officers with experience (or a clue) hate war.
If names are needed, I'm fair certain that Louis Burwell Puller Sr. and Dwight David Eisenhower have numerous quotes attributed to them which assert this PoV. Possibly also A.A. Vandegrift. I'm not sure about MacArthur.

Your anecdotes may differ, but most who desire a "strong Defense/military" are following the adage Talk Softly and Carry a BIG STICK. The military is a Big Stick which harkens our enemies to listen carefully when we talk about them keeping their peace, drawing inside their lines, not stepping out of bounds (except when anti-defense idjits like Obama, Clinton, or Carter are elected) - and this is what gives the

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 24, 2017 2:36 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
You guys ARE the war machine.- KIKI

Agreed.- SIX

But certainly will not be addressed by any self-respecting Democrat/ liberal.

Hey, I remember back to the Vietnam war days, and the Dems used to be anti-war. What the hell happened???

How does your memory reconcile LBJ starting, prolonging, ensuring the loss of the Vietnam War? Plus all of his Libtard supporters?
Or maybe how Nixon ended the War?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 24, 2017 2:37 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
The latest departure frum reality:

Hey there. You managed to swerve into the truth - Kimmel is always a departure from reality.

SECOND

Monday, April 24, 2017 6:06 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

How does your memory reconcile LBJ starting, prolonging, ensuring the loss of the Vietnam War? Plus all of his Libtard supporters?
Or maybe how Nixon ended the War?

LBJ did not run for another term because he did not have Libtard supporters and he knew it was because of the way he ran his Vietnam War. The Fall of Saigon was 30 April 1975. The Fall of Nixon was 8 Aug 1974. I'm not seeing how Nixon can get any credit for ending his version of the Vietnam War, since the President was Ford, Nixon's V.P. , when the USA was defeated.

About the dumb-ass LBJ, as stupid a war leader as the other Texan, Bush II: You might be unaware that Texas is very pro-war. It has been that way for two hundred years, never changing. Once LBJ got into the Vietnam War, he couldn't back out because he was an overly sensitive politician who could not tolerate looking bad to his fellow Texans. And Republicans such as Barry Goldwater would call him weak on Communism and the usual mindlessness you get from the GOP. LBJ was not courageous, not wise, but definitely Texan. He didn't even confront Nixon, when he should have, over Vietnam : www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/opinion/sunday/nixons-vietnam-treachery.htm
l

www.history.com/speeches/lyndon-johnson-expresses-doubts-about-vietnam
-war

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

1KIKI

Monday, April 24, 2017 6:48 AM (P)

SECOND

Despite being called a lot of names, I didn't abandon the principles the dems used to stand for.

The party left me, beginning with Bill and his interventionist romp in Yugoslavia to end the atrocities supposedly done as a policy of Slobodan Milosevic - a man who was later completely exonerated by the ICC of any wrongdoing. So, why was Bill there, again?

Since then, the party triangulated away its positions until, among other things, it became nothing less than the party of full-on neo-ass chicken-hawks, a la Hillary.

I was anti-war with GWB. I bet you were, too. The difference between us, is that I was also anti-war with Obama. But you're OK with it as long as it's a dem starting wars.

So, why is it bad for repubs to be war mongers, but ok for dems?

SIGNYM

Monday, April 24, 2017 6:57 AM (P)

Quote:
I'm willing to reconsider my opinions about Trump if there are actual things of substance that he is guilty of, but I'm not going to sift through thousands of hate articles that are thrown against the wall by the left just to see what sticks.

And that's exactly why I stopped paying attention to SECOND. It was just one pointless hyperventilation after another.

Didja notice that now that the BUT RUSSIA! meme has died down in the press (for now) the hysteria has died down here too? Sheesh. People are so inducible.

One of these days I would love to see a real substantive discussion of Trump. Something significant and insightful, and not just recycled McCarthyism or panicked liberalism/ chickenhawkism. (How liberals bought into war-mongering is beyond me.)

We got started on "whatever happened to to 'America First?'. Now THAT was a good question!

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, April 24, 2017 8:06 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Didja notice that now that the BUT RUSSIA! meme has died down in the press (for now) the hysteria has died down here too? Sheesh. People are so inducible.

Not only did I notice it, but I commented on it right when it started happening and I called that it would be happening very soon less than a week before it actually started happening.

SECOND

Monday, April 24, 2017 6:34 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
SECOND

So, why is it bad for repubs to be war mongers, but ok for dems?

I saw an article this morning about how to herd both Democratic Party and GOP into a less interventionist foreign policy: www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/04/trump_s_newf
ound_militarism_shows_why_we_need_some_kind_of_a_war_tax.html

The obvious shortcoming of the herding techniques suggested in the article is that Congress will need to pass laws that place limits on what Congress can do. Does anyone think Congress would pass a "War Tax"? Every war paid by a special tax would cut down on the number of wars, but how will the American people, not just Congress, be convinced to limit themselves this way?

Another suggestion, only mentioned in the article because it is politically impossible since 90% of Americans (not just Congressmen) are cowards, was bringing back the draft. Americans would think very carefully about war if they might, possibly, have to personally fight in the war they are so eager to see someone else fight for them. But how many Americans would vote for a Congressman who will pass a military draft law?

The article started with a little Trump bashing:

The MOAB that the United States dropped on Afghanistan earlier this month created a massive crater in what was supposed to be the antiwar movement in this country. Before the election, pacifistic leftists like Glenn Greenwald and isolationistic right-wingers like Justin Raimondo convinced themselves that Trump’s contradictory statements on foreign policy meant that he would buck Washington’s bipartisan interventionist policy consensus.

It’s clear that those hopes were, to put it gently, silly. In his first three months, Trump has launched missiles at Syria, dropped a bomb on Afghanistan, and engaged in saber-rattling with a nuclear-armed North Korea. Trump knows little about foreign policy and cares less, but he likes dramatic action and the illusion of manly decisiveness. He’s also easily swayed by whatever happens to air on television while he’s watching. The president seems happy to drop bombs wherever the military establishment suggests as long as he thinks it will make him look good on cable news.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, April 24, 2017 7:49 PM (P)

A war tax is a terrible idea. Have you ever once in your life seen a tax that wasn't increased over time? Hell... I've been paying for Social Security all of my life and even though I've been told I won't get it when I retire I still have to pay for it to subsidize the retirement of the wealthiest generation of people who EVER LIVED ON THIS PLANET, the baby boomers. If I don't want to pay it? They'll keep the cell warm for me.

We've already been paying for the bullshit wars as it is through inflation and other tricks for decades ever since our money became a fiat currency. All that a "war tax" would do is call a spade a spade, and eventually we'd all just eat that shit sandwich and feel even worse about ourselves that we're funding wars we don't believe in. I already know this is happening, but most stupid people can go about their day without that burden.

If I felt that this would in any way put an end, or at least curb the wars we create, I would be all for it.

I agree that something needs to be done, and I really liked the point they made that since there is no draft we can pretend that it's not happening.

SECOND

Monday, April 24, 2017 9:04 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
A war tax is a terrible idea. Have you ever once in your life seen a tax that wasn't increased over time?

It is a terrible idea because this Congress would never pass it.

You are right about the War Tax increasing over the years. First there would be an Afghan War Tax, which gets collected until that war is over, which may never happen. Then there would be an Iraq Tax, which gets collected until all the troops leave and the biggest "embassy" in the world is closed. That is two taxes. Then there would be a small tax on Yemen War because we need to pay for those drones and cruise missiles. That is three. Syrian War Tax or New Korean War Tax. That is four or five taxes, each billed separately on your form 1040, so that Americans never lose track of what Congress's stupid belligerent attitude is costing.

On and on it goes. More wars immediately translates into more taxes. I would rather that Congress can't authorize more bonds being sold to pay for war. I would prefer that Congress is trapped into instantaneously raising taxes the same day as the start of each new war, but Congress would never agree. It is so much easier to borrow. It is so much easier to let things run as they have for decades: the Pentagon decides which wars are worth fighting and then the President rubber stamps his authorization (afraid not to because he would be called a weakling) and Congress does not have to decide if the newest war is worth fighting, leaving it all to the military experts.

The guy who decides what should be destroyed next is H. R. McMaster, not Trump nor Congress. But you never know when a Michael T. Flynn-type nut might replace McMaster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._R._McMaster

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, April 24, 2017 9:33 PM (P)

Yep.

Congress will pass a war tax right after they vote to give themselves the same healthcare that we all get with Obamacare.

Maybe then they'll pass a law on campaign finance reform.

1KIKI

Monday, April 24, 2017 9:55 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
SECOND

So, why is it bad for repubs to be war mongers, but ok for dems?

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
I saw an article this morning about how to herd both Democratic Party and GOP into a less interventionist foreign policy:

You didn't answer the question, SECOND. Were you against GWB's wars? How about Obama's? And why the difference?

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, April 24, 2017 9:58 PM (P)

Haha! Good luck getting a straight answer out of Second.

Incoming link to another vaguely related story to deflect your questions in 3..... 2...... 1....

SECOND

Monday, April 24, 2017 11:23 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Haha! Good luck getting a straight answer out of Second.

Incoming link to another vaguely related story to deflect your questions in 3..... 2...... 1....

You still expect I'm posting to answer your questions. Once in awhile I'll take the bait, but I can tell I'm wasting my time on you because you've got a serious problem with understanding the world as it actually is rather than your simple-minded model of how the world works. For example of some differences between Obama and Bush in Iraq:

Obama promised nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

Bush promised WMDs and a low cost war in Iraq. I remember Auraptor claiming there were WMDs, but they were removed to somewhere. That was a flat lie. And the Iraq War cost $2.4 trillion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
www.vox.com/2016/7/9/12123022/george-w-bush-lies-iraq-war

Then Bush mocked his critics about WMDs, as if it was unimportant that his promised weapons weren’t discovered.