Add as a choice: no,because Add as a choice: no,because the GOP will choose party over country.
If the GOP can agree to dump trump and promise to make the Republican party great again, I will go into 2020 election unbiased as can be rather than voting straight Democrat for everything.
FlyerInHi
September 24, 2019 @
4:47 PM
outtamojo wrote:Add as a [quote=outtamojo]Add as a choice: no,because the GOP will choose party over country.
If the GOP can agree to dump trump and promise to make the Republican party great again, I will go into 2020 election unbiased as can be rather than voting straight Democrat for everything.[/quote]
You seem so quick to forgive. If they is no penalty or past misbehavior, what incentive is there to change? The Republicans who are quiet now will claim they were opposed all along.
outtamojo
September 24, 2019 @
4:49 PM
Now now for the good of Now now for the good of America we want 2 viable candidates.
FlyerInHi
October 1, 2019 @
10:18 AM
outtamojo wrote:Now now for [quote=outtamojo]Now now for the good of America we want 2 viable candidates.[/quote]
I think we deserve Trump. 4 more years!
I’m no longer American. I am a citizen of the world. I’ll just watch what happens to America. If Americans, especially the white working class, want Trump, let them have him. It’s like Brexit. We’ll see how great England is with Brexit. I give up.
utcsox
September 24, 2019 @
9:23 PM
outtamojo wrote:Add as a [quote=outtamojo]Add as a choice: no,because the GOP will choose party over country.
If the GOP can agree to dump trump and promise to make the Republican party great again, I will go into 2020 election unbiased as can be rather than voting straight Democrat for everything.[/quote]
What are you smoking? According to the Gallop poll, 91% of Republicans approve President Trump. You cannot dump a president this popular among its voters.
When did “if” begin to mean When did “if” begin to mean “I predict”
outtamojo
September 24, 2019 @
11:34 PM
Here’s my prediction: the Here’s my prediction: the white house will Nixon the call transcript, declare nothing to see, not release the whistleblower complaint, and prevent the whistleblower from seeing Congress and trump gets off scot free never mind openly soliciting a foreign gov. for help on digging dirt on a rival.
FlyerInHi
September 24, 2019 @
11:23 PM
utcsox wrote:outtamojo [quote=utcsox][quote=outtamojo]Add as a choice: no,because the GOP will choose party over country.
If the GOP can agree to dump trump and promise to make the Republican party great again, I will go into 2020 election unbiased as can be rather than voting straight Democrat for everything.[/quote]
What are you smoking? According to the Gallop poll, 91% of Republicans approve President Trump. You cannot dump a president this popular among its voters.
That is so true, utcox. And yet, many Republicans will push the narrative “the socialist democrats are pushing people to vote for Trump”. Really? They supported and voted for Trump well before. So much for the party of personal responsibility who won’t take ownership of their own votes.
It’s like some people might tell their friends “i’m a drug addict because of you. Now you owe me.” Sure…
sdduuuude
March 11, 2020 @
12:03 PM
outtamojo wrote:Add as a [quote=outtamojo]Add as a choice: no,because the GOP will choose party over country.[/quote]
The very first answer was the right one.
FlyerInHi
September 24, 2019 @
11:42 PM
I voted “because he’s very I voted “because he’s very clever” not because he’s clever. He actually wings it but the republicans will make excuses and let him wiggles out of everything because they are so afraid of him. He will burn down the house if he has to.
Plus the Democrats are wusses. They are afraid of the white male low-education voters. We love our low education voters, don’t we?
The political establishment is also so afraid of the damage to the American brand of democracy, both domestic and international, that they will not impeach and prosecute an American president. That would mean a descent towards banana republic. They just hope Trump will go away. Best if he gets a heart attack and dies quickly after leaving office.
The-Shoveler
September 25, 2019 @
10:40 AM
I read the transcript, seems I read the transcript, seems much to do about nothing but what do I know.
I am sure it will take about 6 months of congress’s time to go over a 10 minute call.
zk
September 28, 2019 @
9:18 AM
The-Shoveler wrote:I read the [quote=The-Shoveler]I read the transcript, seems much to do about nothing but what do I know.
[/quote]
Did fox news not mention that it’s illegal to solicit campaign help from a foreign power?
Even the white-house’s no-doubt-sanitized version of the phone call shows that solicitation as clear as day.
So funny that trump spent years denying collusion with Russia in the 2016 election and then openly showed that he was colluding with Ukraine in the 2020 election.
And yet somehow fox convinces you that it’s all “much to do about nothing.”
The-Shoveler
September 28, 2019 @
10:08 AM
For the record, I don’t watch For the record, I don’t watch fox news.
I just saw the transcript on the net.
You make a lot of assumptions IMO.
zk
September 28, 2019 @
12:16 PM
I should have been clearer. I I should have been clearer. I sometimes use “fox” as a stand-in for right-wing propaganda outlets as a whole.
Still, I could be wrong about you getting your news from right-wing propaganda. My bad for making that one assumption (if I made any others, feel free to point them out). So, let’s clear it up: Where do you get your news, Shoveler?
And, given that what trump did was illegal, do you still think that trump’s phone call is “much to do about nothing”?
outtamojo
September 28, 2019 @
12:31 PM
Let’s not forget the standard Let’s not forget the standard for impeachment used to be lying about an affair. At the time I thot impeachment was appropriate given that it was a President lying to Congress- my how stupid I was.
The-Shoveler
September 28, 2019 @
1:04 PM
LOL well not from CNN.
I very LOL well not from CNN.
I very really ever listen to the news.
Mostly I get news from the yahoo landing page when I check my email.
Seriously I just saw the transcript made up my own mind.
Still hold that opinion, I feel it would be useless waste on energy debating it here.
OK You guys can go back to your echo chamber.
outtamojo
September 28, 2019 @
1:34 PM
Come to think of it this Come to think of it this whole blog was once a real estate echo chamber, turned out ok.
zk
September 28, 2019 @
4:31 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:Still hold [quote=The-Shoveler]Still hold that opinion, I feel it would be useless waste on energy debating it here.
OK You guys can go back to your echo chamber.[/quote]
Hilarious. You run away when confronted with facts. Then accuse those who are willing to debate you of being in an echo chamber. What a joke.
sdduuuude
September 30, 2019 @
6:39 PM
zk wrote:The-Shoveler wrote:I [quote=zk][quote=The-Shoveler]I read the transcript, seems much to do about nothing but what do I know.
[/quote]
Did fox news not mention that it’s illegal to solicit campaign help from a foreign power?
Even the white-house’s no-doubt-sanitized version of the phone call shows that solicitation as clear as day.
So funny that trump spent years denying collusion with Russia in the 2016 election and then openly showed that he was colluding with Ukraine in the 2020 election.
And yet somehow fox convinces you that it’s all “much to do about nothing.”[/quote]
I was on here two years ago and you were accusing people who didn’t watch the news of being influenced by Fox. It is a bad habit and kind of rude. I think you are giving Fox way too much credit and not enough credit to people who independently conclude something different from you.
Sometimes Fox is right, you know.
I read somewhere – maybe even on this site somewhere – that the meaning of “That’s bullshit” is not “That is a lie.” It really means “That is exactly what you would have said whether it was true or not.”
So, yes – Fox is bullshit – but not always wrong, and not completely incapable of coming to a conclusion that mathches that of reasonable people who don’t watch Fox.
scaredyclassic
September 30, 2019 @
9:21 PM
Nixon wuz framed Nixon wuz framed
outtamojo
September 30, 2019 @
9:54 PM
If nixon had fox Breitbart If nixon had fox Breitbart the blaze Limbaugh etc he would not have resigned.
scaredyclassic
October 1, 2019 @
7:43 AM
outtamojo wrote:If nixon had [quote=outtamojo]If nixon had fox Breitbart the blaze Limbaugh etc he would not have resigned.[/quote]
That’s true. Fake tapes. Plus everyone does it anyway.
Why did trump reinstate aid to Ukraine after the whistleblower came forward. Seems better 4 his defense not to reinstate, argue by e had an independent reason for Ukraine aid withholding.
phaster
January 28, 2020 @
8:35 PM
scaredyclassic [quote=scaredyclassic][quote=outtamojo]If nixon had fox Breitbart the blaze Limbaugh etc he would not have resigned.[/quote]
That’s true. Fake tapes. Plus everyone does it anyway.
Why did trump reinstate aid to Ukraine after the whistleblower came forward. [/quote]
one of my undergrad degrees was in political science (where I took an interest in soviet politics),.. so often times I look at how outsiders see things
[quote] Novaya Gazeta, which is not part of Russian state media, concluded that Trump is obviously guilty and many Republicans realize he’s been deserving of impeachment for quite some time.
Nonetheless, the GOP defends the president in order to preserve the party, while many of the Democrats are “honest people who are ready to sacrifice themselves in the name of the ideas of the founding fathers.”
Novaya Gazeta hypothesized that re-election in 2020 “is in Trump’s pocket,” but the moral victory belongs to the Democrats.
[quote] Stalin’s Approval Rating Among Russians Hits Record High – Poll
A record 70 percent of Russians approve of Soviet leader Josef Stalin’s role in Russian history, according to a poll published by the independent Levada Center pollster on Tuesday.
Stalin’s image has been gradually rehabilitated in the 2000s from that of a bloody autocrat to an “outstanding leader.” President Vladimir Putin has revived the Soviet anthem, Soviet-style military parades and a Soviet-era medal for labor during his presidency.
[quote] Half of Russian Youth Say They’re Unaware of Stalinist Repressions – Poll
Nearly half of Russian youth say they have never heard of Stalin-era purges, according to a new state-sponsored survey.
Conservative estimates say nearly 700,000 Soviet citizens were killed in the ‘Great Terror’ under Stalin’s rule in 1937-38. Contemporary attitudes to Stalin as a historical figure are divided in Russia, with President Vladimir Putin having said that attempts to demonize the Soviet leader were a ploy to attack Russia.
given the divisions in this country think there should be a cautionary warning all Americans should think about,… those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it
PS
one last thing that I find really troubling
trump’s ex-press secretary anthony scaramucci lists criteria of cult belief,… and the number one item is,… ACCEPTING LIES AS TRUTH
for example ranted before about trumps statements about the environment (in california about water) where I knew trump supporters accept the false narrative (and yet its a big fat lie that climate deniers mindlessly repeat)
what I thought was interesting and explains trumps popularity is number three on the scaramucci list,… DISAFFECTION
basically scaramucci notes the president capitalized on the fact that establishment politicians from both political parties did not advocate for white blue collar workers for decades
so even though his policies have failed to improves the lives of this disaffected group,… trump continues to enjoy support by those disaffected because he acts as an instrument of anger against the establishment (which is the same insight by a liberal raconteur)
…years ago had a really bad feeling about trump being POTUS and what it would mean for the future of this nation,… sad to say my feelings on the matter have not changed
FlyerInHi
January 29, 2020 @
7:01 AM
phaster wrote:
so even though [quote=phaster]
so even though his policies have failed to improves the lives of this disaffected group,… trump continues to enjoy support by those disaffected because he acts as an instrument of anger against the establishment (which is the same insight by a liberal raconteur)
…years ago had a really bad feeling about trump being POTUS and what it would mean for the future of this nation,… sad to say my feelings on the matter have not changed[/quote]
I read the Hillary Problem in the link you provided. Iraq War, Ha! People really don’t take responsibility for their actions. Most Americans I know, especially low education Americans wanted to go kick ass in Iraq after 9/11. So fast they forget ! They are the ones who enabled Bush to go to war. I remember people gleefully watching shock and awe like a football game where Team America won. Yeah, we won, alright!
As China joined the WTO and rose, we embarked on 2 never ending wars. Honestly, we got what we deserve.
zk
October 1, 2019 @
5:13 PM
sdduuuude wrote: I think you [quote=sdduuuude] I think you are giving Fox way too much credit and not enough credit to people who independently conclude something different from you.
[/quote]
It’s possible, but I doubt it.
The reason I say that is that most (usually all) of what they (people who I accuse of watching fox) say is exactly what fox says. (When I say fox in this post, I mean the right-wing propaganda machine in general.)
Which would be fine, if a reasonable percentage of it made sense in an objective way. If millions of people all reached the same conclusions, and those conclusions made sense and were based in reality, it would be easy to see how that would happen. It would be a little unusual, given how different people and their ideas are, but it would be understandable. But for millions of people to all come to the same conclusions, and for many of those conclusions have no basis in reality, it seems awfully likely that propaganda is to blame. If millions of people suddenly concluded that 2+2=5, and there had been propaganda out there selling that idea, it would be eminently reasonable to conclude that the propaganda was the reason those people reached that conclusion.
I would imagine your response to this would be: the conclusions that right-wingers reach are ridiculous to you, but not necessarily ridiculous to somebody else. Well, at some point, conclusions become objectively ridiculous.
Is big government bad? That’s a very complex subject, and it could be debated for millennia, with both sides using logic and reason and facts and not agreeing.
Is trump a good president? I’ll listen to a supporter’s reasons and probably disagree with them. But I wouldn’t call their position objectively ridiculous. (It would be ridiculous in my opinion.)
Did the Sandy Hook shooting really happen? To conclude that it didn’t is objectively ridiculous.
Some conclusions can only be reached by starting with lies or by using faulty reasoning. And that is what the right-wing propaganda machine supplies. The lies, faulty logic, alternative facts, made-up evidence, and emotional manipulation required to reach objectively ridiculous conclusions. The conclusions that the propagandists want their marks to reach.
Here are some objectively ridiculous conclusions that millions of right-wingers hold. I defy you to defend any of these positions using facts, reason, and logic:
Democrats want an open-border immigration policy.
Trump didn’t break the law in his conversations with Ukraine.
Obama is a muslim.
Obama was born in Kenya.
Hillary acted illegally and treasonously regarding Uranium One.
Hillary was involved in a pedophile ring.
George Soros paid women to attend anti-trump march.
Sandy Hook was a hoax.
There are obviously a lot more of these kinds of beliefs among right-wingers.
Sure, some of the above are believed by millions but still a minority of conservatives. But my point is made: All those millions of people aren’t reaching a “conclusion that matches that of reasonable people who don’t watch Fox.” They’re reaching conclusions that they’ve reached because of right-wing propaganda. How else would so many people come to the same objectively ridiculous conclusions? So obviously there is some manipulation going on there. It would be unreasonable, I think, to conclude that, while these objectively ridiculous conclusions are clearly inspired by propaganda, the not-objectively-ridiculous conclusions (but still improbable enough that it is extraordinarily unlikely that millions of people would independently reach all of these same conclusions) that right-wingers mostly agree on (trump is a good president, trickle-down economics works, tax cuts for the rich will help the poor, less environmental regulation is good, trump’s tariffs will help the average American, Obama was the worst president ever, Obama hated America, liberals are snowflakes, America is in danger of being ruled by sharia law, there was widespread voter fraud by democrats in 2016, trump hasn’t obstructed justice, and a thousand more) are not influenced by that propaganda. When you hear the exact same points from virtually every right-winger you discuss these things with, it seems pretty obvious to me where they’re getting their ideas from.
Sure, there might be the very rare exception where a person actually comes to all (or most of) the same conclusions as the rest of the right-wingers all on his own. But I think that is very rare indeed.
[quote=sdduuuude]
So, yes – Fox is bullshit – but not always wrong, and not completely incapable of coming to a conclusion that mathches that of reasonable people who don’t watch Fox.
[/quote]
While all that is true, the occasions where right-wing propaganda (including fox) comes to such a conclusion seem vastly outnumbered by occasions when these propagandists lead their viewers to either terribly misled or outright objectively ridiculous conclusions.
sdduuuude
October 14, 2019 @
8:42 AM
zk wrote:trump is a good [quote=zk]trump is a good president, trickle-down economics works, tax cuts for the rich will help the poor, less environmental regulation is good, trump’s tariffs will help the average American, Obama was the worst president ever, Obama hated America, liberals are snowflakes, America is in danger of being ruled by sharia law, there was widespread voter fraud by democrats in 2016[/quote]
You have mixed in four items that really have no business being on the list of “propaganda”:
Trickle-down
Tax cuts
Less regulation (environmental or otherwise)
Tarriffs
Those have been around much longer than Fox and your post serves to highlight my point that you are giving Fox way too much credit, mixing in BS with Republican party lines. Also, I see Fox as extreme and ludicrous and find very few conservatives who spout the nonsensical themes you seem so concerned with. One crazy friend is all, which is where I used to get my Fox news “insights”. That is the fringe.
Fox is entertainment, not news. I wouldn’t concern myself with it if I were you. I think it is more of a distraction than than anything and serves only to make “normal” Republicans look reasonable. Liberals waste their time arguing these points and end up looking the fool instead of focusing on important things.
zk
February 28, 2020 @
3:55 PM
sdduuuude wrote:
Fox is [quote=sdduuuude]
Fox is entertainment, not news. I wouldn’t concern myself with it if I were you. I think it is more of a distraction than than anything and serves only to make “normal” Republicans look reasonable. Liberals waste their time arguing these points and end up looking the fool instead of focusing on important things.[/quote]
You may see fox as entertainment, but that would be a minority view among republicans. They see fox not only as news, but as trusted news.
You may see fox as entertainment, but if you think that most republicans view it that way, you’re wrong.
zk wrote:The-Shoveler wrote:I [quote=zk][quote=The-Shoveler]I read the transcript, seems much to do about nothing but what do I know.
[/quote]
…
And yet somehow fox convinces you that it’s all “much to do about nothing.”[/quote]
Presumption? Assumption ? Doesn’t matter.
Not very nice.
sdduuuude
October 24, 2019 @
10:33 AM
sdduuuude wrote:zk [quote=sdduuuude][quote=zk][quote=The-Shoveler]I read the transcript, seems much to do about nothing but what do I know.
[/quote]
…
And yet somehow fox convinces you that it’s all “much to do about nothing.”[/quote]
Presumption? Assumption ? Doesn’t matter.
Not very nice.[/quote]
Been doing some reading to see how good your presumption is. First of all, I had to look up presumption because I wasn’t sure of the difference between “presume” and “assume” – which seemed important to you.
[quote=dictionary.com]
verb (used with object), pre·sumed, pre·sum·ing.
1 – to take for granted, assume, or suppose:
“I presume you’re tired after your drive.”
2 – Law. to assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary.
3 – to undertake with unwarrantable boldness.
4 – to undertake (to do something) without right or permission: to presume to speak for another.
[/quote]
Hm. “assume” is in the first two definitions so the difference is still not clear. Also important to note “take for granted,” “absence of proof,” “unwarrantable,” and “without right or permission” are part of all 4 definitions.
I think I have to agree that you certainly did presume.
Well, the nice folks at grammarly.com have a different view of it. I guess they don’t have much interest in the dictionary. Maybe this is what you meant:
Presume is a verb that means to suppose, to take for granted, or to dare.
Assume is a verb that means to suppose, to take for granted, to take upon, to don, or to undertake.
In the shared meaning of “to suppose,” presume is usually used when you suppose based on probability, while assume is used when you suppose without any evidence.
[/quote]
So, lets say you based this accusation on “probability” and see how you did.
40% of Republicans now say they regularly watch Fox News [/quote]
Before I go on, it is important to understand that making a statement such as “I think Trump will win.” is not supporting Trump and saying “I think Trump will lose.” is not proof that one is anti-Trump. But, lets just say it is OK to assume that The-Shoveler is a Republican because he said that transcript “seems much to do about nothing.” It is not really OK to assume that, but lets just go with it to avoid more math.
At this point, if we assume he is a Republican, there is a 40% chance that he is a fox news watcher. If you believe that 100% of all Fox-News Watchers are unable to form their own opinions and only form them based on what they see on Fox, then at best there is a 40% chance that your accusation “somehow fox convinces you ” is correct. Not even half. Not looking like a good presumption.
Lets say you feel that is really only 75% of all Fox watchers are swayed by Fox, which is a huge and completely unreasonable number. We are now down to a 30% chance that The-Shoveler here has been influenced by Fox. Yet you boldly presumed that this meant Fox had convinced him of his opinion. Clearly your accusation was not “based on probability” and can only be an assumption.
Also, now that you have a sample size of two failed presumptions, please adjust your a-priori probability of “what is the likelihood that a Pigg is influenced by Fox News, given they make a statement that is remotely similar to something that Fox News might say.”
I have forgotten how that math works, but qualitatively it goes something like this: If you think there is a 90% chance of something happening and you take two samples and that something doesn’t happen either time – the probability is a helluva lot less than 90%.
You presumed that that my opinions were formed by Fox News and you were wrong. Now you have presumed that The-Shoveler’s opinions were formed by Fox News and you were wrong. Both bad assumptions.
zk
October 24, 2019 @
9:40 PM
sdduuuude wrote:
In the [quote=sdduuuude]
In the shared meaning of “to suppose,” presume is usually used when you suppose based on probability, while assume is used when you suppose without any evidence.
[/quote]
40% of Republicans now say they regularly watch Fox News [/quote]
Before I go on, it is important to understand that making a statement such as “I think Trump will win.” is not supporting Trump and saying “I think Trump will lose.” is not proof that one is anti-Trump. But, lets just say it is OK to assume that The-Shoveler is a Republican because he said that transcript “seems much to do about nothing.” It is not really OK to assume that, but lets just go with it to avoid more math.
At this point, if we assume he is a Republican, there is a 40% chance that he is a fox news watcher. If you believe that 100% of all Fox-News Watchers are unable to form their own opinions and only form them based on what they see on Fox, then at best there is a 40% chance that your accusation “somehow fox convinces you ” is correct. Not even half. Not looking like a good presumption.
Lets say you feel that is really only 75% of all Fox watchers are swayed by Fox, which is a huge and completely unreasonable number. We are now down to a 30% chance that The-Shoveler here has been influenced by Fox. Yet you boldly presumed that this meant Fox had convinced him of his opinion. Clearly your accusation was not “based on probability” and can only be an assumption.
[/quote]
First off, as I have said several times, I do sometimes substitute “fox” for “fox and the rest of the right-wing propaganda machine.” My bad for being too impatient to type that out every time. I use fox to represent the right-wing propaganda machine because they are the largest, most visible cog in that machine. So the 40% is not the right number to start with.
I have several conservative friends who have said they don’t watch fox. But they regularly listen to rush limbaugh, michael savage, alex jones and their ilk. You know, for some right-wing nut jobs (neither you nor Shoveler are in that category), fox is not nutty or conservative enough for them. So some of those 60% of conservatives who don’t regularly listen to fox do regularly listen to much nuttier propaganda.
Another, very underestimated facet of the right-wing propaganda machine is spreading of propaganda on social media. Joe 6 pack takes all the junk he got from Russian bots and spreads it around, and Joe’s even-less-bright cousin, who doesn’t even know how to find fox on his tv suddenly thinks that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Not that that kind of disinformation is limited to stupid people. A guy I used to work with,a very bright guy, his facebook page is filled with the most ridiculous right-wing propaganda memes. Maybe he watches fox, maybe he doesn’t. But he’s definitely affected by propaganda.
Plus, that 40% is those who “regularly” watch fox. I’m sure plenty more watch it enough to be influenced.
In any case, the math is irrelevant, and here’s why: Take a guy who believes all these things:
Muslims are covertly implementing sharia law in American courts
Obama is a muslim.
Obama was born in Kenya.
Hillary acted illegally and treasonously regarding Uranium One.
Hillary was involved in a pedophile ring.
George Soros paid women to attend anti-trump march.
Sandy Hook was a hoax.
Democrats want an open-border immigration policy.
Millions of illegal votes were cast in 2016
You could apply the same math to him. But common sense will tell you that there’s no way that guy hasn’t been influenced by right-wing propaganda.
[quote=sdduuuude]
Also, now that you have a sample size of two failed presumptions, please adjust your a-priori probability of “what is the likelihood that a Pigg is influenced by Fox News, given they make a statement that is remotely similar to something that Fox News might say.”
[/quote]
This is where I went wrong. It was only one thing that was similar to something fox news might say. And I admitted it on page one of this thread:
[quote=zk]I should have been clearer. I sometimes use “fox” as a stand-in for right-wing propaganda outlets as a whole.
Still, I could be wrong about you getting your news from right-wing propaganda. My bad for making that one assumption (if I made any others, feel free to point them out). So, let’s clear it up: Where do you get your news, Shoveler?
And, given that what trump did was illegal, do you still think that trump’s phone call is “much to do about nothing”?[/quote]
Further review of Shoveler’s past posts do not indicate general right-wing nuttiness (although his response to the above was suspect).
So, yes, as I said before to shoveler, my bad for assuming that. I do try not to assume.
Now, if you take somebody who believes every one of the things in my list above, well, I don’t know about the math, but I would bet a million dollars, if such a thing were provable, that that person has been significantly influenced by right-wing propaganda.
Take someone who regularly regurgitates half-true, innuendo-ridden right-wing propaganda talking points, even if none of them are quite as ridiculous as the things on that list and, again, I don’t know about the math, but I’d still bet they were significantly influenced by right-wing propaganda. Not a million dollars. Maybe a few thousand. Maybe more.
Somebody who has a passionate, fiery hate for Hillary Clinton, who thinks that any batshit-crazy moron is better than her – another few thousand at least.
Someone who regularly talks about liberals using the standard right-wing propaganda lies about liberals, another thousand.
There are lots and lots of people at levels below the above where I’d strongly suspect there was a very good chance they were influenced, but not enough to wager.
Shoveler hasn’t done the things in those paragraphs and, yet again, my bad for assuming. I shall endeavor to avoid such assumptions about future shovelers and duuuudes. The people in the four paragraphs before the above paragraph- maybe not so much, as I’d call that a presumption and not an assumption.
temeculaguy
October 25, 2019 @
1:57 AM
That is a big swipe at a That is a big swipe at a network that is not in lockstep with itself. I kinda like Tucker but pass on Hannity and Ingrahm. years ago I liked O’Rielly but passed on Megan and Hannity. Favorite Fox broadcaster was Brett Baier.
Alex Jones, Savage and Limbaugh, can’t say I’ve listened to more than a few minutes then changed the channel because it’s just too biased for me. But I like John and Ken and Bill Handel on KFI, yet they aren’t conservatives. I also haven’t gotten through any show on MSNBC but I like multiple shows on CNBC from the same parent company. Only show on fox business I’ve ever watched is Maria Baritromo, who used to be on CNBC, but that’s purely infatuation because she’s the hottest 52 year old woman alive not named Diana Olick (but she’s only 48 and still on cnbc).
I digressed on purpose, to illustrate that not everyone fits your stereotype and CNN and MSNBC deserve heavy doses of criticism even from people like me who used to watch their shows and want to watch their shows. Their ratings have cratered for a reason, even my boy Wolf Blitzer is a shell of who he once was.
FlyerInHi
October 25, 2019 @
8:47 AM
If people are not influenced If people are not influenced by media, then I suggest that the right stops worrying about mainstream media bias and Hollywood bias. Simple.
Without knowing, people are influenced by information that reinforce their sense of tribalism. Take a step back and try to look at what benefits humanity as a whole, not just your group or country. America First is the antithesis of that. America First is also economically and morally wrong because it doesn’t understand the concept of win-win. For Trump and his supporters to win, others have to lose.
burghMan
October 25, 2019 @
9:49 AM
temeculaguy wrote:That is a [quote=temeculaguy]That is a big swipe at a network that is not in lockstep with itself. I kinda like Tucker but pass on Hannity and Ingrahm. years ago I liked O’Rielly but passed on Megan and Hannity. Favorite Fox broadcaster was Brett Baier.
Alex Jones, Savage and Limbaugh, can’t say I’ve listened to more than a few minutes then changed the channel because it’s just too biased for me. But I like John and Ken and Bill Handel on KFI, yet they aren’t conservatives. I also haven’t gotten through any show on MSNBC but I like multiple shows on CNBC from the same parent company. Only show on fox business I’ve ever watched is Maria Baritromo, who used to be on CNBC, but that’s purely infatuation because she’s the hottest 52 year old woman alive not named Diana Olick (but she’s only 48 and still on cnbc).
I digressed on purpose, to illustrate that not everyone fits your stereotype and CNN and MSNBC deserve heavy doses of criticism even from people like me who used to watch their shows and want to watch their shows. Their ratings have cratered for a reason, even my boy Wolf Blitzer is a shell of who he once was.[/quote]
I guess we all have our preferences for media. (Tucker…really?)
But I think the more important question is “Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt?”
The only credential is the 1st Amendment. Does somebody want to take that away?
FlyerInHi
October 25, 2019 @
11:37 AM
temeculaguy wrote:That is a [quote=temeculaguy]That is a big swipe at a network that is not in lockstep with itself. I kinda like Tucker but pass on Hannity and Ingrahm. years ago I liked O’Rielly but passed on Megan and Hannity. Favorite Fox broadcaster was Brett Baier.
Alex Jones, Savage and Limbaugh, can’t say I’ve listened to more than a few minutes then changed the channel because it’s just too biased for me. But I like John and Ken and Bill Handel on KFI, yet they aren’t conservatives. I also haven’t gotten through any show on MSNBC but I like multiple shows on CNBC from the same parent company. Only show on fox business I’ve ever watched is Maria Baritromo, who used to be on CNBC, but that’s purely infatuation because she’s the hottest 52 year old woman alive not named Diana Olick (but she’s only 48 and still on cnbc).
I digressed on purpose, to illustrate that not everyone fits your stereotype and CNN and MSNBC deserve heavy doses of criticism even from people like me who used to watch their shows and want to watch their shows. Their ratings have cratered for a reason, even my boy Wolf Blitzer is a shell of who he once was.[/quote]
Maria is not hot. Trump would say she’s a dog compared to Melania.
Tucker, really? Why is he always frowning and angry at something?
I think American news shows are ridiculous. The European “news readers” are much better.
sdduuuude
October 25, 2019 @
10:51 AM
zk wrote:sdduuuude [quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]Also, now that you have a sample size of two failed presumptions, please adjust your a-priori probability of “what is the likelihood that a Pigg is influenced by Fox News, given they make a statement that is remotely similar to something that Fox News might say.”
[/quote]
This is where I went wrong. [/quote]
I like that you can say this, zk. Thanks.
svelte
September 28, 2019 @
5:18 PM
It is really hard to say what It is really hard to say what will happen with impeachment.
Ordinarily, party members would stand behind the person being impeached and therefore it would not be successful.
But these are not ordinary times. Trumps has belittled quite a few senators and representatives from his own party. Given the right political cover, they may decide to extract their revenge.
Well, it looks like Trump is Well, it looks like Trump is not losing supporters. The known trump supporters in my circles appear to have upped their anti Obama anti Hillary social media posts. One in management whom everyone suspects is a closet white supremacist reposted that raccoon story falsely attributed to comedian Steve Harvey.
zk
September 30, 2019 @
9:30 AM
outtamojo wrote:Well, it [quote=outtamojo]Well, it looks like Trump is not losing supporters. The known trump supporters in my circles appear to have upped their anti Obama anti Hillary social media posts. One in management whom everyone suspects is a closet white supremacist reposted that raccoon story falsely attributed to comedian Steve Harvey.[/quote]
I’ve noticed the same thing. One group I’m in is full of trump supporters. I heard two of them talking, and it was nonstop “I hate Obama” and “I hate Hillary.” With just a bit more vigor than usual. It’s all they have left.
And they can’t give up and not support trump anymore, because being a trump supporter is – literally – who they are.
One thing the article mentions is the charisma of a leader, implying that trump is charismatic. And, to millions, apparently he is. I am completely baffled by this. When he talks, his ignorance, stupidity, maliciousness, mendaciousness, lack of character, pettiness, selfishness, and foolishness (among many other bad traits) are beyond obvious. They’re blazing like a thousand cold suns right in your eyes. How can anybody listen to that and hear charisma?
That’s not a rhetorical question. If anybody has insight into that, I’d love to hear it.
I’d particularly like to hear it from trump supporters.
sdduuuude
October 1, 2019 @
8:51 AM
zk wrote:When he talks, his [quote=zk]When he talks, his ignorance, stupidity, maliciousness, mendaciousness, lack of character, pettiness, selfishness, and foolishness (among many other bad traits) are beyond obvious. They’re blazing like a thousand cold suns right in your eyes. How can anybody listen to that and hear charisma?[/quote]
Look up “malignant narcissist.” As you read about it, if you didn’t know you weren’t reading about Trump, you would think you were.
They are incredibly confident, no matter what. Even in the face of facts or hard truth. They are irrational in their belief of their own infallibility. It is, literally, impossible to convince them they have done something wrong, and, I have found, for some reason very, very difficult to convince certain people around them as well.
Malignant narcissists don’t go to therapists – they are incurable. The only way to rid yourself of one is to leave. People close to them or around them often go to therapists.
They are usually very successful. When you first meet one, they appear to be supremely confident, which is always attractive. Perhaps it is this confidence that speaks to the charisma you mentioned. I think some people fall in love w/ that confidence and fall into the same trap of irrational belief in the infallibility.
By the way, I think many politicians are all those things, just not in front of the camera. And most are experienced, expert, professional liars but more fearful of getting caught in a lie. So, Yes Trump is all those things, but I dislike him only slightly more than most politicians.
zk
October 1, 2019 @
5:17 PM
sdduuuude wrote: I think [quote=sdduuuude] I think some people fall in love w/ that confidence and fall into the same trap of irrational belief in the infallibility.
[/quote]
That is an interesting insight. I guess if one is ignorant of how full of shit he is (and one is somewhat weak-minded), one might be attracted to that. (Not at all implying that you feel that way, sdduuuude; obviously you don’t).
If, however, you are aware of the fact that most of what comes out of his mouth is either a lie or just nonsense, that confidence has the opposite effect.
sdduuuude
October 14, 2019 @
8:20 AM
zk wrote:If, however, you are [quote=zk]If, however, you are aware of the fact that most of what comes out of his mouth is either a lie or just nonsense, that confidence has the opposite effect.[/quote]
I think all (and I do mean every last one of them – well, maybe not Carter. Maybe.) politicians fall under this category. It is just that Trump doesn’t care if it is obvious.
By the way, I didn’t think the Ukranian call proved any illegal action either. I don’t think it belongs on the list of propaganda, which was a good list of BS. But this one belongs on the CNN list:
“Ukranian call provides unequivocal proof that Trump is guilty”
zk
October 16, 2019 @
2:50 PM
Another example (and probably Another example (and probably the most consequential one of them all) of a pile of smaller propaganda falsehoods adding up to a larger one is the right’s opinion of Hillary Clinton.
Most right-wingers (in fact, virtually every one that I’ve asked) absolutely despise Hillary Clinton. When you ask them why, their answers are invariably a regurgitation of right-wing talking points, most of which hold no water. Occasionally mixed in is a policy point (actually, not that I can remember, but one must have been at some point).
I could see why they would dislike Hillary as much as I dislike, say, Mitt Romney. Which is to say not that much. I disagree with him here and there, agree with him here and there, and would rather have Buttigieg as president. I’m not even really sure I dislike him. But there are a lot of people I’d prefer as president.
But the visceral, almost frenzied hatred of Clinton by so many millions of people just would not exist without decades of smearing by right-wing propaganda.
My own cousin, a relatively bright guy, said in October of ’16, “I don’t care if trump is batshit crazy, he’s better than Hillary.” I think millions of people felt that way, most of them because of right-wing propaganda.
One reason I hope the democratic nominee isn’t determined too soon is that the less time there is between that determination and the general election the less chance the right-wing propaganda machine will have to manipulate its marks into hating that candidate and thinking that any ignorant, batshit-crazy moron is better than the democratic candidate.
outtamojo
October 16, 2019 @
3:30 PM
It’s not like he’s getting It’s not like he’s getting better at his job either- in fact getting worse. His letter to Turkey is straight out of moron class. Looks like none of his staff wants to be publicly associated with what trump puts out so they stay away and you end up with a letter like what a bad middle schooler would put out.
svelte
October 4, 2019 @
12:48 PM
sdduuuude wrote:zk wrote:When [quote=sdduuuude][quote=zk]When he talks, his ignorance, stupidity, maliciousness, mendaciousness, lack of character, pettiness, selfishness, and foolishness (among many other bad traits) are beyond obvious. They’re blazing like a thousand cold suns right in your eyes. How can anybody listen to that and hear charisma?[/quote]
Look up “malignant narcissist.” As you read about it, if you didn’t know you weren’t reading about Trump, you would think you were.
They are incredibly confident, no matter what. Even in the face of facts or hard truth. They are irrational in their belief of their own infallibility. It is, literally, impossible to convince them they have done something wrong, and, I have found, for some reason very, very difficult to convince certain people around them as well.
Malignant narcissists don’t go to therapists – they are incurable. The only way to rid yourself of one is to leave. People close to them or around them often go to therapists.
They are usually very successful. When you first meet one, they appear to be supremely confident, which is always attractive. Perhaps it is this confidence that speaks to the charisma you mentioned. I think some people fall in love w/ that confidence and fall into the same trap of irrational belief in the infallibility.
By the way, I think many politicians are all those things, just not in front of the camera. And most are experienced, expert, professional liars but more fearful of getting caught in a lie. So, Yes Trump is all those things, but I dislike him only slightly more than most politicians.[/quote]
Wow that is very insightful…thanks sdduuuude.
I’m gonna save that off and read it whenever I can’t for the life of me understand Trumpettes.
I’m not sure it will be make me feel any better that there are so many of them out there we can get someone like Trump in office, but at least I will understand them just a bit more.
FlyerInHi
October 4, 2019 @
1:36 PM
I think the mob analogy works I think the mob analogy works better. Why do mob underlings support the mob? Because the underlings feel protected by the strongman and they don’t need to study, and go out and get professional jobs.
The mob boss is highly successful, until he’s not.
It’s tribalism and by extension nationalism. It’s a zero sum game perspective where only 1 mob family can control the market. Or only 1 real estate developer can control the land.
They can’t conceive of a bigger win-win system where you grow the market and everyone gets rich together.
scaredyclassic
October 6, 2019 @
6:54 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:I think the [quote=FlyerInHi]I think the mob analogy works better. Why do mob underlings support the mob? Because the underlings feel protected by the strongman and they don’t need to study, and go out and get professional jobs.
The mob boss is highly successful, until he’s not.
It’s tribalism and by extension nationalism. It’s a zero sum game perspective where only 1 mob family can control the market. Or only 1 real estate developer can control the land.
They can’t conceive of a bigger win-win system where you grow the market and everyone gets rich together.[/quote]
I have this premonition that in a Biden trump debate, actual blows will be exchanged.
temeculaguy
October 1, 2019 @
11:59 PM
I read the transcript and I read the transcript and there’s no there there. What they are doing is a plan to just keep the word “impeachment” in the news cycle. The drawback is whole thing has brought to light Biden’s sins. It doesn’t pass the smell test that Biden’s son, kicked out of the military for drugs, lands a job on a Ukrainian energy company for 1 million a year with no experience. The unintended consequence is the damage to Biden, the only moderate in the race. Two things will happen as a result, President Trump or President Warren.
I had been content with an Biden/Trump playoff, no real downside economically, just feelings, but my investments would be safe. Now if Warren wins the nomination I have to look at some serious investment choices. I’ve been looking into my mutual fund positions and seeing which have fossil fuels, big tech, banking, pharma, medicine, etc. and contemplating selling and moving into other investments as she will change the game more than most. It will still be a game, the rules will just be different. Zuckerberg is panicking, Bezos should be. Just bought a cardigan so I can have my uniform (admittedly for a 50’s party, but it’s a warren signature, so I’ll be spared). As a true Pigg, it’s not about ideology, it’s about how I play the change.
I wonder how she affect R/E, my guess is she will cause inflation thus reducing my mortgage but she may go after landlords, so near the end of her term I’ll become one. I hate to break anyone’s heart but it wont change anything, it will just create opportunities, the trick will be finding them.
scaredyclassic
October 2, 2019 @
8:02 AM
temeculaguy wrote:I read the [quote=temeculaguy]I read the transcript and there’s no there there. What they are doing is a plan to just keep the word “impeachment” in the news cycle. The drawback is whole thing has brought to light Biden’s sins. It doesn’t pass the smell test that Biden’s son, kicked out of the military for drugs, lands a job on a Ukrainian energy company for 1 million a year with no experience. The unintended consequence is the damage to Biden, the only moderate in the race. Two things will happen as a result, President Trump or President Warren.
I had been content with an Biden/Trump playoff, no real downside economically, just feelings, but my investments would be safe. Now if Warren wins the nomination I have to look at some serious investment choices. I’ve been looking into my mutual fund positions and seeing which have fossil fuels, big tech, banking, pharma, medicine, etc. and contemplating selling and moving into other investments as she will change the game more than most. It will still be a game, the rules will just be different. Zuckerberg is panicking, Bezos should be. Just bought a cardigan so I can have my uniform (admittedly for a 50’s party, but it’s a warren signature, so I’ll be spared). As a true Pigg, it’s not about ideology, it’s about how I play the change.
I wonder how she affect R/E, my guess is she will cause inflation thus reducing my mortgage but she may go after landlords, so near the end of her term I’ll become one. I hate to break anyone’s heart but it wont change anything, it will just create opportunities, the trick will be finding them.[/quote]
I agree that knocking biden out seems likely, but I’m not sure it’s unintended. I’m not a deep state conspiracist, but it seems too much to trumps advantage to trigger the impeachment process.
There’s some chance he orchestrated the whole thing…at least 33 %.
It may be irrelevant to you today, but as a country we still don’t want presidents conditioning military aid on assistance to the presidents campaign in the future,right? The transcript is only meaningful in context.
If for instance trump had a gun to zelenskys head, it would change your reading of the transcript, right?
The granting or withholding of military aid is similar to a gun. It is an implied rather than Express threat, but it’s still definitely a threat.
So regardless of your position on impeachment, or whether this violates the constitution, could we at least agree as a nation to make a new rule, only applying prospectively so trump gets a pass on this one, to bar this type of presidential bargaining?
Or is this cool for all future presidents.
I guess I’m very old fashioned but I still believe there’s some value in rules and boundaries and I think it’s bad for the US for other countries to use dirt on our candidates to bargain with presidents.
And of course, if a negro or half negro president, or a president with a vagina did this same thing, fox news would LOSE ITS SHIT. And I honestly would, too.
But how bad is it, really, this one small peccadillo?
In historical context trump and this constitutional violation really are trivial compared to say, Bush 2, the war criminal who lied to embroil us in the Iraqi war, killing hundreds of thousands for NO REASON.
Compared to that piece of shit, who should be in prison, trumps actually pretty chill.
Plus trump cut my taxes a lot, in addition to not slaughtering people senselessly.
So yeah, i agree that in the scope of history, trumps violation. Is small compared to fucking Bush who i still despise, fucking war criminal may he rot in hell.
scaredyclassic
October 3, 2019 @
8:41 AM
Isnt that phone call Isnt that phone call “collusion”.
Collusion. Illusion.
The-Shoveler
October 3, 2019 @
9:02 AM
IMO (and I am no expert so IMO (and I am no expert so probably not worth much)
If you take the transcript “ONLY THE TRANSCRIPT AND NOTHING ELSE”.
It is ambiguous at best so it depends largely on your pre-bias.
Either way I think TG had it right, it is mostly a political football that will in the end likely go nowhere as it will not likely get passed the senate.
How much does 6 months of congress cost?
zk
October 3, 2019 @
9:15 AM
temeculaguy wrote:I read the [quote=temeculaguy]I read the transcript and there’s no there there. [/quote]
[quote=The-Shoveler]
It is ambiguous at best so it depends largely on your pre-bias.
[/quote]
It is not ambiguous. Not at all. And the “there” there is impeachment-worthy all by itself.
—————
52 U.S. Code 30121:
“It shall be unlawful for —
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make —
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election . . .
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) . . . of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.”
————–
The president asked Zelensky to do him a “favor” by investigating his political opponent. That is soliciting a thing of value in connection with an election. That violates the law. Show me the ambiguity.
The-Shoveler
October 3, 2019 @
9:22 AM
LOL you assume a lot IMO.
LOL you assume a lot IMO.
really not worth my time.
zk
October 3, 2019 @
9:31 AM
The-Shoveler wrote:LOL you [quote=The-Shoveler]LOL you assume a lot IMO.
Who does that remind me of? Having no facts to back you up, nothing reality-based to counter your foes, you come away defiant, belligerent, and unable to see that you’ve lost. Hmmm. Oh, I know. And as it turns out, by the standards of 2019, you’re very presidential, Shoveler. Good on ya.
livinincali
October 3, 2019 @
12:20 PM
zk wrote:
The president asked [quote=zk]
The president asked Zelensky to do him a “favor” by investigating his political opponent. That is soliciting a thing of value in connection with an election. That violates the law. Show me the ambiguity.[/quote]
The problem with this assessment is was the thing of value exclusive to the president. One would presume all American voters would derive value from knowing what Joe and Hunter Biden’s dealing were with the Ukraine. Why is Hunter Biden sitting on a board earning $600K/yr that he didn’t seem to possess any qualifications unless it’s to peddle influence for the company with his father?
Knowing whether Biden’s dealing with Ukraine we legal or not is of interest to the entire electorate. Just as knowing Trumps dealings with the Russian’s is of value to the whole electorate.
If multiple democrat senators sent a letters or talked to Russian politicians asking for favors to help investigate Trump’s dealing with Russia shall they be impeached as well? Obviously the answer is no, so that’s why I look at this as a nothing to see here.
I don’t really see the reason why democrats are so focused on impeachment here unless they are feeling like their probably going to lose the election again. It does seem like their going to be stuck with Warren based on recent events.
burghMan
October 3, 2019 @
1:16 PM
livinincali wrote:
The [quote=livinincali]
The problem with this assessment is was the thing of value exclusive to the president. One would presume all American voters would derive value from knowing what Joe and Hunter Biden’s dealing were with the Ukraine. Why is Hunter Biden sitting on a board earning $600K/yr that he didn’t seem to possess any qualifications unless it’s to peddle influence for the company with his father?
Knowing whether Biden’s dealing with Ukraine we legal or not is of interest to the entire electorate. Just as knowing Trumps dealings with the Russian’s is of value to the whole electorate.
If multiple democrat senators sent a letters or talked to Russian politicians asking for favors to help investigate Trump’s dealing with Russia shall they be impeached as well? Obviously the answer is no, so that’s why I look at this as a nothing to see here.
I don’t really see the reason why democrats are so focused on impeachment here unless they are feeling like their probably going to lose the election again. It does seem like their going to be stuck with Warren based on recent events.
[/quote]
If the “thing of value” is negative information about one of Trump’s rivals, that thing is FAR more valuable to Trump than it is to any ordinary American. Do you really think he did that blatant quid-pro-quo for the benefit of all Americans and not primarily for himself?
This is a perfect example of how president Trump uses gossip, confusion, and hearsay instead of the rule of law. “Knowing” something because the media is buzzing about it is not the same as proving something. Convicting a financial criminal like Manafort through a lawful trial helps Americans. But gossip and hearsay about an unusual situation in a foreign country has little value to you our me. Of course the inevitable media buzz about the hearsay can be extremely valuable to Mr. Trump.
Absolutely there is plenty of corruption in the Ukraine and throughout the world, more than our government could ever sort out. I don’t know how the government and intelligence agencies generally prioritize their investigations into corruption but when the president intervenes directly and targets ONE person specifically, that is clearly a red flag. Did president Trump inquire about ANY other corruption concerns on that call? Are we to believe there is only ONE possible American deserving scrutiny?
In Biden’s situation, Trump is literally begging anyone and everyone in the world to find dirt on one guy… one guy who just happens to be related to his most competitive rival. It’s desperate, pathetic, and his motivation is ridiculously transparent.
How anyone believes Trump’s reasons for digging up dirt on Biden is a routine part of a president’s job to protect the country is beyond me. Are we really so easily duped?
Meanwhile North Korea is launching submarine missiles…
zk
October 3, 2019 @
1:40 PM
livinincali wrote:
The [quote=livinincali]
The problem with this assessment is was the thing of value exclusive to the president. One would presume all American voters would derive value from knowing what Joe and Hunter Biden’s dealing were with the Ukraine. Why is Hunter Biden sitting on a board earning $600K/yr that he didn’t seem to possess any qualifications unless it’s to peddle influence for the company with his father?
Knowing whether Biden’s dealing with Ukraine we legal or not is of interest to the entire electorate. Just as knowing Trumps dealings with the Russian’s is of value to the whole electorate.
If multiple democrat senators sent a letters or talked to Russian politicians asking for favors to help investigate Trump’s dealing with Russia shall they be impeached as well? Obviously the answer is no, so that’s why I look at this as a nothing to see here.
I don’t really see the reason why democrats are so focused on impeachment here unless they are feeling like their probably going to lose the election again. It does seem like their going to be stuck with Warren based on recent events.[/quote]
The democratic senators were not asking for “favors to help investigate trump’s dealing with Russia.”
What those senators said was that Ukraine should not impede cooperation with the United States Special Counsel.
Completely different.
scaredyclassic
October 3, 2019 @
10:03 AM
The-Shoveler wrote:IMO (and I [quote=The-Shoveler]IMO (and I am no expert so probably not worth much)
If you take the transcript “ONLY THE TRANSCRIPT AND NOTHING ELSE”.
It is ambiguous at best so it depends largely on your pre-bias.
Either way I think TG had it right, it is mostly a political football that will in the end likely go nowhere as it will not likely get passed the senate.
How much does 6 months of congress cost?[/quote]
Context matters.
“Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, accept this justice as a gift on my daughter’s wedding day.”
Don Vito corleone.
The-Shoveler
October 3, 2019 @
11:18 AM
OK one last post,
So you OK one last post,
So you think Trump will get convicted in the senate?
Or that it is not in anyway politically motivated?
(timing and all).
Seriously I did not vote trump the first time and probably will not vote for him this time, but the Dem’s need to put someone up in the middle or they will lose IMO.
You can look up my old posts LOL,
I wanted to vote Bernie but became completely disenchanted when Clinton got the nomination.
I liked his health care plan (still do), not crazy about the rest of his ideas.
scaredyclassic
October 3, 2019 @
11:25 AM
No. Because everything is No. Because everything is bullshit.
FlyerInHi
October 3, 2019 @
1:24 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:OK one [quote=The-Shoveler]OK one last post,
So you think Trump will get convicted in the senate?
Or that it is not in anyway politically motivated?
(timing and all).
[/quote]
The impeachment of Clinton set the standard for impeachment. He just lied about the affair. Well, not really an affair, just a blowjob.
The-Shoveler
October 3, 2019 @
1:33 PM
That was also a large waste That was also a large waste of time and money LOL.
Most expensive BJ in history.
FlyerInHi
October 24, 2019 @
12:22 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:That was [quote=The-Shoveler]That was also a large waste of time and money LOL.
Most expensive BJ in history.[/quote]
Alan Lichtman saysthe impeachment of Clinton was very useful to Republicans. No backfire.
The-Shoveler wrote:So you [quote=The-Shoveler]So you think Trump will get convicted in the senate?
[/quote]
Unless further information comes to light, or the right-wing propaganda machine turns on him, the chances of him being convicted are virtually zero.
If further information comes to light unambiguously showing trump extorted Ukraine for dirt on Biden using U.S. funds, the chances go up a bit. But most senators care more about being reelected than about their country or about what’s right or about the constitution. So the chances might not go up all that much, even in that case.
If the right-wing propaganda machine turns on him for whatever reason, then his base will turn on him and the senators will have an excuse to do what’s right. In that extremely unlikely case, the chances of him being removed are very high.
[quote=The-Shoveler]Or that it is not in anyway politically motivated?
(timing and all). [/quote]
I don’t think it’s politically motivated. I could be wrong about that, but I think democrats know that impeachment is much more likely to energize trump’s base than it is to actually remove trump from office or to make voters more likely to vote democratic.
scaredyclassic
October 4, 2019 @
7:30 AM
Capitalism. People do things Capitalism. People do things for money.
Why would anyone expect differently for Biden dirt?
No quid pro quo? Doesn’t that violate our fundamental understanding of how the world works.
You dont get anything for nothing
sdduuuude
October 24, 2019 @
10:43 AM
Speaking of Biden, this Speaking of Biden, this headline was on the side bar of some web site I visited today:
Also saw that Guiliani is shopping for a defense attorney. Mabye burgMan onto something.[/quote]
Do you know of any president who’s conducted himself like Trump? Words coming from the president under investigation are not the same as words from partisan defenders.
If you’re conservative, you should know the difference between hierarchies.
sdduuuude
October 24, 2019 @
1:22 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:sdduuuude [quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude]Speaking of Biden, this headline was on the side bar of some web site I visited today:
Also saw that Guiliani is shopping for a defense attorney. Mabye burgMan onto something.[/quote]
Do you know of any president who’s conducted himself like Trump? Words coming from the president under investigation are not the same as words from partisan defenders.
If you’re conservative, you should know the difference between hierarchies.[/quote]
Ya, but that is because he is Trump, not because he is conservative. Point is – Dems reacted with the exact same verbiage back when.
FlyerInHi
October 24, 2019 @
2:33 PM
I don’t understand why Trump I don’t understand why Trump is excused for being Trump. He’s the president and should conduct himself in a dignified manner. He represents the aspirations of the country.
Remember, when people argued that campaigning is different and once Trump wins the presidency, he would rise to the occasion? All President before have become “presidential”, at least in the language they address the public whereas Trump has become worse.
There is no moral equivalence between the President and what a partisan supporter may say. Conservatives who understand traditions know that. Conservatism starts in the family with good behavior and respectability on how children address their parents, elders, members of the church, etc. it’s not PC, it’s traditions developed over centuries.
outtamojo
October 24, 2019 @
4:02 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:I don’t [quote=FlyerInHi]I don’t understand why Trump is excused for being Trump. He’s the president and should conduct himself in a dignified manner. He represents the aspirations of the country.
Remember, when people argued that campaigning is different and once Trump wins the presidency, he would rise to the occasion? All President before have become “presidential”, at least in the language they address the public whereas Trump has become worse.
[/quote]
Ha ha I remember when someone on this blog said Trump would hire the best people and learn like a puppy dog at their feet.
FlyerInHi
October 24, 2019 @
6:51 PM
Another thing that is Another thing that is relevant and the press has not covered is what is the normal routine of releasing military aid? Surely, the President does not sign off on everything.
In a private company, junior managers will routinely pay approved expenses unless the CEO directly intervenes and stops payment for leverage on a specific business partner.
outtamojo
October 3, 2019 @
12:58 PM
scaredyclassic [quote=scaredyclassic][quote=The-Shoveler]IMO (and I am no expert so probably not worth much)
If you take the transcript “ONLY THE TRANSCRIPT AND NOTHING ELSE”.
It is ambiguous at best so it depends largely on your pre-bias.
Either way I think TG had it right, it is mostly a political football that will in the end likely go nowhere as it will not likely get passed the senate.
How much does 6 months of congress cost?[/quote]
Context matters.
“Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, accept this justice as a gift on my daughter’s wedding day.”
outtamojo [quote=outtamojo][quote=scaredyclassic][quote=The-Shoveler]IMO (and I am no expert so probably not worth much)
If you take the transcript “ONLY THE TRANSCRIPT AND NOTHING ELSE”.
It is ambiguous at best so it depends largely on your pre-bias.
Either way I think TG had it right, it is mostly a political football that will in the end likely go nowhere as it will not likely get passed the senate.
How much does 6 months of congress cost?[/quote]
Context matters.
“Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, accept this justice as a gift on my daughter’s wedding day.”
Trump gets away with so many things because he’s the daddy of low-education whites. In that regard, he represents our country. People see their dads or grand dads in Trump.
FlyerInHi
October 4, 2019 @
10:16 AM
scaredyclassic wrote:
So [quote=scaredyclassic]
So yeah, i agree that in the scope of history, trumps violation. Is small compared to fucking Bush who i still despise, fucking war criminal may he rot in hell.[/quote]
I believe that 85% of Americans including Trump were for the war. They wanted revenge and to go kick ass. I was against the war and I believe we would have been better served by reaching out to the Arab world with development assistance. But that was the weak and traitor position, haha
And Kishore Mabhubani, the president of the security council at the time said that China, not the UK, quietly did the most to help us with UN resolutions. So generous of them.
What do they say? Victory has a thousand fathers while defeat is an orphan.
The-Shoveler
October 4, 2019 @
10:35 AM
It’s not racism if its It’s not racism if its against white people LOL.
There is such a thing as liberal aggression, the above is a perfect example.
FlyerInHi
October 4, 2019 @
11:09 AM
The-Shoveler wrote:It’s not [quote=The-Shoveler]It’s not racism if its against white people LOL.
There is such a thing as liberal aggression, the above is a perfect example.[/quote]
Really? Why is it that people who are so against PC culture are themselves so ever fragile?
Corleone underlings would say “Hell, yeah! You fuckin’ believe it i’m gonna support my daddy!” (I never watched the movie so I’m only assuming).
burghMan
October 3, 2019 @
12:33 PM
temeculaguy wrote:I read the [quote=temeculaguy]I read the transcript and there’s no there there. What they are doing is a plan to just keep the word “impeachment” in the news cycle. The drawback is whole thing has brought to light Biden’s sins. It doesn’t pass the smell test that Biden’s son, kicked out of the military for drugs, lands a job on a Ukrainian energy company for 1 million a year with no experience. The unintended consequence is the damage to Biden, the only moderate in the race. Two things will happen as a result, President Trump or President Warren.[/quote]
Just today president Trump has openly called for China and Ukraine (again) to investigate Biden’s son. He made the comments within minutes of mentioning that he has “tremendous power” over China. His behavior is not a one-off, it is a pattern with clear intent: He’s using the power of his office to damage political opponents.
Biden’s son is not very relevant in the scope of national politics. He holds no office (unlike president Trump’s family who have been given positions of influence despite having no qualifications or experience.) There is no direct evidence of wrongdoing by Biden’s son, and even if there was, it would not justify the president’s intense, even obsessive, focus on the family member of a political rival.
Any smart middle school kid that is learning about the constitution understands the importance of preventing individuals in power from using that power to disrupt the democratic process. The 1st Amendment prevents a president from silencing political rivals, the 4th Amendment prevents a president from harassing rivals with false accusations and criminal investigations. The checks and balances of the three branches prevent the president from simply ignoring the rules. The framers knew that a president that behaved like Trump would come along eventually.
I’ve noticed from the beginning that Trump never talks about the Constitution and he never talks about the law. He always talks about himself or other people. He’s taken our government and turned into a reality TV show. The rule of law has been replaced by the influence of gossip. In the world of president Trump, matters are weighed by how much people are talking about them, not their actual importance.
Trump wants America to gossip about Biden’s son. He’s desperate to achieve this, even to the point of soliciting foreign assistance to fuel the flames. The only other situation where the United States of America would call on the assistance of China, Ukraine, Italy and seemingly any and every country would be if the earth were being attacked by aliens. President Trump is trying to convince us America is facing an existential crisis…why? Because the opposing party has a viable candidate.
It’s sad to watch this strategy of distraction by using gossip and misinformation working on millions of Americans. Are we really so easily confused? I’m disappointed to see that it is working on you, temeculaguy. You always seemed to be smarter than that.
But I’m not falling for it, and I hope that other Americans can continue to stay focused on what matters. President Trump is using his executive power to spread misinformation, and to harass and intimidate political rivals. It’s a slap in the face to the constitution. He’s doing it without shame and sadly with the overt support of many Americans who value their “team” more than our shared principles.
If there’s ever been a case for removing a president from office in our history, this is it. Allowing a president to openly mock the constitution, allowing a president to openly seek favors from foreign nations solely for political gain, and allowing him to face no consequences is a not a good outcome. It sets a terrible precedent. This is no longer about political parties or election rivalries. Removing Trump from office because of his specific disregard for the law would be a reaffirmation that our constitution works as it was meant to.
(In the quote I left off the paragraphs about the stock market and real estate because they are not relevant…just another attempted distraction to a much bigger issue.)
outtamojo
October 3, 2019 @
12:50 PM
I cant wait for a Democrat I cant wait for a Democrat version of trump to go around and promise all kinds of things in exchange for investigating the whole trump clan because you know, we need to know if people are going around doing illegal things.
barnaby33
December 14, 2019 @
6:54 PM
Two things will happen as a
Two things will happen as a result, President Trump or President Warren.
So what I’m hearing is, you *might* be forced to think. A Warren win would make you uncomfortable.
Yep that’s why I’m voting for someone like her, or her. The status quo IS the problem.
Josh
The-Shoveler
October 2, 2019 @
6:24 AM
Still say you make a lot of Still say you make a lot of assumptions.
FlyerInHi
October 10, 2019 @
11:30 AM
ZK. This is a good article ZK. This is a good article written by a professor of history about why blue collar whites love Trump. He speaks their language.
The republican base, especially the right wing media consumers are willing to believe anything about democrats because it helps them rationalize that democrats are “enemies of the people”, the people being their culture. Add a little of the Stockholm or daddy loving syndrome and that explains support for Trump.
It’s about culture more than economics. Many who are not now working class come from a working class culture and background.
The-Shoveler
October 10, 2019 @
2:04 PM
LOL Seriously your not LOL Seriously your not helping the image of democrats.
FlyerInHi
October 10, 2019 @
3:12 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:LOL [quote=The-Shoveler]LOL Seriously your not helping the image of democrats.[/quote]
That’s not the point. I am speaking the truth and stating it like it is. Sociology is a science that’s pretty accurate. Marketer use it to sell their brands.
Trump and his supporters can spew vindictive but they are so ever fragile. That’s not how self confident people behave.
outtamojo
October 10, 2019 @
9:56 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:LOL [quote=The-Shoveler]LOL Seriously your not helping the image of democrats.[/quote]
Trump and guiliani sure are. Hilary and her foundation lookin pretty pristine right now in comparison.
utcsox
October 11, 2019 @
8:01 AM
The-Shoveler wrote:LOL [quote=The-Shoveler]LOL Seriously your not helping the image of democrats.[/quote]
you’re.
FlyerInHi
October 11, 2019 @
10:08 AM
utcsox wrote:The-Shoveler [quote=utcsox][quote=The-Shoveler]LOL Seriously your not helping the image of democrats.[/quote]
you’re.[/quote]
I make that mistake sometimes, not because I don’t know any better but because of typos.
In real life when people speak, I find that Trump supporters are more likely to say “I should’ve went to school” or “I should’ve have ate my veggies”. Nukular is so retarded. Opps, never mind, I didn’t say “retarded” because that’s bad and very inconsiderate of people with disabilities.
sdduuuude
October 14, 2019 @
8:57 AM
I had a friend once say “I am I had a friend once say “I am not so sure Trump is a racist, but the racists think he is a racist.”
FlyerInHi
November 10, 2019 @
11:53 AM
sdduuuude wrote:I had a [quote=sdduuuude]I had a friend once say “I am not so sure Trump is a racist, but the racists think he is a racist.”[/quote]
Nobody mentioned racism until you felt you needed to defend Trump of a charge nobody made by throwing in this nugget.
But anyway, here’s an article by a historian who studies such things.
Trump has spread more hatred of immigrants than any American in history
U.S. history is full of nativists. But the president is the most powerful one yet.
President Trump insists that he harbors no prejudice against immigrants. “I love immigrants,” he told Telemundo in June. Indeed, Trump has married two immigrants — Ivana Zelníčková (from what is now the Czech Republic) and Melanija Knavs (born in what is now Slovenia). He does occasionally say something positive about an immigrant group, such as when he wondered why the United States couldn’t get more immigrants from Norway. But for the most part, Trump portrays immigrants as a threat or a menace, and he calls the largest segment of America’s newcomers — Latinos — “animals” and invaders.
As a historian who specializes in the study of anti-immigrant sentiment, I know that Trump is not the first president to denigrate newcomers to the country. But Trump has attacked and scapegoated immigrants in ways that previous presidents never have — and in the process, he has spread more fear, resentment and hatred of immigrants than any American in history.
FlyerInHi wrote:sdduuuude [quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude]I had a friend once say “I am not so sure Trump is a racist, but the racists think he is a racist.”[/quote]
Nobody mentioned racism until you felt you needed to defend Trump of a charge nobody made by throwing in this nugget.
[/quote]
Just checking in to see if any words were put in my mouth while I was away. Sure enough. Here are some now.
I wasn’t defending anything. The point was that Trump markets to racists without saying anything that explicitly convict him of being a racist. Very clever. Not necessarily good.
By the way all the immigrant stuff you post shows that he is Nationalistic, not necessarily racist, which are two different things.
FlyerInHi
November 13, 2019 @
10:23 AM
Before your comment, nobody Before your comment, nobody said Trump was a racist, or mentioned racism. If that’s not a defense of a charge nobody heretofore made on this thread, then I don’t know what it. The context speaks for itself.
These ideas are definitely promoted by Fox News. Few people in America would even know who “AOC” was if it weren’t for for Fox News. Because of the reach of the right wing media, there are guys in Temecula upset about about a junior congresswoman from The Bronx.
Regarding the impeachment topic, can anyone explain to me why Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer and someone with no official government position, would have any legitimate reason to travel to Ukraine and meet with foreign government officials?
There’s now plenty of evidence that Trump actively solicited the help of a foreign government for personal political gain. This something that no president has done. The case against Trump is now stronger than it ever was against Nixon, and the investigations have only just begun.
These ideas are definitely promoted by Fox News.[/quote]
One of the recurring theme of the Democratic party is the revialism of socialism under the guise of a democracy.
It is very widespread and there are recent examples of it right here on this forum.
These idease are definitely promoted by CNN.
Involuntary Socialism sucks and should be feared, even if Fox News says so.
outtamojo
October 14, 2019 @
1:47 PM
Wall St. bankers sure didnt Wall St. bankers sure didnt fear socialism
when their @sses were handed to them during the loan debacle. That socialist episode was involuntary for me all the other 99 percenters.
sdduuuude
October 14, 2019 @
3:56 PM
outtamojo wrote:Wall St. [quote=outtamojo]Wall St. bankers sure didnt fear socialism
when their @sses were handed to them during the loan debacle. That socialist episode was involuntary for me all the other 99 percenters.[/quote]
I agree – so clearly I am not a Republican.
And I don’t know who AOC is.
These ideas are definitely promoted by Fox News.[/quote]
One of the recurring theme of the Democratic party is the revialism of socialism under the guise of a democracy.
It is very widespread and there are recent examples of it right here on this forum.
These idease are definitely promoted by CNN.
Involuntary Socialism sucks and should be feared, even if Fox News says so.[/quote]
“socialism under the guise of a democracy.”
“Involuntary Socialism”
Thanks for giving us another example of the hysterical fear of socialism. You are certainly not influenced by right wing media at all.
(and you forgot the link to the recent example you mentioned)[/quote]
The claim “Oh, you are saying the same thing as Fox News therefore you are wrong.” is not a valid argument for anything. Nor is the claim “you are saying the same thing as Fox News therefore you formed your opinion because of them.” Stop doing it. It is presumptuous, rude, and insulting, especially for people who were over 30 before Fox News started.
burghMan
October 14, 2019 @
4:50 PM
sdduuuude wrote:
The claim [quote=sdduuuude]
The claim “Oh, you are saying the same thing as Fox News therefore you are wrong.” is not a valid argument for anything. Nor is the claim “you are saying the same thing as Fox News therefore you formed your opinion because of them.” Stop doing it. It is presumptuous, rude, and insulting, especially for people who were over 30 before Fox News started.[/quote]
I never said that Fox News is always wrong. I said that they have influence over many people and there are examples of that influence in these piggington forums. That anybody is concerned about the threat of “socialism” in 2019 America is proof that the right wing mythology has power.
I don’t get why you are taking this so personally. My original comment about the influence of Fox News was not directed at you specifically. The example I used (you never did provide your example, btw) was a thread started by temeculaguy.
One’s age certainly does not make them less susceptible to the influence of right wing media. The data suggests the opposite is true. The median age of a Fox News viewer is mid 60s. Old folks are their target audience.
Most Californians, like most Americans, don’t even know the name of their own congressional representative. Yet every Fox News viewer knows about AOC and Ilhan Omar. Many, like tg and flu take time to complain about representatives from thousands of miles away right here on this forum. There is only one reason people are triggered about junior congressional representatives for districts that are nowhere near them: They’ve bought into the right wing media narrative.
(It’s also notable that the same people show little concern about our own Duncan Hunter and his spending habits.)
But this thread is about Trump’s looming impeachment. And it seems for some reason you don’t want to talk about Giuliani…
sdduuuude
October 14, 2019 @
5:13 PM
burghMan wrote:I don’t get [quote=burghMan]I don’t get why you are taking this so personally. My original comment about the influence of Fox News was not directed at you specifically.[/quote]
How about this one, which I assume was sarcasm – was this not directed at me specifically ?
[quote=burghMan]You are certainly not influenced by right wing media at all.[/quote]
sdduuuude
October 14, 2019 @
5:15 PM
burghMan wrote:One’s age [quote=burghMan]One’s age certainly does not make them less susceptible to the influence of right wing media. The data suggests the opposite is true. The median age of a Fox News viewer is mid 60s. Old folks are their target audience.[/quote]
Again, you are assuming that old folks are conservative because they have been influenced by Fox News. You don’t even see that. Like, you just blamed Fox News for forming the opinions of old people. Again – rude and insulting. I would assume they watch Fox News because they are conservative, not that they are conservative because they watch. My point was that for anyone who was 30 or older when Fox News came out had already formed conservative or non-conservative views.
[quote=burghMan]But this thread is about Trump’s looming impeachment. And it seems for some reason you don’t want to talk about Giuliani…[/quote]
The only news I see are the headlines that come up on my Yahoo or Google pages. Sometimes I click them. Sometimes I don’t. Sometimes I see CNN in hotel lobbies, but I don’t hear it – only see the blurbs. I don’t want to talk about Gulianai because I know nothing of his current activity. Literally – I have no clue what you are talking about. And again – I don’t know who the AOC is. I know there is a congresswoman wearing Muslim garb that the Republicans hate, but that’s about it. I probably hate her, too, but only because she is a politician.
All I said was that when I saw the transcript of the phone call I didn’t think it clearly implicated Trump in any specific illegal behavior. Fox didn’t tell me this. CNN didn’t tell me this. ZK didn’t tell me this. I read it and thought “Hm. Doesn’t seem like enough to base an impeachment on.” which, by the way is the topic of the thread. Am I not allowed to form this opinion on my own?
Just be careful blaming Fox News for opinions people have formed prior to their existence. It makes you look the fool. Also, I feel I have a pretty fair view of Reps and Dems because I dislike both quite equally. Actually, I dislike the Dems more at the moment, but when Bush Jr was in office, I definitely disliked the Reps more. And I have a graduate degree in economics from that one college all the kids are getting rejected from. So when you say that the right-wing media is forming my opinions for me you are both wrong and insulting. When you say it to anyone, you are likely wrong and insulting. So stop it.
For alternative examples, see anything by FlyerInHI. Literally anything.
burghMan
October 14, 2019 @
5:37 PM
sdduuuude wrote:burghMan [quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]One’s age certainly does not make them less susceptible to the influence of right wing media. The data suggests the opposite is true. The median age of a Fox News viewer is mid 60s. Old folks are their target audience.[/quote]
Again, you are assuming that old folks are conservative because they have been influenced by Fox News. You don’t even see that. Like, you just blamed Fox News for forming the opinions of old people. Again – rude and insulting. I would assume they watch Fox News because they are conservative, not that they are conservative because they watch. My point was that for anyone who was 30 or older when Fox News came out had already formed conservative or non-conservative views.
[quote=burghMan]But this thread is about Trump’s looming impeachment. And it seems for some reason you don’t want to talk about Giuliani…[/quote]
The only news I see are the headlines that come up on my Yahoo or Google pages. Sometimes I click them. Sometimes I don’t. Sometimes I see CNN in hotel lobbies, but I don’t hear it – only see the blurbs. I don’t want to talk about Gulianai because I know nothing of his current activity. Literally – I have no clue what you are talking about. And again – I don’t know who the AOC is. I know there is a congresswoman wearing Muslim garb that the Republicans hate, but that’s about it. I probably hate her, too, but only because she is a politician.
All I said was that when I saw the transcript of the phone call I didn’t think it clearly implicated Trump in any specific illegal behavior. Fox didn’t tell me this. CNN didn’t tell me this. ZK didn’t tell me this. I read it and thought “Hm. Doesn’t seem like enough to base an impeachment on.” which, by the way is the topic of the thread. Am I not allowed to form this opinion on my own?
Just be careful blaming Fox News for opinions people have formed prior to their existence. It makes you look the fool. Also, I feel I have a pretty fair view of Reps and Dems because I dislike both quite equally. Actually, I dislike the Dems more at the moment, but when Bush Jr was in office, I definitely disliked the Reps more. And I have a graduate degree in economics from that one college all the kids are getting rejected from. So when you say that the right-wing media is forming my opinions for me you are both wrong and insulting. When you say it to anyone, you are likely wrong and insulting. So stop it.
For alternative examples, see anything by FlyerInHI. Literally anything.[/quote]
I’m really not following your points about age. People over 30 are capable of changing their viewpoints.
Giuliani was working in the capacity of Trump’s personal lawyer and has made several visits visits to Ukraine for unknown reasons. It turns out that he has been working with some shady Ukrainian/Russian characters that have been funneling foreign money into Republican campaigns.
Anyway, I’m not really interested in engaging with someone who uses the phrase “I hate” as often as you do. (It also seems somewhat contradictory to a “dude’ screen name.) Best of luck with your fancy economics degree.
sdduuuude
October 14, 2019 @
5:40 PM
burghMan wrote:Anyway, I’m [quote=burghMan]Anyway, I’m not really interested in engaging with someone who uses the phrase “I hate” as often as you do.”[/quote]
A cop-out.
zk
October 17, 2019 @
8:08 AM
sdduuuude wrote:
zk wrote:If, [quote=sdduuuude]
[quote=zk]If, however, you are aware of the fact that most of what comes out of his mouth is either a lie or just nonsense, that confidence has the opposite effect.[/quote]
I think all (and I do mean every last one of them – well, maybe not Carter. Maybe.) politicians fall under this category. It is just that Trump doesn’t care if it is obvious. [/quote]
You think that every single politician (except possibly Carter) in the country is as mendacious and nonsensical as donald trump? You’re obviously a bright guy, and you seem relatively uninfluenced by right-wing propaganda, and therefore it’s difficult for me to imagine you’ve come to that conclusion having spent much time listening to donald trump talk. Or maybe you’ve got some kind of chip on your shoulder or something that makes you view all politicians inaccurately. I’m sure that over the course of your life you’ve spent many hours listening to politicians talk. Spend an hour doing nothing but watching any videos of trump talking without a script on any president-related subjects, compare that with your impressions of other politicians, and see if you still hold that opinion. He is outrageously mendacious and almost unfathomably ignorant and foolish.
If you think that last sentence actually applies to most politicians, I think possibly you’re not viewing them rationally and with an open mind. Sure, they lie a lot and they sometimes don’t make sense. But comparing your average politician’s foolishness and mendaciousness to trump’s is like comparing a high-school baseball player’s home run prowess with Babe Ruth’s. It’s not even in the same ballpark. He’s in a different league. He’s almost playing a different sport.
[quote=sdduuuude]
By the way, I didn’t think the Ukranian call proved any illegal action either. I don’t think it belongs on the list of propaganda, which was a good list of BS. But this one belongs on the CNN list:
“Ukranian call provides unequivocal proof that Trump is guilty”[/quote]
The president asked Zelensky to do him a “favor” by investigating his political opponent. That is soliciting a thing of value in connection with an election. That violates the law.
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=zk]trump is a good president, trickle-down economics works, tax cuts for the rich will help the poor, less environmental regulation is good, trump’s tariffs will help the average American, Obama was the worst president ever, Obama hated America, liberals are snowflakes, America is in danger of being ruled by sharia law, there was widespread voter fraud by democrats in 2016[/quote]
You have mixed in four items that really have no business being on the list of “propaganda”:
Trickle-down
Tax cuts
Less regulation (environmental or otherwise)
Tarriffs
Those have been around much longer than Fox and your post serves to highlight my point that you are giving Fox way too much credit, mixing in BS with Republican party lines. Also, I see Fox as extreme and ludicrous and find very few conservatives who spout the nonsensical themes you seem so concerned with. One crazy friend is all, which is where I used to get my Fox news “insights”. That is the fringe. [/quote]
Ok, two points. First, you’re mostly right about these subjects. I was in a hurry and kind of lazy. Part of the problem explaining my position is that, rather than really big issues like this, the effect that current right-wing propaganda has on people is due to an accumulation of false narratives on a thousand smaller issues that add up to one big false narrative for the larger picture. And I was (and am) too impatient and lazy to spend days compiling these. But here’s a perfect example:
[quote=livinincali]
If multiple democrat senators sent a letters or talked to Russian politicians asking for favors to help investigate Trump’s dealing with Russia shall they be impeached as well? Obviously the answer is no, so that’s why I look at this as a nothing to see here.
[/quote]
No democratic senators sent letters or or talked to Russian politicians asking for favors to help investigate Trump’s dealing with Russia. What happened was that three senators said that Ukraine should not impede cooperation with the United States Special Counsel. This was twisted around and used to mislead propaganda marks into thinking that these senators asked for favors from foreign governments in the same way that trump had and that this is a common, acceptable thing to do. And therefore it was no problem that trump did it. This kind of thing is done a hundred times a day by the right-wing propaganda machine. These propagandists are, of course, not interested in the truth. And that’s the biggest difference between propaganda outlets such as fox, breitbart, blaze, the creators of right-wing facebook memes, etc. and such institutions as the New York Times and the Washington Post. People who get their news from fox et all might, occasionally, as you say, get some correct information. But the overall effect of the propaganda is to pile up thousands of misleading, half-true, innuendo-ridden turds of flim-flam and compile them into one giant heap of bullshit. And that bullshit narrative is bought into by, in my opinion, most conservatives.
[quote=sdduuuude]
Also, I see Fox as extreme and ludicrous and find very few conservatives who spout the nonsensical themes you seem so concerned with. One crazy friend is all, which is where I used to get my Fox news “insights”. That is the fringe. [/quote]
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on that. Most right-wingers I communicate with seem to have fallen for, if not every single turd, for most of them, for enough of them that they fall for the heap of bullshit in general.
[quote=sdduuuude]
Fox is entertainment, not news. I wouldn’t concern myself with it if I were you. I think it is more of a distraction than than anything and serves only to make “normal” Republicans look reasonable. Liberals waste their time arguing these points and end up looking the fool instead of focusing on important things.
[/quote]
Ahh, but this is the important thing. I can see how you, with your opinion that most conservatives are not being swindled by propaganda, think otherwise. If I could be convinced that right-wing propaganda didn’t swing the election to trump, and didn’t have an excellent chance of doing it again, it would be easy to let go of. But I think it’s the reason he’s president, and the reason he has a very good chance to be president another 5 years. That alone is enough to make it the important thing.
While you might see fox as entertainment, and while it might not be real news, most people who watch it do seem to see it as news.
[quote=sdduuuude]
[quote=burghMan]One’s age certainly does not make them less susceptible to the influence of right wing media. The data suggests the opposite is true. The median age of a Fox News viewer is mid 60s. Old folks are their target audience.[/quote]
Again, you are assuming that old folks are conservative because they have been influenced by Fox News. You don’t even see that. Like, you just blamed Fox News for forming the opinions of old people. Again – rude and insulting. I would assume they watch Fox News because they are conservative, not that they are conservative because they watch. My point was that for anyone who was 30 or older when Fox News came out had already formed conservative or non-conservative views.
[/quote]
My second point relates to the above.
Fox news and the rest of the propaganda machine (for the rest of this paragraph, I’ll just call that “fox”), have, in my opinion, taken people who were initially conservative and taken them to a place where they will loathe anything that fox tells them to loathe and love anything fox tells them to love. Before fox, conservatives didn’t loathe liberals and think they were going to turn America into a socialist country (along with a thousand other misconceptions – I should say “lies” – about them). The party of family values wouldn’t have elected a “man” who cheated on all 3 of his wives, assaulted women, and had cheated and stolen throughout his career. They didn’t buy into conspiracy theories. They seemed a lot more open to listening to reason and logic and evidence. Right-wing propaganda, in my opinion, changed all that.
And, as if it weren’t bad enough that fox got trump into office, trump now listens to fox and the moronic conspiracy theories and other bullshit that that they spout and falls for it himself. His ideas are influenced by this “entertainment.”
sdduuuude
October 21, 2019 @
9:04 PM
zk wrote:You think that every [quote=zk]You think that every single politician (except possibly Carter) in the country is as mendacious and nonsensical as donald trump?[/quote]
No, but just as disingenuous, only better at hiding it.”
I didn’t look up mendacious 🙂
[quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]
By the way, I didn’t think the Ukranian call proved any illegal action either. I don’t think it belongs on the list of propaganda, which was a good list of BS. But this one belongs on the CNN list:
“Ukranian call provides unequivocal proof that Trump is guilty”[/quote]
The president asked Zelensky to do him a “favor” by investigating his political opponent. That is soliciting a thing of value in connection with an election. That violates the law.
[/quote]
Have you actually read the law he is violating? Does it say “thing of value in connection with an election?” Is that the verbiage you based your opinion on ? Or is that your own personal interpretation ? Or maybe CNN told you this ? Thing is – “interpretation” is the name of the game in law and your interpretation is not convincing me.
[quote=zk]We’re going to have to agree to disagree on that.[/quote]
I could get behind that agreement as long as we agree that the left side propaganda machine has as much effect as the right.
There are two highly biased propaganda machines out there. If you don’t see them both, you have been fooled by one.
See – I can do it to: If not because of CNN propaganda, how else could people possibly believe that it is OK to force grocery stores to stop giving me free plastic bags, that forced recycling does anyone any good, that increasing minimum wage is good for poor people, and that uneducated white males put Trump in office (I actually heard this on CNN on election night) and that means Trump is a racist – even though uneducated black males put Obama in office and Obama is not a racist.
[quote=zk]… assaulted women, … and stolen throughout his career.[/quote]
You are stating this as a fact. As these are clearly crimes, and he hasn’t been been convicted of these beyond a shadow of a doubt, I believe they are only claims. That you state them as facts when there is no proof – seems very “propaganda-ish” to me.
My final point on the matter is that your argument seems to be “There are millions of people who disagree with me, therefore they have been tricked by propaganda.” Next time you hear something that you don’t agree with, try contesting it with a rational argument, which you are clearly capable of doing, instead of accusing them of saying the same thing as Fox, which drags you down a level.
zk
October 21, 2019 @
11:05 PM
sdduuuude wrote:
Have you [quote=sdduuuude]
Have you actually read the law he is violating? Does it say “thing of value in connection with an election?” Is that the verbiage you based your opinion on ? Or is that your own personal interpretation ? Or maybe CNN told you this ? Thing is – “interpretation” is the name of the game in law and your interpretation is not convincing me.
[/quote]
I’m off to bed, and I have a full day tomorrow, so I’ll get to the rest of this later in the week. But for now, here’s the law I am citing:
“It shall be unlawful for —
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make —
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election . . .
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) . . . of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.”
— 52 U.S. Code 30121
Not really any interpretation on my part; those words are all there in the appropriate places.
Is that convincing?
temeculaguy
October 21, 2019 @
11:57 PM
Trump will not be impeached Trump will not be impeached and will win in 2020. Tulsi, Pete, Biden and my favorite, Delaney all could unseat him but they are deemed too mainstream. The media treatment of Pete reminds me of Bernie in 2016. Hell, Pete gets more play on Foxnews with his stance on private health insurance immune. Fun article on the direction of the party and it’s treatment of Tulsi.
Warren will be the nominee because the media says she will be and she will lose. I was right a year out last time and will be again, mostly because I don’t care I just figure out how to play it with my investments.
Having voted for both Obama and Bill Clinton (except that one Perot year) I’m disappointed in the current state of the democratic party trying to derail any remotely mainstream candidate. Their treatment of Mayor Pete is not unlike how they treated Bernie last time around. Wait till wikileaks puts out those DNC e-mails against pete and tulsi.
burghMan
October 22, 2019 @
7:07 AM
temeculaguy wrote:Trump will [quote=temeculaguy]Trump will not be impeached and will win in 2020. Tulsi, Pete, Biden and my favorite, Delaney all could unseat him but they are deemed too mainstream. The media treatment of Pete reminds me of Bernie in 2016. Hell, Pete gets more play on Foxnews with his stance on private health insurance immune. Fun article on the direction of the party and it’s treatment of Tulsi.
Warren will be the nominee because the media says she will be and she will lose. I was right a year out last time and will be again, mostly because I don’t care I just figure out how to play it with my investments.
Having voted for both Obama and Bill Clinton (except that one Perot year) I’m disappointed in the current state of the democratic party trying to derail any remotely mainstream candidate. Their treatment of Mayor Pete is not unlike how they treated Bernie last time around. Wait till wikileaks puts out those DNC e-mails against pete and tulsi.[/quote]
This is a great post that illustrates how older white Americans are so easily manipulated by right wing media.
Put it in context: We have a president that is clumsily trying to make personal backroom deals with the former soviets in a desperate attempt to get dirt on the family of his political rivals. His chief of staff literally admitted to impeachable crimes on television. He is creating a constitutional crisis, has a foreign policy that nobody can even explain, can’t even hold a cabinet meeting without whining about he is the biggest victim in America, and has done zero to fulfill his major campaign promises (healthcare, border security, North Korea’s nukes, China trade …)
There’s overwhelming evidence that he has no clue what he is doing. As a world leader he is completely in over his head. His domestic policy is simply to lower taxes and borrow more. When faced with any of the ordinary challenges of the presidency, he runs to his “safe space” political rallies.
But for the Fox News viewer, what the actual President of the United States is doing doesn’t matter. What the right wing media wants America to focus on is supposed internal drama in the DNC. Fox News wants us to watch their reality TV show full of gossip, cliques and backstabbing characters. “What is Pete saying about Tulsi behind her back?”
Millions of Americans believe this stuff is real. Wow.
sdduuuude
October 22, 2019 @
8:49 AM
burghMan wrote:This is a [quote=burghMan]This is a great post that illustrates how older white Americans are so easily manipulated by right wing media.[/quote]
I have known Temecula Guy for years. He is actually a young black man.
burghMan
October 22, 2019 @
9:05 AM
sdduuuude wrote:burghMan [quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]This is a great post that illustrates how older white Americans are so easily manipulated by right wing media.[/quote]
I have known Temecula Guy for years. He is actually a young black man.[/quote]
In another post he mentioned several grandchildren, which means he’s made an impressive contribution to the diversity of Temecula’s schools.
sdduuuude
October 22, 2019 @
8:47 AM
zk wrote:sdduuuude [quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]
Have you actually read the law he is violating? Does it say “thing of value in connection with an election?” Is that the verbiage you based your opinion on ? Or is that your own personal interpretation ? Or maybe CNN told you this ? Thing is – “interpretation” is the name of the game in law and your interpretation is not convincing me.
[/quote]
I’m off to bed, and I have a full day tomorrow, so I’ll get to the rest of this later in the week. But for now, here’s the law I am citing:
“It shall be unlawful for —
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make —
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election . . .
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) . . . of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.”
— 52 U.S. Code 30121
Not really any interpretation on my part; those words are all there in the appropriate places.
Is that convincing?[/quote]
I think they will get hung up on “thing of value”
burghMan
October 22, 2019 @
9:13 AM
sdduuuude wrote:zk [quote=sdduuuude][quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]
Have you actually read the law he is violating? Does it say “thing of value in connection with an election?” Is that the verbiage you based your opinion on ? Or is that your own personal interpretation ? Or maybe CNN told you this ? Thing is – “interpretation” is the name of the game in law and your interpretation is not convincing me.
[/quote]
I’m off to bed, and I have a full day tomorrow, so I’ll get to the rest of this later in the week. But for now, here’s the law I am citing:
“It shall be unlawful for —
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make —
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election . . .
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) . . . of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.”
— 52 U.S. Code 30121
Not really any interpretation on my part; those words are all there in the appropriate places.
Is that convincing?[/quote]
I think they will get hung up on “thing of value”[/quote]
Negative information about political rivals is not a thing of value? Then candidates throughout history have spent an awful lot of money on something doesn’t have value…
Nixon tried to obtain this thing with actual burglary.
Do you really believe Trump was asking for a “favor” without expecting something in return?
sdduuuude
October 22, 2019 @
9:47 AM
burghMan wrote:Negative [quote=burghMan]Negative information about political rivals is not a thing of value? [/quote]
You have to understand, I am not stating my opinion on whether it is, I am saying I don’t think the dems will be able to win the legal argument that it is. This will be dealt with in a legal system, not a justice system.
Knowing Trump, he will claim this wasn’t even tied to the election. He was just concerned that Bernie posed a threat to America and was doing his civic duty to expose him. You know this is what he is going to say, and it could very well get thrown out just for that alone. And Fox News will play along and say “see how patriotic he is” and the Dems will howl, having lost again due to their blind rage.
Seriously, unless you are the judge, you have no idea how this is going to go and that phone call is far from the nail in the coffin.
FlyerInHi
October 22, 2019 @
9:54 AM
sdduuuude wrote:burghMan [quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]Negative information about political rivals is not a thing of value? [/quote]
You have to understand, I am not stating my opinion on whether it is, I am saying I don’t think the dems will be able to win the legal argument that it is. This will be dealt with in a legal system, not a justice system.
Knowing Trump, he will claim this wasn’t even tied to the election. He was just concerned that Bernie posed a threat to America and was doing his civic duty to expose him. You know this is what he is going to say, and it could very well get thrown out just for that alone. And Fox News will play along and say “see how patriotic he is” and the Dems will howl, having lost again due to their blind rage.
Seriously, unless you are the judge, you have no idea how this is going to go and that phone call is far from the nail in the coffin.[/quote]
Impeachment is the legal process for removing the president or federal judge. The impeachment in the house is the indictment. And there will a trial in the senate.
Are you saying we should not have that legal process? And leave it to politics?
sdduuuude
October 22, 2019 @
10:07 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:Are you [quote=FlyerInHi]Are you saying we should not have that legal process? And leave it to politics?[/quote]
No. I am saying that the legal system does not always deliver justice as you might expect. It should and will go through the legal process, but that process does not always deliver justice and what you are so sure of may not be how the judge interprets the law.
FlyerInHi
October 22, 2019 @
10:17 AM
Ok then, let’s have Ok then, let’s have impeachment and let the chips fall where they may. The outcome of a trial is always uncertain.
Shoveler seems to say we should not offend the deplorables with impeachment because the “big picture” is that they support trump so we should leave their man alone.
sdduuuude
October 22, 2019 @
10:24 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:Ok then, [quote=FlyerInHi]Ok then, let’s have impeachment and let the chips fall where they may. The outcome of a trial is always uncertain.[/quote]
Exactly. And my interpretation is different from yours. Not a problem. Not a result of Fox News. Just different.
[quote=FlyerInHi]Shoveler seems to say we should not offend the deplorables with impeachment because the “big picture” is that they support trump so we should leave their man alone.[/quote]
You sure like putting words in people’s mouths.
The-Shoveler
October 22, 2019 @
10:42 AM
sdduuuude wrote:
You sure [quote=sdduuuude]
You sure like putting words in people’s mouths.[/quote]
Yes that was not what I was saying at all.
Just saying there has been a lot of over correction on the part of Dems to the liberal side that really only resonates with a very small segment of the population.
Only a tiny fraction of the population would consider themselves elitists or even part of the urban elite.
FlyerInHi
October 22, 2019 @
10:49 AM
Shoveler, what is “over Shoveler, what is “over correction”? That’s something for democrats to decide. If you don’t like candidates that democrats put forth, then don’t support.
Does over correction include impeachment?
So you now think that impeachment is a legitimate legal process?
The-Shoveler
October 22, 2019 @
10:59 AM
It means you show up in rural It means you show up in rural america and listen.
Not every one is Alt left (most are not), nor are they alt-right.
FlyerInHi
October 22, 2019 @
11:05 AM
The-Shoveler wrote:It means [quote=The-Shoveler]It means you show up in rural america and listen.
Not every one is Alt left (most are not), nor are they alt-right.[/quote]
How is that relevant to impeachment? Listen to what people in rural America want or stick with the facts and rule of law?
I thought that in USA, we’re so proud because nobody is above the law. And the rule of law is not determined by politics or popularity.
FlyerInHi
October 22, 2019 @
10:43 AM
sdduuuude wrote:
FlyerInHi [quote=sdduuuude]
[quote=FlyerInHi]Shoveler seems to say we should not offend the deplorables with impeachment because the “big picture” is that they support trump so we should leave their man alone.[/quote]
You sure like putting words in people’s mouths.[/quote]
I would love for shoveler to clarify what he meant. I believe he’s said that impeachment is a waste of time and that would only rally support for Trump among his base. Even if that’s the case, it’s irrelevant to the rule is law, unless we choose to politicize the rule of law.
FlyerInHi
October 22, 2019 @
9:15 AM
sdduuuude wrote:zk [quote=sdduuuude][quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]
Have you actually read the law he is violating? Does it say “thing of value in connection with an election?” Is that the verbiage you based your opinion on ? Or is that your own personal interpretation ? Or maybe CNN told you this ? Thing is – “interpretation” is the name of the game in law and your interpretation is not convincing me.
[/quote]
I’m off to bed, and I have a full day tomorrow, so I’ll get to the rest of this later in the week. But for now, here’s the law I am citing:
“It shall be unlawful for —
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make —
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election . . .
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) . . . of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.”
— 52 U.S. Code 30121
Not really any interpretation on my part; those words are all there in the appropriate places.
Is that convincing?[/quote]
I think they will get hung up on “thing of value”[/quote]
The “thing of value “ is actually foreign money that soviet emigrants, associates of Julianni’s funneled to Trump. They were arrested by Trump’s own justice Deparment.
sdduuuude
October 22, 2019 @
9:33 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:The “thing of [quote=FlyerInHi]The “thing of value “ is actually foreign money that soviet emigrants, associates of Julianni’s funneled to Trump. They were arrested by Trump’s own justice Deparment.[/quote]
I meant with respect to, specifically, the phone call.
sdduuuude
October 22, 2019 @
9:32 AM
I think “Pigg team liberal” I think “Pigg team liberal” is misinterpreting what TG and I are saying as being supportive of Trump.
What we are saying is that the Dems are not handling this well. The Democratic politicians, liberal media and Democrats around the world are have been blinded with rage and are not doing what needs to be done to win, which is kinda what happened in 2016, now isn’t it? You are so worried about what Fox News says that you don’t pay attention to your own arguments.
I’ve said this before – just because I think the Chargers are going to win doesn’t mean I’m rooting for them. And just because the Patriots are lousy cheats doesn’t mean they are going to lose.
The-Shoveler
October 22, 2019 @
10:00 AM
sdduuuude wrote:liberal media [quote=sdduuuude]liberal media and Democrats around the world are have been blinded with rage and are not doing what needs to be done to win[/quote]
It leads to over correction which resonates with a small but very vocal part of the population, not looking at the larger population or big picture.
Only a very small segment of the population would call themselves elitists, most of america’s population does not live in big cities or even urban areas.
burghMan
October 22, 2019 @
10:14 AM
sdduuuude wrote:I think “Pigg [quote=sdduuuude]I think “Pigg team liberal” is misinterpreting what TG and I are saying as being supportive of Trump.
What we are saying is that the Dems are not handling this well. The Democratic politicians, liberal media and Democrats around the world are have been blinded with rage and are not doing what needs to be done to win, which is kinda what happened in 2016, now isn’t it? You are so worried about what Fox News says that you don’t pay attention to your own arguments.
I’ve said this before – just because I think the Chargers are going to win doesn’t mean I’m rooting for them. And just because the Patriots are lousy cheats doesn’t mean they are going to lose.[/quote]
For someone that doesn’t support Trump, you sure do put a lot of effort into criticizing his opponents.
What does need to be done to win?
sdduuuude
October 22, 2019 @
10:21 AM
burghMan wrote:What does need [quote=burghMan]What does need to be done to win?[/quote]
Stop playing the Trump media game.
Pick your battles.
Play a the game to win long term, not a short-term.
Put forward the right candidate that is maybe a little less liberal than you want and knows when and how to ignore Trump.
Listen more. Accuse people of being Fox News watchers less.
FlyerInHi
October 22, 2019 @
10:42 AM
sdduuuude wrote:burghMan [quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]What does need to be done to win?[/quote]
Stop playing the Trump media game.
Pick your battles.
Play a the game to win long term, not a short-term.
Put forward the right candidate that is maybe a little less liberal than you want and knows when and how to ignore Trump.
Listen more. Accuse people of being Fox News watchers less.[/quote]
That’s politics for the 2020 elections and beyond.
Nothing to do with impeachment or all the illegal stuff Trump has done.
BTW, the republicans put forward Trump and won. Who’s to say a Democrat disrupter like Trump would not win? We don’t know until the elections.
burghMan
October 22, 2019 @
10:56 AM
sdduuuude wrote:burghMan [quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]What does need to be done to win?[/quote]
Stop playing the Trump media game.
Pick your battles.
Put forward the right candidate that is maybe a little less liberal than you want and knows when and how to ignore Trump.[/quote]
The parties don’t “put forward” candidates. There’s a process and nobody in particular controls it. (The idea that there is some wizard behind the curtain choosing the outcome of the Democratic primaries is a conspiracy developed by republicans to attack the legitimacy of party.)
I predict Biden will be the nominee. He is not a liberal. The Trump campaign knows this, and that’s why they are desperately trying to damage him now. But Trump got caught playing dirty, just like Nixon did.
Each of the Democratic front runners have a weakness when it comes to electability; Biden’s age, Warren’s is the wrong gender and has the Native American nonsense, Sanders calls himself a socialist and is also ancient. Democrats will vote for “electibily” in the primaries, and the established, moderate white guy is the strongest against Trump. Biden doesn’t excite anybody but America will be happy to get a “normal” president back.
It will be interesting to see Trump’s strategy develops. I do believe that he will play the same game that he did in 2016 and it will not be nearly as effective the second time around. His novelty has worn off and his smears are all too predictable. He’ll make the same campaign promises because there’s nothing else he can do. This will remind everyone that he didn’t keep them last time.
I never liked Trump at all but like many I was hopeful that when he won he would drop the trashy facade and take the job seriously. He did not, and now we know for certain that he is incapable of rising above his childish personality.
Trump will be impeached but not removed from office. I don’t think impeachment will change the outcome of the election, but it will weaken Trump. He’ll lose in 2020.
America is sick of the Trump media game. Having an outsider “businessman” president was an exciting and novel concept in 2016, but in 2020 mainstream America is not going to be excited by four more years of pretending our president is not awful. Many who voted for him in 2016 simply won’t vote at all in 2020.
People are generally happy with the economy but most don’t really believe that Trump has done anything to specifically make it better. Very little has improved in the swing states. American manufacturing is still in decline.
He barely won 2016. In 2020, there are plenty that want him out (call it rage if you want, lol) and not enough that are willing to vote for more of the same. It may not be a landslide, but Trump will lose.
sdduuuude
October 22, 2019 @
1:18 PM
I’m gonna put it in a I’m gonna put it in a nutshell:
Stop telling us how bad Trump is and start telling us how good the other candidate it.
burghMan
October 22, 2019 @
1:26 PM
sdduuuude wrote:I’m gonna put [quote=sdduuuude]I’m gonna put it in a nutshell:
Stop telling us how bad Trump is and start telling us how good the other candidate it.[/quote]
That’s just stupid. We don’t know who the other candidate is. In 2015 it was full on Obama bashing at the republican debates. That’s just how the process works at this point in the election cycle.
Biden: Leadership experience, deep knowledge of foreign policy, moderate, coherent.
Warren: Leadership experience, track record fighting for the middle class, moderate, coherent.
Don’t know who the VP is, but unless they pull a Palin, it will only strengthen the ticket.
Hobie
October 23, 2019 @
5:27 AM
sdduuuude wrote:I’m gonna put [quote=sdduuuude]I’m gonna put it in a nutshell:
Stop telling us how bad Trump is and start telling us how good the other candidate it.[/quote]
Elephant meet room – zing!
FlyerInHi
October 23, 2019 @
9:02 AM
Hobie wrote:sdduuuude [quote=Hobie][quote=sdduuuude]I’m gonna put it in a nutshell:
Stop telling us how bad Trump is and start telling us how good the other candidate it.[/quote]
Elephant meet room – zing![/quote]
The topic was impeachment…. some people argued against it for political and expediency reasons, then we get this gem.
sdduuuude
October 25, 2019 @
10:57 AM
burghMan wrote:For someone [quote=burghMan]For someone that doesn’t support Trump, you sure do put a lot of effort into criticizing his opponents.
[/quote]
When you are losing badly, people who criticize you are not necessarily your enemy. They are significantly more helpful than those saying “Doing great ! Keep it up! (Thumbs Up Emoji Here)”
FlyerInHi
October 25, 2019 @
11:28 AM
sdduuuude wrote:burghMan [quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]For someone that doesn’t support Trump, you sure do put a lot of effort into criticizing his opponents.
[/quote]
When you are losing badly, people who criticize you are not necessarily your enemy. They are significantly more helpful than those saying “Doing great ! Keep it up! (Thumbs Up Emoji Here)”[/quote]
Sure, on a topic of Trump impeachment and misdeeds, it’s very helpful to criticize those who would have him account.
It’s as logical as claiming those who criticize America, don’t love America (the Squad). It’s what I call Fox reasoning.
sdduuuude
October 25, 2019 @
11:35 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:sdduuuude [quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]For someone that doesn’t support Trump, you sure do put a lot of effort into criticizing his opponents.
[/quote]
When you are losing badly, people who criticize you are not necessarily your enemy. They are significantly more helpful than those saying “Doing great ! Keep it up! (Thumbs Up Emoji Here)”[/quote]
Sure, on a topic of Trump impeachment and misdeeds, it’s very helpful to criticize those who would have him account.
It’s as logical as claiming those who criticize America, don’t love America (the Squad). It’s what I call Fox reasoning.[/quote]
What I said is exactly the opposite of “claiming those who criticize America don’t Love America.” So, thanks for your support of my comment.
FlyerInHi
October 25, 2019 @
11:44 AM
sdduuuude wrote:FlyerInHi [quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]For someone that doesn’t support Trump, you sure do put a lot of effort into criticizing his opponents.
[/quote]
When you are losing badly, people who criticize you are not necessarily your enemy. They are significantly more helpful than those saying “Doing great ! Keep it up! (Thumbs Up Emoji Here)”[/quote]
Sure, on a topic of Trump impeachment and misdeeds, it’s very helpful to criticize those who would have him account.
It’s as logical as claiming those who criticize America, don’t love America (the Squad). It’s what I call Fox reasoning.[/quote]
What I said is exactly the opposite of “claiming those who criticize America don’t Love America.” So, thanks for your support of my comment.[/quote]
Yeah, I get that. My logic is that your context doesn’t make sense.
Would you agree that the Squad are “significantly more helpful” than Republican backers to Trump during the impeachment process?
sdduuuude
October 25, 2019 @
11:48 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:sdduuuude [quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]For someone that doesn’t support Trump, you sure do put a lot of effort into criticizing his opponents.
[/quote]
When you are losing badly, people who criticize you are not necessarily your enemy. They are significantly more helpful than those saying “Doing great ! Keep it up! (Thumbs Up Emoji Here)”[/quote]
Sure, on a topic of Trump impeachment and misdeeds, it’s very helpful to criticize those who would have him account.
It’s as logical as claiming those who criticize America, don’t love America (the Squad). It’s what I call Fox reasoning.[/quote]
What I said is exactly the opposite of “claiming those who criticize America don’t Love America.” So, thanks for your support of my comment.[/quote]
Yeah, I get that. My logic is that your context doesn’t make sense.
Would you agree that the Squad are “significantly more helpful” than Republican backers to Trump during the impeachment process?[/quote]
Only if there is an issue with Trump’s approach to his defense and they are criticizing that approach and pointing out better ones.
FlyerInHi
October 25, 2019 @
12:02 PM
sdduuuude wrote:liberal media [quote=sdduuuude]liberal media and Democrats around the world are have been blinded with rage and are not doing what needs to be done to win[/quote]
You said this. I take it to mean that you think Democrats should overlook abuse of power and violations of the law and focus instead on 2020. However, Allan Lichtman said impeaching Clinton was a win for Republicans. So I don’t think Democrats are on the wrong political path.
More importantly, how about you pick apart the legal strategy and give tips to Democrats on how secure impeachment and win the Senate Trial?
sdduuuude
October 25, 2019 @
12:03 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:… I take it [quote=FlyerInHi]… I take it to mean that you think Democrats should overlook abuse of power and violations of the law and focus instead on 2020.[/quote]
That’s because you like to put words in people’s mouths and don’t really hear what is being said.
FlyerInHi
October 25, 2019 @
12:07 PM
We are not mind readers. We are not mind readers. Please tell us. What do Democrats need to win. And what exactly is the “win” you refer to.
sdduuuude
October 25, 2019 @
12:15 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:And what [quote=FlyerInHi]And what exactly is the “win” you refer to.[/quote]
Pretty much anything at this point.
FlyerInHi
October 25, 2019 @
12:39 PM
sdduuuude wrote:FlyerInHi [quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi]And what exactly is the “win” you refer to.[/quote]
Pretty much anything at this point.[/quote]
As I expected. I take this last statement to mean that you don’t want to be “significantly more helpful” anymore, not in a straight forward way, only in a round about way. of course, you will claim that I’m putting words in your month.
As Trump may say in jest , you’re worse than a woman. How about that? How ‘bout that?
I hate to break it to you, but in communications you need to be clear or clarify so your point is well taken. That’s why people use PR departments otherwise the listener could misunderstand and misinterpret. And when you learn a new language the first thing the teacher will tell you is “it doesn’t matter If you make mistakes. Just speak in a way the listener will understand.”
zk
October 25, 2019 @
1:31 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:sdduuuude [quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi]And what exactly is the “win” you refer to.[/quote]
Pretty much anything at this point.[/quote]
As I expected. I take this last statement to mean that you don’t want to be “significantly more helpful” anymore, not in a straight forward way, only in a round about way. of course, you will claim that I’m putting words in your month.
As Trump may say in jest , you’re worse than a woman. How about that? How ‘bout that?
I hate to break it to you, but in communications you need to be clear or clarify so your point is well taken. That’s why people use PR departments otherwise the listener could misunderstand and misinterpret. And when you learn a new language the first thing the teacher will tell you is “it doesn’t matter If you make mistakes. Just speak in a way the listener will understand.”[/quote]
Jesus, Brian. The duuuude keeps showing you where you’ve put words in his mouth. And you keep doing it. You’re out of control.
Really, Brian. You’re getting so tiresome on all these threads. You’re like that guy at a party, when two or three or four people are having a nice conversation, and some loud guy who thinks he’s charming and brilliant- but is actually strident and kind of an idiot – shows up and takes over the conversation and ruins it for everybody else. If you’re as refined as you claim to be, you wouldn’t do that at a real party. Why do it here?
FlyerInHi
October 25, 2019 @
1:59 PM
Zk, maybe I am an ass. But Zk, maybe I am an ass. But is that the point of contention?
Sddude claimed he was “significantly more helpful” to Democrats. I am attempting to show that he isn’t helpful especially in the context of impeachment.
I didn’t put words in his mouth. I explained how I interpreted his words and gave him the opportunity to clarify.
How do you interpret this in the context of this thread and after shoveler said “much to do about nothing” ?
[quote=sdduuuude]liberal media and Democrats around the world are have been blinded with rage and are not doing what needs to be done to win[/quote]
Maybe I’m an idiot, but I understand this to mean that impeachment is not the right course of action. The 2020 ballot boxes are. A point made by another poster. And also a right wing media talking point.
sdduuuude
October 25, 2019 @
2:39 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:Sddude [quote=FlyerInHi]Sddude claimed he was “significantly more helpful” to Democrats.[/quote]
Here let me help the way you want me to help:
You’re doin’ great buddy ! Keep it up !
FlyerInHi
October 25, 2019 @
2:48 PM
sdduuuude wrote:FlyerInHi [quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi]Sddude claimed he was “significantly more helpful” to Democrats.[/quote]
Here let me help the way you want me to help:
You’re doin’ great buddy ! Keep it up ![/quote]
Now, you’re putting word in my mouth.
But let me clarify. Please tell us. Should democrats move forward with the impeachment inquiry? Why? Or why not? That would be very helpful. Thank you!
sdduuuude
October 25, 2019 @
3:47 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:sdduuuude [quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi]Sddude claimed he was “significantly more helpful” to Democrats.[/quote]
Here let me help the way you want me to help:
You’re doin’ great buddy ! Keep it up ![/quote]
Now, you’re putting word in my mouth.
But let me clarify. Please tell us. Should democrats move forward with the impeachment inquiry? Why? Or why not? That would be very helpful. Thank you![/quote]
Now that they started, of course they should finish. I’m not sure they should have started, though because what they claimed was the smoking gun (the phone conversation) doesn’t seem enough to me. Maybe they have other ammo we don’t know about and they are good to go. Maybe they succumbed to the pressure of their constituents too early. Time will tell.
Maybe they are so scared of losing the election they figured an impeachment was the only hope – the high risk option.
To “win” – the faith of the people, the election, the patience to put up with an impeachment trial, whatever – the Dems have to convince the people that they will be better off under a Democratic president. If people are feeling better off under Trump, they don’t care if Trump is an ass or a criminal. If you keep trying to convince them he is an ass and a criminal you are wasting your time because they already know it and just don’t care. I am not talking about me. I am talking about voters.
If people are feeling less well-off under Trump, Fox News aint gonna convince them that Trump is worth keeping. If they are feeling well off, they are going to use Fox News as an excuse to say “he isn’t really an ass or a criminal” just so they feel better about being well off.
The Dems are so emotional about pointing out how awful Trump is, they forget to address the fact that people are feeling the effects of a strong economy. That is what you are fighting. That is why people support him.
I’ll say it again – voters don’t care if Trump is an ass or a criminal and you aren’t impressing anyone with your brilliant insights, or swaying anyone to your side when you point out that he is. In fact, you just add to the overwhelming amount of attention that he gets, which is exactly what he wants.
sdduuuude
October 25, 2019 @
4:04 PM
Furthermore, the sense of Furthermore, the sense of righteousness the Dems are showing is just as disingenuous as the Republicans in the Clinton impeachment. Republicans didn’t care if Clinton was involved in any hanky panky. They just saw an opportunity.
Same with the Dems now. They don’t care if the President broke the law or not. They just want him out so they don’t lose to him again. I am sure there are many people in the US who want him out because they feel a criminal should not be president and they just don’t like the guy. Maybe for those people there is some sense of righteousness, But, the Democratic Party taking this on don’t care if he is a criminal or not. They just want to prove he did something that justifies impeachment.
FlyerInHi
October 25, 2019 @
5:25 PM
How do you know Democrats How do you know Democrats don’t care? Or are you putting thoughts into their brains? Perhaps you have a context from which you draw that conclusion.
Nancy Pelosi who controls the process has resisted impeachment again and again and again.
FlyerInHi
October 25, 2019 @
10:53 PM
sdduuuude wrote:Furthermore, [quote=sdduuuude]Furthermore, the sense of righteousness the Dems are showing is just as disingenuous as the Republicans in the Clinton impeachment. Republicans didn’t care if Clinton was involved in any hanky panky. They just saw an opportunity.[/quote]
Here is the low-down. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong:
Ken Starr was appointed to investigate Whitewater (no impeachable offense was found)…. that led to the discovery of the Monica affair then perjury about the affair, obstruction of justice and abuse of power related to the affair, and finally impeachment.
The independent counsel law expired so one can’t investigate Trump. FYI, Mueller was a special counsel working under the Trump nominated Attorney General.
Now, with Trump; he likely committed impeachable offenses already. He may commit further offenses if he lies, obstructs and abuses power. We will see.
Pelosi has narrowed the impeachment inquiry to Ukraine.
However, Congress may later expand the inquiry to look at other matters, such as Stormy Daniels, Russia, Trump’s businesses, campaign finance, etc…
Precedent would only make it fair for Trump to be impeached for any of the offenses Clinton was impeached for. Ultimately, it would be for the Senate to decide if the gravity of the offenses merits removal from office.
edit:
This is the Clinton abuse of power charge.
So failing to respond to the committee, lying, or misleading is abuse of power which a president can be impeached for
D. Article IV–Abuse of Power………………………… 76
1. The President abused his power by refusing and failing to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false, and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him by
the Committee
Coronita
October 25, 2019 @
11:39 PM
sdduuuude wrote:Furthermore, [quote=sdduuuude]Furthermore, the sense of righteousness the Dems are showing is just as disingenuous as the Republicans in the Clinton impeachment. Republicans didn’t care if Clinton was involved in any hanky panky. They just saw an opportunity.
Same with the Dems now. They don’t care if the President broke the law or not. They just want him out so they don’t lose to him again. I am sure there are many people in the US who want him out because they feel a criminal should not be president and they just don’t like the guy. Maybe for those people there is some sense of righteousness, But, the Democratic Party taking this on don’t care if he is a criminal or not. They just want to prove he did something that justifies impeachment.[/quote]
Democrats are not going to win with Warren. Case closed..Even many of the elitist and corporate left leaning entities have already went on record saying if Warren is the D candidate, they will sit out this election or even consider backing Trump. That’s just nuts… Look what Google and Facebook founders are doing and who they are backing. Definitely not Warren…All Warren will do is end up fracturing the Democrat base just like Trump did.. And maybe that will be a good thing. Maybe the moderate D’s and moderate R’s will get fed up with both parties and form a third one that is more rational and leave the old D and R parties to the far left and right nutjobs that really don’t represent the majority of the population…. maybe….
The-Shoveler
October 26, 2019 @
8:50 AM
flu wrote: Maybe the moderate [quote=flu] Maybe the moderate D’s and moderate R’s will get fed up with both parties and form a third one that is more rational and leave the old D and R parties to the far left and right nutjobs that really don’t represent the majority of the population[/quote]
+1
I think zk described it fairly well.
FlyerInHi
October 25, 2019 @
6:55 PM
sdduuuude wrote:FlyerInHi [quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi]Sddude claimed he was “significantly more helpful” to Democrats.[/quote]
Here let me help the way you want me to help:
You’re doin’ great buddy ! Keep it up ![/quote]
Now, you’re putting word in my mouth.
But let me clarify. Please tell us. Should democrats move forward with the impeachment inquiry? Why? Or why not? That would be very helpful. Thank you![/quote]
Now that they started, of course they should finish. I’m not sure they should have started, though because what they claimed was the smoking gun (the phone conversation) doesn’t seem enough to me. Maybe they have other ammo we don’t know about and they are good to go. Maybe they succumbed to the pressure of their constituents too early. Time will tell.
Maybe they are so scared of losing the election they figured an impeachment was the only hope – the high risk option.
To “win” – the faith of the people, the election, the patience to put up with an impeachment trial, whatever – the Dems have to convince the people that they will be better off under a Democratic president. If people are feeling better off under Trump, they don’t care if Trump is an ass or a criminal. If you keep trying to convince them he is an ass and a criminal you are wasting your time because they already know it and just don’t care. I am not talking about me. I am talking about voters.
If people are feeling less well-off under Trump, Fox News aint gonna convince them that Trump is worth keeping. If they are feeling well off, they are going to use Fox News as an excuse to say “he isn’t really an ass or a criminal” just so they feel better about being well off.
The Dems are so emotional about pointing out how awful Trump is, they forget to address the fact that people are feeling the effects of a strong economy. That is what you are fighting. That is why people support him.
I’ll say it again – voters don’t care if Trump is an ass or a criminal and you aren’t impressing anyone with your brilliant insights, or swaying anyone to your side when you point out that he is. In fact, you just add to the overwhelming amount of attention that he gets, which is exactly what he wants.[/quote]
Thanks for elaborating. I don’t know where to begin. And I wish I had the time to answer each point like zk does so well.
Just saying….there are lots of assumptions and/or presumptions here. However, I’m ok with assumptions because context matters. I’m going to take a run at the park, and maybe I’ll reply later.
Just one thing for now:
[quote=sdduuuude]
The Dems are so emotional about pointing out how awful Trump is [/quote]
How do you know?
FlyerInHi
October 25, 2019 @
2:55 PM
BTW, ZK, you’re too nice. BTW, ZK, you’re too nice. You admitted where you went wrong and duudde liked it. How very nice!
To add to your point on right wing media, another thing they do is excoriate those who criticize them (eg the squad) for being un-American. But they can criticize because they are so patriotic and helpful. So helpful that you can’t really see it. Even if the recipients don’t see the help, they are very helpful. It’s like tough love. See the pattern there.
I believe it’s more helpful to focus on the underhanded tactics of right wing media. People don’t like it when you tell them they are influenced by the media, even if it’s true. They want to keep the myth of their own free will.
Another pattern: To the right wing, “liberal media and Democrats are blinded with rage”. But, oh, no, right wing media is so very benign. Not a big deal.
Rich Toscano
October 26, 2019 @
7:45 AM
zk wrote:If you’re as refined [quote=zk]If you’re as refined as you claim to be, you wouldn’t do that at a real party. Why do it here?[/quote]
I suspect he doesn’t get invited to many parties.
Coronita
October 26, 2019 @
8:26 AM
zk wrote:FlyerInHi [quote=zk][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi]And what exactly is the “win” you refer to.[/quote]
Pretty much anything at this point.[/quote]
As I expected. I take this last statement to mean that you don’t want to be “significantly more helpful” anymore, not in a straight forward way, only in a round about way. of course, you will claim that I’m putting words in your month.
As Trump may say in jest , you’re worse than a woman. How about that? How ‘bout that?
I hate to break it to you, but in communications you need to be clear or clarify so your point is well taken. That’s why people use PR departments otherwise the listener could misunderstand and misinterpret. And when you learn a new language the first thing the teacher will tell you is “it doesn’t matter If you make mistakes. Just speak in a way the listener will understand.”[/quote]
Jesus, Brian. The duuuude keeps showing you where you’ve put words in his mouth. And you keep doing it. You’re out of control.
Really, Brian. You’re getting so tiresome on all these threads. You’re like that guy at a party, when two or three or four people are having a nice conversation, and some loud guy who thinks he’s charming and brilliant- but is actually strident and kind of an idiot – shows up and takes over the conversation and ruins it for everybody else. If you’re as refined as you claim to be, you wouldn’t do that at a real party. Why do it here?[/quote]
Holy shit. I missed the evolution of this thread…. I unplug from piggs a few days to catch up on life errands, home improvements, work, and car improvements, and it looks like a nuclear bomb was dropped here. What happened here? someone give me the cliff notes version. I don’t want to look at 3 pages of history.
Coronita
October 26, 2019 @
8:26 AM
zk wrote:FlyerInHi [quote=zk][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi]And what exactly is the “win” you refer to.[/quote]
Pretty much anything at this point.[/quote]
As I expected. I take this last statement to mean that you don’t want to be “significantly more helpful” anymore, not in a straight forward way, only in a round about way. of course, you will claim that I’m putting words in your month.
As Trump may say in jest , you’re worse than a woman. How about that? How ‘bout that?
I hate to break it to you, but in communications you need to be clear or clarify so your point is well taken. That’s why people use PR departments otherwise the listener could misunderstand and misinterpret. And when you learn a new language the first thing the teacher will tell you is “it doesn’t matter If you make mistakes. Just speak in a way the listener will understand.”[/quote]
Jesus, Brian. The duuuude keeps showing you where you’ve put words in his mouth. And you keep doing it. You’re out of control.
Really, Brian. You’re getting so tiresome on all these threads. You’re like that guy at a party, when two or three or four people are having a nice conversation, and some loud guy who thinks he’s charming and brilliant- but is actually strident and kind of an idiot – shows up and takes over the conversation and ruins it for everybody else. If you’re as refined as you claim to be, you wouldn’t do that at a real party. Why do it here?[/quote]
Holy shit. I missed the evolution of this thread…. I unplug from piggs a few days to catch up on life errands, home improvements, work, and car improvements, and it looks like a nuclear bomb was dropped here. What happened here? someone give me the cliff notes version. I don’t want to look at 3 pages of history.
FlyerInHi
October 26, 2019 @
10:34 AM
Here’s how I see it Flu. Here’s how I see it Flu.
Someone pulls rank and says this. He even pulls up dictionary definitions of assume and presume. Tells people not to do it.
[quote=sdduuuude]
And I have a graduate degree in economics from that one college all the kids are getting rejected from. So when you say that the right-wing media is forming my opinions for me you are both wrong and insulting. When you say it to anyone, you are likely wrong and insulting.[/quote]
Then he most recently said this about Democrats.
[quote=sdduuuude]They don’t care if the President broke the law or not. They just want him out so they don’t lose to him again [/quote]
flu, you like to pull rank too. So let your fancy degree help you figure things out.
When i went to school, I was taught that to calculate NPR, IRR, etc. you have to make a very important assumption. The better the assumption, the better the result.
To me, ZK’s statements about the right wing media influencing people are very benign and accurate in general. It actually is very kind and not presumptious at all because it gives people an excuse and an out. It compares favorably to this:
[quote=sdduuuude]liberal media and Democrats around the world are have been blinded with rage and are not doing what needs to be done to win[/quote]
I popped into Piggington for the first time in a couple years to check on the housing market. I am looking to Refi out of my construction debt because my new owner-built house in CV has passed final inspection. You know our realtor. You should have him bring you by to see the place. It is special.
In doing so, I saw zk respond to Shoveler’s assessment of the Trump phone call with something like “you let Fox convince you it is much to do about nothing.” Having been so accused of that myself by her the last time I was on the Piggs, I felt it necessary to call her out. Although she holds onto her belief that FN is heavily influencing the American people, I think she now understands, admirably, that accusing Piggs of not being able to form their own opinions isn’t a good idea.
Using many more words that I should have, I pointed out that jumping up and down and shouting “that’s what Fox News said” is not an good argument nor a winning strategy for the Dems or Piggs. Nor is continuing to point out what an awful person Trump is, in light of the fact that people are feeling good about the economy.
I also said the phone call didn’t seem to be the nail in the coffin of the trump administration, although maybe other evidence will surface.
“Team liberal” took this to mean that I am a Trump supporter, which I am not, rather than an outsider assessing the situation fairly objectively, which I am.
Also, Brian and burgMan think our degrees are fancy. I think our degrees are more like heavy construction equipment. Very powerful, very practical, and not really fancy at all.
See you in a couple years.
– sdduuuude –
P.S. speaking of “pulling rank” I am at 13 years, 49 weeks. I think only Rich is “older” at 14 years, 1 week.
Thanks, Rich for 14 years of awesomeness.
FlyerInHi
October 28, 2019 @
11:10 AM
On a thread about Trump On a thread about Trump impeachment, we’re not supposed to talk about how bad Trump Is?
The point is not to win over voters who are feeling good about the economy, but to hold Trump accountable for his crimes.
It’s like saying “let’s not prosecute someone because it’s not popular.” I know you didn’t literally say that.
Our ideas are not original. We get them from somewhere. ZK’s point is that right wing media is very influential. People absorb those ideas even if not directly from Fox.
Case in point, google search bias originated from Russian media. It’s false.
[quote=sdduuuude]that accusing Piggs of not being able to form their own opinions isn’t a good idea.
[/quote]
Nobody said that. You assume or presume.
If you claim to have an advance degree in economics from the school kids are being rejected, why not take down the policies? You should be able to point out exactly what is to be feared in Elizabeth Warren’s plan developed by Berkeley economists. You can do better than this invective:
[quote=sdduuuude]
One of the recurring theme of the Democratic party is the revialism of socialism under the guise of a democracy.
It is very widespread and there are recent examples of it right here on this forum.
These idease are definitely promoted by CNN.
Involuntary Socialism sucks and should be feared, even if Fox News says so.[/quote]
PCinSD
October 28, 2019 @
6:19 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:On a thread [quote=FlyerInHi]On a thread about Trump impeachment, we’re not supposed to talk about how bad Trump Is?
The point is not to win over voters who are feeling good about the economy, but to hold Trump accountable for his crimes.
It’s like saying “let’s not prosecute someone because it’s not popular.” I know you didn’t literally say that.
Our ideas are not original. We get them from somewhere. ZK’s point is that right wing media is very influential. People absorb those ideas even if not directly from Fox.
Case in point, google search bias originated from Russian media. It’s false.
[quote=sdduuuude]that accusing Piggs of not being able to form their own opinions isn’t a good idea.
[/quote]
Nobody said that. You assume or presume.
If you claim to have an advance degree in economics from the school kids are being rejected, why not take down the policies? You should be able to point out exactly what is to be feared in Elizabeth Warren’s plan developed by Berkeley economists. You can do better than this invective:
[quote=sdduuuude]
One of the recurring theme of the Democratic party is the revialism of socialism under the guise of a democracy.
It is very widespread and there are recent examples of it right here on this forum.
These idease are definitely promoted by CNN.
Involuntary Socialism sucks and should be feared, even if Fox News says so.[/quote][/quote]
I trust people that are failed real estate bloggers, previously banned posters, pilots based in Waikiki, and imaginary landlords.
NOT THAT THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
FlyerInHi
October 28, 2019 @
7:03 PM
You assume a lot.
I will go You assume a lot.
I will go out on a limb and that you also don’t trust the failing New York Times and Washington Post that Trump banned from all federal agencies.
Coronita
October 28, 2019 @
9:12 PM
sdduuuude wrote:FLU,
I will [quote=sdduuuude]FLU,
I will fill you in.
I popped into Piggington for the first time in a couple years to check on the housing market. I am looking to Refi out of my construction debt because my new owner-built house in CV has passed final inspection. You know our realtor. You should have him bring you by to see the place. It is special.
In doing so, I saw zk respond to Shoveler’s assessment of the Trump phone call with something like “you let Fox convince you it is much to do about nothing.” Having been so accused of that myself by her the last time I was on the Piggs, I felt it necessary to call her out. Although she holds onto her belief that FN is heavily influencing the American people, I think she now understands, admirably, that accusing Piggs of not being able to form their own opinions isn’t a good idea.
Using many more words that I should have, I pointed out that jumping up and down and shouting “that’s what Fox News said” is not an good argument nor a winning strategy for the Dems or Piggs. Nor is continuing to point out what an awful person Trump is, in light of the fact that people are feeling good about the economy.
I also said the phone call didn’t seem to be the nail in the coffin of the trump administration, although maybe other evidence will surface.
“Team liberal” took this to mean that I am a Trump supporter, which I am not, rather than an outsider assessing the situation fairly objectively, which I am.
Also, Brian and burgMan think our degrees are fancy. I think our degrees are more like heavy construction equipment. Very powerful, very practical, and not really fancy at all.
See you in a couple years.
– sdduuuude –
P.S. speaking of “pulling rank” I am at 13 years, 49 weeks. I think only Rich is “older” at 14 years, 1 week.
Thanks, Rich for 14 years of awesomeness.[/quote]
Your house is awesome. only you could have pulled it off to put it together. Well done.
Lol. I never thought much of my degree until Brian started to wave the elitist progressive flag and started to comment about the importance of being , scholarly, well educated, etc etc etc… Admitedly I then started to flaunt my pedigree degree from pedigree Ivy League school pretty much to make a mockery of the entire thing. I knew my ivy league degree was good for something!
zk
October 23, 2019 @
1:02 PM
sdduuuude wrote:
zk [quote=sdduuuude]
[quote=zk]
You think that every single politician (except possibly Carter) in the country is as mendacious and nonsensical as donald trump?[/quote]
No, but just as disingenuous, only better at hiding it.”
[/quote]
Your cynicism is not supported by any arguments or evidence that I can see. Yes, a lot of politicians are disingenuous. Most of them are to some degree. Most people are to at least some small degree some of the time. But to say that every single politician is as every bit as disingenuous as trump is to ignore the many politicians who are normal people with normal levels of disingenuousness. Donald trump clearly displays an abnormal (and outrageous) level of disengenousness.
[quote=sdduuuude]
I didn’t look up mendacious 🙂
[/quote]
It means lies a lot. Clearly trump lies more than most politicians who ever lived.
[quote=zk]We’re going to have to agree to disagree on that.[/quote]
[quote=sdduuuude]
I could get behind that agreement as long as we agree that the left side propaganda machine has as much effect as the right.
[/quote]
Not a chance. (see below)
[quote=sdduuuude]
There are two highly biased propaganda machines out there. If you don’t see them both, you have been fooled by one.
[/quote]
That sounds pithy and everything, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.
[quote=sdduuuude]
See – I can do it to: If not because of CNN propaganda, how else could people possibly believe that it is OK to force grocery stores to stop giving me free plastic bags, that forced recycling does anyone any good, that increasing minimum wage is good for poor people,
[/quote]
This list: people agreeing that it’s ok to force grocery stores to stop giving you free plastic bags, and agreeing that recycling does anyone any good, and agreeing that increasing minimum wage is good for poor people – all opinions that many reasonable people could easily come to without propaganda – doesn’t compare with the below list. The following are all believed by millions of right-wingers:
Muslims are covertly implementing sharia law in American courts
Obama is a muslim.
Obama was born in Kenya.
Hillary acted illegally and treasonously regarding Uranium One.
Hillary was involved in a pedophile ring.
George Soros paid women to attend anti-trump march.
Sandy Hook was a hoax.
Democrats want an open-border immigration policy.
Millions of illegal votes were cast in 2016
Those lists seem quite different to me, and are testament to the power of the right-wing propaganda machine.
[quote=sdduuuude]
and that uneducated white males put Trump in office (I actually heard this on CNN on election night)
[/quote]
Depending on how you interpret “put trump in office” that isn’t at all absurd. Uneducated white males voted mostly for trump, and if they hadn’t, the outcome could easily been different.
[quote=sdduuuude]
and that means Trump is a racist – even though uneducated black males put Obama in office and Obama is not a racist.
[/quote]
I’m not aware of anybody who thinks trump is a racist for that reason. There are plenty of other reasons to think that.
[quote=zk]… assaulted women, … and stolen throughout his career.[/quote]
[quote=sdduuuude]
You are stating this as a fact. As these are clearly crimes, and he hasn’t been been convicted of these beyond a shadow of a doubt, I believe they are only claims. That you state them as facts when there is no proof – seems very “propaganda-ish” to me.
[/quote]
You’re missing the point. The point isn’t that he’s been proven to do these things beyond a reasonable doubt. The point is that the perception was that he had assaulted women and cheated and stolen throughout his career (and cheated on all his wives) and that, before fox, the party of family values wouldn’t have elected such a man.
[quote=sdduuuude]
My final point on the matter is that your argument seems to be “There are millions of people who disagree with me, therefore they have been tricked by propaganda.”
[/quote]
That isn’t and has never been my point. I never said or implied or meant that “they disagree with me, therefore they have been tricked by propaganda.” I have been saying all along that they have been lied to, manipulated, and convinced of untrue things. I say that they must have been tricked by propaganda because they believe things that are clearly not true.
[quote=sdduuuude]
Next time you hear something that you don’t agree with, try contesting it with a rational argument, which you are clearly capable of doing, instead of accusing them of saying the same thing as Fox, which drags you down a level.
[/quote]
I can do both. I can (and I do) say: “part of what’s wrong with your argument is that you’re not starting with the truth.” And then show them where there false beliefs are. It seems to shed some light on the situation to add, at that point, “and the reason you aren’t starting with the truth is because you’ve been manipulated by right-wing propaganda.” If a person can become aware that their sources are not reliable, perhaps they can, in the future, find better sources. And then we can agree to disagree each using arguments that started with truths (but whose conclusions still differ).
If your kid holds some crazy belief, and you find out they got that belief from their crazy uncle who believes all kinds of nonsense, it only makes sense to tell the kid that that uncle is full of shit and not to believe him anymore.
Also, you don’t debate him while letting him start with untruths. “Uncle Bob told me that 2+2=5, Dad, and therefore my teacher, who thinks 2+2=4, is full of shit and I won’t listen to her anymore.” You can’t discuss the situation with the kid without first telling him that 2+2 does, in fact, equal 4. Then you add, “and don’t believe what your Uncle Bob says anymore. Especially if you don’t want to go around sounding like an idiot.”
sdduuuude
October 23, 2019 @
3:34 PM
zk wrote:If your kid holds [quote=zk]If your kid holds some crazy belief, and you find out they got that belief from their crazy uncle who believes all kinds of nonsense.[/quote]
If I actually found out that they did get that belief from a crazy uncle, it would make sense.
But you never actually found out if people came to a belief due to Fox News or not. You simply assumed they did.
FlyerInHi
October 23, 2019 @
3:44 PM
I think that ZK has been too I think that ZK has been too kind. Giving too much credence to the right wing media excuses a lot of deplorable behavior. It would rather hold people personally responsible for what they do or believe, regardless of where they get their information.
outtamojo
October 23, 2019 @
4:04 PM
Mob speak results in Mob speak results in republicans storming scif with personal electronics to protest lack of transparency even though 45 house republicans are already in the room. What fools!
FlyerInHi
October 23, 2019 @
4:14 PM
outtamojo wrote:Mob speak [quote=outtamojo]Mob speak results in republicans storming scif with personal electronics to protest lack of transparency even though 45 house republicans are already in the room. What fools![/quote]
Yeah, the committee chairmen are really having private testimony to protect what’s left of our longstanding Ukraine policy against Russian aggression. All the secrets revealed in public would only benefit Putin and eviscerate US diplomacy.
Putin has gotten many wins this past week.
zk
October 23, 2019 @
4:16 PM
dup dup
Hobie
October 14, 2019 @
6:56 PM
burghMan wrote:There is only [quote=burghMan]There is only one reason people are triggered about junior congressional representatives for districts that are nowhere near them[/quote]
Naa, people noticed AOC because she has a nice rack and fresh face. After she presented her new green policy, we see her as just nuts. That’s it.
scaredyclassic
October 14, 2019 @
7:06 PM
Be nice to see Giuliani in Be nice to see Giuliani in jail. Would be a tough client. The thought of representing Rudy gives me a headache ….
FlyerInHi
October 15, 2019 @
11:31 AM
Hobie wrote:burghMan [quote=Hobie][quote=burghMan]There is only one reason people are triggered about junior congressional representatives for districts that are nowhere near them[/quote]
Naa, people noticed AOC because she has a nice rack and fresh face. After she presented her new green policy, we see her as just nuts. That’s it.[/quote]
As Trump would say….. they’re just jealous. I mean just look at the women at Trump rallies. Look at them! That’s why they have to pick on AOC
Anyway if the right can use AOC to paint Democrats, why can’t we use the deplorables to paint Republicans. I mean, yeah, the deplorables were the marginal voters who got Trump into office.
I agree with Trump in one respect. If someone hits you, you strike back 10 times as hard. Liberals are wusses. That’s why we lose elections.
scaredyclassic
October 16, 2019 @
10:47 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:Hobie [quote=FlyerInHi][quote=Hobie][quote=burghMan]There is only one reason people are triggered about junior congressional representatives for districts that are nowhere near them[/quote]
Naa, people noticed AOC because she has a nice rack and fresh face. After she presented her new green policy, we see her as just nuts. That’s it.[/quote]
As Trump would say….. they’re just jealous. I mean just look at the women at Trump rallies. Look at them! That’s why they have to pick on AOC
Anyway if the right can use AOC to paint Democrats, why can’t we use the deplorables to paint Republicans. I mean, yeah, the deplorables were the marginal voters who got Trump into office.
I agree with Trump in one respect. If someone hits you, you strike back 10 times as hard. Liberals are wusses. That’s why we lose elections.[/quote]
Why are there no fake photos of naked trump circulating on facebook?
burghMan
October 16, 2019 @
11:12 AM
scaredyclassic wrote:
Why are [quote=scaredyclassic]
Why are there no fake photos of naked trump circulating on facebook?[/quote]
Maybe there are. Are you brave enough to look for them?
These ideas are definitely promoted by Fox News. Few people in America would even know who “AOC” was if it weren’t for for Fox News. Because of the reach of the right wing media, there are guys in Temecula upset about about a junior congresswoman from The Bronx.[/quote]
See, I can rework your quote:
[quote=nobody]One of the recurring themes in the Democratic party is the hysterical fear of Trump. It’s very widespread and there are recent examples of it right here on this forum:
(anything by ZK)
These ideas are definitely promoted by CNN. Few people in America would even know who (Trump’s attorney, president of Ukraine, etc) was if it weren’t for for CNN News. Because of the reach of the left wing media, there are guys in San Diego upset about about a (Trump Minion).[/quote]
Your answer would be “No. I dislike Trump because of X, Y, and Z. It is obvious that Trump is awful. I don’t need CNN to tell me that.”
And that would be a fair answer and you should yell at me for suggesting that your opinion was not formed on your own.
Hobie
October 14, 2019 @
1:50 PM
If socialism is such a good If socialism is such a good idea, they why is Venezuela and Cuba in the state they are? Who is pointing out its failures?
I look to our education system that is not teaching how to properly compare and contrast our system of capitalism vs. socialism.
It may have something to do with that the teachers are paid by government and protected by tenure.
Might have a different view if they pay was tied to their effectiveness of teaching across the board in all subjects.
outtamojo
October 14, 2019 @
2:11 PM
Hobie wrote:If socialism is [quote=Hobie]If socialism is such a good idea, they why is Venezuela and Cuba in the state they are? Who is pointing out its failures?
I look to our education system that is not teaching how to properly compare and contrast our system of capitalism vs. socialism.
It may have something to do with that the teachers are paid by government and protected by tenure.
Might have a different view if they pay was tied to their effectiveness of teaching across the board in all subjects.[/quote]
Banker bailout- was that socialist or not?
The-Shoveler
October 14, 2019 @
2:44 PM
We need a public option for We need a public option for health care, but beyond water, roads, schools and utilities etc.., socialism is a horrible idea IMO.
burghMan
October 14, 2019 @
3:08 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:We need a [quote=The-Shoveler]We need a public option for health care, but beyond water, roads, schools and utilities etc.., socialism is a horrible idea IMO.[/quote]
In other words, socialism is good except when it’s not.
I’m not defending or advocating true socialism. My point is that nobody in either of the major parties is really is either. Even though Bernie Sanders may label himself a socialist, his definition of socialism is not anywhere close to what a complete socialist command economy looks like (e.g. Venezuela Cuba, NK, etc.)
There are really no socialists in our government and there are no credible socialist candidates running for office. The only real fiscal difference between the parties is a relatively small difference in spending on already existing social programs like Medicare. Should we have an even bigger military or give ourselves public healthcare? Both cost money.
Socialism is just a bogeyman used by the the Republicans to demonize ideas like public option that are very worthy of consideration. It’s incredible how many are frightened by this myth.
Corruption and foreign influence, however, is real. And is a serious risk to our democracy. Which reminds me…. why has no one attempted to answer my previous question that is more relevant to this thread…
What was Giuliani doing in Ukraine?
sdduuuude
October 14, 2019 @
3:52 PM
burghMan wrote:I’m not [quote=burghMan]I’m not defending or advocating true socialism. My point is that nobody in either of the major parties is really is either …
There are really no socialists in our government and there are no credible socialist candidates running for office[/quote]
I think many politicians, both Republican and Democrat, but more Democrat, push agendas that fall under socialism – more and more as time goes by it seems. It is disconcerting at best. This is based on my education in economics, not based on Fox News just in case you make the mistake of assuming that again.
Hobie
October 14, 2019 @
2:46 PM
Weak, kind sir. Please don’t Weak, kind sir. Please don’t conflate an entire system of governance with a perceived, ‘socialist’ program executed within our republic.
And, no. Banks should have been allowed to fail and the chips fall where they may. The people who perpetrated that mess would have all be taken down.
outtamojo
October 14, 2019 @
3:17 PM
Then less howl please when Then less howl please when socialism is discussed as it is clear we conflate what we want to conflate when it us to our advantage and seek to deny the benefits of conflating to others whenever we can.
FlyerInHi
October 14, 2019 @
8:31 PM
I wonder why Trumpistas who I wonder why Trumpistas who believe at the core that socialism is so bad are so afraid of China, especially Made in China 2025. If economic planning is so bad, then let the Chinese do it and fail on their own. Why is Trump trying so hard to make China give up a policy that he is so sure is unsustainable?
And why is Trump forcing the Chinese state to buy US agricultural products? Shouldn’t we let Chinese private businesses organically place the orders based on supply and demand, at their own pace?
FlyerInHi
October 14, 2019 @
8:54 PM
Yeah people form their own Yeah people form their own opinions, but Fox and Trump reinforce those opinions and those people think it’s OK to have such opinions.
Certain opinions are not OK. Just think of your relatives and friends. You would not want to be associated with people of deplorable behavior and character. BTW, social disapprobation is the conservative/traditional way of enforcing a civil society.
Now conservatives claim they hate PC culture because it prevents them from “saying it like it is”, just like Trump does. But Trumpistas are so sensitive about perceived “cultural elitism”. FYI, elitism use to be the province of conservatives and people of moral and social rectitude.
We have to look down upon deplorables, and anachronistic backward behavior, if we’re to build a society of high standards.
sdduuuude
October 14, 2019 @
10:21 PM
Special delivery for the Special delivery for the Piggs:
A whole truck load of strawmen!
Since I’m neither a Trumpista nor conservative, I’ll let someone else reply to FlyerInHi.
burghMan
October 15, 2019 @
6:22 AM
“Giuliani paid $500K for work “Giuliani paid $500K for work for indicted associate’s firm”
1st runner up in the 1st runner up in the Bearishgrl award for longest post.
scaredyclassic
October 16, 2019 @
3:26 PM
Hobie wrote:1st runner up in [quote=Hobie]1st runner up in the Bearishgrl award for longest post.[/quote]
Maybe, but hes right.
scaredyclassic
October 16, 2019 @
3:28 PM
I can explain I can explain everything.
People are crazy. Like, nuts.
Once you really embrace that, things make more sense.
outtamojo
October 16, 2019 @
3:34 PM
Hobie wrote:1st runner up in [quote=Hobie]1st runner up in the Bearishgrl award for longest post.[/quote]
Difference for me is I read the whole thing and it was coherent.
scaredyclassic
October 16, 2019 @
4:18 PM
I suspect that men with big I suspect that men with big penises are fundamentally psychologically different than men with small penises, like trump.
Women probably dont fully get it.
Women are terrified men will kill them, while men are terrified women will laugh at them.
I think if I’d had a bigger penis, I would have had a different better life.
Trumps behavior may be explicable by small penis syndrome.
If Pelosi really wanted to mess with him, she could make fun of his penis at every meeting. Much more effective than a slow clap … I think hed respect her more too, if she shamed him a bit.
Hey, micro peen. We have your taxes [wave a little CD around] yep, we know everything. We also have photos of your little guy. It’s so itty bitty! If you run for another term, we will run ads with the micro dot on every social media site worldwide.
I was talking to Melania and she told me she cant even tell when it was in.
I have her on tape saying that! We will be airing that ad nationwide! Your base will be laughing, hard. Now, Joe’s got a big one. I’ve seen it. Hes gonna challenge you to whip yours out. You are turning beet red, mr president! The truth hurts?
That’s how u negotiate with a guy like trump. Fight unpredictable crazy with much much crazier.
burghMan
October 16, 2019 @
4:32 PM
scaredyclassic wrote:I [quote=scaredyclassic]I suspect that men with big penises are fundamentally psychologically different than men with small penises, like trump.
Women probably dont fully get it.
Women are terrified men will kill them, while men are terrified women will laugh at them.
I think if I’d had a bigger penis, I would have had a different better life.
Trumps behavior may be explicable by small penis syndrome.
If Pelosi really wanted to mess with him, she could make fun of his penis at every meeting. Much more effective than a slow clap … I think hed respect her more too, if she shamed him a bit.
Hey, micro peen. We have your taxes [wave a little CD around] yep, we know everything. We also have photos of your little guy. It’s so itty bitty! If you run for another term, we will run ads with the micro dot on every social media site worldwide.
I was talking to Melania and she told me she cant even tell when it was in.
I have her on tape saying that! We will be airing that ad nationwide! Your base will be laughing, hard. Now, Joe’s got a big one. I’ve seen it. Hes gonna challenge you to whip yours out. You are turning beet red, mr president! The truth hurts?
That’s how u negotiate with a guy like trump. Fight unpredictable crazy with much much crazier.[/quote]
The candidate that runs against him really needs to do this. Don’t debate him, just mock him incessantly. Don’t try to be smarter or knowledgeable than him, show that he is weak because he is easily ruffled.
At the first debate the other candidate should just ignore every question and use it as a forum to mock trump. Abandon all decorum, ignore the questions, and just hurl personal ridicule. Call him names, make fun of his looks, his manhood, his business failures, everything.
Trump would try to counter but then spiral into a nervous breakdown right on the stage. It would be fun, and historic, to watch.
scaredyclassic
October 17, 2019 @
7:53 AM
Debate notes:
“The founding Debate notes:
“The founding fathers intent is clearly expressed in the constitution which requires that Male president be adult males over 35. Clearly the founders intended a fully matured adult Male with an adult sized penis. Not a micropenis
So I make this challenge to president peewee. Prove to us that your penis is 4 inches or longer and I will concede the election. Otherwise, step aside and allow a normal adult to govern.
Your tiny penis is a national security risk, sir…the founding fathers would be appalled at your lack of manhood.”
Look, he used to bang skanky whores, while was married, no condoms, and one of them, not his current wife, reported his penis was miniature. How is it the Democrats cant figure a way to shove this up his flabby ass? What is there to lose, votes wise, by pwning him mercilessly.
“You sleep with whores, mr president. You pay women money to have sex with you because you are a freak of nature, with deformed genitals.” [Break out a copy of stormy Daniel’s book and toss it toward his podium. Let it lie on the floor till he picks it up].
If trump can loom behind Hillary why cant the dems toss a book.
His base would love it.
“Why cant you show us your penis? Is that being audited too?”
“You lied and said you had bone spurs because you are a small cowardly man. Bone spurs never go away so we know you are a liar. You only had them when it was time to stand up and fight like a man. It’s bad enough you have a micropenis, but you are. Also a yellow bellied lying coward. ”
Although not PC, a bold move here might be to call him a tiny little faggot. I dont think the dems would lose any LGBTQ votes, and it might persuade swing deplorables that a dem can tell it like it is.
You small penised little tiny faggot, you are a rich man who hides his shamefully small manhood behind a pile of cash, like scrooge mcduck.
I’d call him scrooge mcduck, actually. Is that reference too dated?
LBJ used to call his penis Jumbo. What’s your nickname for your penis, sir? Ipod mini?
MAHA.
Make america hung again.
But seriously, isnt pretty much all this military bullshit parades and braggadocio and political posturing a bunch of dick swinging, in reality? Why be coy. If we are going to pretend to be big dicked he men swinging our massive cocks on the world stage, let’s make it explicit and lay our cocks on the table where we can see what we are buying.
[I think this post is longer than zks]
FlyerInHi
October 17, 2019 @
9:04 AM
I’d love for Elizabeth Warren I’d love for Elizabeth Warren to call Trump Scrooge mcduck with a tiny penis. However, delivered by Warren, that would alienate low-education white male voters. It’s always about low-education white males.
burghMan
October 17, 2019 @
9:34 AM
One of Trump’s hand picked One of Trump’s hand picked ambassadors just confirmed the quid pro quo. (This story is the top headline on most outlets, but buried somewhere on Fox News under stories about AOC’s haircut.)
Still no Trump supporters have even tried to explain why Giuliani would have any role in Ukraine foreign policy matters. Why was Trump directing his appointed officials to defer to Giuliani?
It appears that Trump’s downfall ultimately will be that he couldn’t find enough corrupt loyalists willing to completely discard their integrity and duty to country.
How will history play out? Will Trump fall because he blatantly used his power to further his personal interests at the expense of the nation, or will he fall because he gets called out on his tiny dick?
Coronita
October 17, 2019 @
10:05 AM
You guys are way too worried You guys are way too worried about this… Remember… in the worst case scenario he gets term limited out ..
Hmmm Warren or Trump…. Tough call. I’ll abstain. which basically means deep South will prevail….
The-Shoveler
October 17, 2019 @
11:59 AM
Too much effort into Too much effort into something that has a 99% chance of being dropped before it hits the senate floor IMO.
But they will keep it on the house floor at least 6 months IMO, else it will have little value if they cannot keep it in the news.
If the dems want to win, they need to win the hearts and minds of the middle politically (and middle of country as well).
Ukraine not a very big or Ukraine not a very big or capable country but if that is ok,imagine a side deal with Putin and getting access to the full power of the KGB unfettered by American laws. Gotta draw the line somewhere close to lying about an affair.
FlyerInHi
October 17, 2019 @
1:18 PM
The impeachment will not get The impeachment will not get dropped before it gets to the senate. The Senate may not convict but that’s another story.
livinincali
October 17, 2019 @
1:59 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:The [quote=FlyerInHi]The impeachment will not get dropped before it gets to the senate. The Senate may not convict but that’s another story.[/quote]
Tough to say at this point. There’s quite a few at risk freshmen democrat representatives from traditionally republican districts. If we’ve already seen the bulk of the evidence and there isn’t something more, you run the risk of this being viewed as a political stunt that rallies the Republican base.
I think you need something more to bring the middle of the electorate to the position this is serious and he needs to be removed. Otherwise it gets viewed as political partisanship and we want you gone because we don’t like you elections results to be damned. That’s a risky precedent to establish because it can run both ways and really disfranchise the electorate.
If you take away the ballot box option for people you risk a civil war. Nobody should want that no matter how much you hate Trump.
outtamojo
October 17, 2019 @
3:01 PM
The ballot box option in the The ballot box option in the form of the popular vote…yeah talk about a disenfranchised electorate!
FlyerInHi
October 17, 2019 @
4:36 PM
outtamojo wrote:The ballot [quote=outtamojo]The ballot box option in the form of the popular vote…yeah talk about a disenfranchised electorate![/quote]
Yep. Democrats get millions more total votes in congressional and presidential elections.
Regardless of party affiliation, California traitors who support diluting our political power in the USA, should take their asses to Kansas. They aren’t welcome here. We live in first tier cities with first tier GDP. I would think the economic evidence is plain that we do things better than the second rate town.
burghMan
October 17, 2019 @
4:27 PM
livinincali wrote:
Tough to [quote=livinincali]
Tough to say at this point. There’s quite a few at risk freshmen democrat representatives from traditionally republican districts. If we’ve already seen the bulk of the evidence and there isn’t something more, you run the risk of this being viewed as a political stunt that rallies the Republican base.
I think you need something more to bring the middle of the electorate to the position this is serious and he needs to be removed. Otherwise it gets viewed as political partisanship and we want you gone because we don’t like you elections results to be damned. That’s a risky precedent to establish because it can run both ways and really disfranchise the electorate.
If you take away the ballot box option for people you risk a civil war. Nobody should want that no matter how much you hate Trump.[/quote]
It’s interesting that you mention the election of congress in the first paragraph and then the Republican talking point of invalidating an election in the next. The makeup of the legislature is also the result of a democratic process. Why would one elected body be more legitimate than another? Congress also represents “We the People.” We chose them to do a job, and impeachment is in the scope of that job.
But it’s true that Trump has general ignorance of the constitution on his side. He’s literally called for the “impeachment” of members of congress, a concept that simply doesn’t exist in the constitution or any law. Once again it’s “whatever you do to me, I’ll do to you worse!” His entire rhetoric is basically a schoolyard tantrum.
I think the civil war concerns are overstated. Where would the sides really be? What would the Trump side actually be fighting for, a new constitution without an impeachment clause? There could be a few episodes of of PizzaGate style violence but it would fizzle quickly as the “rebels” lost focus and president Pence called for calm. The “war” would mostly take place on social media.
zk
October 18, 2019 @
7:56 PM
livinincali wrote:
If we’ve [quote=livinincali]
If we’ve already seen the bulk of the evidence and there isn’t something more, you run the risk of this being viewed as a political stunt that rallies the Republican base.
[/quote]
Maybe, but only because most of the republican base has been watching too much fox news.
Mulvaney admitted a quid pro quo. Now, of course, he denies it. But it’s all right there on video tape.
[quote=livinincali]
I think you need something more to bring the middle of the electorate to the position this is serious and he needs to be removed. Otherwise it gets viewed as political partisanship and we want you gone because we don’t like you elections results to be damned. That’s a risky precedent to establish because it can run both ways and really disfranchise the electorate.
[/quote]
You might be right. Even after this admission of a quid pro quo, you might need more. But you sure as hell shouldn’t. I think after this admission of a quid pro quo, the middle will be convinced. Only propaganda-addled fanatics (which is, what, 35% of American voters?) will not see the problem. They’ll be convinced by whatever walking back Mulvaney does and the propaganda machine’s support of that walking back.
And our final right-wing talking point du jour from livinincali:
[quote=livinincali]
If you take away the ballot box option for people you risk a civil war. Nobody should want that no matter how much you hate Trump.
[/quote]
Nobody is trying to take away the ballot box from anybody. (Well, except for gerrymanderers, but that’s another story.) Is it your belief that any attempt to hold a president accountable for his high crimes in the white house is taking away the ballot box option? Or is it your belief that extorting political favors from a foreign power for money (something Mulvaney admitted to) is not impeachable? Or do you believe Mulvaney when he says he was misconstrued? Or something else?
FlyerInHi
October 17, 2019 @
1:18 PM
The impeachment will not get The impeachment will not get dropped before it gets to the senate. The Senate may not convict but that’s another story.
FlyerInHi
October 17, 2019 @
1:40 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:
If the [quote=The-Shoveler]
If the dems want to win, they need to win the hearts and minds of the middle politically (and middle of country as well).
2. Sounds like Made in usa 2025. Nah, planning cannot possibly work. Let the free market decide.
By the way the California model works pretty well…. if you don’t like it go to Kansas
The-Shoveler
October 17, 2019 @
4:34 PM
Why I think the country is Why I think the country is doomed to be split apart.
John Chambers fears this as well.
FlyerInHi
October 17, 2019 @
4:41 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:Why I [quote=The-Shoveler]Why I think the country is doomed to be split apart.
John Chambers fears this as well.[/quote]
John chambers is a loser who didn’t run Cisco that well, did he? Otherwise, Cisco would be bigger than Huawei.
His proposals are Made in China 2025 light, adapted to the US. F’ing Commie!
The-Shoveler
October 17, 2019 @
4:42 PM
Can you even vote in CA? Can you even vote in CA?
FlyerInHi
October 17, 2019 @
4:50 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:Can you [quote=The-Shoveler]Can you even vote in CA?[/quote]
I vote in Las Vegas which is the same as california. It’s a blue oasis surrounded by red areas who don’t contribute shit to the state economy. Harry Reid is from Las Vegas.
The-Shoveler
October 17, 2019 @
4:55 PM
Good luck if you find a Good luck if you find a candidate who expressive themselves just like you LOL.
Please warn us if you uncover one.
FlyerInHi
October 17, 2019 @
9:15 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:Good luck [quote=The-Shoveler]Good luck if you find a candidate who expressive themselves just like you LOL.
Please warn us if you uncover one.[/quote]
Republicans have Trump. Can’t I wish for my own “Trump”?
BTW I agree with John Chambers. However, If the backward people want to join us urban elites, they can change and come along for the ride. We have no patience for anachronism. Elizabeth Warren can be pretty good at put downs. She needs to come up with a nickname for Trump. Peewee weenie?
John Chambers is the guy who sold China the tech to build the great firewall around late 1990/2000. And along with other luminaries, he said the wall would crumble. I take he now believes in an industrial/tech policy. For his ideas to work, we need to abandon our ideologies, admit our errors, and focus on what works. Good luck with that!
The-Shoveler
October 17, 2019 @
1:49 PM
California is not as far left California is not as far left as you think IMO.
Maybe why CA will get split apart at some point.
burghMan
October 17, 2019 @
6:31 PM
Any impeachment is going to Any impeachment is going to “undo” an election, by definition. If it were such an awful idea why did the founders put it in the constitution? They knew a corrupt but possibly popular president would come along some day.
outtamojo
October 18, 2019 @
12:31 AM
burghMan wrote:Any [quote=burghMan]Any impeachment is going to “undo” an election, by definition. If it were such an awful idea why did the founders put it in the constitution? They knew a corrupt but possibly popular president would come along some day.[/quote]
I dont quite agree that it invalidates an election- how many people knew when they voted for him that he was going to trash the constitution for personal gain. How many people knew there was no way he was going to grow into a president. Oh wait, about 3 million more.
FlyerInHi
October 18, 2019 @
8:32 AM
What if Trump is really What if Trump is really compromised and a Russian asset?
Seems like everything does benefit Russia. Looks like Trump will invite Putin back to the G8.
Yeah, Irony. Also hypocrisy, stupidity, ignorance, and obliviousness. It is truly stunning.
I think in his mind the difference is he’s some kind of genius who has earned what he’s gotten no thanks to his father and Biden is some kind of idiot who has gotten everything because his father.
It seems pretty clear to me that they’re both idiots who have gotten everything because of their fathers. After listening to the younger Biden talk, though, he might be an even bigger idiot than djt jr.
FlyerInHi
October 18, 2019 @
1:54 PM
zk wrote: After listening to [quote=zk] After listening to the younger Biden talk, though, he might be an even bigger idiot than djt jr.[/quote]
I just watched him and he seems reasonable to me. At least he’s a lawyer, unlike Trump’s kids.
To be fair, he was a bad man To be fair, he was a bad man before he became president.
DataAgent
October 19, 2019 @
3:21 AM
As I type, PredictIt.org is As I type, PredictIt.org is putting a high probably on Trump being impeached in his first-term. If you think otherwise, now is the time to place your bets. You could make a lot of money.
Hobie
October 19, 2019 @
4:36 AM
That site reminds me of this That site reminds me of this scene from Caddyshack 🙂
I did read the article, btw. I did read the article, btw. It’s standard republican misinformation. Positioning Gabbard as the mainstream democrat is part of the latest strategy to confuse independents and split the party.
The article fails to mention that “mainstream” Gabbard is a Hindu. Lol.
FlyerInHi
October 22, 2019 @
8:41 AM
burghMan wrote:I did read the [quote=burghMan]I did read the article, btw. It’s standard republican misinformation. Positioning Gabbard as the mainstream democrat is part of the latest strategy to confuse independents and split the party.
The article fails to mention that “mainstream” Gabbard is a Hindu. Lol.[/quote]
Yeah, Republicans just pull right and paint the mainstream as left. CNN is objectively not left at all.
sdduuuude
October 22, 2019 @
8:50 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:burghMan [quote=FlyerInHi][quote=burghMan]I did read the article, btw. It’s standard republican misinformation. Positioning Gabbard as the mainstream democrat is part of the latest strategy to confuse independents and split the party.
The article fails to mention that “mainstream” Gabbard is a Hindu. Lol.[/quote]
Yeah, Republicans just pull right and paint the mainstream as left. CNN is objectively not left at all.[/quote]
It was not in regard to It was not in regard to Impeachment, just how Trump rage has lead to a over-correction to the left by the democratic party.
They need to focus less on trump rage and more on what america needs (all of america).
FlyerInHi
October 22, 2019 @
12:12 PM
Ok. We could much more Ok. We could much more easily make the case that Obama rage is what led to Trump. But I don’t know of any Republican who would admit to Obama rage.
Btw, elitists don’t rage. We hold vegan parties where we get together to mock the retrograde.
What I find interesting is that Republicans say “don’t assume anything, Trump got elected. We want disruption.” But their message to Democrats is “be safe, be moderate, Don’t offend Trump supporters “.
burghMan
October 22, 2019 @
12:51 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:It was not [quote=The-Shoveler]It was not in regard to Impeachment, just how Trump rage has lead to a over-correction to the left by the democratic party.
They need to focus less on trump rage and more on what america needs (all of america).[/quote]
What does all of America need?
I’d say affordable healthcare is high on the list. Even for those that can pay for healthcare, the system is a mess. My family pays $1000/month on top of what our employer pays for insurance that is supposed to be “platinum” and we still get the runaround when we go to the doctor. Trump promised a miracle (“everyone will have insurance”) and never even attempted a solution after being elected.
All the Dem candidates have plans. None of them are perfect because there is no perfect solution to a complex problem, but any of these plans would benefit the majority of Americans. The only downside may be higher taxes on the very wealthy.
I’d be happy to hear an alternative plan that wasn’t paranoid ranting about “socialism.”
The references to “trump rage” are a strange double standard. Trump himself does nothing but rage about democrats. (just this morning … he is whining about being “lynched”…) Within the past few days he had a cabinet meeting that was nothing but “rage” against his opponents. His job is to run the country, not whine and editorialize 24/7. He should ignore the drama and focus on getting things done. Instead he creates drama. His only accomplishment has been the tax cuts that were already teed up for him by congress when he took office.
I expect the news media to spew the same nonsense over and over, but not the president himself. It seems that many people can’t see the difference. “CNN does it so I can too” is a ridiculous excuse from the President of the United States.
What does America need, and what has Trump done to provide it?
The-Shoveler
October 22, 2019 @
1:09 PM
First step is you show up in First step is you show up in rural america and listen.
You would be surprised what you can learn.
It can not be all one way, it needs to meet in the middle.
burghMan
October 22, 2019 @
1:18 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:First step [quote=The-Shoveler]First step is you show up in rural america and listen.
You would be surprised what you can learn.
It can not be all one way, it needs to meet in the middle.[/quote]
Did Trump do that in 2016?
Biden is in the middle. That’s why he will beat Trump if he is the nominee. Warren is actually just left of center and she’s from rural America. Sanders won’t be the nominee.
It seems to me that the Democrats are doing more of what you suggest than Trump is. More support for the prediction Trump loses in 2020.
The-Shoveler
October 22, 2019 @
1:25 PM
burghMan wrote:
Did Trump do [quote=burghMan]
Did Trump do that in 2016?
[/quote]
Yes actually he did.
burghMan
October 22, 2019 @
1:26 PM
Since you refuse to give Since you refuse to give examples or specifics, I’m gonna be stepping out.
FlyerInHi
October 22, 2019 @
2:07 PM
Shoveler, if you were a Shoveler, if you were a capitalist, you wouldn’t care about the rural or industrial folks.
The short answer is that capital departed because capital doesn’t see much prospect in those areas.
Milton Friedman, Reagan’s economic mentor, said that in a free economy, people should just move to where the job are, and develop new skills in demand. Easy enough, right?
The-Shoveler
October 22, 2019 @
2:23 PM
Why do you want to vote for
Why do you want to vote for someone who will not even come and listen to what you have to say.
You’re not going to get their vote if they don’t feel you a plan for their future.
I still feel the country will split apart at some point.
FlyerInHi
October 22, 2019 @
3:11 PM
The future is capitalism. The future is capitalism. Realistically, coal workers are better off moving to Reno to work for Tesla.
I don’t know if trump visited the “forgotten” areas more than Clinton. But he did talk about coal and manufacturing. All talk and no action. Those “forgotten” guys really want socialism and protectionism, even though they reject it. In fact, the agricultural deal with China if it happens, is all socialism and state planning.
The-Shoveler
October 22, 2019 @
3:40 PM
Who ever wins, they will Who ever wins, they will still need to put a deal together with china.
Getting run over is not an option.
FlyerInHi
October 22, 2019 @
4:53 PM
Talking about capitalism and Talking about capitalism and free trade. I’m a big supporter of free trade deals such as NAFTA and TPP. Seems like the capitalists have gone MIA and people who claim to be anti socialist are actually socialist in many ways. Is the word “socialism” so bad that we can’t utter it is USA?
I’m so glad Trudeau won in Canada. I hope the western liberal order can be saved. Otherwise, China and Russia will win bigly.
temeculaguy
October 23, 2019 @
12:41 AM
I may sit this one out, I may sit this one out, Sduuude and Shoveler have it well in hand. Warren is not a “moderate, slightly left of center” and the over correction shoveler spoke of. The vegas odds show biden has no chance against her.
I’ll stick with my prediction.
I laughed Sduude when I read your comment about my age and ethnicity but burgh is right, however I am not an old white guy, I identify as middle aged, 51 to be exact. For my second wife I married a woman of color who grew up in the ghetto and had children before she had a drivers license. She is equal parts Native American and Hispanic but she was made a grandmother by the age of 32 as is often the case in poor communities. 5 of the 6 of our combined children married outside of their race (the youngest is 23 and unmarried), so yes, I’ve contributed to the ethnic diversity of Temecula and also it’s languages, which I count as 5 languages (Spanish, English, Vietnamese, Chinese and Arabic). Nobody is fluent in the Native American languages so i didn’t count the two tribal languages.
So now that my diversity card has been punched, am I allowed to criticize Elizabeth Warren or should I just relegate the fight to Sduuude and Shoveler, who have done an admirable job thus far.
To be perfectly honest, I’m comfortable or rich by certain standards, I only care about the kids and the grandkids, hence my interest in politics right now. The kids vary, from a high school drop out to a GED to advanced degrees in STEM and I worry about them all. Since Trump’s election those without educations have fared very well, some have fared 6 figure well and they work for so called evil corporations. Politics is personal, but I feel more connected to a wide spectrum than most and this economy is something I’d prefer to continue if I have the choice. I’d like to hedge my bets, Biden, Pete and Tulsi feel like hedges, Warren and Sanders do not. Oh, and CNN is not middle of the road or right leaning, that’s just as inauthentic as saying Fox is left leaning.
FlyerInHi
October 23, 2019 @
8:57 AM
Ha! It looks likes we have Ha! It looks likes we have 3 amigos here who want to give Trump a pass simply to placate his supporters who somehow feel ignored and slighted. That would only make us a banana republic.
What about the rule of law? Impeachment is the only legal process to hold the president accountable for breaking the law and abuse of power since the justice department will not indict him. For all the people who cried about an imperial presidency…. well that is the Trump presidency.
sdduuuude
October 23, 2019 @
9:02 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:Ha! It looks [quote=FlyerInHi]Ha! It looks likes we have 3 amigos here who want to give Trump a pass simply to placate his supporters who somehow feel ignored and slighted.[/quote]
2 easy steps to post like FlyerInHi.
Step 1: Open other person’s mouth.
Step 2: Insert words.
FlyerInHi
October 23, 2019 @
10:45 AM
temeculaguy wrote:I may sit [quote=temeculaguy]I may sit this one out, Sduuude and Shoveler have it well in hand. Warren is not a “moderate, slightly left of center” and the over correction shoveler spoke of. The vegas odds show biden has no chance against her.
I’ll stick with my prediction.
I laughed Sduude when I read your comment about my age and ethnicity but burgh is right, however I am not an old white guy, I identify as middle aged, 51 to be exact. For my second wife I married a woman of color who grew up in the ghetto and had children before she had a drivers license. She is equal parts Native American and Hispanic but she was made a grandmother by the age of 32 as is often the case in poor communities. 5 of the 6 of our combined children married outside of their race (the youngest is 23 and unmarried), so yes, I’ve contributed to the ethnic diversity of Temecula and also it’s languages, which I count as 5 languages (Spanish, English, Vietnamese, Chinese and Arabic). Nobody is fluent in the Native American languages so i didn’t count the two tribal languages.
So now that my diversity card has been punched, am I allowed to criticize Elizabeth Warren or should I just relegate the fight to Sduuude and Shoveler, who have done an admirable job thus far.
To be perfectly honest, I’m comfortable or rich by certain standards, I only care about the kids and the grandkids, hence my interest in politics right now. The kids vary, from a high school drop out to a GED to advanced degrees in STEM and I worry about them all. Since Trump’s election those without educations have fared very well, some have fared 6 figure well and they work for so called evil corporations. Politics is personal, but I feel more connected to a wide spectrum than most and this economy is something I’d prefer to continue if I have the choice. I’d like to hedge my bets, Biden, Pete and Tulsi feel like hedges, Warren and Sanders do not. Oh, and CNN is not middle of the road or right leaning, that’s just as inauthentic as saying Fox is left leaning.[/quote]
TG, if you feel so confident about Trump’s reflection, then don’t worry about the Democrats, let them nominate their own candidate.
If the low education folks are doing well under trump, ok, let them vote for more of the same. I’m ok with that.
I’m not a Republican so I am not concerned about the Republican nomination process.
I just sent a check to Elizabeth Warren. I think she can win against a weakened Trump.
I think many women would vote for Warren and not tell their husbands.
FlyerInHi
October 23, 2019 @
12:56 PM
temeculaguy wrote: Since [quote=temeculaguy] Since Trump’s election those without educations have fared very well, some have fared 6 figure well and they work for so called evil corporations. [/quote]
The evil corporations cry is coming from the right perhaps more than from the left.
I’m not a fan of steve Bannon because of his populist opinions. But I watched him just to get a pulse of the Trump working class base. I think enough of them would vote for Elizabeth warren or Bernie. Farmers who are suffering under tariffs could switch. Or coal workers who saws their mines closed despite promises. A lot of people in middle America are suffering while we enjoy prosperity on the coasts.
Trump bragging about the economy and the stocks market might well alienate his base who aren’t seeing the benefits. Remember, the key to winning 2020 are the roughly 100000 voters in “forgotten” America who made all the difference.
temeculaguy wrote:I may sit [quote=temeculaguy]I may sit this one out, Sduuude and Shoveler have it well in hand. Warren is not a “moderate, slightly left of center” and the over correction shoveler spoke of. The vegas odds show biden has no chance against her.
I’ll stick with my prediction.
I laughed Sduude when I read your comment about my age and ethnicity but burgh is right, however I am not an old white guy, I identify as middle aged, 51 to be exact. For my second wife I married a woman of color who grew up in the ghetto and had children before she had a drivers license. She is equal parts Native American and Hispanic but she was made a grandmother by the age of 32 as is often the case in poor communities. 5 of the 6 of our combined children married outside of their race (the youngest is 23 and unmarried), so yes, I’ve contributed to the ethnic diversity of Temecula and also it’s languages, which I count as 5 languages (Spanish, English, Vietnamese, Chinese and Arabic). Nobody is fluent in the Native American languages so i didn’t count the two tribal languages.
So now that my diversity card has been punched, am I allowed to criticize Elizabeth Warren or should I just relegate the fight to Sduuude and Shoveler, who have done an admirable job thus far.
To be perfectly honest, I’m comfortable or rich by certain standards, I only care about the kids and the grandkids, hence my interest in politics right now. The kids vary, from a high school drop out to a GED to advanced degrees in STEM and I worry about them all. Since Trump’s election those without educations have fared very well, some have fared 6 figure well and they work for so called evil corporations. Politics is personal, but I feel more connected to a wide spectrum than most and this economy is something I’d prefer to continue if I have the choice. I’d like to hedge my bets, Biden, Pete and Tulsi feel like hedges, Warren and Sanders do not. Oh, and CNN is not middle of the road or right leaning, that’s just as inauthentic as saying Fox is left leaning.[/quote]
I’m not sure us white guys can obtain a diversity card through marriage, but it sounds like you have a wonderful and interesting family and I’m glad to have all of you as neighbors.
It seems that Sduuude and Shoveler have only argued that it’s bad form to talk about about the president on a thread with the topic that is the president.
I wish there were not such distinct “teams” in these discussions, but it seems unavoidable in politics today. I think an impeachment discussion would be interesting, there’s more big news today… did we just have a Beer Hall Putsch at the capitol? It’s American history in the making, but one team just wants to steer the conversation back to CNN…. so there’s nothing interesting going on here.
sdduuuude
October 23, 2019 @
3:30 PM
burghMan wrote:It seems that [quote=burghMan]It seems that Sduuude and Shoveler have only argued that it’s bad form to talk about about the president on a thread with the topic that is the president.[/quote]
A not-so-deft putting of words in someone else’s mouth, in true FlyerInHI style. Nowhere did we ever say, or even remotely imply this.
burghMan
October 23, 2019 @
3:33 PM
sdduuuude wrote:burghMan [quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]It seems that Sduuude and Shoveler have only argued that it’s bad form to talk about about the president on a thread with the topic that is the president.[/quote]
A not-so-deft putting of words in someone else’s mouth, in true FlyerInHI style. Nowhere did we ever say, or even remotely imply this.[/quote]
I’m gonna put it in a nutshell:
Stop telling us how bad CNN is ….
sdduuuude
October 23, 2019 @
3:36 PM
burghMan wrote:sdduuuude [quote=burghMan][quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]It seems that Sduuude and Shoveler have only argued that it’s bad form to talk about about the president on a thread with the topic that is the president.[/quote]
A not-so-deft putting of words in someone else’s mouth, in true FlyerInHI style. Nowhere did we ever say, or even remotely imply this.[/quote]
I’m gonna put it in a nutshell:
Stop telling us how bad CNN is ….[/quote]
That will be difficult, but what I won’t do is accuse you of coming to ridiculous conclusions because of CNN’s influence.
FlyerInHi
October 22, 2019 @
1:22 PM
Haha, since the founding of Haha, since the founding of the country, the rural folks have had proportionally more say. There are rural senators where the population of the whole state is less than San Diego. There is the electoral college. That’s not meeting in the middle to me.
The prosperous metropolitan areas have been carrying rural economic deadweight for far too long.
The-Shoveler
October 23, 2019 @
1:08 PM
Democrats Think They Can Win
Democrats Think They Can Win without You
It’s a little disingenuous.
To echo a previous post:
Stop telling us how bad the (yet to be determined) Democratic candidate is and start telling us how good Trump is.
The-Shoveler
October 23, 2019 @
1:37 PM
That’s the whole point.
He That’s the whole point.
He does not have to be good, he just needs to not be against everything you believe in, or at least not be dismissive of what your needs are.
FlyerInHi
October 23, 2019 @
1:55 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:That’s the [quote=The-Shoveler]That’s the whole point.
He does not have to be good, he just needs to not be against everything you believe in, or at least not be dismissive of what your needs are.[/quote]
So he’s allowed to violate the law.
It’s funny how the topic of impeachment (how bad Trump is) has tuned to how bad Democrats are and Trump does have to be “good” because he echoes some of his base’s grievances. I can think of multiple populist examples around the world.
sdduuuude
October 23, 2019 @
3:44 PM
My final word on impeachment, My final word on impeachment, until more info comes to light:
I don’t think the phone call is enough to make it happen. The Trump side will either say there is “no thing of value” or “that phone call had nothing to do with the election” or some other legal argument that is way beyond me and make it tough for the impeachment to stick.
I think the Dems jumped the gun on impeachment and should have put all energy into winning the election. I feel it will go south for them.
If, as FlyerInHI suggests, they find a money trail, that could be enough to make it happen, but given they haven’t declared to have found a money trail yet, I have to assume they don’t have the smoking gun. And I just don’t know if they will find it.
I can’t say I’m rooting for either side and Fox News has had no influence on me in this matter.
FlyerInHi
October 23, 2019 @
4:21 PM
On impeachment, all democrats On impeachment, all democrats needs to do is draw articles of impeachment and send them to the senate for trial. That’s where Trump would make his defense.
And that why McConnel told his colleagues to prepare.
burghMan
October 23, 2019 @
5:35 PM
sdduuuude wrote:My final word [quote=sdduuuude]My final word on impeachment, until more info comes to light:
I don’t think the phone call is enough to make it happen. The Trump side will either say there is “no thing of value” or “that phone call had nothing to do with the election” or some other legal argument that is way beyond me and make it tough for the impeachment to stick.
I think the Dems jumped the gun on impeachment and should have put all energy into winning the election. I feel it will go south for them.
If, as FlyerInHI suggests, they find a money trail, that could be enough to make it happen, but given they haven’t declared to have found a money trail yet, I have to assume they don’t have the smoking gun. And I just don’t know if they will find it.
I can’t say I’m rooting for either side and Fox News has had no influence on me in this matter.[/quote]
There’s been some substantial developments since the phone call was revealed (and Trump still refuses to give up the full transcript of the phone call… why? because he’s got nothing to hide?)
There is testimony from multiple credible sources that Trump made US foreign policy decisions, financial decisions, contingent on a foreign government investigating one guy.
Throughout this process, team Trump is screaming that it “not fair” because he doesn’t have “due process” (something that is not even guaranteed by the constitution for impeachment anyway…) Yet, Trump’s use of his power to go after one guy, a private citizen, is exactly what much of the bill of rights is meant to protect. The issue is that Trump has been criminally “not fair” so that he can win an election.
Trump’s not doing it for a suitcase full of money. He’s doing it so that he be the president for another term, which is more lucrative than any bribe money could ever be.
And there is an actual money trail. I told you about it pages ago: Giuliani.
Impeachment will help the Dems with the election. There are actually millions of Americans that won’t vote for a corrupt president. And every day the impeachment process is revealing more evidence of corruption
(sadly it seems there are quite a few that see corruption as a strength in a president, but I’m still hoping that our country on balance isn’t that cynical.)
FlyerInHi
October 23, 2019 @
11:20 PM
History in the making History in the making indeed.
I read Bill Taylor’s opening statement. It’s looking bad for Trump.
I feel sorry for the Ukrainians who have to fend off the Russian. Putin is smiling for sure.
And now, we find out that there was a first phone on April 25. The Ukrainians knew there was a quid pro quo and were trying to stay out of it. They met and talked about it for 3 hours. https://www.apnews.com/b048901b635f423db49a10046daaf8a8
sdduuuude
October 24, 2019 @
9:15 AM
burghMan – thanks for a burghMan – thanks for a completely reasonable post ! Well said, argued the points not the motives of other Piggs and made perfect sense. You could very well be right. Time will tell if the circus stays in town.
zk
October 23, 2019 @
4:18 PM
sdduuuude wrote:
But you [quote=sdduuuude]
But you never actually found out if people came to a belief due to Fox News or not. You simply assumed they did.[/quote]
I didn’t assume. I try very hard to avoid assumptions. I may presume, but I generally don’t assume.
I think that millions of people all coming to the same, objectively ridiculous conclusions, and those conclusions being the same ones that right-wing propaganda has been selling, makes my presumption that those people were victims of propaganda a reasonable presumption.
How do you explain millions of people all coming to the same, objectively ridiculous conclusions?
sdduuuude
October 23, 2019 @
4:22 PM
zk wrote:sdduuuude wrote:
But [quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]
But you never actually found out if people came to a belief due to Fox News or not. You simply assumed they did.[/quote]
I didn’t assume. I try very hard to avoid assumptions. I may presume, but I generally don’t assume.
I think that millions of people all coming to the same, objectively ridiculous conclusions, and those conclusions being the same ones that right-wing propaganda has been selling, makes my presumption that those people were victims of propaganda a reasonable presumption.
How do you explain millions of people all coming to the same, objectively ridiculous conclusions?[/quote]
But you never actually found out if people came to a belief due to Fox News or not. You simply assumed they did.[/quote]
I didn’t assume. I try very hard to avoid assumptions. I may presume, but I generally don’t assume.
I think that millions of people all coming to the same, objectively ridiculous conclusions, and those conclusions being the same ones that right-wing propaganda has been selling, makes my presumption that those people were victims of propaganda a reasonable presumption.
How do you explain millions of people all coming to the same, objectively ridiculous conclusions?[/quote]
CNN ? ;)[/quote]
I would be fascinated to hear a list of objectively ridiculous conclusions reached by CNN listeners.
Not holding my breath, though 😉
FlyerInHi
October 24, 2019 @
10:31 AM
ZK, I don’t like to bestow ZK, I don’t like to bestow victimhood status onto the deplorables. They are who they are and they are responsible for themselves.
I have friend who excuses his mom “oh, she’s like that because she listens to all the Christian programs.” No, certain things are not excusable.
BTW, I believe that you are right, zk. But people are attached to the concept of free will.
And if they are, they should live by their own free will and they should be punished for the bad choices they make. There is no need to give them an out which they don’t appreciate anyway. It reinforces their belief that you’re a weak and condescending liberal.
Yuval Harari argues that our minds are being hacked.
Theologians developed the idea of “free will” to explain why God is right to punish sinners for their bad choices and reward saints for their good choices. If our choices aren’t made freely, why should God punish or reward us for them? According to the theologians, it is reasonable for God to do so, because our choices reflect the free will of our eternal souls, which are independent of all physical and biological constraints.
CNN has reported that Trump mentioned Biden’s political prospects during a phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping on June 18, and told the leader he would keep quiet about the protests roiling Hong Kong.
Trump has been very quiet over Hong Kong…. so much for the initial optimism when Trump took the call from the President of the Republic of China. I still don’t think he knew any better.
There are probably bargains with Russia, Turkey and Britain too (maybe a deal with Boris Johnson for British Intelligence to investigate for a free trade deal after Brexit) The sudden lifting of sanctions against Turkey is very suspicious given the bipartisan outcry over abandoning the Kurds.
We now need the transcript of the June 18 call with Xi.
svelte
October 25, 2019 @
9:55 PM
I have to say that the past I have to say that the past three years have just crushed my spirit.
Until now, I’ve deeply believed that people did the right thing because it was the right thing.
I no longer believe that. Especially in the political arena. People behave in ways that protect their agenda, their belief system, their estate.
It is very sad.
I have become oh so cynical. I didn’t think that was possible. But here I am.
Coronita
October 25, 2019 @
11:30 PM
svelte wrote:I have to say [quote=svelte]I have to say that the past three years have just crushed my spirit.
Until now, I’ve deeply believed that people did the right thing because it was the right thing.
I no longer believe that. Especially in the political arena. People behave in ways that protect their agenda, their belief system, their estate.
It is very sad.
I have become oh so cynical. I didn’t think that was possible. But here I am.[/quote]
Most politicians were never about doing the right thing. It’s about winning a popularity contest. If you want to be surrounded by people doing the right thing, there are plenty examples of this throughout our country everyday. Normal people that spend time and effort helping others out all the time, not necessarily because they are trying to be popular…Just trying to do humane things. this hasn’t changed no matter who is in office. Ive learned the more one is involved with politics, and talks politics, they less the person is really trying to do the right thing. they are spending their time trying to stir things up and get into pissing matches or reacting to a pissing match. Take heart. America hasn’t really changed… Just the ugly side of people from both sides gets to treat their ugly heads…. Politics is nothing more than a soap opera for old and ugly people.
Just don’t give people the time and day that waste so much time on politics, and the world is so much better. I’ve noticed this at work. I one talk politics that get along with everyone else..And the ones that do bring up politics are usually the ones that no one likes to work with and are alone. lol…
svelte
October 26, 2019 @
11:46 AM
flu wrote:svelte wrote:I have [quote=flu][quote=svelte]I have to say that the past three years have just crushed my spirit.
Until now, I’ve deeply believed that people did the right thing because it was the right thing.
I no longer believe that. Especially in the political arena. People behave in ways that protect their agenda, their belief system, their estate.
It is very sad.
I have become oh so cynical. I didn’t think that was possible. But here I am.[/quote]
Most politicians were never about doing the right thing. It’s about winning a popularity contest. If you want to be surrounded by people doing the right thing, there are plenty examples of this throughout our country everyday. Normal people that spend time and effort helping others out all the time, not necessarily because they are trying to be popular…Just trying to do humane things. this hasn’t changed no matter who is in office. Ive learned the more one is involved with politics, and talks politics, they less the person is really trying to do the right thing. they are spending their time trying to stir things up and get into pissing matches or reacting to a pissing match. Take heart. America hasn’t really changed… Just the ugly side of people from both sides gets to treat their ugly heads…. Politics is nothing more than a soap opera for old and ugly people.
Just don’t give people the time and day that waste so much time on politics, and the world is so much better. I’ve noticed this at work. I one talk politics that get along with everyone else..And the ones that do bring up politics are usually the ones that no one likes to work with and are alone. lol…[/quote]
Thanks for the pep talk flu. You’re absolutely right.
I think your observations are spot-on.
FlyerInHi
October 29, 2019 @
7:54 AM
flu wrote:
Politics is [quote=flu]
Politics is nothing more than a soap opera for old and ugly people.[/quote]
Is that ageism and body shaming?
[quote=flu]
the importance of being , scholarly, well educated, etc etc etc… Admitedly I then started to flaunt my pedigree degree from pedigree Ivy League school pretty much to make a mockery of the entire thing. I knew my ivy league degree was good for something![/quote]
Conservatism starts at home, my dear. You shouldn’t mock the importance upbringing and education. Education is our competitive advantage. Joseph Stiglitz said it’s very disheartening that Republicans don’t believe in the value of universities.
Coronita
October 26, 2019 @
11:13 AM
You know. I just realized You know. I just realized something.
The contrast between ZK and Brian is a perfect example of why the Democrats are doomed this election cycle…
You have folks like ZK who are moderate, probably someone that can work with across party lines, someone we probably need more of in this country in both parties. And we have the fringy alt-left lunatics that are the most vocal and making the Democrats look as stupid as the current GOP cock suckers. The more the fringy-alt left have a say, the more voters they will lose, as again, the majority of the people in this country are neither extreme. The smart moderate Democrats will end up resigning in as such the moderate Republicans have been falling off the GOP ticket.
I think this is good. Let the fringy alt-left and alt-right have their respective dinosaur parties as we knew them.. Let’s start over with a viable third party.
FlyerInHi
October 26, 2019 @
11:45 AM
flu wrote:YAnd we have the [quote=flu]YAnd we have the fringy alt-left lunatics that are the most vocal and making the Democrats look as stupid as the current GOP cock suckers. [/quote]
What exactly makes Democrats lunatic? Yes, i understand that Republicans are cocksuckers.
Coronita
October 26, 2019 @
11:33 AM
Have you guys thought of an Have you guys thought of an alternative theory to Russia’s mingle in the US? Maybe the point wasnt that Trump was really a Russian agent and to have Trump stay in office for than one term.. Maybe the point was to stir things up so much such that both sides would be so unhappy they would put the most part Xtreme people from both sides and screw up the US. I. pretty sure Russia is just as happy if Warren were to win as trump were to win a reelection. It doesn’t matter, both are bad just in different ways.
Well done Russia.
FlyerInHi
October 26, 2019 @
12:01 PM
flu wrote:It doesn’t matter, [quote=flu]It doesn’t matter, both are bad just in different ways.
[/quote]
Think of economic theory. If you believe “both are bad” , or the choices equal in value, then you would be indifferent who wins. But you’re not indifferent because you frequently spring to the defense of republicans, or attack democrats.
It’s just cop out on your part given that you just blasted Warren.
PCinSD
October 26, 2019 @
12:50 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:
It’s just [quote=FlyerInHi]
It’s just cop out on your part given that you just blasted Warren.[/quote]
Nobody puts Warren in a corner.
*sniff
FlyerInHi
October 26, 2019 @
2:23 PM
PCinSD wrote:
Nobody puts [quote=PCinSD]
Nobody puts Warren in a corner.
*sniff[/quote]
That’s why I love her. She actually knows her stuff and is very detailed at policy.
Here is her testimony back in 2005 to Biden who was totally in the pocket of Delaware banks. https://youtu.be/InVvVzprIxQ
FlyerInHi
October 27, 2019 @
4:00 PM
Giuliani butt called about Giuliani butt called about getting money from some turkey related dude. And trump inexplicably lifted sanctions on turkey.
Coronita
October 26, 2019 @
3:19 PM
Warren is Nutjob. AOC is Warren is Nutjob. AOC is Nutjob. Harris is a Nutjob. Bernie is Nutjob.
Bernie isn’t going to get the nomination. Too old, health questionable. Harris fell out of contention,and she has a bunch of skeletons in her closet. AOC is just stupid that won on luck. won’t last that long, but at least she can write a book and make money off of it. Good for her. Warren is the only one left, and she would get destroyed given how outlandish her ideas are. And rightfully so.
Biden was my hope. He isn’t going to make it I think. Too bad.
It’s interesting to see who the tech companies and CEOs are backing.. It definitely isn’t Warren.. Wonder why? Think about that one… Why are all the sudden all the tech company and CEOs are years of blasting trump are now slowly starting to cozy up to the adminstration…It’s simple. They think a Warren administration is way worse and think she doesn’t have a chance…Why is China starting to cozy up with this administration too? Because they see this and think Warren doesn’t have a chance and holding out for a midterm change, the probability is very low at this point.
FlyerInHi
October 26, 2019 @
3:53 PM
flu wrote:Warren is Nutjob. [quote=flu]Warren is Nutjob. AOC is Nutjob. Harris is a Nutjob. Bernie is Nutjob.
Bernie isn’t going to get the nomination. Too old, health questionable. Harris fell out of contention,and she has a bunch of skeletons in her closet. AOC is just stupid that won on luck. won’t last that long, but at least she can write a book and make money off of it. Good for her. Warren is the only one left, and she would get destroyed given how outlandish her ideas are. And rightfully so.
Biden was my hope. He isn’t going to make it I think. Too bad.
[/quote]
What is so nutjob? Why is AOC stupid? They sound reasonable to me.
Warren is very intelligent. I like that. I trust slim, energetic people.
I never met someone that doesn’t trust themselves… interesting.
temeculaguy
October 28, 2019 @
11:20 PM
FlyerInHi wrote: I trust [quote=FlyerInHi] I trust slim, energetic people.[/quote]
I see “slim” and “energetic” and the first thing that comes to my mind is tweakers.
Your not helping yourself Brian. In fact you are going to get kicked out of your own club for body shaming. So you didn’t trust Hilary because she isn’t “slim?” Newsflash, Bernie is not “slim.” You make accusations when someone makes any kind of physical, sexual or racial reference and then you throw out your bias towards “slim.” What makes slim people more trustworthy? I dare you to let a tweaker house sit.
Brian, this is starting to look like a dumpster fire, but you are doing a great job. I’m sure the rest of the country will see Warren like you do, just ignore her policies and focus on how slim she is. Meanwhile, I’m with FLU, there’s never been a better time to create a third party of moderates from both sides because the existing parties can’t seem to nominate one.
Coronita
October 29, 2019 @
5:34 AM
temeculaguy wrote:FlyerInHi [quote=temeculaguy][quote=FlyerInHi] I trust slim, energetic people.[/quote]
I see “slim” and “energetic” and the first thing that comes to my mind is tweakers.
Your not helping yourself Brian. In fact you are going to get kicked out of your own club for body shaming. So you didn’t trust Hilary because she isn’t “slim?” Newsflash, Bernie is not “slim.” You make accusations when someone makes any kind of physical, sexual or racial reference and then you throw out your bias towards “slim.” What makes slim people more trustworthy? I dare you to let a tweaker house sit.
Brian, this is starting to look like a dumpster fire, but you are doing a great job. I’m sure the rest of the country will see Warren like you do, just ignore her policies and focus on how slim she is. Meanwhile, I’m with FLU, there’s never been a better time to create a third party of moderates from both sides because the existing parties can’t seem to nominate one.[/quote]
Well…..Some people are really just PINO’s ( Progressive In Name Only)
FlyerInHi
October 29, 2019 @
7:43 AM
TG, you presume a lot.
Yes I TG, you presume a lot.
Yes I trust slim energetic people. But I also trust fat people. It’s not mutually exclusive. You’re “putting words in my mouth!” Oh man, I’m so insulted!
You do make a good point about tweakers, however.
One of my favorite economists is Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz who is quite a gordito. I admire him and I have read his books and I regularly watch his lectures. He seems like a nice guy too.
PCinSD
October 29, 2019 @
10:34 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:TG, you [quote=FlyerInHi]TG, you presume a lot.
Yes I trust slim energetic people. But I also trust fat people.[/quote]
Hey buddy. I don’t wish to presume. But I still love your cool stories about nonexistent people as anecdotes to describe millions.
In any event, you suddenly appear to have changed your goalpost regarding who is trustworthy based on the shape of their body. Shoot, would you trust a portly fellow that could no longer fit into the pilots seat of a commercial jet to routinely fly consumers to and from Hawaii? Asking for a friend.
If you could, please provide us with the traits of fat people you find trustworthy,
FlyerInHi
October 29, 2019 @
12:48 PM
Gorditos are lovely people.
I Gorditos are lovely people.
I think someone might have called me a fat 400 lb dude, in a basement, behind a computer.
I come across many people. Shoot, just in one condo building alone there are Serbian refugees, Thai widow, Vietnamese immigrants, Latino immigrants, Latino Trumpistas, Israeli investors, Indian immigrant, chinese investors, black people, white people, some deplorables, drugs users who we are getting rid of, healthy athletic people. It’s a gentrifying areas so the demographics are very mixed. Very interesting!
I would say that my condos are the most beautiful, very special, maybe the most beautiful ever in the history of the community.
BTW, pilots undergo annual health inspection. The weight standards are loose so someone 6ft, 250lb would pass, but that’s borderline, I believe. That’s obese already, but they don’t want anyone morbidly obese.
PCinSD
October 29, 2019 @
1:52 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:
I think [quote=FlyerInHi]
I think someone might have called me a fat 400 lb dude, in a basement, behind a computer. [/quote]
That’s presumptuous. But kinda funny.
*I trust fat people.
FlyerInHi
October 29, 2019 @
8:40 PM
Here are the pdf statements Here are the pdf statements by
Now, we find out that call transcript/memo of the call omitted information. I wonder If Ukraine or Russia have a voice recording of the call which they could produce at some time in the future, perhaps to discredit the United States. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/alexander-vindman-trump-ukraine.html?campaign_id=60&instance_id=0&segment_id=18348&user_id=3154de4756231a971cc896fe10ac5461®i_id=73626606ing-news
WASHINGTON — Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of a July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts to include them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony.
The omissions, Colonel Vindman said, included Mr. Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption, and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden’s son Hunter.
temeculaguy
October 30, 2019 @
11:26 PM
Brian, do you want to defeat Brian, do you want to defeat Trump? I’ll tell you how. Put this stuff to rest so Biden doesn’t take the brunt of it, also get him some ginkobaloba and whatever treatments in Germany that Kobe was getting so he keeps it together mentally. Plan B, rally your friends behind Mayor Pete, he’s trying to be the moderate alternative to Biden and he’s in a position to pivot for the general. Plan C, call Bloomberg and tell him he has until Thanksgiving to announce, he stayed out because he didn’t think he could beat Biden and it looks like a miscalculation. Plan D, call Schultz and tell him to come back, that the progressives will stop booing him for stating facts. Plan E, talk to Tulsi, she needs help, I like her but she can’t stay in a lane sometimes and the party wont let her in the cool kids club, they should.
This country, right now will not elect a progressive or a socialist. Denmark and Sweden are not superpowers, they are boutique countries whose model cannot absorb illegal immigration while maintaining world policing. We could copy them, eliminate our military and foreign aid and just watch on TV, but somebody has to do the heavy lifting, unfortunately we’re it right now.
Outside of that, nominating Warren, Sanders, Harris, Booker or others is just electing Trump. You can believe otherwise and you’ll be wrong, just like last election and Hilary was mostly an moderate. Getting worse is not a good plan. Getting more progressive or socialist is a losing strategy. If it goes down that road i expect either a complete revamp of the democratic party or a third party by 2024. I’m kinda hopeful for either result because one of the good things about this country is the constant reinvention of itself, it’s a positive. The democrats were once the party of slavery and the KKK and it reinvented itself (more than once), they can and will do it again, perhaps that will be Elizabeth’s legacy. She ma win the nomination, get smoked in the general and the drawing board produces a better product. It’s a win win, but if you want to win sooner see plans A-E.
burghMan
October 31, 2019 @
7:20 AM
temeculaguy wrote:Brian, do [quote=temeculaguy]Brian, do you want to defeat Trump? I’ll tell you how. Put this stuff to rest so Biden doesn’t take the brunt of it, also get him some ginkobaloba and whatever treatments in Germany that Kobe was getting so he keeps it together mentally. Plan B, rally your friends behind Mayor Pete, he’s trying to be the moderate alternative to Biden and he’s in a position to pivot for the general. Plan C, call Bloomberg and tell him he has until Thanksgiving to announce, he stayed out because he didn’t think he could beat Biden and it looks like a miscalculation. Plan D, call Schultz and tell him to come back, that the progressives will stop booing him for stating facts. Plan E, talk to Tulsi, she needs help, I like her but she can’t stay in a lane sometimes and the party wont let her in the cool kids club, they should.
This country, right now will not elect a progressive or a socialist. Denmark and Sweden are not superpowers, they are boutique countries whose model cannot absorb illegal immigration while maintaining world policing. We could copy them, eliminate our military and foreign aid and just watch on TV, but somebody has to do the heavy lifting, unfortunately we’re it right now.
Outside of that, nominating Warren, Sanders, Harris, Booker or others is just electing Trump. You can believe otherwise and you’ll be wrong, just like last election and Hilary was mostly an moderate. Getting worse is not a good plan. Getting more progressive or socialist is a losing strategy. If it goes down that road i expect either a complete revamp of the democratic party or a third party by 2024. I’m kinda hopeful for either result because one of the good things about this country is the constant reinvention of itself, it’s a positive. The democrats were once the party of slavery and the KKK and it reinvented itself (more than once), they can and will do it again, perhaps that will be Elizabeth’s legacy. She ma win the nomination, get smoked in the general and the drawing board produces a better product. It’s a win win, but if you want to win sooner see plans A-E.[/quote]
There’s a lot that’s wrong about that post, but what is most wrong is the ongoing assumption that Brian represents the democratic party, or the left, or anybody.
tg, you claim to be neutral but your posts clearly show a bias as you describe the democrats as the “other” team. You can also vote in the primaries and have as much control over the winner as Brian does (probably more.) There really aren’t any teams unless one chooses to only see it that way.
FlyerInHi
October 31, 2019 @
8:45 AM
tg, it’s kinda weird you have tg, it’s kinda weird you have a long post about beating Trump but you end with Elizabeth Warren is a win-win because she will lose. If that’s the case, then rejoice!
[quote=temeculaguy]The democrats were once the party of slavery and the KKK and it reinvented itself (more than once), they can and will do it again, perhaps that will be Elizabeth’s legacy. She ma win the nomination, get smoked in the general and the drawing board produces a better product. It’s a win win, but if you want to win sooner see plans A-E.[/quote]
A weak corrupt Trump is as good a time as any to nominate a real progressive. That’s the real fear among Republicans.
I want a better country….. but if the deplorables want Trump again, then, they can have him. If they vote for Trump again, they will own the consequences for good.
temeculaguy
October 31, 2019 @
10:54 PM
Burg and Brian you are Burg and Brian you are hopeless, this is why few people talk to you (if you are in fact two different people).
Burg, you quoted my entire post, where’s the part about the other team and my bias? You don’t like my words so you fabricate an attack. There are two teams, I’m not on one, but if I had said “the other team” it would be meant to illustrate to Brian that if he wants his team to win, follow my advice.
Brian, I didn’t say Warren losing was a win win because I’m rooting for trump, I said it because it would result in either the democratic party throwing out the progressives and reinventing itself or a viable third party would emerge. That is the win/win.
Neither of you want to realize progressives and socialists are hated by most of the country. I get it, nobody wants to come to the realization that everybody dislikes your opinions and disagrees with you. But it’s like religion, a few keystrokes will not change your mind. Let’s talk in 5 months when the nominations take place and then again in 12 months. If a progressive cannot beat trump, they will never win, ever. So we will see. My point was is that a moderate can win.
But if Warren is the nominee, my vote doesn’t matter because I live in California so I don’t worry about it, my state will vote for whoever the democratic nominee is, I just observe.
FlyerInHi
October 31, 2019 @
11:04 PM
FDR won. Why can’t we have FDR won. Why can’t we have a modern FDR give us the New New Deal?
If Trump, won, Elizabeth Warren can win. We will see.
temeculaguy
November 1, 2019 @
12:08 AM
Actually burg, I apologize, Actually burg, I apologize, it took a re-read to see your true meaning because of your summary dismissal in the first sentence followed by an accusation put me off, that’s on me. I was temporarily blinded.
I see your point, the democratic party is not brian, but the current poll numbers give pause for concern that the moderates are being demonized. Maybe I will continue my habit of switching parties to whoever is not in power to vote in the primary. It’s really is the only vote that counts for Californian in the presidential election.
burghMan
November 1, 2019 @
7:17 AM
temeculaguy wrote:Actually [quote=temeculaguy]Actually burg, I apologize, it took a re-read to see your true meaning because of your summary dismissal in the first sentence followed by an accusation put me off, that’s on me. I was temporarily blinded.
I see your point, the democratic party is not brian, but the current poll numbers give pause for concern that the moderates are being demonized. Maybe I will continue my habit of switching parties to whoever is not in power to vote in the primary. It’s really is the only vote that counts for Californian in the presidential election.[/quote]
No problem, my post was a little blunt.
Politicians have always tried to characterize the other side as the worst of the extreme. Republicans label their opponents as socialists and create caricatures of crazy woke vegan kooks. The right has been very effective with this technique in recent history, especially on social media where they can flood people with photoshopped images of crazy fanatical liberals and convey the idea that everyone on the “other side” is an one of these extremists.
The Piggington gang has done the same with Brian. He’s been unofficially nominated as the spokesman and sole representative of the left. Anybody who disagrees with the current republican message is automatically lumped in with Brian as if they are all the same person. Tg, you literally made that claim a couple posts ago. I’ve been a member of this forum for ten years, have never really expressed anything political until Trump came along, and you still claim this bullshit. This is what the media is doing to America: Facts and common sense don’t matter anymore, everything is about your “team”
Ironically I don’t call myself a progressive and don’t agree with the positions of many dems. I’m one of those former republicans that still generally supports conservative positions, especially on the economy, but refuses to support the party because it has become so corrupt and cynical. So I find myself voting for democrats because they are often the moderate candidate and I won’t vote for a crooked hypocrite like Duncan Hunter. Republicans have lost their moral compass and no longer participate in good faith (Trump never did of course.) It sucks to see our country toss out its values just because the stock market is doing well.
The right wing media has successfully convinced many that anyone that is not an all-in republican is an extremist lefty, a member of antifa obsessed with nothing but diversity and lgbt issues, someone that want to take all your earnings through taxes and use the money for sex change operations. They’ve also convinced many that because the left is so extreme that the real extremists like Trump deserve some consideration in the interest of “balance” (it’s called “enlightened centerism” another propaganda trick, that works)
I’m not that caricature. I’m just a guy who grew up loving America and would prefer not to have a corrupt and incompetent president that runs the country with his spoiled rich kids and circle of shameless yes men.
I’m interested in the impeachment process because I think it’s important and it’s cool to be alive as history unfolds. I was hopeful that there would be some quality conversation here like there has been in the past, but that’s not happening.
Coronita
October 26, 2019 @
4:16 PM
Man, Brian you try too hard Man, Brian you try too hard to stay relevant on the board. I say one thing about AOC and you go resurrect the AOC thread.
I do/say X, you react Y..
I think you have a mental addiction to politics and to a lesser extent Piggington.. You might want to get help. It’s probably covered by your insurance.
It’s been fun. Have a nice weekend..I certainly will.
FlyerInHi
October 26, 2019 @
8:07 PM
You assume a lot flu
I had a You assume a lot flu
I had a nice run at the park, thank you.
The Trump presidency is too interesting not to look.
Coronita
October 26, 2019 @
8:20 PM
Brian..
I’m going to borrow Brian..
I’m going to borrow Sdude’s not-yet-copyrighted line and say it in this context:
You’re doin’ great buddy ! Keep it up !
And if he has problems with me borrowing it, I’m going to use my equivalent line:
Ok…Sure Brian, if you say so.
[img_assist|nid=26894|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=56]
FlyerInHi
October 26, 2019 @
9:11 PM
Thanks for the encouragement, Thanks for the encouragement, flu. Will do!
Coronita
October 27, 2019 @
4:39 PM
Brian, you’re doin’ great Brian, you’re doin’ great buddy ! Keep it up ! [img_assist|nid=26894|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=56]
The-Shoveler
November 1, 2019 @
9:18 AM
Pretty much everyone votes Pretty much everyone votes their pocketbook.
All the other Hot buttons are more on the fringe than most think.
You find corruption and misdeeds on both sides if you want to see it.
FlyerInHi
November 1, 2019 @
10:12 PM
No Americans don’t vote No Americans don’t vote pocketbook, they vote more identity.
Lots of people don’t have health care, child care, vacation, etc…. they go without. It’s not like Norway or Sweden where people do vote their pocketbook.
Sure, well-off people do vote their pocketbook more often than not.
FlyerInHi
November 6, 2019 @
9:09 AM
I love it that Gordon I love it that Gordon Sondland’s memory has been refreshed by other people’s testimonies. I will use that in the future…
poorgradstudent
November 11, 2019 @
4:53 PM
Honestly it’s a coin flip. We Honestly it’s a coin flip. We all know the House will impeach and the Senate will do nothing. So what will the voters do?
Right now I don’t have a strong feeling on that either way. Because of our weird electoral college system I have a feeling it’s going to boil down to what the unemployment numbers are in a few counties in Ohio and maybe Wisconsin on election night.
Seems like a sane way to determine who will run our country… right?
outtamojo
November 20, 2019 @
3:57 PM
“Everyone was in the loop. It “Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret.”
FlyerInHi
November 21, 2019 @
12:11 PM
Fiona Hill was a very Fiona Hill was a very compelling witness. She’s an American by choice, highly intelligent, a PhD. She is steely and knows her stuff. The men conducting foreign policy seem like novices compared to her. I admire how Fiona Hill speaks fast, clearly and precisely. I speak more like David Holmes. But Holmes seem like an amateur compared to Hill.
What legitimate business would Trump’s personal lawyer have there?
FlyerInHi
December 5, 2019 @
12:58 PM
I guess Guiliani is doing I guess Guiliani is doing some kind of mini documentary.
If Trump and Republicans really believe Ukraine messed our elections, then why not crush them. Unlike Russia, Ukraine is a little bug we can easily punish. Seems dumb not to act.
svelte
December 7, 2019 @
10:00 AM
Impeachment may be an Impeachment may be an exercise in highlighting the abhorrent actions of the president, but it is not going to result in his removal from office.
That’s just the way it is.
Hobie
December 7, 2019 @
1:09 PM
Needle in the haystack. Of Needle in the haystack. Of the perhaps thousands of phone calls by Trump and not to mention including high level senior staff the Dems have found the single smoking gun? (Ukraine phone call) I think not. One would think there would be a pattern of other similar actions.
Why aren’t they looking at every phone call he has made??
My bet is all of this will just help Trumps re-election.
svelte
December 7, 2019 @
1:59 PM
Hobie wrote:
My bet is all of [quote=Hobie]
My bet is all of this will just help Trumps re-election.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s my fear too.
burghMan
December 7, 2019 @
5:47 PM
Hobie wrote:Needle in the [quote=Hobie]Needle in the haystack. Of the perhaps thousands of phone calls by Trump and not to mention including high level senior staff the Dems have found the single smoking gun? (Ukraine phone call) I think not. One would think there would be a pattern of other similar actions.
Why aren’t they looking at every phone call he has made??
My bet is all of this will just help Trumps re-election.[/quote]
They haven’t looked at any phone calls because the White House has refused to hand over any documents or records, despite subpoenas and court orders. These actions of course are obstruction of justice, and is an impeachable offense itself. Even the “transcript” of the original phone call was a paraphrased version provided by Trump’s staff. This complete lack of cooperation in a constitutionally-defined process is unprecedented, even during past impeachments.
Why would an innocent man work so hard, and break the law, to hide evidence that he claims would only prove his innocence?
Hobie
December 8, 2019 @
12:09 AM
. .
temeculaguy
December 11, 2019 @
12:14 AM
He is not marrying your He is not marrying your sister, who cares, the economy is booming and employment numbers are great. Before I installed fake grass I had a great gardener. I really don’t care what kind of a person he is, the yard looked great and his prices were reasonable. I wouldn’t want Bill Clinton to marry my sister or babysit my daughter but my life was pretty good during his tenure. Think of the president as a subcontractor, just focus on the results and check your feelings at the door. I have no clue who runs my most profitable mutual fund and I don’t care, were at 26% YTD AND 19% average over 3 years. If the papers ran a story that said that particular mutual fund manager was having an orgy with goats on his weekends, my response would be, “who cares, as long as he is at work on Monday.” I’m not related to him, he’s not allowed in my house and I don’t own any goats. Or maybe we should fire him and get a really great guy who makes me feel good and earns me 3%.
burghMan
December 11, 2019 @
7:17 AM
temeculaguy wrote:He is not [quote=temeculaguy]He is not marrying your sister, who cares, the economy is booming and employment numbers are great. Before I installed fake grass I had a great gardener. I really don’t care what kind of a person he is, the yard looked great and his prices were reasonable. I wouldn’t want Bill Clinton to marry my sister or babysit my daughter but my life was pretty good during his tenure. Think of the president as a subcontractor, just focus on the results and check your feelings at the door. I have no clue who runs my most profitable mutual fund and I don’t care, were at 26% YTD AND 19% average over 3 years. If the papers ran a story that said that particular mutual fund manager was having an orgy with goats on his weekends, my response would be, “who cares, as long as he is at work on Monday.” I’m not related to him, he’s not allowed in my house and I don’t own any goats. Or maybe we should fire him and get a really great guy who makes me feel good and earns me 3%.[/quote]
You could have just said “ethics schmethics” and saved yourself a lot of typing.
FlyerInHi
December 11, 2019 @
8:12 AM
I think Nancy Polosi said it I think Nancy Polosi said it well. Impeachment is about the constitution. ballot box issues are separate.
If Trump will be re-elected depends on Ohio, Pennsylvania and such. Trump didn’t vin the popular vote; he won the electoral college because of “forgotten Americans” who were forgotten no more. For 2020, keep in mind that Democrats governor races in Kentucky and Louisiana. In Kentucky the Democrat defeated an incumbent Republican.
Forgotten Americans don’t have tech portfolios.
temeculaguy
December 11, 2019 @
11:11 PM
burghMan wrote:temeculaguy [quote=burghMan][quote=temeculaguy]He is not marrying your sister, who cares, the economy is booming and employment numbers are great. Before I installed fake grass I had a great gardener. I really don’t care what kind of a person he is, the yard looked great and his prices were reasonable. I wouldn’t want Bill Clinton to marry my sister or babysit my daughter but my life was pretty good during his tenure. Think of the president as a subcontractor, just focus on the results and check your feelings at the door. I have no clue who runs my most profitable mutual fund and I don’t care, were at 26% YTD AND 19% average over 3 years. If the papers ran a story that said that particular mutual fund manager was having an orgy with goats on his weekends, my response would be, “who cares, as long as he is at work on Monday.” I’m not related to him, he’s not allowed in my house and I don’t own any goats. Or maybe we should fire him and get a really great guy who makes me feel good and earns me 3%.[/quote]
You could have just said “ethics schmethics” and saved yourself a lot of typing.[/quote]
But that would be missing some of the point, I do not eschew ethics, it depends on that person’s role in my life. I do not care about the education and class ranking of my cleaning lady, I do care about my physician’s education. I want my pet sitter to have a kind heart, but it is not an attribute I care about in a general, I believe Patton was a bit of a jerk from historical accounts, fine with me, just win. I’d like my accountant to be good with numbers, my attorney to be a good public speaker and if I owned a football team my quarterback to be be good at throwing the ball. I would like my CIA director to be invisible and make bad people go away without me knowing and my president to improve the lives and the economy for my countrymen. I met Jimmy Carter, he is a fantastic man, I would be happy to have him as a father, son or brother, but he was a terrible president because our lives were worse off with him as the president and oddly enough better when he was the ex president (he is still my favorite ex-president).
My point was not to exclude an attribute but to look at what attributes are important for what jobs and if you think China or any other nation will bow down to our president on issues or trade because he is a really good guy or gal then Tocqueville was right, “people get the government they deserve.”
burghMan
December 12, 2019 @
12:54 PM
temeculaguy wrote:But that [quote=temeculaguy]But that would be missing some of the point, I do not eschew ethics, it depends on that person’s role in my life. I do not care about the education and class ranking of my cleaning lady, I do care about my physician’s education. I want my pet sitter to have a kind heart, but it is not an attribute I care about in a general, I believe Patton was a bit of a jerk from historical accounts, fine with me, just win. I’d like my accountant to be good with numbers, my attorney to be a good public speaker and if I owned a football team my quarterback to be be good at throwing the ball. I would like my CIA director to be invisible and make bad people go away without me knowing and my president to improve the lives and the economy for my countrymen. I met Jimmy Carter, he is a fantastic man, I would be happy to have him as a father, son or brother, but he was a terrible president because our lives were worse off with him as the president and oddly enough better when he was the ex president (he is still my favorite ex-president).
My point was not to exclude an attribute but to look at what attributes are important for what jobs and if you think China or any other nation will bow down to our president on issues or trade because he is a really good guy or gal then Tocqueville was right, “people get the government they deserve.”[/quote]
You’re assuming that Trump is actually good at anything. There’s really no evidence that he is. He inherited a good economy like he inherited his business, and his policies are all about running up the scoreboard at the expense of the future.
It’s interesting to hear the “economy is good so the president is good” argument on this site, of all places. I’m sure there are a few posts in the forum from 2007 saying Bush was a great president because he was improving the lives and the economy for his countrymen.
outtamojo
December 13, 2019 @
12:47 PM
Exactly. Trumps role in my Exactly. Trumps role in my life is to make it easier for hate groups to make outgroups like me more miserable. His other role in my life is to make mistreatment of the women in my life a wink and nod affair. I guess things look great if steve Miller approves of you AND you can get great returns on your investments.
burghMan
December 14, 2019 @
8:24 AM
Ladies and gentleman, the Ladies and gentleman, the fucking president of the united states:
Trump Campaign Bizarrely Edits His Head Onto Greta Thunberg’s Body on Her TIME Cover
He’s going to spiral. The impeachment is going mess with is fragile psyche and he won’t be able to let it go, even after the senate lets him off. There will eventually be some bad news, a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, a turn in the economy that pushes him over the edge. It’s going to get really weird, and really dangerous.
Trump apologists would be wise to distance themselves from him ASAP.
Coronita
December 15, 2019 @
8:57 AM
it will be interesting to see it will be interesting to see in CA how Newsom will make it even tougher for struggling middle class struggle even more.
It sure seems the ones bearing the brunt of all these new changes aren’t the upper income and wealthy or property owners or business owners who’ve been passing the cost onto consumers. It’s pretty interesting restaurants add all these “surcharges” on top of the menu prices, though I suspect these surcharges aren’t going to workers and in some cases people are tipping less . Meanwhile, rent just increased a lot for a lot of people before 2020, lol
pity. oh well, not my problem .
burghMan
December 15, 2019 @
5:09 PM
flu wrote:it will be [quote=flu]it will be interesting to see in CA how Newsom will make it even tougher for struggling middle class struggle even more.
It sure seems the ones bearing the brunt of all these new changes aren’t the upper income and wealthy or property owners or business owners who’ve been passing the cost onto consumers. It’s pretty interesting restaurants add all these “surcharges” on top of the menu prices, though I suspect these surcharges aren’t going to workers and in some cases people are tipping less . Meanwhile, rent just increased a lot for a lot of people before 2020, lol
[/quote]
Looks like those evil socialists know how to play chess:
And while the law doesn’t take effect until Jan. 1, it would apply to rent increases on or after March 15, 2019, to prevent landlords from raising rents just before the caps go into place.
I don’t like the rent control laws, but they will not affect the middle class much. There are so many exceptions that less than half of current rentals will be under the new rules, mostly low income stuff. The max annual increase will be five percent per year plus inflation. This will keep pace with real estate costs.
[quote]pity. oh well, not my problem[/quote]
Happy Holidays, Ebenezer.
Coronita
December 15, 2019 @
8:22 PM
burghMan wrote:flu wrote:it [quote=burghMan][quote=flu]it will be interesting to see in CA how Newsom will make it even tougher for struggling middle class struggle even more.
It sure seems the ones bearing the brunt of all these new changes aren’t the upper income and wealthy or property owners or business owners who’ve been passing the cost onto consumers. It’s pretty interesting restaurants add all these “surcharges” on top of the menu prices, though I suspect these surcharges aren’t going to workers and in some cases people are tipping less . Meanwhile, rent just increased a lot for a lot of people before 2020, lol
[/quote]
Looks like those evil socialists know how to play chess:
And while the law doesn’t take effect until Jan. 1, it would apply to rent increases on or after March 15, 2019, to prevent landlords from raising rents just before the caps go into place.
I don’t like the rent control laws, but they will not affect the middle class much. There are so many exceptions that less than half of current rentals will be under the new rules, mostly low income stuff. The max annual increase will be five percent per year plus inflation. This will keep pace with real estate costs.
[quote]pity. oh well, not my problem[/quote]
Happy Holidays, Ebenezer.[/quote]
I didn’t say socialists, that was your words. But if things were really working for the middle class, don’t you think people in this state would be better off despite windfall that CA industries have had for so long? why is the wealth gap between the top 10% in this state and lower only getting worse. And of course rent is going up this month. Because there’s a lot of old owners that didn’t bother to regularly raise rents over the years. Well, they are now to bring their prices to current market prices before the 2020. You would be an idiot not to.
Especially since all the rent control initiatives have not ended, lol.
It’s been a great year. I guess people that miss out on opportunity bigtime will always feel scroogie this time of year.
Happy Holidays to you too!
FlyerInHi
December 16, 2019 @
1:27 AM
Another rant from flu about Another rant from flu about California when the subject is Donald Trump. Totally unrelated deflection. As if whatever flu feels is so bad in California excuses Trump.
Coronita
December 16, 2019 @
6:13 AM
. .
Coronita
December 16, 2019 @
6:38 AM
California is great..For high California is great..For high net worth tech workers and property owners who can afford to be and remain here..It’s been that way and progressively even more so….No complaint from me at all! Others who can’t cut it here, I guess can move out of state. Maybe to Nevada…It’s not what I personally would advocate, but it’s what it is.
Merry Christmas, Scroogie Boomer Brian!!!!
FlyerInHi
December 16, 2019 @
9:11 AM
Flu, what does california’s Flu, what does california’s policies have to with Trump’s impeachment?
Your whataboutism is not even apropos.
The problem with the Democrat party is it has gotten too big with too many factions that fundamentally no longer share the same views on many issues. Kinda like….the GOP..
The Democrat party really needs to split up. Far left wing progressive nuts can have their own party. Middle moderates can have there own party, and there there would be plenty of middle moderate Republicans that would be able to form a workable party.
The fringe left and fringe right are equality destroying both respective parties.
FlyerInHi
February 4, 2020 @
12:38 PM
flu, your attempt at flu, your attempt at equivalence is failing. How has the GOP gotten “too big”? If anything, it’s too narrow.
It’s never the same. Maybe same same, but different.
svelte
February 4, 2020 @
6:23 PM
Actually, both political Actually, both political parties are losing members.
My theory is that is why we are seeing what we are seeing from the two major parties – their moderate members are bailing, leaving only the more extreme members to set the platform.
[img_assist|nid=26950|title=Political Party Registration By Year|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=466|height=345]
FlyerInHi
February 4, 2020 @
7:38 PM
Good info svelte.
However, Good info svelte.
However, I believe the “extreme” viewpoint is not objective. From Carter to Clinton to Obama, the Democratic Party has moved to right. No one could say they moved more to the “extreme” left. The next candidate remains to the seen but that time is in future.
The Republicans, however, have definitely moved more to the extreme right, from Nixon to Ford, Reagan, both Bushes and now Trump. To the right wing, Trump has added a nativist and nationalist, anti-immigrant, racist ideology reminiscent of big trade union Democrats of the 70s and 80s.
svelte
February 7, 2020 @
4:19 PM
FlyerInHi wrote: From Carter [quote=FlyerInHi] From Carter to Clinton to Obama, the Democratic Party has moved to right. No one could say they moved more to the “extreme” left. [/quote]
Can you back this up with data, please.
How has the Democratic party moved to the right. I just don’t see it.
I see support of extreme environmental laws, support of global warming theories, support of nationalized health care, and now even pushing for forgiveness on college debt. The Dems are moving way left, baby. Way left.
And they are going to lose the sympathy of moderates like myself.
Coronita
February 7, 2020 @
4:59 PM
svelte wrote:FlyerInHi wrote: [quote=svelte][quote=FlyerInHi] From Carter to Clinton to Obama, the Democratic Party has moved to right. No one could say they moved more to the “extreme” left. [/quote]
Can you back this up with data, please.
How has the Democratic party moved to the right. I just don’t see it.
I see support of extreme environmental laws, support of global warming theories, support of nationalized health care, and now even pushing for forgiveness on college debt. The Dems are moving way left, baby. Way left.
And they are going to lose the sympathy of moderates like myself.[/quote]
Thank you and precisely..I think if you look at the broaden landscape the majority of the population lie somewhere in the middle. Except now, both parties are represented by the fringy left and fringy right.
Rallying behind Bernie or Warren because you hate Trump is as asinine as voting for Trump. I think Warren is done. Good riddance. I’m personally hoping for Pete.
svelte
February 7, 2020 @
5:43 PM
flu wrote:
Rallying behind [quote=flu]
Rallying behind Bernie or Warren because you hate Trump is as asinine as voting for Trump. I think Warren is done. Good riddance. I’m personally hoping for Pete.[/quote]
I could not vote for Bernie or Warren. I’d go third party before I’d do that. Funny too because a few years ago when she joined the national scene I liked what Warren was saying. But almost everything that has come out of her mouth since then has put distance between her and me to the point where I won’t even consider voting for her.
I could vote for Pete, Biden, or Bloomberg.
Coronita
February 7, 2020 @
8:25 PM
svelte wrote:flu [quote=svelte][quote=flu]
Rallying behind Bernie or Warren because you hate Trump is as asinine as voting for Trump. I think Warren is done. Good riddance. I’m personally hoping for Pete.[/quote]
I could not vote for Bernie or Warren. I’d go third party before I’d do that. Funny too because a few years ago when she joined the national scene I liked what Warren was saying. But almost everything that has come out of her mouth since then has put distance between her and me to the point where I won’t even consider voting for her.
I could vote for Pete, Biden, or Bloomberg.[/quote]
And that’s the rub. Warren and Bernie and a lot of Democrats are hell bent on “economic equality for all” policy… That’s a bunch of bullshit that only appeals to part of the population that are looking for someone else to make them whole and not reprsentative of a good percentage people on this country. That sort of game will only appeal to people during a period of economic misery in which the majority of the population got screwed over financially.
We aren’t currently in a period of time were we have a widespread financial misery felt by everyone that this sort of thought process would appeal too. (unless you were the individuals in the D&G category that sat out the markets all these years thinking the sky was going to fall …then I could understand why one would be economically miserable for getting left behind)
The reality there are plenty of people in the US with 401ks, IRAs, 529ks, investments, young and old. And for the most part people are happy with the performance, people are happy with the low unemployment, and job growth. It’s a hard sell right now for Warren or Bernie to pitch “economic equality” when things are going well for many, because the obvious reaction is ‘why change, what’s in it for me, and things aren’t bad for me so I can’t relate”
That’s the issue. Short of a financial meltdown in 2020, which is looking more and more unlikely, the message that Warren and Bernie is pitching is a hard sell when the status quo is “ok”.
The other thing is continuously trying to play the “Trump is am awful person” is not going to really affect voters. Everyone already knows he’s an awful person. People have become desensitized to how awful he is
People who hated him still hate h, and people who overlooked all his issues still will. The only thing I think could massively sway things is the economy…
FlyerInHi
February 7, 2020 @
11:44 PM
Flu, if Bernie and Liz have Flu, if Bernie and Liz have hard sells, then why get worked up about socialism? Just let them be. That’s how democracy works.
Plus, what’s your problem? You keep of focusing your ire on Bernie and Liz whom you believe have narrow appeal. Why don’t you focus some energy on Republicans if you really believe they are the other side of the coin. Maybe you’re worried that a Democratic socialist will get the nomination and get elected?
Personally, I like a globalized capitalist system because I’m a competitive person. But I realize that most people are not. I like a Singapore style system that is very competitive and demanding but yet provides good housing, health care and education for people.
Maybe you don’t see it, but there so many dumb Americans who lack health care, education and housing. Most of them are substance addicted. That’s not how a modern society should be.
FlyerInHi
February 7, 2020 @
6:10 PM
svelte wrote:FlyerInHi wrote: [quote=svelte][quote=FlyerInHi] From Carter to Clinton to Obama, the Democratic Party has moved to right. No one could say they moved more to the “extreme” left. [/quote]
Can you back this up with data, please.
How has the Democratic party moved to the right. I just don’t see it.
I see support of extreme environmental laws, support of global warming theories, support of nationalized health care, and now even pushing for forgiveness on college debt. The Dems are moving way left, baby. Way left.
And they are going to lose the sympathy of moderates like myself.[/quote]
Obama and Clinton are Third way Democrats. Their administrations were characterized by economic liberalism, laisse faire capitalism, globalization, welfare cuts, etc… What you mentioned are responses to address inequities of capitalism which they unequivocally supported.
If we get Pete, he’d be another third way Democrat. Bernie would be more trade protectionist, union Democrat (more European style Democrat).
svelte
February 7, 2020 @
8:31 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:
Obama and [quote=FlyerInHi]
Obama and Clinton are Third way Democrats. Their administrations were characterized by economic liberalism, laisse faire capitalism, globalization, welfare cuts, etc… What you mentioned are responses to address inequities of capitalism which they unequivocally supported.
[/quote]
Listen.
I’ve worked my way from having nothing. Nothing.
I don’t need you or anyone else telling me that there are inequalities in capitalism. Hard work is rewarded under capitalism which is why I work so hard and why I have been rewarded. If there wasn’t the work-reward incentive, me and millions like me would not be working our asses off to advance society and at the same time our income.
If you want to head towards a socialist society, go ahead and lay your plans but count on me not voting for your plan, and count on many many other moderates not voting for your plan either.
[quote=FlyerInHi]
You have to take a longer view and compare to the union Democrats, and protectionist Democrats of the past..[/quote]
I have way more experience than you and I am pretty sure way more intelligence than you…I don’t need any lectures or condescending attitude from a young inexperienced lightweight.
I’ve went light on you because you are younger and more naive, but if you want to feel the need to lecture me on what I need to do, I’m gonna take the gloves off my friend.
FlyerInHi
February 7, 2020 @
9:09 PM
Just saying we moved to the Just saying we moved to the right since the 70s. We were a much less capitalist back then. There have been lots of capitalist innovations like mortgage backed securities, etc.. and economic reforms enabled by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Any political scientist would agree. Clinton was to right of Carter and Obama bailed out Wall Street. That’s pretty objective data.
spdrun
February 7, 2020 @
9:17 PM
A few points …
(1) Over A few points …
(1) Over 50% of Americans have no investments to their name. No rental property. No stocks. No 401k. No index funds. Zero, zippo, zilch, nada. They’re too busy living hand-to-mouth, often working two McJobs to think about investing.
(2) No matter how much people want to hide their heads in the sand, environmental problems are real. Our throw-away society can’t last forever. We can’t vomit CO2 into the air forever. Global temperatures are rising. The question isn’t if but when and how much time we have before things get dangerous.
(3) Great. Svelte worked herself up from “nothing, nothing.” Translation: she got lucky. It only takes one health crisis or accident to return your savings to zero in the US system. There’s incentive to move up and work, even with countries with a better safety net, and economic mobility in the US isn’t great anymore. US ranks 16/24 out of wealthy countries in economic mobility. “Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” is a nice myth that takes some combination of luck, good health, energy for hard work, connections, and social skills — not everyone is born with that stuff.
(4) 50+ hour work weeks and basically no vacation doesn’t do much for Americans’ mental health. Wonder why addiction and suicide rates are at a high, while life expectancy is actually falling, despite better medical technology.
(5) If New York can do free public education for all first-time college students with a family income below $120,000, why can’t other states, or even the country as a whole? Free or very cheap public university was the norm, not the exception, until the 1970s and 1980s. But hey, education bad. Everyone should go to a boring trade school, become a plumber, and spend their days covered in other people’s shit. Or, if they want to go to college for free, they should join the military and become a hired murderer who doesn’t own their body (or the enablers of murdering scum). Yay America! U-S-A! U-S-A!
(6) Criminal justice needs fixing. The Great Recession helped reduce incarceration rates, since jailing people is expensive, and financial crises forced state legislatures to look at their criminal justice systems. We’re still the largest incarcerator in the developed world — it’s a national shame, and we don’t even have particularly low crime rates to show for it.
outtamojo
February 7, 2020 @
10:15 PM
spdrun wrote:A few points [quote=spdrun]A few points …
(1) Over 50% of Americans have no investments to their name. No rental property. No stocks. No 401k. No index funds. Zero, zippo, zilch, nada. They’re too busy living hand-to-mouth, often working two McJobs to think about investing.
(2) No matter how much people want to hide their heads in the sand, environmental problems are real. Our throw-away society can’t last forever. We can’t vomit CO2 into the air forever. Global temperatures are rising. The question isn’t if but when and how much time we have before things get dangerous.
(3) Great. Svelte worked herself up from “nothing, nothing.” Translation: she got lucky. It only takes one health crisis or accident to return your savings to zero in the US system. There’s incentive to move up and work, even with countries with a better safety net, and economic mobility in the US isn’t great anymore. US ranks 16/24 out of wealthy countries in economic mobility. “Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” is a nice myth that takes some combination of luck, good health, energy for hard work, connections, and social skills — not everyone is born with that stuff.
(4) 50+ hour work weeks and basically no vacation doesn’t do much for Americans’ mental health. Wonder why addiction and suicide rates are at a high, while life expectancy is actually falling, despite better medical technology.
(5) If New York can do free public education for all first-time college students with a family income below $120,000, why can’t other states, or even the country as a whole? Free or very cheap public university was the norm, not the exception, until the 1970s and 1980s. But hey, education bad. Everyone should go to a boring trade school, become a plumber, and spend their days covered in other people’s shit. Or, if they want to go to college for free, they should join the military and become a hired murderer who doesn’t own their body (or the enablers of murdering scum). Yay America! U-S-A! U-S-A!
(6) Criminal justice needs fixing. The Great Recession helped reduce incarceration rates, since jailing people is expensive, and financial crises forced state legislatures to look at their criminal justice systems. We’re still the largest incarcerator in the developed world — it’s a national shame, and we don’t even have particularly low crime rates to show for it.[/quote]
#2 energy secretary just said there is a bright future for coal!
#3 we are not born with equal ability and so social contract obligates us to be socialist and ensure those with less ability some measure of dignity lest they decide society and following laws provide them no benefit at all. Oh yeah, and religion obligates that too.
FlyerInHi
February 7, 2020 @
11:25 PM
All you have to do is spend a All you have to do is spend a day in eviction court to see that not all is well.
I see people living paycheck to paycheck in my rental business. People, can’t afford housing. Sure, on a personal level, a lot of that is self induced — substance addiction and family dysfunction. But there is a role for government. Why is it that people In Switzerland or Finland are well educated and bilingual?
IMO, Trump got elected because white families in “forgotten” areas are experiencing broken homes and drug addiction. They may just vote for Bernie this time around.
FlyerInHi wrote:All you have [quote=FlyerInHi]All you have to do is spend a day in eviction court to see that not all is well.
I see people living paycheck to paycheck in my rental business. People, can’t afford housing. Sure, on a personal level, a lot of that is self induced — substance addiction and family dysfunction. But there is a role for government. Why is it that people In Switzerland or Finland are well educated and bilingual?
IMO, Trump got elected because white families in “forgotten” areas are experiencing broken homes and drug addiction. They may just vote for Bernie this time around.
Well Brian.. Since you mentioned it and set yourself up for this yourself….If you think life is so unfair and you see people renting from you living paycheck to paycheck and barely able to survive and having to go to eviction court to make them move out …then I have to ask an obvious question. If you are sooooooo concerned about our society and the well being of itjers….WHY DID YOU EVICT THE PEOPLE YOU CARE SO MUCH ABOUT INSTEAD OF SIGNIFICANTLY LOWERING THEIR RENT SO THEY COULD MAKE IT ?????
You said it yourself Brian. You are much more lucky then other people because you have property others don’t. You were lucky because obviously hard work had nothing to do with it as you also suggested. WHY THEN ARENT YOU GIVING BACK AND LOWERING YOUR RENT TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO LIVE THERE. WHY ARE YOU BEING A CAPITALIST PIG AND EVICTING PEOPLE INSTEAD OF GIVING THEM A BREAK?
(dead silence)
This is just the most hysterical post from you as of yet. I don’t think I’ve seen a post from you in a long time for which you walked into your own mess and blatantly demonstrated the painfully obvious hypocrisy. Thanks for the laugh…. Ok Boomer….If you say so.
svelte
February 8, 2020 @
8:10 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:All you have [quote=FlyerInHi]All you have to do is spend a day in eviction court to see that not all is well.
[/quote]
Because of family dynamics, I have spent considerable time in Northern California recently around people in the same situation you discuss.
And what I’ve seen is that people put themselves in these situations (for the most part, not always) because of stupid, stupid decisions and a total lack of ability to manage their money.
I’ve liquidated a few estates in the past couple of years and, as dictated by wills and trusts, I’ve handed out tens of thousands of dollars to people living paycheck to paycheck.
Knowing that they’ve never had that much money given to them at one time EVER, I counseled them on how they should invest that money in themselves to get ahead and get themselves out of living paycheck to paycheck. In all cases save one, they ignored me and SPENT THE MONEY IMMEDIATELY. On stupid, idiotic, one-time thrill things!
And now they’re broke again and living paycheck to paycheck.
So I don’t want to hear how good savers making wise decisions need to assist poor folks. Anything that is given to most broke folks will be squandered.
If that’s how they want to live their life, that’s fine.
Just don’t expect me to fund it.
FlyerInHi
February 8, 2020 @
8:40 AM
Flu, you make no sense. Flu, you make no sense. Just because we wish for social equity policies that uplift people does not mean we have to give up our money. It’s an old trope. Again fallacy of composition.
Also, Svelte and flu, you’re not directly paying for anything. Why are you guys so selfish about your fellow Americans? It’s like saying you’re directly paying for wars or disabled veterans, many of whom abuse the disability system.
The policy aspects are not the same as individual responsibility. When you have good policies, individuals grow up and become responsible because they have the education and social support Maybe it too late for people who are already adults, but what about future generations?
When we have an educated population, our economy and wealth grows even more. Just a few decades ago, Singapore had an illiterate third world population. Now they’re the best at math and nearly everyone is educated and bilingual. They are one of the most open capitalist societies, with many socialist policies. They have virtually no homelessness or drug problems. So it’s definitely possible to have it both ways.
BTW, back in the 90s, Singapore was the hard disk manufacturer of the world. They have successfully transitioned to software and financial services. In contrast, people in America’s rust belt are twisting in the wind, hoping for a return to coal and smokestack manufacturing. They are angry and voted for Trump. Don’t think they won’t be voting for Bernie if the gets the nomination.
svelte
February 8, 2020 @
8:00 AM
spdrun wrote:A few points [quote=spdrun]A few points …
.[/quote]
Oh great. The other freeloader pipes in.
As I recall, both you and Brian scrape by with rental properties that you’ve collected, correct? Or is my memory wrong?
And now you expect the rest of us to pay for your healthcare, your education, and all of the other benefits that an employer would pay should you find the energy to actually work a real job.
Well you chose your path. You figure it out! I’m not willing to pay for you to sit on your arse.
I would agree that we should have a basic safety net for those not intelligent enough or too lazy to work. We already have that in this country.
And I did not get “lucky”. I thought carefully about my decisions and chose a path that would get me to my goal. If you and Brian didn’t do that, well that’s your fault not mine and I’m not willing to foot the bill for your lifestyle. You chose it, you figure it out!
The more I hear from far left Democrats, the more I think that maybe what this country needed was a far right Republican. Not saying I think Trump was the right choice, but this whoa is me I need more benefits attitude makes me want to puke.
spdrun
February 8, 2020 @
10:32 AM
Svelte — ironically, we have Svelte — ironically, we have a decent safety net for people who aren’t working. We don’t have a safety net for people who ARE working, meaning that many working Americans are actually stuck with worse health insurance than those on Medicaid, Medicare, or disability.
To my other points — do you really support spending $400 billion a year sending our military all over the world, when the money could be spent on infrastructure, education, healthcare, or simply not taken as taxes or not added to the deficit?
You really don’t think that environmental issues are a real thing, that the current world based on increasing consumption of resources and carbon emissions is sustainable?
FlyerInHi
February 9, 2020 @
4:09 PM
spdrun wrote:
To my other [quote=spdrun]
To my other points — do you really support spending $400 billion a year sending our military all over the world, when the money could be spent on infrastructure, education, healthcare, or simply not taken as taxes or not added to the deficit?
[/quote]
You’re way off, spdrun. Your data is quite old.
$740 billion military budget in Trump’s next budget.
Coronita
February 4, 2020 @
8:36 PM
svelte wrote:Actually, both [quote=svelte]Actually, both political parties are losing members.
My theory is that is why we are seeing what we are seeing from the two major parties – their moderate members are bailing, leaving only the more extreme members to set the platform.
[img_assist|nid=26950|title=Political Party Registration By Year|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=466|height=345][/quote]
Yup. people are sick of the fringy people. Alt left = Alt right.
FlyerInHi
February 5, 2020 @
9:01 AM
Repeating and believing it Repeating and believing it does not make it true, flu.
You need to take a political science class. Clinton and Obama were third way Democrats.
Yes, there is more divisions in the country, but not because Democrats moved to the left. It’s because of people like Rush Limbaugh who got the medal of freedom. And it’s also because of unintelligent Republicans who buy into the grievances sold to them by the right wing media.
BTW, Democrats in the 70s and 80s were nativist and racist like Republicans today. They didn’t want Blacks and foreigner immigrants joining the unions and getting good jobs. But Democrats have moved on and broadened the party.
Basically, Republicans adopted deplorable, discarded Democratic idea and incorporated them into their platform. That’s why the Jim Crow south that previously voted Democrat jumped into the Republican bandwagon, and the progressive metropolitan areas are solidly blue. The up and coming metro areas are also turning blue while the declining areas are going red.
So now we end up with more geographical division. In California, the Inland Empire is turning blue as Latinos and Asians move in, and whites are diluted or cash in on their equity and move eastward.
temeculaguy
February 5, 2020 @
11:16 PM
Nope, that won’t be how it Nope, that won’t be how it ends. The democratic party will tear itself apart, Trump will be re-elected and progressives socialists will cry, a lot. The moderates will blame the progressives and the Democratic party will reinvent itself as the middle party and the progressive socialists will splinter into a third, obscure party. The new Moderate Democratic party will take back power. I say this because after Trump’s re-election the republicans will get over confident with their next candidate and touch the third rails, pushed by it’s far right. Right now, only the Dems are pushed hard by the extremes. It will hit both sides. 20 years from now, the extremes will be cast out of both parties, but it will take some hard lessons and losses for that to sink in.
I don’t write this for Brian to argue, I do it so I can quote it years from now. Pendulums swing, they’ve always swung, in politics and investments. The next two swings will shake the crazies from both parties and it will be a good thing for the people and both parties.
Nancy got pushed into this and it backfired, Trump is at his highest approval rating and next up is Chima crawling to the table begging. It’s just win after win. Establishment Dems can’t cheat Bernie without scrutiny, Biden is cratering and Socialism only sells in a depression or after a war. James Carville, the D’s greatest architect is losing his mind watching it and saying so on TV.
Or I could be wrong, but that’s how I see it. I also believe we will all be fine and probably better off to lose the radicals from both sides.
FlyerInHi
February 6, 2020 @
6:21 AM
Temecula guy, you may well be Temecula guy, you may well be right that Trump will win again, but that will not be because of Democrats. You make it sound like Trump won a popularity contest. He has not. Remember, he won because of White working class angst in declining industrial states.
My prediction is that we will see more geographical division in USA. The smart people will leave the rust belt and dying rural areas and make something themselves in dynamic metros. The majority, however, will never get the education necessary to make it in an increasingly tech work. It’s no longer possible to join the middle class, just out of HS with no skills.
I predict that the opioid crisis will get worse in dying areas of the country. Personally, I think we, Democrats, should totally abandon those areas and let Republicans and the free market take care of them.
If Trump wins again, it will not be because of Democrats, it will be because Republicans voted for him.
FlyerInHi
February 6, 2020 @
6:42 AM
You should read Graham You should read Graham Alison’s Thucydides’ Trap about China and the USA, the rising power vs the established power.
There is a parallel in US demographics. The White working class or middle class (lower education, not very upwardly or geographically mobile) is the established power of the increasingly obsolescent 20th century economy. They are resisting the rising power of the urbanites, polyglot urbanites and immigrants, metropolitan population of the new economy, a more tech connected world citizenry (even Central American refugees use whatsapp every to connect to their home country).
The-Shoveler
February 6, 2020 @
7:35 AM
Farmers can make it big Farmers can make it big sometimes so can plumbers and air tech’s.
At least someone with just a HS diploma was smart enough not to spend a bunch of money on a liberal arts degree etc..
Coronita
February 6, 2020 @
7:54 AM
The-Shoveler wrote:Farmers [quote=The-Shoveler]Farmers can make it big sometimes so can plumbers and air tech’s.
At least someone with just a HS diploma was smart enough not to spend a bunch of money on a liberal arts degree etc..[/quote]
Actually, a few friends over at PCA-SD were just taking about this. Some of the Porsche guys there are your usual doctor’s, lawyers, etc. But a handleful of them were retired plumbers. Certainly 10x better than those folks that take out a student loan to study “conversational linguistics” or “shakesperian history” that leads to great career prospects only requiring you to say “you want fries with that?” or “grande or vente”….And these are the jokers that like Bernie and Warrens college debt forgiveness plans…lol.
College and white collar job is not for everyone. for many , college degree doesn’t mean shit. and doesn’t lead to any better career prospects. including many of the new college grads that are buried in student debt but can’t find a job.
spdrun
February 6, 2020 @
8:27 AM
Anti-intellectualism runs Anti-intellectualism runs deep on here, as it does in this country … you know, linguistics has practical applications in psychology and AI, right?
The-Shoveler
February 6, 2020 @
8:41 AM
More of a anti elitist More of a anti elitist snob-ism
Coronita
February 6, 2020 @
10:32 AM
spdrun [quote=spdrun]Anti-intellectualism runs deep on here, as it does in this country … you know, linguistics has practical applications in psychology and AI, right?[/quote]
Yes, and those that I use to work with in those technologies have PHDs and a science dual major… None of them have a BA linguistics degree alone from University of Phoenix.
I think both you and Brian are confused or have schiophrenia. Both of you, on some days argue pro-intellectualism and elitism… And then when the moon and stars align differently on a different day, both of you argue against pedigree degrees from profuse-intellectualism from top rank private universities and ivy leagues. lol
Hence my statement previously… I think you guys are just miserable and find a need to argue for the sake.of arguing because your circular and self-contradictory logic exhibited all the time is amusing and entertaining.
Just like what you said previously on the other thread about trying to financially survive and at the same time willing to bet your entire primary residence on a one hit one time correction to make you financially whole. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
FlyerInHi
February 6, 2020 @
11:55 AM
Flu, please…. when did I Flu, please…. when did I argue against any kind of education. Not me
Some education is better than none if only to become a better human being.
It is you who is miserable and childish. Stop accusing Democrats for Trump. Trump is President because of the people who voted for him, not because of any democrats.
BTW, the University is Phoenix and private diploma mills were enabled by Republicans who believe in the profit motive.
FlyerInHi
February 6, 2020 @
11:42 AM
The-Shoveler wrote:Farmers [quote=The-Shoveler]Farmers can make it big sometimes so can plumbers and air tech’s.
At least someone with just a HS diploma was smart enough not to spend a bunch of money on a liberal arts degree etc..[/quote]
How many?
In the metro areas, sure. If guys and gals were smart, they’d come to metro areas to become plumbers, electricians, etc.
The problem with being “established” is that mobility is diminished. People may have houses and family in western Pennsylvania. Realistically, it’s probably better to abandon the $80k house on 1 acre inherited from grandma and be a plumber operator San Diego.
BTW, farmers get big subsidies. Only the owner makes money.
Coronita
February 7, 2020 @
7:51 PM
On my god. I love how the On my god. I love how the Democrat candidates are ripping Bernie apart. Go Pete!
Coronita
February 8, 2020 @
5:22 AM
. .
svelte
February 8, 2020 @
9:04 AM
This conversation, and the This conversation, and the thought process of Brian and sp, ensure that I’ll never be a Democrat.
I’m actually starting to sympathize with the Republicans.
FlyerInHi
February 8, 2020 @
9:24 AM
Ok. If I have to help Ok. If I have to help disadvantaged people myself, then you pay for the military and enlist to fight the wars yourself.
Anyway, if Bernie gets the nomination, the Trump deplorables in the states that matter may just vote for Bernie. Btw, I call them deplorables lovingly. It’s just that many aspect their situations are deplorable.
svelte
February 8, 2020 @
9:28 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:Ok. If I [quote=FlyerInHi]Ok. If I have to help disadvantaged people myself,[/quote]
You can start by not evicting them from your apartments, as flu suggested.
That way, you won’t look like a hypocrite.
FlyerInHi
February 8, 2020 @
9:47 AM
To be honest, I only had 1 To be honest, I only had 1 eviction of a tenant I inherited.
But I have helped others with eviction.
That request to house the deadbeat makes no sense. Socialism does not dictate giving up your wealth or being poor. It’s just a system of governance. One can give charity when one wishes, but one is not required. Religion however requires charity.
svelte
February 8, 2020 @
10:32 AM
FlyerInHi wrote: One can give [quote=FlyerInHi] One can give charity when one wishes, but one is not required. [/quote]
I’m all for voluntary charity.
Just don’t make it mandatory through taxes.
I give to underprivileged children through automatic monthly payments. I do that voluntarily because I think it is worthwhile. The kids didn’t choose to be poor – I want them to have a happy childhood and hope for the future.
One more point then I’m walking away from this conversation: you assert that the Democratic party moved right 40 years ago with Clinton and continued on with Obama. I’m not certain you are correct and don’t really care enough to research it.
But if that is the case, then that is how they got elected: they moved the party right just enough to draw in the moderates who gave them the votes to get elected.
Had they not taken a moderate approach, the only votes they would have received would have been the radical left and that would not have put them in the white house.
So if the Democratic party wants to go far left this time around with Bernie or Warren or some other loon, they will suffer the same fate that Clinton and Obama would have suffered had they done so: humiliating defeat.
You’ve been warned.
spdrun
February 8, 2020 @
10:42 AM
Non-mandatory charity through Non-mandatory charity through things like churches means that it will be distributed unequally … it will be given to “deserving” families, meaning those that toe the line of a given religious superstition (which sums up what I think of most religion). Or it will be geographically limited to areas where secular aid organizations have offices. Or maybe it will end up as a popularity contest — those that are popular enough to raise $200,000 on GoFundMe get the treatment they need, the unpopular and socially unskilled get to die painfully.
Programs like Medicare for all help everyone, regardless whether they have friends, are popular, are religious, or are seen as “deserving” of help by society. They take the prudery and judgement out of the equation, and that’s a good thing. A former prostitute will get the same treatment as a drug user, and they’ll both be treated the same as an upstanding pillar of his church.
Remember, the US had actual death panels when private enterprise was more involved in rationing healthcare…
Yes Clinton moved to the Yes Clinton moved to the right. He passed welfare reform. It was a lot easier to get welfare before. Clinton felt that he needed to move right and lots of people were upset including Robert Reich who was labor secretary.
Anyway, the Democratic Party is a private club. They can nominate whoever they want. Is you want a voice, join.
I’m not republican, so I’m not worked up about who the Republicans nominate. In fact, I was happy the Republicans nominated Trump because I didn’t think he would win. Obviously, I was wrong.
Less than 100,000 voters in declining areas caused Trump to win the presidency. The same could happen with Bernie or another Democrat, or Trump again. We will see.
Anyway, If you don’t like the Democratic candidate, you can vote for Trump.
I don’t understand why people, especially the right inclined, don’t take responsibility for Trump, Democrats are not responsible for Trump. Trump voters are responsible for Trump.
Coronita
February 8, 2020 @
10:40 AM
svelte wrote:This [quote=svelte]This conversation, and the thought process of Brian and sp, ensure that I’ll never be a Democrat.
I’m actually starting to sympathize with the Republicans.[/quote]
Well,I wouldn’t that far, since the GOP are pretty screwed up right now too. But that’s why short of viable third party… why we need a proportional representation in our government so nothing drastic gets done one way or the other. It’s been demonstrated time and time again absolute power in the hands of any one party is dangerous. And I am glad finally people are beginning to realize that neither the GOP or Democrats are doing anyone any favors right now except the extreme fringy right and left.
Coronita
February 8, 2020 @
10:49 AM
Brian’s underlying business Brian’s underlying business is to rent to poor and disadvantaged people and to take advantage of them…while preaching the virtues of economic equality… That’s a classic Brian self-contradictory hypocrisy. Hey Brian, you’re basically immitating a famous person. Donald Trump’s dad. He was a slumlord too, lol
Come to think about it, you and Donald Trump share many similar characteristics. The only difference is your political ideology, but your thought process and means to achieve goals are pretty much the same.
Lol… thanks for the good weekend laugh Brian
FlyerInHi
February 8, 2020 @
11:06 AM
Nothing about my rentals is Nothing about my rentals is like the slums. They are beautiful urban jewels. Everything is modern, European style — no redneck, rustic or country element such as oak raised panel doors.
sdduuuude
March 11, 2020 @
11:49 AM
Haven’t had a chance to gloat Haven’t had a chance to gloat on this one.
I guess Brian wasn’t doin’ as great as we thought.
I knew we could rely on the “legal system” not being a “justice system.”
To the original post – I’m gonna keep my “no” answer.
September 24, 2019 @ 3:52 PM
Add as a choice: no,because
Add as a choice: no,because the GOP will choose party over country.
If the GOP can agree to dump trump and promise to make the Republican party great again, I will go into 2020 election unbiased as can be rather than voting straight Democrat for everything.
September 24, 2019 @ 4:47 PM
outtamojo wrote:Add as a
[quote=outtamojo]Add as a choice: no,because the GOP will choose party over country.
If the GOP can agree to dump trump and promise to make the Republican party great again, I will go into 2020 election unbiased as can be rather than voting straight Democrat for everything.[/quote]
You seem so quick to forgive. If they is no penalty or past misbehavior, what incentive is there to change? The Republicans who are quiet now will claim they were opposed all along.
September 24, 2019 @ 4:49 PM
Now now for the good of
Now now for the good of America we want 2 viable candidates.
October 1, 2019 @ 10:18 AM
outtamojo wrote:Now now for
[quote=outtamojo]Now now for the good of America we want 2 viable candidates.[/quote]
I think we deserve Trump. 4 more years!
I’m no longer American. I am a citizen of the world. I’ll just watch what happens to America. If Americans, especially the white working class, want Trump, let them have him. It’s like Brexit. We’ll see how great England is with Brexit. I give up.
September 24, 2019 @ 9:23 PM
outtamojo wrote:Add as a
[quote=outtamojo]Add as a choice: no,because the GOP will choose party over country.
If the GOP can agree to dump trump and promise to make the Republican party great again, I will go into 2020 election unbiased as can be rather than voting straight Democrat for everything.[/quote]
What are you smoking? According to the Gallop poll, 91% of Republicans approve President Trump. You cannot dump a president this popular among its voters.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx
September 24, 2019 @ 10:43 PM
When did “if” begin to mean
When did “if” begin to mean “I predict”
September 24, 2019 @ 11:34 PM
Here’s my prediction: the
Here’s my prediction: the white house will Nixon the call transcript, declare nothing to see, not release the whistleblower complaint, and prevent the whistleblower from seeing Congress and trump gets off scot free never mind openly soliciting a foreign gov. for help on digging dirt on a rival.
September 24, 2019 @ 11:23 PM
utcsox wrote:outtamojo
[quote=utcsox][quote=outtamojo]Add as a choice: no,because the GOP will choose party over country.
If the GOP can agree to dump trump and promise to make the Republican party great again, I will go into 2020 election unbiased as can be rather than voting straight Democrat for everything.[/quote]
What are you smoking? According to the Gallop poll, 91% of Republicans approve President Trump. You cannot dump a president this popular among its voters.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx%5B/quote%5D
That is so true, utcox. And yet, many Republicans will push the narrative “the socialist democrats are pushing people to vote for Trump”. Really? They supported and voted for Trump well before. So much for the party of personal responsibility who won’t take ownership of their own votes.
It’s like some people might tell their friends “i’m a drug addict because of you. Now you owe me.” Sure…
March 11, 2020 @ 12:03 PM
outtamojo wrote:Add as a
[quote=outtamojo]Add as a choice: no,because the GOP will choose party over country.[/quote]
The very first answer was the right one.
September 24, 2019 @ 11:42 PM
I voted “because he’s very
I voted “because he’s very clever” not because he’s clever. He actually wings it but the republicans will make excuses and let him wiggles out of everything because they are so afraid of him. He will burn down the house if he has to.
Plus the Democrats are wusses. They are afraid of the white male low-education voters. We love our low education voters, don’t we?
The political establishment is also so afraid of the damage to the American brand of democracy, both domestic and international, that they will not impeach and prosecute an American president. That would mean a descent towards banana republic. They just hope Trump will go away. Best if he gets a heart attack and dies quickly after leaving office.
September 25, 2019 @ 10:40 AM
I read the transcript, seems
I read the transcript, seems much to do about nothing but what do I know.
I am sure it will take about 6 months of congress’s time to go over a 10 minute call.
September 28, 2019 @ 9:18 AM
The-Shoveler wrote:I read the
[quote=The-Shoveler]I read the transcript, seems much to do about nothing but what do I know.
[/quote]
Did fox news not mention that it’s illegal to solicit campaign help from a foreign power?
Even the white-house’s no-doubt-sanitized version of the phone call shows that solicitation as clear as day.
So funny that trump spent years denying collusion with Russia in the 2016 election and then openly showed that he was colluding with Ukraine in the 2020 election.
And yet somehow fox convinces you that it’s all “much to do about nothing.”
September 28, 2019 @ 10:08 AM
For the record, I don’t watch
For the record, I don’t watch fox news.
I just saw the transcript on the net.
You make a lot of assumptions IMO.
September 28, 2019 @ 12:16 PM
I should have been clearer. I
I should have been clearer. I sometimes use “fox” as a stand-in for right-wing propaganda outlets as a whole.
Still, I could be wrong about you getting your news from right-wing propaganda. My bad for making that one assumption (if I made any others, feel free to point them out). So, let’s clear it up: Where do you get your news, Shoveler?
And, given that what trump did was illegal, do you still think that trump’s phone call is “much to do about nothing”?
September 28, 2019 @ 12:31 PM
Let’s not forget the standard
Let’s not forget the standard for impeachment used to be lying about an affair. At the time I thot impeachment was appropriate given that it was a President lying to Congress- my how stupid I was.
September 28, 2019 @ 1:04 PM
LOL well not from CNN.
I very
LOL well not from CNN.
I very really ever listen to the news.
Mostly I get news from the yahoo landing page when I check my email.
Seriously I just saw the transcript made up my own mind.
Still hold that opinion, I feel it would be useless waste on energy debating it here.
OK You guys can go back to your echo chamber.
September 28, 2019 @ 1:34 PM
Come to think of it this
Come to think of it this whole blog was once a real estate echo chamber, turned out ok.
September 28, 2019 @ 4:31 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:Still hold
[quote=The-Shoveler]Still hold that opinion, I feel it would be useless waste on energy debating it here.
OK You guys can go back to your echo chamber.[/quote]
Hilarious. You run away when confronted with facts. Then accuse those who are willing to debate you of being in an echo chamber. What a joke.
September 30, 2019 @ 6:39 PM
zk wrote:The-Shoveler wrote:I
[quote=zk][quote=The-Shoveler]I read the transcript, seems much to do about nothing but what do I know.
[/quote]
Did fox news not mention that it’s illegal to solicit campaign help from a foreign power?
Even the white-house’s no-doubt-sanitized version of the phone call shows that solicitation as clear as day.
So funny that trump spent years denying collusion with Russia in the 2016 election and then openly showed that he was colluding with Ukraine in the 2020 election.
And yet somehow fox convinces you that it’s all “much to do about nothing.”[/quote]
I was on here two years ago and you were accusing people who didn’t watch the news of being influenced by Fox. It is a bad habit and kind of rude. I think you are giving Fox way too much credit and not enough credit to people who independently conclude something different from you.
Sometimes Fox is right, you know.
I read somewhere – maybe even on this site somewhere – that the meaning of “That’s bullshit” is not “That is a lie.” It really means “That is exactly what you would have said whether it was true or not.”
So, yes – Fox is bullshit – but not always wrong, and not completely incapable of coming to a conclusion that mathches that of reasonable people who don’t watch Fox.
September 30, 2019 @ 9:21 PM
Nixon wuz framed
Nixon wuz framed
September 30, 2019 @ 9:54 PM
If nixon had fox Breitbart
If nixon had fox Breitbart the blaze Limbaugh etc he would not have resigned.
October 1, 2019 @ 7:43 AM
outtamojo wrote:If nixon had
[quote=outtamojo]If nixon had fox Breitbart the blaze Limbaugh etc he would not have resigned.[/quote]
That’s true. Fake tapes. Plus everyone does it anyway.
Why did trump reinstate aid to Ukraine after the whistleblower came forward. Seems better 4 his defense not to reinstate, argue by e had an independent reason for Ukraine aid withholding.
January 28, 2020 @ 8:35 PM
scaredyclassic
[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=outtamojo]If nixon had fox Breitbart the blaze Limbaugh etc he would not have resigned.[/quote]
That’s true. Fake tapes. Plus everyone does it anyway.
Why did trump reinstate aid to Ukraine after the whistleblower came forward. [/quote]
one of my undergrad degrees was in political science (where I took an interest in soviet politics),.. so often times I look at how outsiders see things
[quote]
Novaya Gazeta, which is not part of Russian state media, concluded that Trump is obviously guilty and many Republicans realize he’s been deserving of impeachment for quite some time.
Nonetheless, the GOP defends the president in order to preserve the party, while many of the Democrats are “honest people who are ready to sacrifice themselves in the name of the ideas of the founding fathers.”
Novaya Gazeta hypothesized that re-election in 2020 “is in Trump’s pocket,” but the moral victory belongs to the Democrats.
http://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2019/12/20/83242-schastlivogo-impichmenta-amerika
[/quote]
actually am SHOCKED at the fact,…
[quote]
Stalin’s Approval Rating Among Russians Hits Record High – Poll
A record 70 percent of Russians approve of Soviet leader Josef Stalin’s role in Russian history, according to a poll published by the independent Levada Center pollster on Tuesday.
Stalin’s image has been gradually rehabilitated in the 2000s from that of a bloody autocrat to an “outstanding leader.” President Vladimir Putin has revived the Soviet anthem, Soviet-style military parades and a Soviet-era medal for labor during his presidency.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/04/16/stalins-approval-rating-among-russians-hits-record-high-poll-a65245
[/quote]
meanwhile
[quote]
Half of Russian Youth Say They’re Unaware of Stalinist Repressions – Poll
Nearly half of Russian youth say they have never heard of Stalin-era purges, according to a new state-sponsored survey.
Conservative estimates say nearly 700,000 Soviet citizens were killed in the ‘Great Terror’ under Stalin’s rule in 1937-38. Contemporary attitudes to Stalin as a historical figure are divided in Russia, with President Vladimir Putin having said that attempts to demonize the Soviet leader were a ploy to attack Russia.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018/10/05/half-russian-youth-say-theyre-unaware-of-stalinist-repressions-poll-a63104
[/quote]
given the divisions in this country think there should be a cautionary warning all Americans should think about,… those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it
PS
one last thing that I find really troubling
trump’s ex-press secretary anthony scaramucci lists criteria of cult belief,… and the number one item is,… ACCEPTING LIES AS TRUTH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9vO6hkYH_M&t=1m33s
for example ranted before about trumps statements about the environment (in california about water) where I knew trump supporters accept the false narrative (and yet its a big fat lie that climate deniers mindlessly repeat)
https://www.piggington.com/ucsd_econ_roundtable#comment-268140
what I thought was interesting and explains trumps popularity is number three on the scaramucci list,… DISAFFECTION
basically scaramucci notes the president capitalized on the fact that establishment politicians from both political parties did not advocate for white blue collar workers for decades
so even though his policies have failed to improves the lives of this disaffected group,… trump continues to enjoy support by those disaffected because he acts as an instrument of anger against the establishment (which is the same insight by a liberal raconteur)
http://www.michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/
…years ago had a really bad feeling about trump being POTUS and what it would mean for the future of this nation,… sad to say my feelings on the matter have not changed
January 29, 2020 @ 7:01 AM
phaster wrote:
so even though
[quote=phaster]
so even though his policies have failed to improves the lives of this disaffected group,… trump continues to enjoy support by those disaffected because he acts as an instrument of anger against the establishment (which is the same insight by a liberal raconteur)
http://www.michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/
…years ago had a really bad feeling about trump being POTUS and what it would mean for the future of this nation,… sad to say my feelings on the matter have not changed[/quote]
I read the Hillary Problem in the link you provided. Iraq War, Ha! People really don’t take responsibility for their actions. Most Americans I know, especially low education Americans wanted to go kick ass in Iraq after 9/11. So fast they forget ! They are the ones who enabled Bush to go to war. I remember people gleefully watching shock and awe like a football game where Team America won. Yeah, we won, alright!
As China joined the WTO and rose, we embarked on 2 never ending wars. Honestly, we got what we deserve.
October 1, 2019 @ 5:13 PM
sdduuuude wrote: I think you
[quote=sdduuuude] I think you are giving Fox way too much credit and not enough credit to people who independently conclude something different from you.
[/quote]
It’s possible, but I doubt it.
The reason I say that is that most (usually all) of what they (people who I accuse of watching fox) say is exactly what fox says. (When I say fox in this post, I mean the right-wing propaganda machine in general.)
Which would be fine, if a reasonable percentage of it made sense in an objective way. If millions of people all reached the same conclusions, and those conclusions made sense and were based in reality, it would be easy to see how that would happen. It would be a little unusual, given how different people and their ideas are, but it would be understandable. But for millions of people to all come to the same conclusions, and for many of those conclusions have no basis in reality, it seems awfully likely that propaganda is to blame. If millions of people suddenly concluded that 2+2=5, and there had been propaganda out there selling that idea, it would be eminently reasonable to conclude that the propaganda was the reason those people reached that conclusion.
I would imagine your response to this would be: the conclusions that right-wingers reach are ridiculous to you, but not necessarily ridiculous to somebody else. Well, at some point, conclusions become objectively ridiculous.
Is big government bad? That’s a very complex subject, and it could be debated for millennia, with both sides using logic and reason and facts and not agreeing.
Is trump a good president? I’ll listen to a supporter’s reasons and probably disagree with them. But I wouldn’t call their position objectively ridiculous. (It would be ridiculous in my opinion.)
Did the Sandy Hook shooting really happen? To conclude that it didn’t is objectively ridiculous.
Some conclusions can only be reached by starting with lies or by using faulty reasoning. And that is what the right-wing propaganda machine supplies. The lies, faulty logic, alternative facts, made-up evidence, and emotional manipulation required to reach objectively ridiculous conclusions. The conclusions that the propagandists want their marks to reach.
Here are some objectively ridiculous conclusions that millions of right-wingers hold. I defy you to defend any of these positions using facts, reason, and logic:
Democrats want an open-border immigration policy.
Trump didn’t break the law in his conversations with Ukraine.
Obama is a muslim.
Obama was born in Kenya.
Hillary acted illegally and treasonously regarding Uranium One.
Hillary was involved in a pedophile ring.
George Soros paid women to attend anti-trump march.
Sandy Hook was a hoax.
There are obviously a lot more of these kinds of beliefs among right-wingers.
Sure, some of the above are believed by millions but still a minority of conservatives. But my point is made: All those millions of people aren’t reaching a “conclusion that matches that of reasonable people who don’t watch Fox.” They’re reaching conclusions that they’ve reached because of right-wing propaganda. How else would so many people come to the same objectively ridiculous conclusions? So obviously there is some manipulation going on there. It would be unreasonable, I think, to conclude that, while these objectively ridiculous conclusions are clearly inspired by propaganda, the not-objectively-ridiculous conclusions (but still improbable enough that it is extraordinarily unlikely that millions of people would independently reach all of these same conclusions) that right-wingers mostly agree on (trump is a good president, trickle-down economics works, tax cuts for the rich will help the poor, less environmental regulation is good, trump’s tariffs will help the average American, Obama was the worst president ever, Obama hated America, liberals are snowflakes, America is in danger of being ruled by sharia law, there was widespread voter fraud by democrats in 2016, trump hasn’t obstructed justice, and a thousand more) are not influenced by that propaganda. When you hear the exact same points from virtually every right-winger you discuss these things with, it seems pretty obvious to me where they’re getting their ideas from.
Sure, there might be the very rare exception where a person actually comes to all (or most of) the same conclusions as the rest of the right-wingers all on his own. But I think that is very rare indeed.
[quote=sdduuuude]
So, yes – Fox is bullshit – but not always wrong, and not completely incapable of coming to a conclusion that mathches that of reasonable people who don’t watch Fox.
[/quote]
While all that is true, the occasions where right-wing propaganda (including fox) comes to such a conclusion seem vastly outnumbered by occasions when these propagandists lead their viewers to either terribly misled or outright objectively ridiculous conclusions.
October 14, 2019 @ 8:42 AM
zk wrote:trump is a good
[quote=zk]trump is a good president, trickle-down economics works, tax cuts for the rich will help the poor, less environmental regulation is good, trump’s tariffs will help the average American, Obama was the worst president ever, Obama hated America, liberals are snowflakes, America is in danger of being ruled by sharia law, there was widespread voter fraud by democrats in 2016[/quote]
You have mixed in four items that really have no business being on the list of “propaganda”:
Trickle-down
Tax cuts
Less regulation (environmental or otherwise)
Tarriffs
Those have been around much longer than Fox and your post serves to highlight my point that you are giving Fox way too much credit, mixing in BS with Republican party lines. Also, I see Fox as extreme and ludicrous and find very few conservatives who spout the nonsensical themes you seem so concerned with. One crazy friend is all, which is where I used to get my Fox news “insights”. That is the fringe.
Fox is entertainment, not news. I wouldn’t concern myself with it if I were you. I think it is more of a distraction than than anything and serves only to make “normal” Republicans look reasonable. Liberals waste their time arguing these points and end up looking the fool instead of focusing on important things.
February 28, 2020 @ 3:55 PM
sdduuuude wrote:
Fox is
[quote=sdduuuude]
Fox is entertainment, not news. I wouldn’t concern myself with it if I were you. I think it is more of a distraction than than anything and serves only to make “normal” Republicans look reasonable. Liberals waste their time arguing these points and end up looking the fool instead of focusing on important things.[/quote]
You may see fox as entertainment, but that would be a minority view among republicans. They see fox not only as news, but as trusted news.
You may see fox as entertainment, but if you think that most republicans view it that way, you’re wrong.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/24/politics/donald-trump-fox-news/index.html
October 23, 2019 @ 4:27 PM
zk wrote:The-Shoveler wrote:I
[quote=zk][quote=The-Shoveler]I read the transcript, seems much to do about nothing but what do I know.
[/quote]
…
And yet somehow fox convinces you that it’s all “much to do about nothing.”[/quote]
Presumption? Assumption ? Doesn’t matter.
Not very nice.
October 24, 2019 @ 10:33 AM
sdduuuude wrote:zk
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=zk][quote=The-Shoveler]I read the transcript, seems much to do about nothing but what do I know.
[/quote]
…
And yet somehow fox convinces you that it’s all “much to do about nothing.”[/quote]
Presumption? Assumption ? Doesn’t matter.
Not very nice.[/quote]
Been doing some reading to see how good your presumption is. First of all, I had to look up presumption because I wasn’t sure of the difference between “presume” and “assume” – which seemed important to you.
[quote=dictionary.com]
verb (used with object), pre·sumed, pre·sum·ing.
1 – to take for granted, assume, or suppose:
“I presume you’re tired after your drive.”
2 – Law. to assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary.
3 – to undertake with unwarrantable boldness.
4 – to undertake (to do something) without right or permission: to presume to speak for another.
[/quote]
Hm. “assume” is in the first two definitions so the difference is still not clear. Also important to note “take for granted,” “absence of proof,” “unwarrantable,” and “without right or permission” are part of all 4 definitions.
I think I have to agree that you certainly did presume.
Well, the nice folks at grammarly.com have a different view of it. I guess they don’t have much interest in the dictionary. Maybe this is what you meant:
[quote=grammarlyblog.com]
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/presume-assume/
Presume is a verb that means to suppose, to take for granted, or to dare.
Assume is a verb that means to suppose, to take for granted, to take upon, to don, or to undertake.
In the shared meaning of “to suppose,” presume is usually used when you suppose based on probability, while assume is used when you suppose without any evidence.
[/quote]
So, lets say you based this accusation on “probability” and see how you did.
I did one small bit of research to help:
[quote=reuters]
https://www.reuters.com/article/industry-us-news/more-republicans-watch-fox-news-regularly-idUSTRE68D03N20100914
40% of Republicans now say they regularly watch Fox News [/quote]
Before I go on, it is important to understand that making a statement such as “I think Trump will win.” is not supporting Trump and saying “I think Trump will lose.” is not proof that one is anti-Trump. But, lets just say it is OK to assume that The-Shoveler is a Republican because he said that transcript “seems much to do about nothing.” It is not really OK to assume that, but lets just go with it to avoid more math.
At this point, if we assume he is a Republican, there is a 40% chance that he is a fox news watcher. If you believe that 100% of all Fox-News Watchers are unable to form their own opinions and only form them based on what they see on Fox, then at best there is a 40% chance that your accusation “somehow fox convinces you ” is correct. Not even half. Not looking like a good presumption.
Lets say you feel that is really only 75% of all Fox watchers are swayed by Fox, which is a huge and completely unreasonable number. We are now down to a 30% chance that The-Shoveler here has been influenced by Fox. Yet you boldly presumed that this meant Fox had convinced him of his opinion. Clearly your accusation was not “based on probability” and can only be an assumption.
Also, now that you have a sample size of two failed presumptions, please adjust your a-priori probability of “what is the likelihood that a Pigg is influenced by Fox News, given they make a statement that is remotely similar to something that Fox News might say.”
I have forgotten how that math works, but qualitatively it goes something like this: If you think there is a 90% chance of something happening and you take two samples and that something doesn’t happen either time – the probability is a helluva lot less than 90%.
You presumed that that my opinions were formed by Fox News and you were wrong. Now you have presumed that The-Shoveler’s opinions were formed by Fox News and you were wrong. Both bad assumptions.
October 24, 2019 @ 9:40 PM
sdduuuude wrote:
In the
[quote=sdduuuude]
In the shared meaning of “to suppose,” presume is usually used when you suppose based on probability, while assume is used when you suppose without any evidence.
[/quote]
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.
https://grammarist.com/usage/assume-presume/
[quote=sdduuuude]
So, lets say you based this accusation on “probability” and see how you did.
I did one small bit of research to help:
[quote=reuters]
https://www.reuters.com/article/industry-us-news/more-republicans-watch-fox-news-regularly-idUSTRE68D03N20100914
40% of Republicans now say they regularly watch Fox News [/quote]
Before I go on, it is important to understand that making a statement such as “I think Trump will win.” is not supporting Trump and saying “I think Trump will lose.” is not proof that one is anti-Trump. But, lets just say it is OK to assume that The-Shoveler is a Republican because he said that transcript “seems much to do about nothing.” It is not really OK to assume that, but lets just go with it to avoid more math.
At this point, if we assume he is a Republican, there is a 40% chance that he is a fox news watcher. If you believe that 100% of all Fox-News Watchers are unable to form their own opinions and only form them based on what they see on Fox, then at best there is a 40% chance that your accusation “somehow fox convinces you ” is correct. Not even half. Not looking like a good presumption.
Lets say you feel that is really only 75% of all Fox watchers are swayed by Fox, which is a huge and completely unreasonable number. We are now down to a 30% chance that The-Shoveler here has been influenced by Fox. Yet you boldly presumed that this meant Fox had convinced him of his opinion. Clearly your accusation was not “based on probability” and can only be an assumption.
[/quote]
First off, as I have said several times, I do sometimes substitute “fox” for “fox and the rest of the right-wing propaganda machine.” My bad for being too impatient to type that out every time. I use fox to represent the right-wing propaganda machine because they are the largest, most visible cog in that machine. So the 40% is not the right number to start with.
I have several conservative friends who have said they don’t watch fox. But they regularly listen to rush limbaugh, michael savage, alex jones and their ilk. You know, for some right-wing nut jobs (neither you nor Shoveler are in that category), fox is not nutty or conservative enough for them. So some of those 60% of conservatives who don’t regularly listen to fox do regularly listen to much nuttier propaganda.
Another, very underestimated facet of the right-wing propaganda machine is spreading of propaganda on social media. Joe 6 pack takes all the junk he got from Russian bots and spreads it around, and Joe’s even-less-bright cousin, who doesn’t even know how to find fox on his tv suddenly thinks that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Not that that kind of disinformation is limited to stupid people. A guy I used to work with,a very bright guy, his facebook page is filled with the most ridiculous right-wing propaganda memes. Maybe he watches fox, maybe he doesn’t. But he’s definitely affected by propaganda.
Plus, that 40% is those who “regularly” watch fox. I’m sure plenty more watch it enough to be influenced.
In any case, the math is irrelevant, and here’s why: Take a guy who believes all these things:
Muslims are covertly implementing sharia law in American courts
Obama is a muslim.
Obama was born in Kenya.
Hillary acted illegally and treasonously regarding Uranium One.
Hillary was involved in a pedophile ring.
George Soros paid women to attend anti-trump march.
Sandy Hook was a hoax.
Democrats want an open-border immigration policy.
Millions of illegal votes were cast in 2016
You could apply the same math to him. But common sense will tell you that there’s no way that guy hasn’t been influenced by right-wing propaganda.
[quote=sdduuuude]
Also, now that you have a sample size of two failed presumptions, please adjust your a-priori probability of “what is the likelihood that a Pigg is influenced by Fox News, given they make a statement that is remotely similar to something that Fox News might say.”
[/quote]
This is where I went wrong. It was only one thing that was similar to something fox news might say. And I admitted it on page one of this thread:
[quote=zk]I should have been clearer. I sometimes use “fox” as a stand-in for right-wing propaganda outlets as a whole.
Still, I could be wrong about you getting your news from right-wing propaganda. My bad for making that one assumption (if I made any others, feel free to point them out). So, let’s clear it up: Where do you get your news, Shoveler?
And, given that what trump did was illegal, do you still think that trump’s phone call is “much to do about nothing”?[/quote]
Further review of Shoveler’s past posts do not indicate general right-wing nuttiness (although his response to the above was suspect).
So, yes, as I said before to shoveler, my bad for assuming that. I do try not to assume.
Now, if you take somebody who believes every one of the things in my list above, well, I don’t know about the math, but I would bet a million dollars, if such a thing were provable, that that person has been significantly influenced by right-wing propaganda.
Take someone who regularly regurgitates half-true, innuendo-ridden right-wing propaganda talking points, even if none of them are quite as ridiculous as the things on that list and, again, I don’t know about the math, but I’d still bet they were significantly influenced by right-wing propaganda. Not a million dollars. Maybe a few thousand. Maybe more.
Somebody who has a passionate, fiery hate for Hillary Clinton, who thinks that any batshit-crazy moron is better than her – another few thousand at least.
Someone who regularly talks about liberals using the standard right-wing propaganda lies about liberals, another thousand.
There are lots and lots of people at levels below the above where I’d strongly suspect there was a very good chance they were influenced, but not enough to wager.
Shoveler hasn’t done the things in those paragraphs and, yet again, my bad for assuming. I shall endeavor to avoid such assumptions about future shovelers and duuuudes. The people in the four paragraphs before the above paragraph- maybe not so much, as I’d call that a presumption and not an assumption.
October 25, 2019 @ 1:57 AM
That is a big swipe at a
That is a big swipe at a network that is not in lockstep with itself. I kinda like Tucker but pass on Hannity and Ingrahm. years ago I liked O’Rielly but passed on Megan and Hannity. Favorite Fox broadcaster was Brett Baier.
Alex Jones, Savage and Limbaugh, can’t say I’ve listened to more than a few minutes then changed the channel because it’s just too biased for me. But I like John and Ken and Bill Handel on KFI, yet they aren’t conservatives. I also haven’t gotten through any show on MSNBC but I like multiple shows on CNBC from the same parent company. Only show on fox business I’ve ever watched is Maria Baritromo, who used to be on CNBC, but that’s purely infatuation because she’s the hottest 52 year old woman alive not named Diana Olick (but she’s only 48 and still on cnbc).
I digressed on purpose, to illustrate that not everyone fits your stereotype and CNN and MSNBC deserve heavy doses of criticism even from people like me who used to watch their shows and want to watch their shows. Their ratings have cratered for a reason, even my boy Wolf Blitzer is a shell of who he once was.
October 25, 2019 @ 8:47 AM
If people are not influenced
If people are not influenced by media, then I suggest that the right stops worrying about mainstream media bias and Hollywood bias. Simple.
Without knowing, people are influenced by information that reinforce their sense of tribalism. Take a step back and try to look at what benefits humanity as a whole, not just your group or country. America First is the antithesis of that. America First is also economically and morally wrong because it doesn’t understand the concept of win-win. For Trump and his supporters to win, others have to lose.
October 25, 2019 @ 9:49 AM
temeculaguy wrote:That is a
[quote=temeculaguy]That is a big swipe at a network that is not in lockstep with itself. I kinda like Tucker but pass on Hannity and Ingrahm. years ago I liked O’Rielly but passed on Megan and Hannity. Favorite Fox broadcaster was Brett Baier.
Alex Jones, Savage and Limbaugh, can’t say I’ve listened to more than a few minutes then changed the channel because it’s just too biased for me. But I like John and Ken and Bill Handel on KFI, yet they aren’t conservatives. I also haven’t gotten through any show on MSNBC but I like multiple shows on CNBC from the same parent company. Only show on fox business I’ve ever watched is Maria Baritromo, who used to be on CNBC, but that’s purely infatuation because she’s the hottest 52 year old woman alive not named Diana Olick (but she’s only 48 and still on cnbc).
I digressed on purpose, to illustrate that not everyone fits your stereotype and CNN and MSNBC deserve heavy doses of criticism even from people like me who used to watch their shows and want to watch their shows. Their ratings have cratered for a reason, even my boy Wolf Blitzer is a shell of who he once was.[/quote]
I guess we all have our preferences for media. (Tucker…really?)
But I think the more important question is “Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt?”
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/994179864436596736
The only credential is the 1st Amendment. Does somebody want to take that away?
October 25, 2019 @ 11:37 AM
temeculaguy wrote:That is a
[quote=temeculaguy]That is a big swipe at a network that is not in lockstep with itself. I kinda like Tucker but pass on Hannity and Ingrahm. years ago I liked O’Rielly but passed on Megan and Hannity. Favorite Fox broadcaster was Brett Baier.
Alex Jones, Savage and Limbaugh, can’t say I’ve listened to more than a few minutes then changed the channel because it’s just too biased for me. But I like John and Ken and Bill Handel on KFI, yet they aren’t conservatives. I also haven’t gotten through any show on MSNBC but I like multiple shows on CNBC from the same parent company. Only show on fox business I’ve ever watched is Maria Baritromo, who used to be on CNBC, but that’s purely infatuation because she’s the hottest 52 year old woman alive not named Diana Olick (but she’s only 48 and still on cnbc).
I digressed on purpose, to illustrate that not everyone fits your stereotype and CNN and MSNBC deserve heavy doses of criticism even from people like me who used to watch their shows and want to watch their shows. Their ratings have cratered for a reason, even my boy Wolf Blitzer is a shell of who he once was.[/quote]
Maria is not hot. Trump would say she’s a dog compared to Melania.
Tucker, really? Why is he always frowning and angry at something?
I think American news shows are ridiculous. The European “news readers” are much better.
October 25, 2019 @ 10:51 AM
zk wrote:sdduuuude
[quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]Also, now that you have a sample size of two failed presumptions, please adjust your a-priori probability of “what is the likelihood that a Pigg is influenced by Fox News, given they make a statement that is remotely similar to something that Fox News might say.”
[/quote]
This is where I went wrong. [/quote]
I like that you can say this, zk. Thanks.
September 28, 2019 @ 5:18 PM
It is really hard to say what
It is really hard to say what will happen with impeachment.
Ordinarily, party members would stand behind the person being impeached and therefore it would not be successful.
But these are not ordinary times. Trumps has belittled quite a few senators and representatives from his own party. Given the right political cover, they may decide to extract their revenge.
A good read on that take:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/28/opinions/trumps-ruthless-attacks-impeachment-dantonio/index.html
September 29, 2019 @ 11:08 PM
Well, it looks like Trump is
Well, it looks like Trump is not losing supporters. The known trump supporters in my circles appear to have upped their anti Obama anti Hillary social media posts. One in management whom everyone suspects is a closet white supremacist reposted that raccoon story falsely attributed to comedian Steve Harvey.
September 30, 2019 @ 9:30 AM
outtamojo wrote:Well, it
[quote=outtamojo]Well, it looks like Trump is not losing supporters. The known trump supporters in my circles appear to have upped their anti Obama anti Hillary social media posts. One in management whom everyone suspects is a closet white supremacist reposted that raccoon story falsely attributed to comedian Steve Harvey.[/quote]
I’ve noticed the same thing. One group I’m in is full of trump supporters. I heard two of them talking, and it was nonstop “I hate Obama” and “I hate Hillary.” With just a bit more vigor than usual. It’s all they have left.
And they can’t give up and not support trump anymore, because being a trump supporter is – literally – who they are.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/identity-fusion-trump-allegiance/598699/
One thing the article mentions is the charisma of a leader, implying that trump is charismatic. And, to millions, apparently he is. I am completely baffled by this. When he talks, his ignorance, stupidity, maliciousness, mendaciousness, lack of character, pettiness, selfishness, and foolishness (among many other bad traits) are beyond obvious. They’re blazing like a thousand cold suns right in your eyes. How can anybody listen to that and hear charisma?
That’s not a rhetorical question. If anybody has insight into that, I’d love to hear it.
I’d particularly like to hear it from trump supporters.
October 1, 2019 @ 8:51 AM
zk wrote:When he talks, his
[quote=zk]When he talks, his ignorance, stupidity, maliciousness, mendaciousness, lack of character, pettiness, selfishness, and foolishness (among many other bad traits) are beyond obvious. They’re blazing like a thousand cold suns right in your eyes. How can anybody listen to that and hear charisma?[/quote]
Look up “malignant narcissist.” As you read about it, if you didn’t know you weren’t reading about Trump, you would think you were.
They are incredibly confident, no matter what. Even in the face of facts or hard truth. They are irrational in their belief of their own infallibility. It is, literally, impossible to convince them they have done something wrong, and, I have found, for some reason very, very difficult to convince certain people around them as well.
Malignant narcissists don’t go to therapists – they are incurable. The only way to rid yourself of one is to leave. People close to them or around them often go to therapists.
They are usually very successful. When you first meet one, they appear to be supremely confident, which is always attractive. Perhaps it is this confidence that speaks to the charisma you mentioned. I think some people fall in love w/ that confidence and fall into the same trap of irrational belief in the infallibility.
By the way, I think many politicians are all those things, just not in front of the camera. And most are experienced, expert, professional liars but more fearful of getting caught in a lie. So, Yes Trump is all those things, but I dislike him only slightly more than most politicians.
October 1, 2019 @ 5:17 PM
sdduuuude wrote: I think
[quote=sdduuuude] I think some people fall in love w/ that confidence and fall into the same trap of irrational belief in the infallibility.
[/quote]
That is an interesting insight. I guess if one is ignorant of how full of shit he is (and one is somewhat weak-minded), one might be attracted to that. (Not at all implying that you feel that way, sdduuuude; obviously you don’t).
If, however, you are aware of the fact that most of what comes out of his mouth is either a lie or just nonsense, that confidence has the opposite effect.
October 14, 2019 @ 8:20 AM
zk wrote:If, however, you are
[quote=zk]If, however, you are aware of the fact that most of what comes out of his mouth is either a lie or just nonsense, that confidence has the opposite effect.[/quote]
I think all (and I do mean every last one of them – well, maybe not Carter. Maybe.) politicians fall under this category. It is just that Trump doesn’t care if it is obvious.
By the way, I didn’t think the Ukranian call proved any illegal action either. I don’t think it belongs on the list of propaganda, which was a good list of BS. But this one belongs on the CNN list:
“Ukranian call provides unequivocal proof that Trump is guilty”
October 16, 2019 @ 2:50 PM
Another example (and probably
Another example (and probably the most consequential one of them all) of a pile of smaller propaganda falsehoods adding up to a larger one is the right’s opinion of Hillary Clinton.
Most right-wingers (in fact, virtually every one that I’ve asked) absolutely despise Hillary Clinton. When you ask them why, their answers are invariably a regurgitation of right-wing talking points, most of which hold no water. Occasionally mixed in is a policy point (actually, not that I can remember, but one must have been at some point).
I could see why they would dislike Hillary as much as I dislike, say, Mitt Romney. Which is to say not that much. I disagree with him here and there, agree with him here and there, and would rather have Buttigieg as president. I’m not even really sure I dislike him. But there are a lot of people I’d prefer as president.
But the visceral, almost frenzied hatred of Clinton by so many millions of people just would not exist without decades of smearing by right-wing propaganda.
My own cousin, a relatively bright guy, said in October of ’16, “I don’t care if trump is batshit crazy, he’s better than Hillary.” I think millions of people felt that way, most of them because of right-wing propaganda.
One reason I hope the democratic nominee isn’t determined too soon is that the less time there is between that determination and the general election the less chance the right-wing propaganda machine will have to manipulate its marks into hating that candidate and thinking that any ignorant, batshit-crazy moron is better than the democratic candidate.
October 16, 2019 @ 3:30 PM
It’s not like he’s getting
It’s not like he’s getting better at his job either- in fact getting worse. His letter to Turkey is straight out of moron class. Looks like none of his staff wants to be publicly associated with what trump puts out so they stay away and you end up with a letter like what a bad middle schooler would put out.
October 4, 2019 @ 12:48 PM
sdduuuude wrote:zk wrote:When
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=zk]When he talks, his ignorance, stupidity, maliciousness, mendaciousness, lack of character, pettiness, selfishness, and foolishness (among many other bad traits) are beyond obvious. They’re blazing like a thousand cold suns right in your eyes. How can anybody listen to that and hear charisma?[/quote]
Look up “malignant narcissist.” As you read about it, if you didn’t know you weren’t reading about Trump, you would think you were.
They are incredibly confident, no matter what. Even in the face of facts or hard truth. They are irrational in their belief of their own infallibility. It is, literally, impossible to convince them they have done something wrong, and, I have found, for some reason very, very difficult to convince certain people around them as well.
Malignant narcissists don’t go to therapists – they are incurable. The only way to rid yourself of one is to leave. People close to them or around them often go to therapists.
They are usually very successful. When you first meet one, they appear to be supremely confident, which is always attractive. Perhaps it is this confidence that speaks to the charisma you mentioned. I think some people fall in love w/ that confidence and fall into the same trap of irrational belief in the infallibility.
By the way, I think many politicians are all those things, just not in front of the camera. And most are experienced, expert, professional liars but more fearful of getting caught in a lie. So, Yes Trump is all those things, but I dislike him only slightly more than most politicians.[/quote]
Wow that is very insightful…thanks sdduuuude.
I’m gonna save that off and read it whenever I can’t for the life of me understand Trumpettes.
I’m not sure it will be make me feel any better that there are so many of them out there we can get someone like Trump in office, but at least I will understand them just a bit more.
October 4, 2019 @ 1:36 PM
I think the mob analogy works
I think the mob analogy works better. Why do mob underlings support the mob? Because the underlings feel protected by the strongman and they don’t need to study, and go out and get professional jobs.
The mob boss is highly successful, until he’s not.
It’s tribalism and by extension nationalism. It’s a zero sum game perspective where only 1 mob family can control the market. Or only 1 real estate developer can control the land.
They can’t conceive of a bigger win-win system where you grow the market and everyone gets rich together.
October 6, 2019 @ 6:54 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:I think the
[quote=FlyerInHi]I think the mob analogy works better. Why do mob underlings support the mob? Because the underlings feel protected by the strongman and they don’t need to study, and go out and get professional jobs.
The mob boss is highly successful, until he’s not.
It’s tribalism and by extension nationalism. It’s a zero sum game perspective where only 1 mob family can control the market. Or only 1 real estate developer can control the land.
They can’t conceive of a bigger win-win system where you grow the market and everyone gets rich together.[/quote]
I have this premonition that in a Biden trump debate, actual blows will be exchanged.
October 1, 2019 @ 11:59 PM
I read the transcript and
I read the transcript and there’s no there there. What they are doing is a plan to just keep the word “impeachment” in the news cycle. The drawback is whole thing has brought to light Biden’s sins. It doesn’t pass the smell test that Biden’s son, kicked out of the military for drugs, lands a job on a Ukrainian energy company for 1 million a year with no experience. The unintended consequence is the damage to Biden, the only moderate in the race. Two things will happen as a result, President Trump or President Warren.
I had been content with an Biden/Trump playoff, no real downside economically, just feelings, but my investments would be safe. Now if Warren wins the nomination I have to look at some serious investment choices. I’ve been looking into my mutual fund positions and seeing which have fossil fuels, big tech, banking, pharma, medicine, etc. and contemplating selling and moving into other investments as she will change the game more than most. It will still be a game, the rules will just be different. Zuckerberg is panicking, Bezos should be. Just bought a cardigan so I can have my uniform (admittedly for a 50’s party, but it’s a warren signature, so I’ll be spared). As a true Pigg, it’s not about ideology, it’s about how I play the change.
I wonder how she affect R/E, my guess is she will cause inflation thus reducing my mortgage but she may go after landlords, so near the end of her term I’ll become one. I hate to break anyone’s heart but it wont change anything, it will just create opportunities, the trick will be finding them.
October 2, 2019 @ 8:02 AM
temeculaguy wrote:I read the
[quote=temeculaguy]I read the transcript and there’s no there there. What they are doing is a plan to just keep the word “impeachment” in the news cycle. The drawback is whole thing has brought to light Biden’s sins. It doesn’t pass the smell test that Biden’s son, kicked out of the military for drugs, lands a job on a Ukrainian energy company for 1 million a year with no experience. The unintended consequence is the damage to Biden, the only moderate in the race. Two things will happen as a result, President Trump or President Warren.
I had been content with an Biden/Trump playoff, no real downside economically, just feelings, but my investments would be safe. Now if Warren wins the nomination I have to look at some serious investment choices. I’ve been looking into my mutual fund positions and seeing which have fossil fuels, big tech, banking, pharma, medicine, etc. and contemplating selling and moving into other investments as she will change the game more than most. It will still be a game, the rules will just be different. Zuckerberg is panicking, Bezos should be. Just bought a cardigan so I can have my uniform (admittedly for a 50’s party, but it’s a warren signature, so I’ll be spared). As a true Pigg, it’s not about ideology, it’s about how I play the change.
I wonder how she affect R/E, my guess is she will cause inflation thus reducing my mortgage but she may go after landlords, so near the end of her term I’ll become one. I hate to break anyone’s heart but it wont change anything, it will just create opportunities, the trick will be finding them.[/quote]
I agree that knocking biden out seems likely, but I’m not sure it’s unintended. I’m not a deep state conspiracist, but it seems too much to trumps advantage to trigger the impeachment process.
There’s some chance he orchestrated the whole thing…at least 33 %.
It may be irrelevant to you today, but as a country we still don’t want presidents conditioning military aid on assistance to the presidents campaign in the future,right? The transcript is only meaningful in context.
If for instance trump had a gun to zelenskys head, it would change your reading of the transcript, right?
The granting or withholding of military aid is similar to a gun. It is an implied rather than Express threat, but it’s still definitely a threat.
So regardless of your position on impeachment, or whether this violates the constitution, could we at least agree as a nation to make a new rule, only applying prospectively so trump gets a pass on this one, to bar this type of presidential bargaining?
Or is this cool for all future presidents.
I guess I’m very old fashioned but I still believe there’s some value in rules and boundaries and I think it’s bad for the US for other countries to use dirt on our candidates to bargain with presidents.
And of course, if a negro or half negro president, or a president with a vagina did this same thing, fox news would LOSE ITS SHIT. And I honestly would, too.
But how bad is it, really, this one small peccadillo?
In historical context trump and this constitutional violation really are trivial compared to say, Bush 2, the war criminal who lied to embroil us in the Iraqi war, killing hundreds of thousands for NO REASON.
Compared to that piece of shit, who should be in prison, trumps actually pretty chill.
Plus trump cut my taxes a lot, in addition to not slaughtering people senselessly.
So yeah, i agree that in the scope of history, trumps violation. Is small compared to fucking Bush who i still despise, fucking war criminal may he rot in hell.
October 3, 2019 @ 8:41 AM
Isnt that phone call
Isnt that phone call “collusion”.
Collusion. Illusion.
October 3, 2019 @ 9:02 AM
IMO (and I am no expert so
IMO (and I am no expert so probably not worth much)
If you take the transcript “ONLY THE TRANSCRIPT AND NOTHING ELSE”.
It is ambiguous at best so it depends largely on your pre-bias.
Either way I think TG had it right, it is mostly a political football that will in the end likely go nowhere as it will not likely get passed the senate.
How much does 6 months of congress cost?
October 3, 2019 @ 9:15 AM
temeculaguy wrote:I read the
[quote=temeculaguy]I read the transcript and there’s no there there. [/quote]
[quote=The-Shoveler]
It is ambiguous at best so it depends largely on your pre-bias.
[/quote]
It is not ambiguous. Not at all. And the “there” there is impeachment-worthy all by itself.
—————
52 U.S. Code 30121:
“It shall be unlawful for —
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make —
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election . . .
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) . . . of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.”
————–
The president asked Zelensky to do him a “favor” by investigating his political opponent. That is soliciting a thing of value in connection with an election. That violates the law. Show me the ambiguity.
October 3, 2019 @ 9:22 AM
LOL you assume a lot IMO.
LOL you assume a lot IMO.
really not worth my time.
October 3, 2019 @ 9:31 AM
The-Shoveler wrote:LOL you
[quote=The-Shoveler]LOL you assume a lot IMO.
really not worth my time.[/quote]
Again, confronted with facts, you run away.
October 3, 2019 @ 9:33 AM
“FACTS” – LOL,
anyway F-off
“FACTS” – LOL,
anyway F-off
October 3, 2019 @ 9:47 AM
The-Shoveler wrote:”FACTS” –
[quote=The-Shoveler]”FACTS” – LOL,
anyway F-off[/quote]
Who does that remind me of? Having no facts to back you up, nothing reality-based to counter your foes, you come away defiant, belligerent, and unable to see that you’ve lost. Hmmm. Oh, I know. And as it turns out, by the standards of 2019, you’re very presidential, Shoveler. Good on ya.
October 3, 2019 @ 12:20 PM
zk wrote:
The president asked
[quote=zk]
The president asked Zelensky to do him a “favor” by investigating his political opponent. That is soliciting a thing of value in connection with an election. That violates the law. Show me the ambiguity.[/quote]
The problem with this assessment is was the thing of value exclusive to the president. One would presume all American voters would derive value from knowing what Joe and Hunter Biden’s dealing were with the Ukraine. Why is Hunter Biden sitting on a board earning $600K/yr that he didn’t seem to possess any qualifications unless it’s to peddle influence for the company with his father?
Knowing whether Biden’s dealing with Ukraine we legal or not is of interest to the entire electorate. Just as knowing Trumps dealings with the Russian’s is of value to the whole electorate.
If multiple democrat senators sent a letters or talked to Russian politicians asking for favors to help investigate Trump’s dealing with Russia shall they be impeached as well? Obviously the answer is no, so that’s why I look at this as a nothing to see here.
I don’t really see the reason why democrats are so focused on impeachment here unless they are feeling like their probably going to lose the election again. It does seem like their going to be stuck with Warren based on recent events.
October 3, 2019 @ 1:16 PM
livinincali wrote:
The
[quote=livinincali]
The problem with this assessment is was the thing of value exclusive to the president. One would presume all American voters would derive value from knowing what Joe and Hunter Biden’s dealing were with the Ukraine. Why is Hunter Biden sitting on a board earning $600K/yr that he didn’t seem to possess any qualifications unless it’s to peddle influence for the company with his father?
Knowing whether Biden’s dealing with Ukraine we legal or not is of interest to the entire electorate. Just as knowing Trumps dealings with the Russian’s is of value to the whole electorate.
If multiple democrat senators sent a letters or talked to Russian politicians asking for favors to help investigate Trump’s dealing with Russia shall they be impeached as well? Obviously the answer is no, so that’s why I look at this as a nothing to see here.
I don’t really see the reason why democrats are so focused on impeachment here unless they are feeling like their probably going to lose the election again. It does seem like their going to be stuck with Warren based on recent events.
[/quote]
If the “thing of value” is negative information about one of Trump’s rivals, that thing is FAR more valuable to Trump than it is to any ordinary American. Do you really think he did that blatant quid-pro-quo for the benefit of all Americans and not primarily for himself?
This is a perfect example of how president Trump uses gossip, confusion, and hearsay instead of the rule of law. “Knowing” something because the media is buzzing about it is not the same as proving something. Convicting a financial criminal like Manafort through a lawful trial helps Americans. But gossip and hearsay about an unusual situation in a foreign country has little value to you our me. Of course the inevitable media buzz about the hearsay can be extremely valuable to Mr. Trump.
Absolutely there is plenty of corruption in the Ukraine and throughout the world, more than our government could ever sort out. I don’t know how the government and intelligence agencies generally prioritize their investigations into corruption but when the president intervenes directly and targets ONE person specifically, that is clearly a red flag. Did president Trump inquire about ANY other corruption concerns on that call? Are we to believe there is only ONE possible American deserving scrutiny?
In Biden’s situation, Trump is literally begging anyone and everyone in the world to find dirt on one guy… one guy who just happens to be related to his most competitive rival. It’s desperate, pathetic, and his motivation is ridiculously transparent.
How anyone believes Trump’s reasons for digging up dirt on Biden is a routine part of a president’s job to protect the country is beyond me. Are we really so easily duped?
Meanwhile North Korea is launching submarine missiles…
October 3, 2019 @ 1:40 PM
livinincali wrote:
The
[quote=livinincali]
The problem with this assessment is was the thing of value exclusive to the president. One would presume all American voters would derive value from knowing what Joe and Hunter Biden’s dealing were with the Ukraine. Why is Hunter Biden sitting on a board earning $600K/yr that he didn’t seem to possess any qualifications unless it’s to peddle influence for the company with his father?
Knowing whether Biden’s dealing with Ukraine we legal or not is of interest to the entire electorate. Just as knowing Trumps dealings with the Russian’s is of value to the whole electorate.
If multiple democrat senators sent a letters or talked to Russian politicians asking for favors to help investigate Trump’s dealing with Russia shall they be impeached as well? Obviously the answer is no, so that’s why I look at this as a nothing to see here.
I don’t really see the reason why democrats are so focused on impeachment here unless they are feeling like their probably going to lose the election again. It does seem like their going to be stuck with Warren based on recent events.[/quote]
The democratic senators were not asking for “favors to help investigate trump’s dealing with Russia.”
What those senators said was that Ukraine should not impede cooperation with the United States Special Counsel.
Completely different.
October 3, 2019 @ 10:03 AM
The-Shoveler wrote:IMO (and I
[quote=The-Shoveler]IMO (and I am no expert so probably not worth much)
If you take the transcript “ONLY THE TRANSCRIPT AND NOTHING ELSE”.
It is ambiguous at best so it depends largely on your pre-bias.
Either way I think TG had it right, it is mostly a political football that will in the end likely go nowhere as it will not likely get passed the senate.
How much does 6 months of congress cost?[/quote]
Context matters.
“Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, accept this justice as a gift on my daughter’s wedding day.”
Don Vito corleone.
October 3, 2019 @ 11:18 AM
OK one last post,
So you
OK one last post,
So you think Trump will get convicted in the senate?
Or that it is not in anyway politically motivated?
(timing and all).
Seriously I did not vote trump the first time and probably will not vote for him this time, but the Dem’s need to put someone up in the middle or they will lose IMO.
You can look up my old posts LOL,
I wanted to vote Bernie but became completely disenchanted when Clinton got the nomination.
I liked his health care plan (still do), not crazy about the rest of his ideas.
October 3, 2019 @ 11:25 AM
No. Because everything is
No. Because everything is bullshit.
October 3, 2019 @ 1:24 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:OK one
[quote=The-Shoveler]OK one last post,
So you think Trump will get convicted in the senate?
Or that it is not in anyway politically motivated?
(timing and all).
[/quote]
The impeachment of Clinton set the standard for impeachment. He just lied about the affair. Well, not really an affair, just a blowjob.
October 3, 2019 @ 1:33 PM
That was also a large waste
That was also a large waste of time and money LOL.
Most expensive BJ in history.
October 24, 2019 @ 12:22 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:That was
[quote=The-Shoveler]That was also a large waste of time and money LOL.
Most expensive BJ in history.[/quote]
Alan Lichtman saysthe impeachment of Clinton was very useful to Republicans. No backfire.
https://youtu.be/CBPcacIvdIY
October 3, 2019 @ 3:03 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:So you
[quote=The-Shoveler]So you think Trump will get convicted in the senate?
[/quote]
Unless further information comes to light, or the right-wing propaganda machine turns on him, the chances of him being convicted are virtually zero.
If further information comes to light unambiguously showing trump extorted Ukraine for dirt on Biden using U.S. funds, the chances go up a bit. But most senators care more about being reelected than about their country or about what’s right or about the constitution. So the chances might not go up all that much, even in that case.
If the right-wing propaganda machine turns on him for whatever reason, then his base will turn on him and the senators will have an excuse to do what’s right. In that extremely unlikely case, the chances of him being removed are very high.
[quote=The-Shoveler]Or that it is not in anyway politically motivated?
(timing and all). [/quote]
I don’t think it’s politically motivated. I could be wrong about that, but I think democrats know that impeachment is much more likely to energize trump’s base than it is to actually remove trump from office or to make voters more likely to vote democratic.
October 4, 2019 @ 7:30 AM
Capitalism. People do things
Capitalism. People do things for money.
Why would anyone expect differently for Biden dirt?
No quid pro quo? Doesn’t that violate our fundamental understanding of how the world works.
You dont get anything for nothing
October 24, 2019 @ 10:43 AM
Speaking of Biden, this
Speaking of Biden, this headline was on the side bar of some web site I visited today:
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/23/772671301/after-hitting-trump-biden-apologizes-for-referring-to-partisan-lynching-in-1998
Republicans and Democrats are soooooo different.
—
Also saw that Guiliani is shopping for a defense attorney. Mabye burgMan onto something.
October 24, 2019 @ 11:38 AM
sdduuuude wrote:Speaking of
[quote=sdduuuude]Speaking of Biden, this headline was on the side bar of some web site I visited today:
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/23/772671301/after-hitting-trump-biden-apologizes-for-referring-to-partisan-lynching-in-1998
Republicans and Democrats are soooooo different.
—
Also saw that Guiliani is shopping for a defense attorney. Mabye burgMan onto something.[/quote]
Do you know of any president who’s conducted himself like Trump? Words coming from the president under investigation are not the same as words from partisan defenders.
If you’re conservative, you should know the difference between hierarchies.
October 24, 2019 @ 1:22 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:sdduuuude
[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude]Speaking of Biden, this headline was on the side bar of some web site I visited today:
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/23/772671301/after-hitting-trump-biden-apologizes-for-referring-to-partisan-lynching-in-1998
Republicans and Democrats are soooooo different.
—
Also saw that Guiliani is shopping for a defense attorney. Mabye burgMan onto something.[/quote]
Do you know of any president who’s conducted himself like Trump? Words coming from the president under investigation are not the same as words from partisan defenders.
If you’re conservative, you should know the difference between hierarchies.[/quote]
Ya, but that is because he is Trump, not because he is conservative. Point is – Dems reacted with the exact same verbiage back when.
October 24, 2019 @ 2:33 PM
I don’t understand why Trump
I don’t understand why Trump is excused for being Trump. He’s the president and should conduct himself in a dignified manner. He represents the aspirations of the country.
Remember, when people argued that campaigning is different and once Trump wins the presidency, he would rise to the occasion? All President before have become “presidential”, at least in the language they address the public whereas Trump has become worse.
There is no moral equivalence between the President and what a partisan supporter may say. Conservatives who understand traditions know that. Conservatism starts in the family with good behavior and respectability on how children address their parents, elders, members of the church, etc. it’s not PC, it’s traditions developed over centuries.
October 24, 2019 @ 4:02 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:I don’t
[quote=FlyerInHi]I don’t understand why Trump is excused for being Trump. He’s the president and should conduct himself in a dignified manner. He represents the aspirations of the country.
Remember, when people argued that campaigning is different and once Trump wins the presidency, he would rise to the occasion? All President before have become “presidential”, at least in the language they address the public whereas Trump has become worse.
[/quote]
Ha ha I remember when someone on this blog said Trump would hire the best people and learn like a puppy dog at their feet.
October 24, 2019 @ 6:51 PM
Another thing that is
Another thing that is relevant and the press has not covered is what is the normal routine of releasing military aid? Surely, the President does not sign off on everything.
In a private company, junior managers will routinely pay approved expenses unless the CEO directly intervenes and stops payment for leverage on a specific business partner.
October 3, 2019 @ 12:58 PM
scaredyclassic
[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=The-Shoveler]IMO (and I am no expert so probably not worth much)
If you take the transcript “ONLY THE TRANSCRIPT AND NOTHING ELSE”.
It is ambiguous at best so it depends largely on your pre-bias.
Either way I think TG had it right, it is mostly a political football that will in the end likely go nowhere as it will not likely get passed the senate.
How much does 6 months of congress cost?[/quote]
Context matters.
“Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, accept this justice as a gift on my daughter’s wedding day.”
Don Vito corleone.[/quote]
Mob speak like this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SoBC3xC1Mjw
October 4, 2019 @ 9:29 AM
outtamojo
[quote=outtamojo][quote=scaredyclassic][quote=The-Shoveler]IMO (and I am no expert so probably not worth much)
If you take the transcript “ONLY THE TRANSCRIPT AND NOTHING ELSE”.
It is ambiguous at best so it depends largely on your pre-bias.
Either way I think TG had it right, it is mostly a political football that will in the end likely go nowhere as it will not likely get passed the senate.
How much does 6 months of congress cost?[/quote]
Context matters.
“Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, accept this justice as a gift on my daughter’s wedding day.”
Don Vito corleone.[/quote]
Mob speak like this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SoBC3xC1Mjw
[/quote]
Trump gets away with so many things because he’s the daddy of low-education whites. In that regard, he represents our country. People see their dads or grand dads in Trump.
October 4, 2019 @ 10:16 AM
scaredyclassic wrote:
So
[quote=scaredyclassic]
So yeah, i agree that in the scope of history, trumps violation. Is small compared to fucking Bush who i still despise, fucking war criminal may he rot in hell.[/quote]
I believe that 85% of Americans including Trump were for the war. They wanted revenge and to go kick ass. I was against the war and I believe we would have been better served by reaching out to the Arab world with development assistance. But that was the weak and traitor position, haha
And Kishore Mabhubani, the president of the security council at the time said that China, not the UK, quietly did the most to help us with UN resolutions. So generous of them.
What do they say? Victory has a thousand fathers while defeat is an orphan.
October 4, 2019 @ 10:35 AM
It’s not racism if its
It’s not racism if its against white people LOL.
There is such a thing as liberal aggression, the above is a perfect example.
October 4, 2019 @ 11:09 AM
The-Shoveler wrote:It’s not
[quote=The-Shoveler]It’s not racism if its against white people LOL.
There is such a thing as liberal aggression, the above is a perfect example.[/quote]
Really? Why is it that people who are so against PC culture are themselves so ever fragile?
Corleone underlings would say “Hell, yeah! You fuckin’ believe it i’m gonna support my daddy!” (I never watched the movie so I’m only assuming).
October 3, 2019 @ 12:33 PM
temeculaguy wrote:I read the
[quote=temeculaguy]I read the transcript and there’s no there there. What they are doing is a plan to just keep the word “impeachment” in the news cycle. The drawback is whole thing has brought to light Biden’s sins. It doesn’t pass the smell test that Biden’s son, kicked out of the military for drugs, lands a job on a Ukrainian energy company for 1 million a year with no experience. The unintended consequence is the damage to Biden, the only moderate in the race. Two things will happen as a result, President Trump or President Warren.[/quote]
Just today president Trump has openly called for China and Ukraine (again) to investigate Biden’s son. He made the comments within minutes of mentioning that he has “tremendous power” over China. His behavior is not a one-off, it is a pattern with clear intent: He’s using the power of his office to damage political opponents.
Biden’s son is not very relevant in the scope of national politics. He holds no office (unlike president Trump’s family who have been given positions of influence despite having no qualifications or experience.) There is no direct evidence of wrongdoing by Biden’s son, and even if there was, it would not justify the president’s intense, even obsessive, focus on the family member of a political rival.
Any smart middle school kid that is learning about the constitution understands the importance of preventing individuals in power from using that power to disrupt the democratic process. The 1st Amendment prevents a president from silencing political rivals, the 4th Amendment prevents a president from harassing rivals with false accusations and criminal investigations. The checks and balances of the three branches prevent the president from simply ignoring the rules. The framers knew that a president that behaved like Trump would come along eventually.
I’ve noticed from the beginning that Trump never talks about the Constitution and he never talks about the law. He always talks about himself or other people. He’s taken our government and turned into a reality TV show. The rule of law has been replaced by the influence of gossip. In the world of president Trump, matters are weighed by how much people are talking about them, not their actual importance.
Trump wants America to gossip about Biden’s son. He’s desperate to achieve this, even to the point of soliciting foreign assistance to fuel the flames. The only other situation where the United States of America would call on the assistance of China, Ukraine, Italy and seemingly any and every country would be if the earth were being attacked by aliens. President Trump is trying to convince us America is facing an existential crisis…why? Because the opposing party has a viable candidate.
It’s sad to watch this strategy of distraction by using gossip and misinformation working on millions of Americans. Are we really so easily confused? I’m disappointed to see that it is working on you, temeculaguy. You always seemed to be smarter than that.
But I’m not falling for it, and I hope that other Americans can continue to stay focused on what matters. President Trump is using his executive power to spread misinformation, and to harass and intimidate political rivals. It’s a slap in the face to the constitution. He’s doing it without shame and sadly with the overt support of many Americans who value their “team” more than our shared principles.
If there’s ever been a case for removing a president from office in our history, this is it. Allowing a president to openly mock the constitution, allowing a president to openly seek favors from foreign nations solely for political gain, and allowing him to face no consequences is a not a good outcome. It sets a terrible precedent. This is no longer about political parties or election rivalries. Removing Trump from office because of his specific disregard for the law would be a reaffirmation that our constitution works as it was meant to.
(In the quote I left off the paragraphs about the stock market and real estate because they are not relevant…just another attempted distraction to a much bigger issue.)
October 3, 2019 @ 12:50 PM
I cant wait for a Democrat
I cant wait for a Democrat version of trump to go around and promise all kinds of things in exchange for investigating the whole trump clan because you know, we need to know if people are going around doing illegal things.
December 14, 2019 @ 6:54 PM
Two things will happen as a
So what I’m hearing is, you *might* be forced to think. A Warren win would make you uncomfortable.
Yep that’s why I’m voting for someone like her, or her. The status quo IS the problem.
Josh
October 2, 2019 @ 6:24 AM
Still say you make a lot of
Still say you make a lot of assumptions.
October 10, 2019 @ 11:30 AM
ZK. This is a good article
ZK. This is a good article written by a professor of history about why blue collar whites love Trump. He speaks their language.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/17/why-white-blue-collar-voters-love-president-trump/%3FoutputType%3Damp
Another excellent article.
https://www.rollcall.com/news/campaigns/learning-lessons-about-working-class-whites
The republican base, especially the right wing media consumers are willing to believe anything about democrats because it helps them rationalize that democrats are “enemies of the people”, the people being their culture. Add a little of the Stockholm or daddy loving syndrome and that explains support for Trump.
It’s about culture more than economics. Many who are not now working class come from a working class culture and background.
October 10, 2019 @ 2:04 PM
LOL Seriously your not
LOL Seriously your not helping the image of democrats.
October 10, 2019 @ 3:12 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:LOL
[quote=The-Shoveler]LOL Seriously your not helping the image of democrats.[/quote]
That’s not the point. I am speaking the truth and stating it like it is. Sociology is a science that’s pretty accurate. Marketer use it to sell their brands.
Trump and his supporters can spew vindictive but they are so ever fragile. That’s not how self confident people behave.
October 10, 2019 @ 9:56 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:LOL
[quote=The-Shoveler]LOL Seriously your not helping the image of democrats.[/quote]
Trump and guiliani sure are. Hilary and her foundation lookin pretty pristine right now in comparison.
October 11, 2019 @ 8:01 AM
The-Shoveler wrote:LOL
[quote=The-Shoveler]LOL Seriously your not helping the image of democrats.[/quote]
you’re.
October 11, 2019 @ 10:08 AM
utcsox wrote:The-Shoveler
[quote=utcsox][quote=The-Shoveler]LOL Seriously your not helping the image of democrats.[/quote]
you’re.[/quote]
I make that mistake sometimes, not because I don’t know any better but because of typos.
In real life when people speak, I find that Trump supporters are more likely to say “I should’ve went to school” or “I should’ve have ate my veggies”. Nukular is so retarded. Opps, never mind, I didn’t say “retarded” because that’s bad and very inconsiderate of people with disabilities.
October 14, 2019 @ 8:57 AM
I had a friend once say “I am
I had a friend once say “I am not so sure Trump is a racist, but the racists think he is a racist.”
November 10, 2019 @ 11:53 AM
sdduuuude wrote:I had a
[quote=sdduuuude]I had a friend once say “I am not so sure Trump is a racist, but the racists think he is a racist.”[/quote]
Nobody mentioned racism until you felt you needed to defend Trump of a charge nobody made by throwing in this nugget.
But anyway, here’s an article by a historian who studies such things.
November 13, 2019 @ 9:07 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:sdduuuude
[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude]I had a friend once say “I am not so sure Trump is a racist, but the racists think he is a racist.”[/quote]
Nobody mentioned racism until you felt you needed to defend Trump of a charge nobody made by throwing in this nugget.
[/quote]
Just checking in to see if any words were put in my mouth while I was away. Sure enough. Here are some now.
I wasn’t defending anything. The point was that Trump markets to racists without saying anything that explicitly convict him of being a racist. Very clever. Not necessarily good.
By the way all the immigrant stuff you post shows that he is Nationalistic, not necessarily racist, which are two different things.
November 13, 2019 @ 10:23 AM
Before your comment, nobody
Before your comment, nobody said Trump was a racist, or mentioned racism. If that’s not a defense of a charge nobody heretofore made on this thread, then I don’t know what it. The context speaks for itself.
Here’s an article on how racism motivated Trump voters. Trump certainly enables racists.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/04/17/racism-motivated-trump-voters-more-than-authoritarianism-or-income-inequality/?outputType=amp
October 14, 2019 @ 9:23 AM
One of the recurring themes
One of the recurring themes in the Republican party is the hysterical fear of “socialism”. It’s very widespread and there are recent examples of it right here on this forum: https://www.piggington.com/piggingtons_evoloutionwhen_will_housing_prices_become_discussion
These ideas are definitely promoted by Fox News. Few people in America would even know who “AOC” was if it weren’t for for Fox News. Because of the reach of the right wing media, there are guys in Temecula upset about about a junior congresswoman from The Bronx.
Regarding the impeachment topic, can anyone explain to me why Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer and someone with no official government position, would have any legitimate reason to travel to Ukraine and meet with foreign government officials?
There’s now plenty of evidence that Trump actively solicited the help of a foreign government for personal political gain. This something that no president has done. The case against Trump is now stronger than it ever was against Nixon, and the investigations have only just begun.
October 14, 2019 @ 1:17 PM
burghMan wrote:One of the
[quote=burghMan]One of the recurring themes in the Republican party is the hysterical fear of “socialism”. It’s very widespread and there are recent examples of it right here on this forum: https://www.piggington.com/piggingtons_evoloutionwhen_will_housing_prices_become_discussion
These ideas are definitely promoted by Fox News.[/quote]
One of the recurring theme of the Democratic party is the revialism of socialism under the guise of a democracy.
It is very widespread and there are recent examples of it right here on this forum.
These idease are definitely promoted by CNN.
Involuntary Socialism sucks and should be feared, even if Fox News says so.
October 14, 2019 @ 1:47 PM
Wall St. bankers sure didnt
Wall St. bankers sure didnt fear socialism
when their @sses were handed to them during the loan debacle. That socialist episode was involuntary for me all the other 99 percenters.
October 14, 2019 @ 3:56 PM
outtamojo wrote:Wall St.
[quote=outtamojo]Wall St. bankers sure didnt fear socialism
when their @sses were handed to them during the loan debacle. That socialist episode was involuntary for me all the other 99 percenters.[/quote]
I agree – so clearly I am not a Republican.
And I don’t know who AOC is.
October 14, 2019 @ 2:02 PM
sdduuuude wrote:burghMan
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]One of the recurring themes in the Republican party is the hysterical fear of “socialism”. It’s very widespread and there are recent examples of it right here on this forum: https://www.piggington.com/piggingtons_evoloutionwhen_will_housing_prices_become_discussion
These ideas are definitely promoted by Fox News.[/quote]
One of the recurring theme of the Democratic party is the revialism of socialism under the guise of a democracy.
It is very widespread and there are recent examples of it right here on this forum.
These idease are definitely promoted by CNN.
Involuntary Socialism sucks and should be feared, even if Fox News says so.[/quote]
“socialism under the guise of a democracy.”
“Involuntary Socialism”
Thanks for giving us another example of the hysterical fear of socialism. You are certainly not influenced by right wing media at all.
(and you forgot the link to the recent example you mentioned)
October 14, 2019 @ 3:59 PM
burghMan wrote:sdduuuude
[quote=burghMan][quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]One of the recurring themes in the Republican party is the hysterical fear of “socialism”. It’s very widespread and there are recent examples of it right here on this forum: https://www.piggington.com/piggingtons_evoloutionwhen_will_housing_prices_become_discussion
These ideas are definitely promoted by Fox News.[/quote]
One of the recurring theme of the Democratic party is the revialism of socialism under the guise of a democracy.
It is very widespread and there are recent examples of it right here on this forum.
These idease are definitely promoted by CNN.
Involuntary Socialism sucks and should be feared, even if Fox News says so.[/quote]
“socialism under the guise of a democracy.”
“Involuntary Socialism”
Thanks for giving us another example of the hysterical fear of socialism. You are certainly not influenced by right wing media at all.
(and you forgot the link to the recent example you mentioned)[/quote]
The claim “Oh, you are saying the same thing as Fox News therefore you are wrong.” is not a valid argument for anything. Nor is the claim “you are saying the same thing as Fox News therefore you formed your opinion because of them.” Stop doing it. It is presumptuous, rude, and insulting, especially for people who were over 30 before Fox News started.
October 14, 2019 @ 4:50 PM
sdduuuude wrote:
The claim
[quote=sdduuuude]
The claim “Oh, you are saying the same thing as Fox News therefore you are wrong.” is not a valid argument for anything. Nor is the claim “you are saying the same thing as Fox News therefore you formed your opinion because of them.” Stop doing it. It is presumptuous, rude, and insulting, especially for people who were over 30 before Fox News started.[/quote]
I never said that Fox News is always wrong. I said that they have influence over many people and there are examples of that influence in these piggington forums. That anybody is concerned about the threat of “socialism” in 2019 America is proof that the right wing mythology has power.
I don’t get why you are taking this so personally. My original comment about the influence of Fox News was not directed at you specifically. The example I used (you never did provide your example, btw) was a thread started by temeculaguy.
One’s age certainly does not make them less susceptible to the influence of right wing media. The data suggests the opposite is true. The median age of a Fox News viewer is mid 60s. Old folks are their target audience.
Most Californians, like most Americans, don’t even know the name of their own congressional representative. Yet every Fox News viewer knows about AOC and Ilhan Omar. Many, like tg and flu take time to complain about representatives from thousands of miles away right here on this forum. There is only one reason people are triggered about junior congressional representatives for districts that are nowhere near them: They’ve bought into the right wing media narrative.
(It’s also notable that the same people show little concern about our own Duncan Hunter and his spending habits.)
But this thread is about Trump’s looming impeachment. And it seems for some reason you don’t want to talk about Giuliani…
October 14, 2019 @ 5:13 PM
burghMan wrote:I don’t get
[quote=burghMan]I don’t get why you are taking this so personally. My original comment about the influence of Fox News was not directed at you specifically.[/quote]
How about this one, which I assume was sarcasm – was this not directed at me specifically ?
[quote=burghMan]You are certainly not influenced by right wing media at all.[/quote]
October 14, 2019 @ 5:15 PM
burghMan wrote:One’s age
[quote=burghMan]One’s age certainly does not make them less susceptible to the influence of right wing media. The data suggests the opposite is true. The median age of a Fox News viewer is mid 60s. Old folks are their target audience.[/quote]
Again, you are assuming that old folks are conservative because they have been influenced by Fox News. You don’t even see that. Like, you just blamed Fox News for forming the opinions of old people. Again – rude and insulting. I would assume they watch Fox News because they are conservative, not that they are conservative because they watch. My point was that for anyone who was 30 or older when Fox News came out had already formed conservative or non-conservative views.
[quote=burghMan]But this thread is about Trump’s looming impeachment. And it seems for some reason you don’t want to talk about Giuliani…[/quote]
The only news I see are the headlines that come up on my Yahoo or Google pages. Sometimes I click them. Sometimes I don’t. Sometimes I see CNN in hotel lobbies, but I don’t hear it – only see the blurbs. I don’t want to talk about Gulianai because I know nothing of his current activity. Literally – I have no clue what you are talking about. And again – I don’t know who the AOC is. I know there is a congresswoman wearing Muslim garb that the Republicans hate, but that’s about it. I probably hate her, too, but only because she is a politician.
All I said was that when I saw the transcript of the phone call I didn’t think it clearly implicated Trump in any specific illegal behavior. Fox didn’t tell me this. CNN didn’t tell me this. ZK didn’t tell me this. I read it and thought “Hm. Doesn’t seem like enough to base an impeachment on.” which, by the way is the topic of the thread. Am I not allowed to form this opinion on my own?
Just be careful blaming Fox News for opinions people have formed prior to their existence. It makes you look the fool. Also, I feel I have a pretty fair view of Reps and Dems because I dislike both quite equally. Actually, I dislike the Dems more at the moment, but when Bush Jr was in office, I definitely disliked the Reps more. And I have a graduate degree in economics from that one college all the kids are getting rejected from. So when you say that the right-wing media is forming my opinions for me you are both wrong and insulting. When you say it to anyone, you are likely wrong and insulting. So stop it.
For alternative examples, see anything by FlyerInHI. Literally anything.
October 14, 2019 @ 5:37 PM
sdduuuude wrote:burghMan
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]One’s age certainly does not make them less susceptible to the influence of right wing media. The data suggests the opposite is true. The median age of a Fox News viewer is mid 60s. Old folks are their target audience.[/quote]
Again, you are assuming that old folks are conservative because they have been influenced by Fox News. You don’t even see that. Like, you just blamed Fox News for forming the opinions of old people. Again – rude and insulting. I would assume they watch Fox News because they are conservative, not that they are conservative because they watch. My point was that for anyone who was 30 or older when Fox News came out had already formed conservative or non-conservative views.
[quote=burghMan]But this thread is about Trump’s looming impeachment. And it seems for some reason you don’t want to talk about Giuliani…[/quote]
The only news I see are the headlines that come up on my Yahoo or Google pages. Sometimes I click them. Sometimes I don’t. Sometimes I see CNN in hotel lobbies, but I don’t hear it – only see the blurbs. I don’t want to talk about Gulianai because I know nothing of his current activity. Literally – I have no clue what you are talking about. And again – I don’t know who the AOC is. I know there is a congresswoman wearing Muslim garb that the Republicans hate, but that’s about it. I probably hate her, too, but only because she is a politician.
All I said was that when I saw the transcript of the phone call I didn’t think it clearly implicated Trump in any specific illegal behavior. Fox didn’t tell me this. CNN didn’t tell me this. ZK didn’t tell me this. I read it and thought “Hm. Doesn’t seem like enough to base an impeachment on.” which, by the way is the topic of the thread. Am I not allowed to form this opinion on my own?
Just be careful blaming Fox News for opinions people have formed prior to their existence. It makes you look the fool. Also, I feel I have a pretty fair view of Reps and Dems because I dislike both quite equally. Actually, I dislike the Dems more at the moment, but when Bush Jr was in office, I definitely disliked the Reps more. And I have a graduate degree in economics from that one college all the kids are getting rejected from. So when you say that the right-wing media is forming my opinions for me you are both wrong and insulting. When you say it to anyone, you are likely wrong and insulting. So stop it.
For alternative examples, see anything by FlyerInHI. Literally anything.[/quote]
I’m really not following your points about age. People over 30 are capable of changing their viewpoints.
Although you seem to be proud of what you don’t know. Here’s some information if it turns out you want to know more about the developments in the impeachment story: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/giuliani-associates-indicted-on-campaign-finance-charges
Giuliani was working in the capacity of Trump’s personal lawyer and has made several visits visits to Ukraine for unknown reasons. It turns out that he has been working with some shady Ukrainian/Russian characters that have been funneling foreign money into Republican campaigns.
Anyway, I’m not really interested in engaging with someone who uses the phrase “I hate” as often as you do. (It also seems somewhat contradictory to a “dude’ screen name.) Best of luck with your fancy economics degree.
October 14, 2019 @ 5:40 PM
burghMan wrote:Anyway, I’m
[quote=burghMan]Anyway, I’m not really interested in engaging with someone who uses the phrase “I hate” as often as you do.”[/quote]
A cop-out.
October 17, 2019 @ 8:08 AM
sdduuuude wrote:
zk wrote:If,
[quote=sdduuuude]
[quote=zk]If, however, you are aware of the fact that most of what comes out of his mouth is either a lie or just nonsense, that confidence has the opposite effect.[/quote]
I think all (and I do mean every last one of them – well, maybe not Carter. Maybe.) politicians fall under this category. It is just that Trump doesn’t care if it is obvious. [/quote]
You think that every single politician (except possibly Carter) in the country is as mendacious and nonsensical as donald trump? You’re obviously a bright guy, and you seem relatively uninfluenced by right-wing propaganda, and therefore it’s difficult for me to imagine you’ve come to that conclusion having spent much time listening to donald trump talk. Or maybe you’ve got some kind of chip on your shoulder or something that makes you view all politicians inaccurately. I’m sure that over the course of your life you’ve spent many hours listening to politicians talk. Spend an hour doing nothing but watching any videos of trump talking without a script on any president-related subjects, compare that with your impressions of other politicians, and see if you still hold that opinion. He is outrageously mendacious and almost unfathomably ignorant and foolish.
If you think that last sentence actually applies to most politicians, I think possibly you’re not viewing them rationally and with an open mind. Sure, they lie a lot and they sometimes don’t make sense. But comparing your average politician’s foolishness and mendaciousness to trump’s is like comparing a high-school baseball player’s home run prowess with Babe Ruth’s. It’s not even in the same ballpark. He’s in a different league. He’s almost playing a different sport.
[quote=sdduuuude]
By the way, I didn’t think the Ukranian call proved any illegal action either. I don’t think it belongs on the list of propaganda, which was a good list of BS. But this one belongs on the CNN list:
“Ukranian call provides unequivocal proof that Trump is guilty”[/quote]
The president asked Zelensky to do him a “favor” by investigating his political opponent. That is soliciting a thing of value in connection with an election. That violates the law.
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=zk]trump is a good president, trickle-down economics works, tax cuts for the rich will help the poor, less environmental regulation is good, trump’s tariffs will help the average American, Obama was the worst president ever, Obama hated America, liberals are snowflakes, America is in danger of being ruled by sharia law, there was widespread voter fraud by democrats in 2016[/quote]
You have mixed in four items that really have no business being on the list of “propaganda”:
Trickle-down
Tax cuts
Less regulation (environmental or otherwise)
Tarriffs
Those have been around much longer than Fox and your post serves to highlight my point that you are giving Fox way too much credit, mixing in BS with Republican party lines. Also, I see Fox as extreme and ludicrous and find very few conservatives who spout the nonsensical themes you seem so concerned with. One crazy friend is all, which is where I used to get my Fox news “insights”. That is the fringe. [/quote]
Ok, two points. First, you’re mostly right about these subjects. I was in a hurry and kind of lazy. Part of the problem explaining my position is that, rather than really big issues like this, the effect that current right-wing propaganda has on people is due to an accumulation of false narratives on a thousand smaller issues that add up to one big false narrative for the larger picture. And I was (and am) too impatient and lazy to spend days compiling these. But here’s a perfect example:
[quote=livinincali]
If multiple democrat senators sent a letters or talked to Russian politicians asking for favors to help investigate Trump’s dealing with Russia shall they be impeached as well? Obviously the answer is no, so that’s why I look at this as a nothing to see here.
[/quote]
No democratic senators sent letters or or talked to Russian politicians asking for favors to help investigate Trump’s dealing with Russia. What happened was that three senators said that Ukraine should not impede cooperation with the United States Special Counsel. This was twisted around and used to mislead propaganda marks into thinking that these senators asked for favors from foreign governments in the same way that trump had and that this is a common, acceptable thing to do. And therefore it was no problem that trump did it. This kind of thing is done a hundred times a day by the right-wing propaganda machine. These propagandists are, of course, not interested in the truth. And that’s the biggest difference between propaganda outlets such as fox, breitbart, blaze, the creators of right-wing facebook memes, etc. and such institutions as the New York Times and the Washington Post. People who get their news from fox et all might, occasionally, as you say, get some correct information. But the overall effect of the propaganda is to pile up thousands of misleading, half-true, innuendo-ridden turds of flim-flam and compile them into one giant heap of bullshit. And that bullshit narrative is bought into by, in my opinion, most conservatives.
[quote=sdduuuude]
Also, I see Fox as extreme and ludicrous and find very few conservatives who spout the nonsensical themes you seem so concerned with. One crazy friend is all, which is where I used to get my Fox news “insights”. That is the fringe. [/quote]
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on that. Most right-wingers I communicate with seem to have fallen for, if not every single turd, for most of them, for enough of them that they fall for the heap of bullshit in general.
[quote=sdduuuude]
Fox is entertainment, not news. I wouldn’t concern myself with it if I were you. I think it is more of a distraction than than anything and serves only to make “normal” Republicans look reasonable. Liberals waste their time arguing these points and end up looking the fool instead of focusing on important things.
[/quote]
Ahh, but this is the important thing. I can see how you, with your opinion that most conservatives are not being swindled by propaganda, think otherwise. If I could be convinced that right-wing propaganda didn’t swing the election to trump, and didn’t have an excellent chance of doing it again, it would be easy to let go of. But I think it’s the reason he’s president, and the reason he has a very good chance to be president another 5 years. That alone is enough to make it the important thing.
While you might see fox as entertainment, and while it might not be real news, most people who watch it do seem to see it as news.
[quote=sdduuuude]
[quote=burghMan]One’s age certainly does not make them less susceptible to the influence of right wing media. The data suggests the opposite is true. The median age of a Fox News viewer is mid 60s. Old folks are their target audience.[/quote]
Again, you are assuming that old folks are conservative because they have been influenced by Fox News. You don’t even see that. Like, you just blamed Fox News for forming the opinions of old people. Again – rude and insulting. I would assume they watch Fox News because they are conservative, not that they are conservative because they watch. My point was that for anyone who was 30 or older when Fox News came out had already formed conservative or non-conservative views.
[/quote]
My second point relates to the above.
Fox news and the rest of the propaganda machine (for the rest of this paragraph, I’ll just call that “fox”), have, in my opinion, taken people who were initially conservative and taken them to a place where they will loathe anything that fox tells them to loathe and love anything fox tells them to love. Before fox, conservatives didn’t loathe liberals and think they were going to turn America into a socialist country (along with a thousand other misconceptions – I should say “lies” – about them). The party of family values wouldn’t have elected a “man” who cheated on all 3 of his wives, assaulted women, and had cheated and stolen throughout his career. They didn’t buy into conspiracy theories. They seemed a lot more open to listening to reason and logic and evidence. Right-wing propaganda, in my opinion, changed all that.
And, as if it weren’t bad enough that fox got trump into office, trump now listens to fox and the moronic conspiracy theories and other bullshit that that they spout and falls for it himself. His ideas are influenced by this “entertainment.”
October 21, 2019 @ 9:04 PM
zk wrote:You think that every
[quote=zk]You think that every single politician (except possibly Carter) in the country is as mendacious and nonsensical as donald trump?[/quote]
No, but just as disingenuous, only better at hiding it.”
I didn’t look up mendacious 🙂
[quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]
By the way, I didn’t think the Ukranian call proved any illegal action either. I don’t think it belongs on the list of propaganda, which was a good list of BS. But this one belongs on the CNN list:
“Ukranian call provides unequivocal proof that Trump is guilty”[/quote]
The president asked Zelensky to do him a “favor” by investigating his political opponent. That is soliciting a thing of value in connection with an election. That violates the law.
[/quote]
Have you actually read the law he is violating? Does it say “thing of value in connection with an election?” Is that the verbiage you based your opinion on ? Or is that your own personal interpretation ? Or maybe CNN told you this ? Thing is – “interpretation” is the name of the game in law and your interpretation is not convincing me.
[quote=zk]We’re going to have to agree to disagree on that.[/quote]
I could get behind that agreement as long as we agree that the left side propaganda machine has as much effect as the right.
There are two highly biased propaganda machines out there. If you don’t see them both, you have been fooled by one.
See – I can do it to: If not because of CNN propaganda, how else could people possibly believe that it is OK to force grocery stores to stop giving me free plastic bags, that forced recycling does anyone any good, that increasing minimum wage is good for poor people, and that uneducated white males put Trump in office (I actually heard this on CNN on election night) and that means Trump is a racist – even though uneducated black males put Obama in office and Obama is not a racist.
[quote=zk]… assaulted women, … and stolen throughout his career.[/quote]
You are stating this as a fact. As these are clearly crimes, and he hasn’t been been convicted of these beyond a shadow of a doubt, I believe they are only claims. That you state them as facts when there is no proof – seems very “propaganda-ish” to me.
My final point on the matter is that your argument seems to be “There are millions of people who disagree with me, therefore they have been tricked by propaganda.” Next time you hear something that you don’t agree with, try contesting it with a rational argument, which you are clearly capable of doing, instead of accusing them of saying the same thing as Fox, which drags you down a level.
October 21, 2019 @ 11:05 PM
sdduuuude wrote:
Have you
[quote=sdduuuude]
Have you actually read the law he is violating? Does it say “thing of value in connection with an election?” Is that the verbiage you based your opinion on ? Or is that your own personal interpretation ? Or maybe CNN told you this ? Thing is – “interpretation” is the name of the game in law and your interpretation is not convincing me.
[/quote]
I’m off to bed, and I have a full day tomorrow, so I’ll get to the rest of this later in the week. But for now, here’s the law I am citing:
“It shall be unlawful for —
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make —
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election . . .
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) . . . of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.”
— 52 U.S. Code 30121
Not really any interpretation on my part; those words are all there in the appropriate places.
Is that convincing?
October 21, 2019 @ 11:57 PM
Trump will not be impeached
Trump will not be impeached and will win in 2020. Tulsi, Pete, Biden and my favorite, Delaney all could unseat him but they are deemed too mainstream. The media treatment of Pete reminds me of Bernie in 2016. Hell, Pete gets more play on Foxnews with his stance on private health insurance immune. Fun article on the direction of the party and it’s treatment of Tulsi.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2019/10/18/tulsi_gabbard_canary_in_the_democratic_coal_mine_489663.html
Warren will be the nominee because the media says she will be and she will lose. I was right a year out last time and will be again, mostly because I don’t care I just figure out how to play it with my investments.
Having voted for both Obama and Bill Clinton (except that one Perot year) I’m disappointed in the current state of the democratic party trying to derail any remotely mainstream candidate. Their treatment of Mayor Pete is not unlike how they treated Bernie last time around. Wait till wikileaks puts out those DNC e-mails against pete and tulsi.
October 22, 2019 @ 7:07 AM
temeculaguy wrote:Trump will
[quote=temeculaguy]Trump will not be impeached and will win in 2020. Tulsi, Pete, Biden and my favorite, Delaney all could unseat him but they are deemed too mainstream. The media treatment of Pete reminds me of Bernie in 2016. Hell, Pete gets more play on Foxnews with his stance on private health insurance immune. Fun article on the direction of the party and it’s treatment of Tulsi.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2019/10/18/tulsi_gabbard_canary_in_the_democratic_coal_mine_489663.html
Warren will be the nominee because the media says she will be and she will lose. I was right a year out last time and will be again, mostly because I don’t care I just figure out how to play it with my investments.
Having voted for both Obama and Bill Clinton (except that one Perot year) I’m disappointed in the current state of the democratic party trying to derail any remotely mainstream candidate. Their treatment of Mayor Pete is not unlike how they treated Bernie last time around. Wait till wikileaks puts out those DNC e-mails against pete and tulsi.[/quote]
This is a great post that illustrates how older white Americans are so easily manipulated by right wing media.
Put it in context: We have a president that is clumsily trying to make personal backroom deals with the former soviets in a desperate attempt to get dirt on the family of his political rivals. His chief of staff literally admitted to impeachable crimes on television. He is creating a constitutional crisis, has a foreign policy that nobody can even explain, can’t even hold a cabinet meeting without whining about he is the biggest victim in America, and has done zero to fulfill his major campaign promises (healthcare, border security, North Korea’s nukes, China trade …)
There’s overwhelming evidence that he has no clue what he is doing. As a world leader he is completely in over his head. His domestic policy is simply to lower taxes and borrow more. When faced with any of the ordinary challenges of the presidency, he runs to his “safe space” political rallies.
But for the Fox News viewer, what the actual President of the United States is doing doesn’t matter. What the right wing media wants America to focus on is supposed internal drama in the DNC. Fox News wants us to watch their reality TV show full of gossip, cliques and backstabbing characters. “What is Pete saying about Tulsi behind her back?”
Millions of Americans believe this stuff is real. Wow.
October 22, 2019 @ 8:49 AM
burghMan wrote:This is a
[quote=burghMan]This is a great post that illustrates how older white Americans are so easily manipulated by right wing media.[/quote]
I have known Temecula Guy for years. He is actually a young black man.
October 22, 2019 @ 9:05 AM
sdduuuude wrote:burghMan
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]This is a great post that illustrates how older white Americans are so easily manipulated by right wing media.[/quote]
I have known Temecula Guy for years. He is actually a young black man.[/quote]
In another post he mentioned several grandchildren, which means he’s made an impressive contribution to the diversity of Temecula’s schools.
October 22, 2019 @ 8:47 AM
zk wrote:sdduuuude
[quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]
Have you actually read the law he is violating? Does it say “thing of value in connection with an election?” Is that the verbiage you based your opinion on ? Or is that your own personal interpretation ? Or maybe CNN told you this ? Thing is – “interpretation” is the name of the game in law and your interpretation is not convincing me.
[/quote]
I’m off to bed, and I have a full day tomorrow, so I’ll get to the rest of this later in the week. But for now, here’s the law I am citing:
“It shall be unlawful for —
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make —
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election . . .
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) . . . of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.”
— 52 U.S. Code 30121
Not really any interpretation on my part; those words are all there in the appropriate places.
Is that convincing?[/quote]
I think they will get hung up on “thing of value”
October 22, 2019 @ 9:13 AM
sdduuuude wrote:zk
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]
Have you actually read the law he is violating? Does it say “thing of value in connection with an election?” Is that the verbiage you based your opinion on ? Or is that your own personal interpretation ? Or maybe CNN told you this ? Thing is – “interpretation” is the name of the game in law and your interpretation is not convincing me.
[/quote]
I’m off to bed, and I have a full day tomorrow, so I’ll get to the rest of this later in the week. But for now, here’s the law I am citing:
“It shall be unlawful for —
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make —
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election . . .
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) . . . of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.”
— 52 U.S. Code 30121
Not really any interpretation on my part; those words are all there in the appropriate places.
Is that convincing?[/quote]
I think they will get hung up on “thing of value”[/quote]
Negative information about political rivals is not a thing of value? Then candidates throughout history have spent an awful lot of money on something doesn’t have value…
Nixon tried to obtain this thing with actual burglary.
Do you really believe Trump was asking for a “favor” without expecting something in return?
October 22, 2019 @ 9:47 AM
burghMan wrote:Negative
[quote=burghMan]Negative information about political rivals is not a thing of value? [/quote]
You have to understand, I am not stating my opinion on whether it is, I am saying I don’t think the dems will be able to win the legal argument that it is. This will be dealt with in a legal system, not a justice system.
Knowing Trump, he will claim this wasn’t even tied to the election. He was just concerned that Bernie posed a threat to America and was doing his civic duty to expose him. You know this is what he is going to say, and it could very well get thrown out just for that alone. And Fox News will play along and say “see how patriotic he is” and the Dems will howl, having lost again due to their blind rage.
Seriously, unless you are the judge, you have no idea how this is going to go and that phone call is far from the nail in the coffin.
October 22, 2019 @ 9:54 AM
sdduuuude wrote:burghMan
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]Negative information about political rivals is not a thing of value? [/quote]
You have to understand, I am not stating my opinion on whether it is, I am saying I don’t think the dems will be able to win the legal argument that it is. This will be dealt with in a legal system, not a justice system.
Knowing Trump, he will claim this wasn’t even tied to the election. He was just concerned that Bernie posed a threat to America and was doing his civic duty to expose him. You know this is what he is going to say, and it could very well get thrown out just for that alone. And Fox News will play along and say “see how patriotic he is” and the Dems will howl, having lost again due to their blind rage.
Seriously, unless you are the judge, you have no idea how this is going to go and that phone call is far from the nail in the coffin.[/quote]
Impeachment is the legal process for removing the president or federal judge. The impeachment in the house is the indictment. And there will a trial in the senate.
Are you saying we should not have that legal process? And leave it to politics?
October 22, 2019 @ 10:07 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:Are you
[quote=FlyerInHi]Are you saying we should not have that legal process? And leave it to politics?[/quote]
No. I am saying that the legal system does not always deliver justice as you might expect. It should and will go through the legal process, but that process does not always deliver justice and what you are so sure of may not be how the judge interprets the law.
October 22, 2019 @ 10:17 AM
Ok then, let’s have
Ok then, let’s have impeachment and let the chips fall where they may. The outcome of a trial is always uncertain.
Shoveler seems to say we should not offend the deplorables with impeachment because the “big picture” is that they support trump so we should leave their man alone.
October 22, 2019 @ 10:24 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:Ok then,
[quote=FlyerInHi]Ok then, let’s have impeachment and let the chips fall where they may. The outcome of a trial is always uncertain.[/quote]
Exactly. And my interpretation is different from yours. Not a problem. Not a result of Fox News. Just different.
[quote=FlyerInHi]Shoveler seems to say we should not offend the deplorables with impeachment because the “big picture” is that they support trump so we should leave their man alone.[/quote]
You sure like putting words in people’s mouths.
October 22, 2019 @ 10:42 AM
sdduuuude wrote:
You sure
[quote=sdduuuude]
You sure like putting words in people’s mouths.[/quote]
Yes that was not what I was saying at all.
Just saying there has been a lot of over correction on the part of Dems to the liberal side that really only resonates with a very small segment of the population.
Only a tiny fraction of the population would consider themselves elitists or even part of the urban elite.
October 22, 2019 @ 10:49 AM
Shoveler, what is “over
Shoveler, what is “over correction”? That’s something for democrats to decide. If you don’t like candidates that democrats put forth, then don’t support.
Does over correction include impeachment?
So you now think that impeachment is a legitimate legal process?
October 22, 2019 @ 10:59 AM
It means you show up in rural
It means you show up in rural america and listen.
Not every one is Alt left (most are not), nor are they alt-right.
October 22, 2019 @ 11:05 AM
The-Shoveler wrote:It means
[quote=The-Shoveler]It means you show up in rural america and listen.
Not every one is Alt left (most are not), nor are they alt-right.[/quote]
How is that relevant to impeachment? Listen to what people in rural America want or stick with the facts and rule of law?
I thought that in USA, we’re so proud because nobody is above the law. And the rule of law is not determined by politics or popularity.
October 22, 2019 @ 10:43 AM
sdduuuude wrote:
FlyerInHi
[quote=sdduuuude]
[quote=FlyerInHi]Shoveler seems to say we should not offend the deplorables with impeachment because the “big picture” is that they support trump so we should leave their man alone.[/quote]
You sure like putting words in people’s mouths.[/quote]
I would love for shoveler to clarify what he meant. I believe he’s said that impeachment is a waste of time and that would only rally support for Trump among his base. Even if that’s the case, it’s irrelevant to the rule is law, unless we choose to politicize the rule of law.
October 22, 2019 @ 9:15 AM
sdduuuude wrote:zk
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]
Have you actually read the law he is violating? Does it say “thing of value in connection with an election?” Is that the verbiage you based your opinion on ? Or is that your own personal interpretation ? Or maybe CNN told you this ? Thing is – “interpretation” is the name of the game in law and your interpretation is not convincing me.
[/quote]
I’m off to bed, and I have a full day tomorrow, so I’ll get to the rest of this later in the week. But for now, here’s the law I am citing:
“It shall be unlawful for —
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make —
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election . . .
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) . . . of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.”
— 52 U.S. Code 30121
Not really any interpretation on my part; those words are all there in the appropriate places.
Is that convincing?[/quote]
I think they will get hung up on “thing of value”[/quote]
The “thing of value “ is actually foreign money that soviet emigrants, associates of Julianni’s funneled to Trump. They were arrested by Trump’s own justice Deparment.
October 22, 2019 @ 9:33 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:The “thing of
[quote=FlyerInHi]The “thing of value “ is actually foreign money that soviet emigrants, associates of Julianni’s funneled to Trump. They were arrested by Trump’s own justice Deparment.[/quote]
I meant with respect to, specifically, the phone call.
October 22, 2019 @ 9:32 AM
I think “Pigg team liberal”
I think “Pigg team liberal” is misinterpreting what TG and I are saying as being supportive of Trump.
What we are saying is that the Dems are not handling this well. The Democratic politicians, liberal media and Democrats around the world are have been blinded with rage and are not doing what needs to be done to win, which is kinda what happened in 2016, now isn’t it? You are so worried about what Fox News says that you don’t pay attention to your own arguments.
I’ve said this before – just because I think the Chargers are going to win doesn’t mean I’m rooting for them. And just because the Patriots are lousy cheats doesn’t mean they are going to lose.
October 22, 2019 @ 10:00 AM
sdduuuude wrote:liberal media
[quote=sdduuuude]liberal media and Democrats around the world are have been blinded with rage and are not doing what needs to be done to win[/quote]
It leads to over correction which resonates with a small but very vocal part of the population, not looking at the larger population or big picture.
Only a very small segment of the population would call themselves elitists, most of america’s population does not live in big cities or even urban areas.
October 22, 2019 @ 10:14 AM
sdduuuude wrote:I think “Pigg
[quote=sdduuuude]I think “Pigg team liberal” is misinterpreting what TG and I are saying as being supportive of Trump.
What we are saying is that the Dems are not handling this well. The Democratic politicians, liberal media and Democrats around the world are have been blinded with rage and are not doing what needs to be done to win, which is kinda what happened in 2016, now isn’t it? You are so worried about what Fox News says that you don’t pay attention to your own arguments.
I’ve said this before – just because I think the Chargers are going to win doesn’t mean I’m rooting for them. And just because the Patriots are lousy cheats doesn’t mean they are going to lose.[/quote]
For someone that doesn’t support Trump, you sure do put a lot of effort into criticizing his opponents.
What does need to be done to win?
October 22, 2019 @ 10:21 AM
burghMan wrote:What does need
[quote=burghMan]What does need to be done to win?[/quote]
Stop playing the Trump media game.
Pick your battles.
Play a the game to win long term, not a short-term.
Put forward the right candidate that is maybe a little less liberal than you want and knows when and how to ignore Trump.
Listen more. Accuse people of being Fox News watchers less.
October 22, 2019 @ 10:42 AM
sdduuuude wrote:burghMan
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]What does need to be done to win?[/quote]
Stop playing the Trump media game.
Pick your battles.
Play a the game to win long term, not a short-term.
Put forward the right candidate that is maybe a little less liberal than you want and knows when and how to ignore Trump.
Listen more. Accuse people of being Fox News watchers less.[/quote]
That’s politics for the 2020 elections and beyond.
Nothing to do with impeachment or all the illegal stuff Trump has done.
BTW, the republicans put forward Trump and won. Who’s to say a Democrat disrupter like Trump would not win? We don’t know until the elections.
October 22, 2019 @ 10:56 AM
sdduuuude wrote:burghMan
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]What does need to be done to win?[/quote]
Stop playing the Trump media game.
Pick your battles.
Put forward the right candidate that is maybe a little less liberal than you want and knows when and how to ignore Trump.[/quote]
The parties don’t “put forward” candidates. There’s a process and nobody in particular controls it. (The idea that there is some wizard behind the curtain choosing the outcome of the Democratic primaries is a conspiracy developed by republicans to attack the legitimacy of party.)
I predict Biden will be the nominee. He is not a liberal. The Trump campaign knows this, and that’s why they are desperately trying to damage him now. But Trump got caught playing dirty, just like Nixon did.
Each of the Democratic front runners have a weakness when it comes to electability; Biden’s age, Warren’s is the wrong gender and has the Native American nonsense, Sanders calls himself a socialist and is also ancient. Democrats will vote for “electibily” in the primaries, and the established, moderate white guy is the strongest against Trump. Biden doesn’t excite anybody but America will be happy to get a “normal” president back.
It will be interesting to see Trump’s strategy develops. I do believe that he will play the same game that he did in 2016 and it will not be nearly as effective the second time around. His novelty has worn off and his smears are all too predictable. He’ll make the same campaign promises because there’s nothing else he can do. This will remind everyone that he didn’t keep them last time.
I never liked Trump at all but like many I was hopeful that when he won he would drop the trashy facade and take the job seriously. He did not, and now we know for certain that he is incapable of rising above his childish personality.
Trump will be impeached but not removed from office. I don’t think impeachment will change the outcome of the election, but it will weaken Trump. He’ll lose in 2020.
America is sick of the Trump media game. Having an outsider “businessman” president was an exciting and novel concept in 2016, but in 2020 mainstream America is not going to be excited by four more years of pretending our president is not awful. Many who voted for him in 2016 simply won’t vote at all in 2020.
People are generally happy with the economy but most don’t really believe that Trump has done anything to specifically make it better. Very little has improved in the swing states. American manufacturing is still in decline.
He barely won 2016. In 2020, there are plenty that want him out (call it rage if you want, lol) and not enough that are willing to vote for more of the same. It may not be a landslide, but Trump will lose.
October 22, 2019 @ 1:18 PM
I’m gonna put it in a
I’m gonna put it in a nutshell:
Stop telling us how bad Trump is and start telling us how good the other candidate it.
October 22, 2019 @ 1:26 PM
sdduuuude wrote:I’m gonna put
[quote=sdduuuude]I’m gonna put it in a nutshell:
Stop telling us how bad Trump is and start telling us how good the other candidate it.[/quote]
That’s just stupid. We don’t know who the other candidate is. In 2015 it was full on Obama bashing at the republican debates. That’s just how the process works at this point in the election cycle.
Biden: Leadership experience, deep knowledge of foreign policy, moderate, coherent.
Warren: Leadership experience, track record fighting for the middle class, moderate, coherent.
Don’t know who the VP is, but unless they pull a Palin, it will only strengthen the ticket.
October 23, 2019 @ 5:27 AM
sdduuuude wrote:I’m gonna put
[quote=sdduuuude]I’m gonna put it in a nutshell:
Stop telling us how bad Trump is and start telling us how good the other candidate it.[/quote]
Elephant meet room – zing!
October 23, 2019 @ 9:02 AM
Hobie wrote:sdduuuude
[quote=Hobie][quote=sdduuuude]I’m gonna put it in a nutshell:
Stop telling us how bad Trump is and start telling us how good the other candidate it.[/quote]
Elephant meet room – zing![/quote]
The topic was impeachment…. some people argued against it for political and expediency reasons, then we get this gem.
October 25, 2019 @ 10:57 AM
burghMan wrote:For someone
[quote=burghMan]For someone that doesn’t support Trump, you sure do put a lot of effort into criticizing his opponents.
[/quote]
When you are losing badly, people who criticize you are not necessarily your enemy. They are significantly more helpful than those saying “Doing great ! Keep it up! (Thumbs Up Emoji Here)”
October 25, 2019 @ 11:28 AM
sdduuuude wrote:burghMan
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]For someone that doesn’t support Trump, you sure do put a lot of effort into criticizing his opponents.
[/quote]
When you are losing badly, people who criticize you are not necessarily your enemy. They are significantly more helpful than those saying “Doing great ! Keep it up! (Thumbs Up Emoji Here)”[/quote]
Sure, on a topic of Trump impeachment and misdeeds, it’s very helpful to criticize those who would have him account.
It’s as logical as claiming those who criticize America, don’t love America (the Squad). It’s what I call Fox reasoning.
October 25, 2019 @ 11:35 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:sdduuuude
[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]For someone that doesn’t support Trump, you sure do put a lot of effort into criticizing his opponents.
[/quote]
When you are losing badly, people who criticize you are not necessarily your enemy. They are significantly more helpful than those saying “Doing great ! Keep it up! (Thumbs Up Emoji Here)”[/quote]
Sure, on a topic of Trump impeachment and misdeeds, it’s very helpful to criticize those who would have him account.
It’s as logical as claiming those who criticize America, don’t love America (the Squad). It’s what I call Fox reasoning.[/quote]
What I said is exactly the opposite of “claiming those who criticize America don’t Love America.” So, thanks for your support of my comment.
October 25, 2019 @ 11:44 AM
sdduuuude wrote:FlyerInHi
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]For someone that doesn’t support Trump, you sure do put a lot of effort into criticizing his opponents.
[/quote]
When you are losing badly, people who criticize you are not necessarily your enemy. They are significantly more helpful than those saying “Doing great ! Keep it up! (Thumbs Up Emoji Here)”[/quote]
Sure, on a topic of Trump impeachment and misdeeds, it’s very helpful to criticize those who would have him account.
It’s as logical as claiming those who criticize America, don’t love America (the Squad). It’s what I call Fox reasoning.[/quote]
What I said is exactly the opposite of “claiming those who criticize America don’t Love America.” So, thanks for your support of my comment.[/quote]
Yeah, I get that. My logic is that your context doesn’t make sense.
Would you agree that the Squad are “significantly more helpful” than Republican backers to Trump during the impeachment process?
October 25, 2019 @ 11:48 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:sdduuuude
[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]For someone that doesn’t support Trump, you sure do put a lot of effort into criticizing his opponents.
[/quote]
When you are losing badly, people who criticize you are not necessarily your enemy. They are significantly more helpful than those saying “Doing great ! Keep it up! (Thumbs Up Emoji Here)”[/quote]
Sure, on a topic of Trump impeachment and misdeeds, it’s very helpful to criticize those who would have him account.
It’s as logical as claiming those who criticize America, don’t love America (the Squad). It’s what I call Fox reasoning.[/quote]
What I said is exactly the opposite of “claiming those who criticize America don’t Love America.” So, thanks for your support of my comment.[/quote]
Yeah, I get that. My logic is that your context doesn’t make sense.
Would you agree that the Squad are “significantly more helpful” than Republican backers to Trump during the impeachment process?[/quote]
Only if there is an issue with Trump’s approach to his defense and they are criticizing that approach and pointing out better ones.
October 25, 2019 @ 12:02 PM
sdduuuude wrote:liberal media
[quote=sdduuuude]liberal media and Democrats around the world are have been blinded with rage and are not doing what needs to be done to win[/quote]
You said this. I take it to mean that you think Democrats should overlook abuse of power and violations of the law and focus instead on 2020. However, Allan Lichtman said impeaching Clinton was a win for Republicans. So I don’t think Democrats are on the wrong political path.
More importantly, how about you pick apart the legal strategy and give tips to Democrats on how secure impeachment and win the Senate Trial?
October 25, 2019 @ 12:03 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:… I take it
[quote=FlyerInHi]… I take it to mean that you think Democrats should overlook abuse of power and violations of the law and focus instead on 2020.[/quote]
That’s because you like to put words in people’s mouths and don’t really hear what is being said.
October 25, 2019 @ 12:07 PM
We are not mind readers.
We are not mind readers. Please tell us. What do Democrats need to win. And what exactly is the “win” you refer to.
October 25, 2019 @ 12:15 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:And what
[quote=FlyerInHi]And what exactly is the “win” you refer to.[/quote]
Pretty much anything at this point.
October 25, 2019 @ 12:39 PM
sdduuuude wrote:FlyerInHi
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi]And what exactly is the “win” you refer to.[/quote]
Pretty much anything at this point.[/quote]
As I expected. I take this last statement to mean that you don’t want to be “significantly more helpful” anymore, not in a straight forward way, only in a round about way. of course, you will claim that I’m putting words in your month.
As Trump may say in jest , you’re worse than a woman. How about that? How ‘bout that?
I hate to break it to you, but in communications you need to be clear or clarify so your point is well taken. That’s why people use PR departments otherwise the listener could misunderstand and misinterpret. And when you learn a new language the first thing the teacher will tell you is “it doesn’t matter If you make mistakes. Just speak in a way the listener will understand.”
October 25, 2019 @ 1:31 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:sdduuuude
[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi]And what exactly is the “win” you refer to.[/quote]
Pretty much anything at this point.[/quote]
As I expected. I take this last statement to mean that you don’t want to be “significantly more helpful” anymore, not in a straight forward way, only in a round about way. of course, you will claim that I’m putting words in your month.
As Trump may say in jest , you’re worse than a woman. How about that? How ‘bout that?
I hate to break it to you, but in communications you need to be clear or clarify so your point is well taken. That’s why people use PR departments otherwise the listener could misunderstand and misinterpret. And when you learn a new language the first thing the teacher will tell you is “it doesn’t matter If you make mistakes. Just speak in a way the listener will understand.”[/quote]
Jesus, Brian. The duuuude keeps showing you where you’ve put words in his mouth. And you keep doing it. You’re out of control.
Really, Brian. You’re getting so tiresome on all these threads. You’re like that guy at a party, when two or three or four people are having a nice conversation, and some loud guy who thinks he’s charming and brilliant- but is actually strident and kind of an idiot – shows up and takes over the conversation and ruins it for everybody else. If you’re as refined as you claim to be, you wouldn’t do that at a real party. Why do it here?
October 25, 2019 @ 1:59 PM
Zk, maybe I am an ass. But
Zk, maybe I am an ass. But is that the point of contention?
Sddude claimed he was “significantly more helpful” to Democrats. I am attempting to show that he isn’t helpful especially in the context of impeachment.
I didn’t put words in his mouth. I explained how I interpreted his words and gave him the opportunity to clarify.
How do you interpret this in the context of this thread and after shoveler said “much to do about nothing” ?
[quote=sdduuuude]liberal media and Democrats around the world are have been blinded with rage and are not doing what needs to be done to win[/quote]
Maybe I’m an idiot, but I understand this to mean that impeachment is not the right course of action. The 2020 ballot boxes are. A point made by another poster. And also a right wing media talking point.
October 25, 2019 @ 2:39 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:Sddude
[quote=FlyerInHi]Sddude claimed he was “significantly more helpful” to Democrats.[/quote]
Here let me help the way you want me to help:
You’re doin’ great buddy ! Keep it up !
October 25, 2019 @ 2:48 PM
sdduuuude wrote:FlyerInHi
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi]Sddude claimed he was “significantly more helpful” to Democrats.[/quote]
Here let me help the way you want me to help:
You’re doin’ great buddy ! Keep it up ![/quote]
Now, you’re putting word in my mouth.
But let me clarify. Please tell us. Should democrats move forward with the impeachment inquiry? Why? Or why not? That would be very helpful. Thank you!
October 25, 2019 @ 3:47 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:sdduuuude
[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi]Sddude claimed he was “significantly more helpful” to Democrats.[/quote]
Here let me help the way you want me to help:
You’re doin’ great buddy ! Keep it up ![/quote]
Now, you’re putting word in my mouth.
But let me clarify. Please tell us. Should democrats move forward with the impeachment inquiry? Why? Or why not? That would be very helpful. Thank you![/quote]
Now that they started, of course they should finish. I’m not sure they should have started, though because what they claimed was the smoking gun (the phone conversation) doesn’t seem enough to me. Maybe they have other ammo we don’t know about and they are good to go. Maybe they succumbed to the pressure of their constituents too early. Time will tell.
Maybe they are so scared of losing the election they figured an impeachment was the only hope – the high risk option.
To “win” – the faith of the people, the election, the patience to put up with an impeachment trial, whatever – the Dems have to convince the people that they will be better off under a Democratic president. If people are feeling better off under Trump, they don’t care if Trump is an ass or a criminal. If you keep trying to convince them he is an ass and a criminal you are wasting your time because they already know it and just don’t care. I am not talking about me. I am talking about voters.
If people are feeling less well-off under Trump, Fox News aint gonna convince them that Trump is worth keeping. If they are feeling well off, they are going to use Fox News as an excuse to say “he isn’t really an ass or a criminal” just so they feel better about being well off.
The Dems are so emotional about pointing out how awful Trump is, they forget to address the fact that people are feeling the effects of a strong economy. That is what you are fighting. That is why people support him.
I’ll say it again – voters don’t care if Trump is an ass or a criminal and you aren’t impressing anyone with your brilliant insights, or swaying anyone to your side when you point out that he is. In fact, you just add to the overwhelming amount of attention that he gets, which is exactly what he wants.
October 25, 2019 @ 4:04 PM
Furthermore, the sense of
Furthermore, the sense of righteousness the Dems are showing is just as disingenuous as the Republicans in the Clinton impeachment. Republicans didn’t care if Clinton was involved in any hanky panky. They just saw an opportunity.
Same with the Dems now. They don’t care if the President broke the law or not. They just want him out so they don’t lose to him again. I am sure there are many people in the US who want him out because they feel a criminal should not be president and they just don’t like the guy. Maybe for those people there is some sense of righteousness, But, the Democratic Party taking this on don’t care if he is a criminal or not. They just want to prove he did something that justifies impeachment.
October 25, 2019 @ 5:25 PM
How do you know Democrats
How do you know Democrats don’t care? Or are you putting thoughts into their brains? Perhaps you have a context from which you draw that conclusion.
Nancy Pelosi who controls the process has resisted impeachment again and again and again.
October 25, 2019 @ 10:53 PM
sdduuuude wrote:Furthermore,
[quote=sdduuuude]Furthermore, the sense of righteousness the Dems are showing is just as disingenuous as the Republicans in the Clinton impeachment. Republicans didn’t care if Clinton was involved in any hanky panky. They just saw an opportunity.[/quote]
I just looked it up.
It was a long time ago.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/105th-congress/house-report/830/
Here is the low-down. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong:
Ken Starr was appointed to investigate Whitewater (no impeachable offense was found)…. that led to the discovery of the Monica affair then perjury about the affair, obstruction of justice and abuse of power related to the affair, and finally impeachment.
The independent counsel law expired so one can’t investigate Trump. FYI, Mueller was a special counsel working under the Trump nominated Attorney General.
Now, with Trump; he likely committed impeachable offenses already. He may commit further offenses if he lies, obstructs and abuses power. We will see.
Pelosi has narrowed the impeachment inquiry to Ukraine.
However, Congress may later expand the inquiry to look at other matters, such as Stormy Daniels, Russia, Trump’s businesses, campaign finance, etc…
Precedent would only make it fair for Trump to be impeached for any of the offenses Clinton was impeached for. Ultimately, it would be for the Senate to decide if the gravity of the offenses merits removal from office.
edit:
This is the Clinton abuse of power charge.
So failing to respond to the committee, lying, or misleading is abuse of power which a president can be impeached for
October 25, 2019 @ 11:39 PM
sdduuuude wrote:Furthermore,
[quote=sdduuuude]Furthermore, the sense of righteousness the Dems are showing is just as disingenuous as the Republicans in the Clinton impeachment. Republicans didn’t care if Clinton was involved in any hanky panky. They just saw an opportunity.
Same with the Dems now. They don’t care if the President broke the law or not. They just want him out so they don’t lose to him again. I am sure there are many people in the US who want him out because they feel a criminal should not be president and they just don’t like the guy. Maybe for those people there is some sense of righteousness, But, the Democratic Party taking this on don’t care if he is a criminal or not. They just want to prove he did something that justifies impeachment.[/quote]
Democrats are not going to win with Warren. Case closed..Even many of the elitist and corporate left leaning entities have already went on record saying if Warren is the D candidate, they will sit out this election or even consider backing Trump. That’s just nuts… Look what Google and Facebook founders are doing and who they are backing. Definitely not Warren…All Warren will do is end up fracturing the Democrat base just like Trump did.. And maybe that will be a good thing. Maybe the moderate D’s and moderate R’s will get fed up with both parties and form a third one that is more rational and leave the old D and R parties to the far left and right nutjobs that really don’t represent the majority of the population…. maybe….
October 26, 2019 @ 8:50 AM
flu wrote: Maybe the moderate
[quote=flu] Maybe the moderate D’s and moderate R’s will get fed up with both parties and form a third one that is more rational and leave the old D and R parties to the far left and right nutjobs that really don’t represent the majority of the population[/quote]
+1
I think zk described it fairly well.
October 25, 2019 @ 6:55 PM
sdduuuude wrote:FlyerInHi
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi]Sddude claimed he was “significantly more helpful” to Democrats.[/quote]
Here let me help the way you want me to help:
You’re doin’ great buddy ! Keep it up ![/quote]
Now, you’re putting word in my mouth.
But let me clarify. Please tell us. Should democrats move forward with the impeachment inquiry? Why? Or why not? That would be very helpful. Thank you![/quote]
Now that they started, of course they should finish. I’m not sure they should have started, though because what they claimed was the smoking gun (the phone conversation) doesn’t seem enough to me. Maybe they have other ammo we don’t know about and they are good to go. Maybe they succumbed to the pressure of their constituents too early. Time will tell.
Maybe they are so scared of losing the election they figured an impeachment was the only hope – the high risk option.
To “win” – the faith of the people, the election, the patience to put up with an impeachment trial, whatever – the Dems have to convince the people that they will be better off under a Democratic president. If people are feeling better off under Trump, they don’t care if Trump is an ass or a criminal. If you keep trying to convince them he is an ass and a criminal you are wasting your time because they already know it and just don’t care. I am not talking about me. I am talking about voters.
If people are feeling less well-off under Trump, Fox News aint gonna convince them that Trump is worth keeping. If they are feeling well off, they are going to use Fox News as an excuse to say “he isn’t really an ass or a criminal” just so they feel better about being well off.
The Dems are so emotional about pointing out how awful Trump is, they forget to address the fact that people are feeling the effects of a strong economy. That is what you are fighting. That is why people support him.
I’ll say it again – voters don’t care if Trump is an ass or a criminal and you aren’t impressing anyone with your brilliant insights, or swaying anyone to your side when you point out that he is. In fact, you just add to the overwhelming amount of attention that he gets, which is exactly what he wants.[/quote]
Thanks for elaborating. I don’t know where to begin. And I wish I had the time to answer each point like zk does so well.
Just saying….there are lots of assumptions and/or presumptions here. However, I’m ok with assumptions because context matters. I’m going to take a run at the park, and maybe I’ll reply later.
Just one thing for now:
[quote=sdduuuude]
The Dems are so emotional about pointing out how awful Trump is [/quote]
How do you know?
October 25, 2019 @ 2:55 PM
BTW, ZK, you’re too nice.
BTW, ZK, you’re too nice. You admitted where you went wrong and duudde liked it. How very nice!
To add to your point on right wing media, another thing they do is excoriate those who criticize them (eg the squad) for being un-American. But they can criticize because they are so patriotic and helpful. So helpful that you can’t really see it. Even if the recipients don’t see the help, they are very helpful. It’s like tough love. See the pattern there.
I believe it’s more helpful to focus on the underhanded tactics of right wing media. People don’t like it when you tell them they are influenced by the media, even if it’s true. They want to keep the myth of their own free will.
Another pattern: To the right wing, “liberal media and Democrats are blinded with rage”. But, oh, no, right wing media is so very benign. Not a big deal.
October 26, 2019 @ 7:45 AM
zk wrote:If you’re as refined
[quote=zk]If you’re as refined as you claim to be, you wouldn’t do that at a real party. Why do it here?[/quote]
I suspect he doesn’t get invited to many parties.
October 26, 2019 @ 8:26 AM
zk wrote:FlyerInHi
[quote=zk][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi]And what exactly is the “win” you refer to.[/quote]
Pretty much anything at this point.[/quote]
As I expected. I take this last statement to mean that you don’t want to be “significantly more helpful” anymore, not in a straight forward way, only in a round about way. of course, you will claim that I’m putting words in your month.
As Trump may say in jest , you’re worse than a woman. How about that? How ‘bout that?
I hate to break it to you, but in communications you need to be clear or clarify so your point is well taken. That’s why people use PR departments otherwise the listener could misunderstand and misinterpret. And when you learn a new language the first thing the teacher will tell you is “it doesn’t matter If you make mistakes. Just speak in a way the listener will understand.”[/quote]
Jesus, Brian. The duuuude keeps showing you where you’ve put words in his mouth. And you keep doing it. You’re out of control.
Really, Brian. You’re getting so tiresome on all these threads. You’re like that guy at a party, when two or three or four people are having a nice conversation, and some loud guy who thinks he’s charming and brilliant- but is actually strident and kind of an idiot – shows up and takes over the conversation and ruins it for everybody else. If you’re as refined as you claim to be, you wouldn’t do that at a real party. Why do it here?[/quote]
Holy shit. I missed the evolution of this thread…. I unplug from piggs a few days to catch up on life errands, home improvements, work, and car improvements, and it looks like a nuclear bomb was dropped here. What happened here? someone give me the cliff notes version. I don’t want to look at 3 pages of history.
October 26, 2019 @ 8:26 AM
zk wrote:FlyerInHi
[quote=zk][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdduuuude][quote=FlyerInHi]And what exactly is the “win” you refer to.[/quote]
Pretty much anything at this point.[/quote]
As I expected. I take this last statement to mean that you don’t want to be “significantly more helpful” anymore, not in a straight forward way, only in a round about way. of course, you will claim that I’m putting words in your month.
As Trump may say in jest , you’re worse than a woman. How about that? How ‘bout that?
I hate to break it to you, but in communications you need to be clear or clarify so your point is well taken. That’s why people use PR departments otherwise the listener could misunderstand and misinterpret. And when you learn a new language the first thing the teacher will tell you is “it doesn’t matter If you make mistakes. Just speak in a way the listener will understand.”[/quote]
Jesus, Brian. The duuuude keeps showing you where you’ve put words in his mouth. And you keep doing it. You’re out of control.
Really, Brian. You’re getting so tiresome on all these threads. You’re like that guy at a party, when two or three or four people are having a nice conversation, and some loud guy who thinks he’s charming and brilliant- but is actually strident and kind of an idiot – shows up and takes over the conversation and ruins it for everybody else. If you’re as refined as you claim to be, you wouldn’t do that at a real party. Why do it here?[/quote]
Holy shit. I missed the evolution of this thread…. I unplug from piggs a few days to catch up on life errands, home improvements, work, and car improvements, and it looks like a nuclear bomb was dropped here. What happened here? someone give me the cliff notes version. I don’t want to look at 3 pages of history.
October 26, 2019 @ 10:34 AM
Here’s how I see it Flu.
Here’s how I see it Flu.
Someone pulls rank and says this. He even pulls up dictionary definitions of assume and presume. Tells people not to do it.
[quote=sdduuuude]
And I have a graduate degree in economics from that one college all the kids are getting rejected from. So when you say that the right-wing media is forming my opinions for me you are both wrong and insulting. When you say it to anyone, you are likely wrong and insulting.[/quote]
Then he most recently said this about Democrats.
[quote=sdduuuude]They don’t care if the President broke the law or not. They just want him out so they don’t lose to him again [/quote]
flu, you like to pull rank too. So let your fancy degree help you figure things out.
When i went to school, I was taught that to calculate NPR, IRR, etc. you have to make a very important assumption. The better the assumption, the better the result.
To me, ZK’s statements about the right wing media influencing people are very benign and accurate in general. It actually is very kind and not presumptious at all because it gives people an excuse and an out. It compares favorably to this:
[quote=sdduuuude]liberal media and Democrats around the world are have been blinded with rage and are not doing what needs to be done to win[/quote]
Flu, the nuclear bombs are the ones you drop when you throw vindictives such as “crazy”.
https://www.piggington.com/more_crazy_taxation_ideas_aoc_types
October 28, 2019 @ 10:13 AM
FLU,
I will fill you in.
I
FLU,
I will fill you in.
I popped into Piggington for the first time in a couple years to check on the housing market. I am looking to Refi out of my construction debt because my new owner-built house in CV has passed final inspection. You know our realtor. You should have him bring you by to see the place. It is special.
In doing so, I saw zk respond to Shoveler’s assessment of the Trump phone call with something like “you let Fox convince you it is much to do about nothing.” Having been so accused of that myself by her the last time I was on the Piggs, I felt it necessary to call her out. Although she holds onto her belief that FN is heavily influencing the American people, I think she now understands, admirably, that accusing Piggs of not being able to form their own opinions isn’t a good idea.
Using many more words that I should have, I pointed out that jumping up and down and shouting “that’s what Fox News said” is not an good argument nor a winning strategy for the Dems or Piggs. Nor is continuing to point out what an awful person Trump is, in light of the fact that people are feeling good about the economy.
I also said the phone call didn’t seem to be the nail in the coffin of the trump administration, although maybe other evidence will surface.
“Team liberal” took this to mean that I am a Trump supporter, which I am not, rather than an outsider assessing the situation fairly objectively, which I am.
Also, Brian and burgMan think our degrees are fancy. I think our degrees are more like heavy construction equipment. Very powerful, very practical, and not really fancy at all.
See you in a couple years.
– sdduuuude –
P.S. speaking of “pulling rank” I am at 13 years, 49 weeks. I think only Rich is “older” at 14 years, 1 week.
Thanks, Rich for 14 years of awesomeness.
October 28, 2019 @ 11:10 AM
On a thread about Trump
On a thread about Trump impeachment, we’re not supposed to talk about how bad Trump Is?
The point is not to win over voters who are feeling good about the economy, but to hold Trump accountable for his crimes.
It’s like saying “let’s not prosecute someone because it’s not popular.” I know you didn’t literally say that.
Our ideas are not original. We get them from somewhere. ZK’s point is that right wing media is very influential. People absorb those ideas even if not directly from Fox.
Case in point, google search bias originated from Russian media. It’s false.
[quote=sdduuuude]that accusing Piggs of not being able to form their own opinions isn’t a good idea.
[/quote]
Nobody said that. You assume or presume.
If you claim to have an advance degree in economics from the school kids are being rejected, why not take down the policies? You should be able to point out exactly what is to be feared in Elizabeth Warren’s plan developed by Berkeley economists. You can do better than this invective:
[quote=sdduuuude]
One of the recurring theme of the Democratic party is the revialism of socialism under the guise of a democracy.
It is very widespread and there are recent examples of it right here on this forum.
These idease are definitely promoted by CNN.
Involuntary Socialism sucks and should be feared, even if Fox News says so.[/quote]
October 28, 2019 @ 6:19 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:On a thread
[quote=FlyerInHi]On a thread about Trump impeachment, we’re not supposed to talk about how bad Trump Is?
The point is not to win over voters who are feeling good about the economy, but to hold Trump accountable for his crimes.
It’s like saying “let’s not prosecute someone because it’s not popular.” I know you didn’t literally say that.
Our ideas are not original. We get them from somewhere. ZK’s point is that right wing media is very influential. People absorb those ideas even if not directly from Fox.
Case in point, google search bias originated from Russian media. It’s false.
[quote=sdduuuude]that accusing Piggs of not being able to form their own opinions isn’t a good idea.
[/quote]
Nobody said that. You assume or presume.
If you claim to have an advance degree in economics from the school kids are being rejected, why not take down the policies? You should be able to point out exactly what is to be feared in Elizabeth Warren’s plan developed by Berkeley economists. You can do better than this invective:
[quote=sdduuuude]
One of the recurring theme of the Democratic party is the revialism of socialism under the guise of a democracy.
It is very widespread and there are recent examples of it right here on this forum.
These idease are definitely promoted by CNN.
Involuntary Socialism sucks and should be feared, even if Fox News says so.[/quote][/quote]
I trust people that are failed real estate bloggers, previously banned posters, pilots based in Waikiki, and imaginary landlords.
NOT THAT THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
October 28, 2019 @ 7:03 PM
You assume a lot.
I will go
You assume a lot.
I will go out on a limb and that you also don’t trust the failing New York Times and Washington Post that Trump banned from all federal agencies.
October 28, 2019 @ 9:12 PM
sdduuuude wrote:FLU,
I will
[quote=sdduuuude]FLU,
I will fill you in.
I popped into Piggington for the first time in a couple years to check on the housing market. I am looking to Refi out of my construction debt because my new owner-built house in CV has passed final inspection. You know our realtor. You should have him bring you by to see the place. It is special.
In doing so, I saw zk respond to Shoveler’s assessment of the Trump phone call with something like “you let Fox convince you it is much to do about nothing.” Having been so accused of that myself by her the last time I was on the Piggs, I felt it necessary to call her out. Although she holds onto her belief that FN is heavily influencing the American people, I think she now understands, admirably, that accusing Piggs of not being able to form their own opinions isn’t a good idea.
Using many more words that I should have, I pointed out that jumping up and down and shouting “that’s what Fox News said” is not an good argument nor a winning strategy for the Dems or Piggs. Nor is continuing to point out what an awful person Trump is, in light of the fact that people are feeling good about the economy.
I also said the phone call didn’t seem to be the nail in the coffin of the trump administration, although maybe other evidence will surface.
“Team liberal” took this to mean that I am a Trump supporter, which I am not, rather than an outsider assessing the situation fairly objectively, which I am.
Also, Brian and burgMan think our degrees are fancy. I think our degrees are more like heavy construction equipment. Very powerful, very practical, and not really fancy at all.
See you in a couple years.
– sdduuuude –
P.S. speaking of “pulling rank” I am at 13 years, 49 weeks. I think only Rich is “older” at 14 years, 1 week.
Thanks, Rich for 14 years of awesomeness.[/quote]
Your house is awesome. only you could have pulled it off to put it together. Well done.
Lol. I never thought much of my degree until Brian started to wave the elitist progressive flag and started to comment about the importance of being , scholarly, well educated, etc etc etc… Admitedly I then started to flaunt my pedigree degree from pedigree Ivy League school pretty much to make a mockery of the entire thing. I knew my ivy league degree was good for something!
October 23, 2019 @ 1:02 PM
sdduuuude wrote:
zk
[quote=sdduuuude]
[quote=zk]
You think that every single politician (except possibly Carter) in the country is as mendacious and nonsensical as donald trump?[/quote]
No, but just as disingenuous, only better at hiding it.”
[/quote]
Your cynicism is not supported by any arguments or evidence that I can see. Yes, a lot of politicians are disingenuous. Most of them are to some degree. Most people are to at least some small degree some of the time. But to say that every single politician is as every bit as disingenuous as trump is to ignore the many politicians who are normal people with normal levels of disingenuousness. Donald trump clearly displays an abnormal (and outrageous) level of disengenousness.
[quote=sdduuuude]
I didn’t look up mendacious 🙂
[/quote]
It means lies a lot. Clearly trump lies more than most politicians who ever lived.
[quote=zk]We’re going to have to agree to disagree on that.[/quote]
[quote=sdduuuude]
I could get behind that agreement as long as we agree that the left side propaganda machine has as much effect as the right.
[/quote]
Not a chance. (see below)
[quote=sdduuuude]
There are two highly biased propaganda machines out there. If you don’t see them both, you have been fooled by one.
[/quote]
That sounds pithy and everything, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.
[quote=sdduuuude]
See – I can do it to: If not because of CNN propaganda, how else could people possibly believe that it is OK to force grocery stores to stop giving me free plastic bags, that forced recycling does anyone any good, that increasing minimum wage is good for poor people,
[/quote]
This list: people agreeing that it’s ok to force grocery stores to stop giving you free plastic bags, and agreeing that recycling does anyone any good, and agreeing that increasing minimum wage is good for poor people – all opinions that many reasonable people could easily come to without propaganda – doesn’t compare with the below list. The following are all believed by millions of right-wingers:
Muslims are covertly implementing sharia law in American courts
Obama is a muslim.
Obama was born in Kenya.
Hillary acted illegally and treasonously regarding Uranium One.
Hillary was involved in a pedophile ring.
George Soros paid women to attend anti-trump march.
Sandy Hook was a hoax.
Democrats want an open-border immigration policy.
Millions of illegal votes were cast in 2016
Those lists seem quite different to me, and are testament to the power of the right-wing propaganda machine.
[quote=sdduuuude]
and that uneducated white males put Trump in office (I actually heard this on CNN on election night)
[/quote]
Depending on how you interpret “put trump in office” that isn’t at all absurd. Uneducated white males voted mostly for trump, and if they hadn’t, the outcome could easily been different.
[quote=sdduuuude]
and that means Trump is a racist – even though uneducated black males put Obama in office and Obama is not a racist.
[/quote]
I’m not aware of anybody who thinks trump is a racist for that reason. There are plenty of other reasons to think that.
[quote=zk]… assaulted women, … and stolen throughout his career.[/quote]
[quote=sdduuuude]
You are stating this as a fact. As these are clearly crimes, and he hasn’t been been convicted of these beyond a shadow of a doubt, I believe they are only claims. That you state them as facts when there is no proof – seems very “propaganda-ish” to me.
[/quote]
You’re missing the point. The point isn’t that he’s been proven to do these things beyond a reasonable doubt. The point is that the perception was that he had assaulted women and cheated and stolen throughout his career (and cheated on all his wives) and that, before fox, the party of family values wouldn’t have elected such a man.
[quote=sdduuuude]
My final point on the matter is that your argument seems to be “There are millions of people who disagree with me, therefore they have been tricked by propaganda.”
[/quote]
That isn’t and has never been my point. I never said or implied or meant that “they disagree with me, therefore they have been tricked by propaganda.” I have been saying all along that they have been lied to, manipulated, and convinced of untrue things. I say that they must have been tricked by propaganda because they believe things that are clearly not true.
[quote=sdduuuude]
Next time you hear something that you don’t agree with, try contesting it with a rational argument, which you are clearly capable of doing, instead of accusing them of saying the same thing as Fox, which drags you down a level.
[/quote]
I can do both. I can (and I do) say: “part of what’s wrong with your argument is that you’re not starting with the truth.” And then show them where there false beliefs are. It seems to shed some light on the situation to add, at that point, “and the reason you aren’t starting with the truth is because you’ve been manipulated by right-wing propaganda.” If a person can become aware that their sources are not reliable, perhaps they can, in the future, find better sources. And then we can agree to disagree each using arguments that started with truths (but whose conclusions still differ).
If your kid holds some crazy belief, and you find out they got that belief from their crazy uncle who believes all kinds of nonsense, it only makes sense to tell the kid that that uncle is full of shit and not to believe him anymore.
Also, you don’t debate him while letting him start with untruths. “Uncle Bob told me that 2+2=5, Dad, and therefore my teacher, who thinks 2+2=4, is full of shit and I won’t listen to her anymore.” You can’t discuss the situation with the kid without first telling him that 2+2 does, in fact, equal 4. Then you add, “and don’t believe what your Uncle Bob says anymore. Especially if you don’t want to go around sounding like an idiot.”
October 23, 2019 @ 3:34 PM
zk wrote:If your kid holds
[quote=zk]If your kid holds some crazy belief, and you find out they got that belief from their crazy uncle who believes all kinds of nonsense.[/quote]
If I actually found out that they did get that belief from a crazy uncle, it would make sense.
But you never actually found out if people came to a belief due to Fox News or not. You simply assumed they did.
October 23, 2019 @ 3:44 PM
I think that ZK has been too
I think that ZK has been too kind. Giving too much credence to the right wing media excuses a lot of deplorable behavior. It would rather hold people personally responsible for what they do or believe, regardless of where they get their information.
October 23, 2019 @ 4:04 PM
Mob speak results in
Mob speak results in republicans storming scif with personal electronics to protest lack of transparency even though 45 house republicans are already in the room. What fools!
October 23, 2019 @ 4:14 PM
outtamojo wrote:Mob speak
[quote=outtamojo]Mob speak results in republicans storming scif with personal electronics to protest lack of transparency even though 45 house republicans are already in the room. What fools![/quote]
Yeah, the committee chairmen are really having private testimony to protect what’s left of our longstanding Ukraine policy against Russian aggression. All the secrets revealed in public would only benefit Putin and eviscerate US diplomacy.
Putin has gotten many wins this past week.
October 23, 2019 @ 4:16 PM
dup
dup
October 14, 2019 @ 6:56 PM
burghMan wrote:There is only
[quote=burghMan]There is only one reason people are triggered about junior congressional representatives for districts that are nowhere near them[/quote]
Naa, people noticed AOC because she has a nice rack and fresh face. After she presented her new green policy, we see her as just nuts. That’s it.
October 14, 2019 @ 7:06 PM
Be nice to see Giuliani in
Be nice to see Giuliani in jail. Would be a tough client. The thought of representing Rudy gives me a headache ….
October 15, 2019 @ 11:31 AM
Hobie wrote:burghMan
[quote=Hobie][quote=burghMan]There is only one reason people are triggered about junior congressional representatives for districts that are nowhere near them[/quote]
Naa, people noticed AOC because she has a nice rack and fresh face. After she presented her new green policy, we see her as just nuts. That’s it.[/quote]
As Trump would say….. they’re just jealous. I mean just look at the women at Trump rallies. Look at them! That’s why they have to pick on AOC
Anyway if the right can use AOC to paint Democrats, why can’t we use the deplorables to paint Republicans. I mean, yeah, the deplorables were the marginal voters who got Trump into office.
I agree with Trump in one respect. If someone hits you, you strike back 10 times as hard. Liberals are wusses. That’s why we lose elections.
October 16, 2019 @ 10:47 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:Hobie
[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=Hobie][quote=burghMan]There is only one reason people are triggered about junior congressional representatives for districts that are nowhere near them[/quote]
Naa, people noticed AOC because she has a nice rack and fresh face. After she presented her new green policy, we see her as just nuts. That’s it.[/quote]
As Trump would say….. they’re just jealous. I mean just look at the women at Trump rallies. Look at them! That’s why they have to pick on AOC
Anyway if the right can use AOC to paint Democrats, why can’t we use the deplorables to paint Republicans. I mean, yeah, the deplorables were the marginal voters who got Trump into office.
I agree with Trump in one respect. If someone hits you, you strike back 10 times as hard. Liberals are wusses. That’s why we lose elections.[/quote]
Why are there no fake photos of naked trump circulating on facebook?
October 16, 2019 @ 11:12 AM
scaredyclassic wrote:
Why are
[quote=scaredyclassic]
Why are there no fake photos of naked trump circulating on facebook?[/quote]
Maybe there are. Are you brave enough to look for them?
I’m not!
October 14, 2019 @ 2:07 PM
dup
dup
October 14, 2019 @ 5:36 PM
burghMan wrote:One of the
[quote=burghMan]One of the recurring themes in the Republican party is the hysterical fear of “socialism”. It’s very widespread and there are recent examples of it right here on this forum: https://www.piggington.com/piggingtons_evoloutionwhen_will_housing_prices_become_discussion
These ideas are definitely promoted by Fox News. Few people in America would even know who “AOC” was if it weren’t for for Fox News. Because of the reach of the right wing media, there are guys in Temecula upset about about a junior congresswoman from The Bronx.[/quote]
See, I can rework your quote:
[quote=nobody]One of the recurring themes in the Democratic party is the hysterical fear of Trump. It’s very widespread and there are recent examples of it right here on this forum:
(anything by ZK)
These ideas are definitely promoted by CNN. Few people in America would even know who (Trump’s attorney, president of Ukraine, etc) was if it weren’t for for CNN News. Because of the reach of the left wing media, there are guys in San Diego upset about about a (Trump Minion).[/quote]
Your answer would be “No. I dislike Trump because of X, Y, and Z. It is obvious that Trump is awful. I don’t need CNN to tell me that.”
And that would be a fair answer and you should yell at me for suggesting that your opinion was not formed on your own.
October 14, 2019 @ 1:50 PM
If socialism is such a good
If socialism is such a good idea, they why is Venezuela and Cuba in the state they are? Who is pointing out its failures?
I look to our education system that is not teaching how to properly compare and contrast our system of capitalism vs. socialism.
It may have something to do with that the teachers are paid by government and protected by tenure.
Might have a different view if they pay was tied to their effectiveness of teaching across the board in all subjects.
October 14, 2019 @ 2:11 PM
Hobie wrote:If socialism is
[quote=Hobie]If socialism is such a good idea, they why is Venezuela and Cuba in the state they are? Who is pointing out its failures?
I look to our education system that is not teaching how to properly compare and contrast our system of capitalism vs. socialism.
It may have something to do with that the teachers are paid by government and protected by tenure.
Might have a different view if they pay was tied to their effectiveness of teaching across the board in all subjects.[/quote]
Banker bailout- was that socialist or not?
October 14, 2019 @ 2:44 PM
We need a public option for
We need a public option for health care, but beyond water, roads, schools and utilities etc.., socialism is a horrible idea IMO.
October 14, 2019 @ 3:08 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:We need a
[quote=The-Shoveler]We need a public option for health care, but beyond water, roads, schools and utilities etc.., socialism is a horrible idea IMO.[/quote]
In other words, socialism is good except when it’s not.
I’m not defending or advocating true socialism. My point is that nobody in either of the major parties is really is either. Even though Bernie Sanders may label himself a socialist, his definition of socialism is not anywhere close to what a complete socialist command economy looks like (e.g. Venezuela Cuba, NK, etc.)
There are really no socialists in our government and there are no credible socialist candidates running for office. The only real fiscal difference between the parties is a relatively small difference in spending on already existing social programs like Medicare. Should we have an even bigger military or give ourselves public healthcare? Both cost money.
Socialism is just a bogeyman used by the the Republicans to demonize ideas like public option that are very worthy of consideration. It’s incredible how many are frightened by this myth.
Corruption and foreign influence, however, is real. And is a serious risk to our democracy. Which reminds me…. why has no one attempted to answer my previous question that is more relevant to this thread…
What was Giuliani doing in Ukraine?
October 14, 2019 @ 3:52 PM
burghMan wrote:I’m not
[quote=burghMan]I’m not defending or advocating true socialism. My point is that nobody in either of the major parties is really is either …
There are really no socialists in our government and there are no credible socialist candidates running for office[/quote]
I think many politicians, both Republican and Democrat, but more Democrat, push agendas that fall under socialism – more and more as time goes by it seems. It is disconcerting at best. This is based on my education in economics, not based on Fox News just in case you make the mistake of assuming that again.
October 14, 2019 @ 2:46 PM
Weak, kind sir. Please don’t
Weak, kind sir. Please don’t conflate an entire system of governance with a perceived, ‘socialist’ program executed within our republic.
And, no. Banks should have been allowed to fail and the chips fall where they may. The people who perpetrated that mess would have all be taken down.
October 14, 2019 @ 3:17 PM
Then less howl please when
Then less howl please when socialism is discussed as it is clear we conflate what we want to conflate when it us to our advantage and seek to deny the benefits of conflating to others whenever we can.
October 14, 2019 @ 8:31 PM
I wonder why Trumpistas who
I wonder why Trumpistas who believe at the core that socialism is so bad are so afraid of China, especially Made in China 2025. If economic planning is so bad, then let the Chinese do it and fail on their own. Why is Trump trying so hard to make China give up a policy that he is so sure is unsustainable?
And why is Trump forcing the Chinese state to buy US agricultural products? Shouldn’t we let Chinese private businesses organically place the orders based on supply and demand, at their own pace?
October 14, 2019 @ 8:54 PM
Yeah people form their own
Yeah people form their own opinions, but Fox and Trump reinforce those opinions and those people think it’s OK to have such opinions.
Certain opinions are not OK. Just think of your relatives and friends. You would not want to be associated with people of deplorable behavior and character. BTW, social disapprobation is the conservative/traditional way of enforcing a civil society.
Now conservatives claim they hate PC culture because it prevents them from “saying it like it is”, just like Trump does. But Trumpistas are so sensitive about perceived “cultural elitism”. FYI, elitism use to be the province of conservatives and people of moral and social rectitude.
We have to look down upon deplorables, and anachronistic backward behavior, if we’re to build a society of high standards.
October 14, 2019 @ 10:21 PM
Special delivery for the
Special delivery for the Piggs:
A whole truck load of strawmen!
Since I’m neither a Trumpista nor conservative, I’ll let someone else reply to FlyerInHi.
October 15, 2019 @ 6:22 AM
“Giuliani paid $500K for work
“Giuliani paid $500K for work for indicted associate’s firm”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/465795-giuliani-paid-500k-for-work-for-indicted-associates-firm-report
If they had $500K to pay Giuliani just for legal fees, how big was the entire operation?
Lol, one of the henchmen is named Igor.
“Drain the swamp” indeed.
October 15, 2019 @ 7:49 AM
burghMan wrote:”Giuliani paid
[quote=burghMan]”Giuliani paid $500K for work for indicted associate’s firm”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/465795-giuliani-paid-500k-for-work-for-indicted-associates-firm-report
If they had $500K to pay Giuliani just for legal fees, how big was the entire operation?
Lol, one of the henchmen is named Igor.
“Drain the swamp” indeed.[/quote]
There is a song by Trump supporters that goes “there ain’t no Russian ever called me white trash”.
https://youtu.be/PbLnvVsUANk
October 16, 2019 @ 3:22 PM
1st runner up in the
1st runner up in the Bearishgrl award for longest post.
October 16, 2019 @ 3:26 PM
Hobie wrote:1st runner up in
[quote=Hobie]1st runner up in the Bearishgrl award for longest post.[/quote]
Maybe, but hes right.
October 16, 2019 @ 3:28 PM
I can explain
I can explain everything.
People are crazy. Like, nuts.
Once you really embrace that, things make more sense.
October 16, 2019 @ 3:34 PM
Hobie wrote:1st runner up in
[quote=Hobie]1st runner up in the Bearishgrl award for longest post.[/quote]
Difference for me is I read the whole thing and it was coherent.
October 16, 2019 @ 4:18 PM
I suspect that men with big
I suspect that men with big penises are fundamentally psychologically different than men with small penises, like trump.
Women probably dont fully get it.
Women are terrified men will kill them, while men are terrified women will laugh at them.
I think if I’d had a bigger penis, I would have had a different better life.
Trumps behavior may be explicable by small penis syndrome.
If Pelosi really wanted to mess with him, she could make fun of his penis at every meeting. Much more effective than a slow clap … I think hed respect her more too, if she shamed him a bit.
Hey, micro peen. We have your taxes [wave a little CD around] yep, we know everything. We also have photos of your little guy. It’s so itty bitty! If you run for another term, we will run ads with the micro dot on every social media site worldwide.
I was talking to Melania and she told me she cant even tell when it was in.
I have her on tape saying that! We will be airing that ad nationwide! Your base will be laughing, hard. Now, Joe’s got a big one. I’ve seen it. Hes gonna challenge you to whip yours out. You are turning beet red, mr president! The truth hurts?
That’s how u negotiate with a guy like trump. Fight unpredictable crazy with much much crazier.
October 16, 2019 @ 4:32 PM
scaredyclassic wrote:I
[quote=scaredyclassic]I suspect that men with big penises are fundamentally psychologically different than men with small penises, like trump.
Women probably dont fully get it.
Women are terrified men will kill them, while men are terrified women will laugh at them.
I think if I’d had a bigger penis, I would have had a different better life.
Trumps behavior may be explicable by small penis syndrome.
If Pelosi really wanted to mess with him, she could make fun of his penis at every meeting. Much more effective than a slow clap … I think hed respect her more too, if she shamed him a bit.
Hey, micro peen. We have your taxes [wave a little CD around] yep, we know everything. We also have photos of your little guy. It’s so itty bitty! If you run for another term, we will run ads with the micro dot on every social media site worldwide.
I was talking to Melania and she told me she cant even tell when it was in.
I have her on tape saying that! We will be airing that ad nationwide! Your base will be laughing, hard. Now, Joe’s got a big one. I’ve seen it. Hes gonna challenge you to whip yours out. You are turning beet red, mr president! The truth hurts?
That’s how u negotiate with a guy like trump. Fight unpredictable crazy with much much crazier.[/quote]
The candidate that runs against him really needs to do this. Don’t debate him, just mock him incessantly. Don’t try to be smarter or knowledgeable than him, show that he is weak because he is easily ruffled.
At the first debate the other candidate should just ignore every question and use it as a forum to mock trump. Abandon all decorum, ignore the questions, and just hurl personal ridicule. Call him names, make fun of his looks, his manhood, his business failures, everything.
Trump would try to counter but then spiral into a nervous breakdown right on the stage. It would be fun, and historic, to watch.
October 17, 2019 @ 7:53 AM
Debate notes:
“The founding
Debate notes:
“The founding fathers intent is clearly expressed in the constitution which requires that Male president be adult males over 35. Clearly the founders intended a fully matured adult Male with an adult sized penis. Not a micropenis
So I make this challenge to president peewee. Prove to us that your penis is 4 inches or longer and I will concede the election. Otherwise, step aside and allow a normal adult to govern.
Your tiny penis is a national security risk, sir…the founding fathers would be appalled at your lack of manhood.”
Look, he used to bang skanky whores, while was married, no condoms, and one of them, not his current wife, reported his penis was miniature. How is it the Democrats cant figure a way to shove this up his flabby ass? What is there to lose, votes wise, by pwning him mercilessly.
“You sleep with whores, mr president. You pay women money to have sex with you because you are a freak of nature, with deformed genitals.” [Break out a copy of stormy Daniel’s book and toss it toward his podium. Let it lie on the floor till he picks it up].
If trump can loom behind Hillary why cant the dems toss a book.
His base would love it.
“Why cant you show us your penis? Is that being audited too?”
“You lied and said you had bone spurs because you are a small cowardly man. Bone spurs never go away so we know you are a liar. You only had them when it was time to stand up and fight like a man. It’s bad enough you have a micropenis, but you are. Also a yellow bellied lying coward. ”
Although not PC, a bold move here might be to call him a tiny little faggot. I dont think the dems would lose any LGBTQ votes, and it might persuade swing deplorables that a dem can tell it like it is.
You small penised little tiny faggot, you are a rich man who hides his shamefully small manhood behind a pile of cash, like scrooge mcduck.
I’d call him scrooge mcduck, actually. Is that reference too dated?
LBJ used to call his penis Jumbo. What’s your nickname for your penis, sir? Ipod mini?
MAHA.
Make america hung again.
But seriously, isnt pretty much all this military bullshit parades and braggadocio and political posturing a bunch of dick swinging, in reality? Why be coy. If we are going to pretend to be big dicked he men swinging our massive cocks on the world stage, let’s make it explicit and lay our cocks on the table where we can see what we are buying.
[I think this post is longer than zks]
October 17, 2019 @ 9:04 AM
I’d love for Elizabeth Warren
I’d love for Elizabeth Warren to call Trump Scrooge mcduck with a tiny penis. However, delivered by Warren, that would alienate low-education white male voters. It’s always about low-education white males.
October 17, 2019 @ 9:34 AM
One of Trump’s hand picked
One of Trump’s hand picked ambassadors just confirmed the quid pro quo. (This story is the top headline on most outlets, but buried somewhere on Fox News under stories about AOC’s haircut.)
Still no Trump supporters have even tried to explain why Giuliani would have any role in Ukraine foreign policy matters. Why was Trump directing his appointed officials to defer to Giuliani?
It appears that Trump’s downfall ultimately will be that he couldn’t find enough corrupt loyalists willing to completely discard their integrity and duty to country.
How will history play out? Will Trump fall because he blatantly used his power to further his personal interests at the expense of the nation, or will he fall because he gets called out on his tiny dick?
October 17, 2019 @ 10:05 AM
You guys are way too worried
You guys are way too worried about this… Remember… in the worst case scenario he gets term limited out ..
Hmmm Warren or Trump…. Tough call. I’ll abstain. which basically means deep South will prevail….
October 17, 2019 @ 11:59 AM
Too much effort into
Too much effort into something that has a 99% chance of being dropped before it hits the senate floor IMO.
But they will keep it on the house floor at least 6 months IMO, else it will have little value if they cannot keep it in the news.
If the dems want to win, they need to win the hearts and minds of the middle politically (and middle of country as well).
They need to know they have a future.
John Chambers on inclusion
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/john-chambers-embrace-companies-that-will-bring-a-new-form-of-capitalism.html
October 17, 2019 @ 12:07 PM
Ukraine not a very big or
Ukraine not a very big or capable country but if that is ok,imagine a side deal with Putin and getting access to the full power of the KGB unfettered by American laws. Gotta draw the line somewhere close to lying about an affair.
October 17, 2019 @ 1:18 PM
The impeachment will not get
The impeachment will not get dropped before it gets to the senate. The Senate may not convict but that’s another story.
October 17, 2019 @ 1:59 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:The
[quote=FlyerInHi]The impeachment will not get dropped before it gets to the senate. The Senate may not convict but that’s another story.[/quote]
Tough to say at this point. There’s quite a few at risk freshmen democrat representatives from traditionally republican districts. If we’ve already seen the bulk of the evidence and there isn’t something more, you run the risk of this being viewed as a political stunt that rallies the Republican base.
I think you need something more to bring the middle of the electorate to the position this is serious and he needs to be removed. Otherwise it gets viewed as political partisanship and we want you gone because we don’t like you elections results to be damned. That’s a risky precedent to establish because it can run both ways and really disfranchise the electorate.
If you take away the ballot box option for people you risk a civil war. Nobody should want that no matter how much you hate Trump.
October 17, 2019 @ 3:01 PM
The ballot box option in the
The ballot box option in the form of the popular vote…yeah talk about a disenfranchised electorate!
October 17, 2019 @ 4:36 PM
outtamojo wrote:The ballot
[quote=outtamojo]The ballot box option in the form of the popular vote…yeah talk about a disenfranchised electorate![/quote]
Yep. Democrats get millions more total votes in congressional and presidential elections.
Regardless of party affiliation, California traitors who support diluting our political power in the USA, should take their asses to Kansas. They aren’t welcome here. We live in first tier cities with first tier GDP. I would think the economic evidence is plain that we do things better than the second rate town.
October 17, 2019 @ 4:27 PM
livinincali wrote:
Tough to
[quote=livinincali]
Tough to say at this point. There’s quite a few at risk freshmen democrat representatives from traditionally republican districts. If we’ve already seen the bulk of the evidence and there isn’t something more, you run the risk of this being viewed as a political stunt that rallies the Republican base.
I think you need something more to bring the middle of the electorate to the position this is serious and he needs to be removed. Otherwise it gets viewed as political partisanship and we want you gone because we don’t like you elections results to be damned. That’s a risky precedent to establish because it can run both ways and really disfranchise the electorate.
If you take away the ballot box option for people you risk a civil war. Nobody should want that no matter how much you hate Trump.[/quote]
It’s interesting that you mention the election of congress in the first paragraph and then the Republican talking point of invalidating an election in the next. The makeup of the legislature is also the result of a democratic process. Why would one elected body be more legitimate than another? Congress also represents “We the People.” We chose them to do a job, and impeachment is in the scope of that job.
But it’s true that Trump has general ignorance of the constitution on his side. He’s literally called for the “impeachment” of members of congress, a concept that simply doesn’t exist in the constitution or any law. Once again it’s “whatever you do to me, I’ll do to you worse!” His entire rhetoric is basically a schoolyard tantrum.
I think the civil war concerns are overstated. Where would the sides really be? What would the Trump side actually be fighting for, a new constitution without an impeachment clause? There could be a few episodes of of PizzaGate style violence but it would fizzle quickly as the “rebels” lost focus and president Pence called for calm. The “war” would mostly take place on social media.
October 18, 2019 @ 7:56 PM
livinincali wrote:
If we’ve
[quote=livinincali]
If we’ve already seen the bulk of the evidence and there isn’t something more, you run the risk of this being viewed as a political stunt that rallies the Republican base.
[/quote]
Maybe, but only because most of the republican base has been watching too much fox news.
Mulvaney admitted a quid pro quo. Now, of course, he denies it. But it’s all right there on video tape.
[quote=livinincali]
I think you need something more to bring the middle of the electorate to the position this is serious and he needs to be removed. Otherwise it gets viewed as political partisanship and we want you gone because we don’t like you elections results to be damned. That’s a risky precedent to establish because it can run both ways and really disfranchise the electorate.
[/quote]
You might be right. Even after this admission of a quid pro quo, you might need more. But you sure as hell shouldn’t. I think after this admission of a quid pro quo, the middle will be convinced. Only propaganda-addled fanatics (which is, what, 35% of American voters?) will not see the problem. They’ll be convinced by whatever walking back Mulvaney does and the propaganda machine’s support of that walking back.
And our final right-wing talking point du jour from livinincali:
[quote=livinincali]
If you take away the ballot box option for people you risk a civil war. Nobody should want that no matter how much you hate Trump.
[/quote]
Nobody is trying to take away the ballot box from anybody. (Well, except for gerrymanderers, but that’s another story.) Is it your belief that any attempt to hold a president accountable for his high crimes in the white house is taking away the ballot box option? Or is it your belief that extorting political favors from a foreign power for money (something Mulvaney admitted to) is not impeachable? Or do you believe Mulvaney when he says he was misconstrued? Or something else?
October 17, 2019 @ 1:18 PM
The impeachment will not get
The impeachment will not get dropped before it gets to the senate. The Senate may not convict but that’s another story.
October 17, 2019 @ 1:40 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:
If the
[quote=The-Shoveler]
If the dems want to win, they need to win the hearts and minds of the middle politically (and middle of country as well).
They need to know they have a future.
John Chambers on inclusion
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/john-chambers-embrace-companies-that-will-bring-a-new-form-of-capitalism.html
[/quote]
1. Why should we include those who exclude?
2. Sounds like Made in usa 2025. Nah, planning cannot possibly work. Let the free market decide.
By the way the California model works pretty well…. if you don’t like it go to Kansas
October 17, 2019 @ 4:34 PM
Why I think the country is
Why I think the country is doomed to be split apart.
John Chambers fears this as well.
October 17, 2019 @ 4:41 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:Why I
[quote=The-Shoveler]Why I think the country is doomed to be split apart.
John Chambers fears this as well.[/quote]
John chambers is a loser who didn’t run Cisco that well, did he? Otherwise, Cisco would be bigger than Huawei.
His proposals are Made in China 2025 light, adapted to the US. F’ing Commie!
October 17, 2019 @ 4:42 PM
Can you even vote in CA?
Can you even vote in CA?
October 17, 2019 @ 4:50 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:Can you
[quote=The-Shoveler]Can you even vote in CA?[/quote]
I vote in Las Vegas which is the same as california. It’s a blue oasis surrounded by red areas who don’t contribute shit to the state economy. Harry Reid is from Las Vegas.
October 17, 2019 @ 4:55 PM
Good luck if you find a
Good luck if you find a candidate who expressive themselves just like you LOL.
Please warn us if you uncover one.
October 17, 2019 @ 9:15 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:Good luck
[quote=The-Shoveler]Good luck if you find a candidate who expressive themselves just like you LOL.
Please warn us if you uncover one.[/quote]
Republicans have Trump. Can’t I wish for my own “Trump”?
BTW I agree with John Chambers. However, If the backward people want to join us urban elites, they can change and come along for the ride. We have no patience for anachronism. Elizabeth Warren can be pretty good at put downs. She needs to come up with a nickname for Trump. Peewee weenie?
John Chambers is the guy who sold China the tech to build the great firewall around late 1990/2000. And along with other luminaries, he said the wall would crumble. I take he now believes in an industrial/tech policy. For his ideas to work, we need to abandon our ideologies, admit our errors, and focus on what works. Good luck with that!
October 17, 2019 @ 1:49 PM
California is not as far left
California is not as far left as you think IMO.
Maybe why CA will get split apart at some point.
October 17, 2019 @ 6:31 PM
Any impeachment is going to
Any impeachment is going to “undo” an election, by definition. If it were such an awful idea why did the founders put it in the constitution? They knew a corrupt but possibly popular president would come along some day.
October 18, 2019 @ 12:31 AM
burghMan wrote:Any
[quote=burghMan]Any impeachment is going to “undo” an election, by definition. If it were such an awful idea why did the founders put it in the constitution? They knew a corrupt but possibly popular president would come along some day.[/quote]
I dont quite agree that it invalidates an election- how many people knew when they voted for him that he was going to trash the constitution for personal gain. How many people knew there was no way he was going to grow into a president. Oh wait, about 3 million more.
October 18, 2019 @ 8:32 AM
What if Trump is really
What if Trump is really compromised and a Russian asset?
Seems like everything does benefit Russia. Looks like Trump will invite Putin back to the G8.
October 17, 2019 @ 6:51 PM
Donald Trump Jr. accuses
Donald Trump Jr. accuses Hunter Biden of nepotism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir5dMopIm5Y
oh the irony,…
October 18, 2019 @ 12:16 PM
phaster wrote:Donald Trump
[quote=phaster]Donald Trump Jr. accuses Hunter Biden of nepotism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir5dMopIm5Y
oh the irony,…[/quote]
Yeah, Irony. Also hypocrisy, stupidity, ignorance, and obliviousness. It is truly stunning.
I think in his mind the difference is he’s some kind of genius who has earned what he’s gotten no thanks to his father and Biden is some kind of idiot who has gotten everything because his father.
It seems pretty clear to me that they’re both idiots who have gotten everything because of their fathers. After listening to the younger Biden talk, though, he might be an even bigger idiot than djt jr.
October 18, 2019 @ 1:54 PM
zk wrote: After listening to
[quote=zk] After listening to the younger Biden talk, though, he might be an even bigger idiot than djt jr.[/quote]
I just watched him and he seems reasonable to me. At least he’s a lawyer, unlike Trump’s kids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX3LmkHrho4
October 18, 2019 @ 11:38 AM
To be fair, he was a bad man
To be fair, he was a bad man before he became president.
October 19, 2019 @ 3:21 AM
As I type, PredictIt.org is
As I type, PredictIt.org is putting a high probably on Trump being impeached in his first-term. If you think otherwise, now is the time to place your bets. You could make a lot of money.
October 19, 2019 @ 4:36 AM
That site reminds me of this
That site reminds me of this scene from Caddyshack 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-jlQS-Wuc0
October 22, 2019 @ 7:06 AM
I did read the article, btw.
I did read the article, btw. It’s standard republican misinformation. Positioning Gabbard as the mainstream democrat is part of the latest strategy to confuse independents and split the party.
The article fails to mention that “mainstream” Gabbard is a Hindu. Lol.
October 22, 2019 @ 8:41 AM
burghMan wrote:I did read the
[quote=burghMan]I did read the article, btw. It’s standard republican misinformation. Positioning Gabbard as the mainstream democrat is part of the latest strategy to confuse independents and split the party.
The article fails to mention that “mainstream” Gabbard is a Hindu. Lol.[/quote]
Yeah, Republicans just pull right and paint the mainstream as left. CNN is objectively not left at all.
October 22, 2019 @ 8:50 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:burghMan
[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=burghMan]I did read the article, btw. It’s standard republican misinformation. Positioning Gabbard as the mainstream democrat is part of the latest strategy to confuse independents and split the party.
The article fails to mention that “mainstream” Gabbard is a Hindu. Lol.[/quote]
Yeah, Republicans just pull right and paint the mainstream as left. CNN is objectively not left at all.[/quote]
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
October 22, 2019 @ 11:28 AM
It was not in regard to
It was not in regard to Impeachment, just how Trump rage has lead to a over-correction to the left by the democratic party.
They need to focus less on trump rage and more on what america needs (all of america).
October 22, 2019 @ 12:12 PM
Ok. We could much more
Ok. We could much more easily make the case that Obama rage is what led to Trump. But I don’t know of any Republican who would admit to Obama rage.
Btw, elitists don’t rage. We hold vegan parties where we get together to mock the retrograde.
What I find interesting is that Republicans say “don’t assume anything, Trump got elected. We want disruption.” But their message to Democrats is “be safe, be moderate, Don’t offend Trump supporters “.
October 22, 2019 @ 12:51 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:It was not
[quote=The-Shoveler]It was not in regard to Impeachment, just how Trump rage has lead to a over-correction to the left by the democratic party.
They need to focus less on trump rage and more on what america needs (all of america).[/quote]
What does all of America need?
I’d say affordable healthcare is high on the list. Even for those that can pay for healthcare, the system is a mess. My family pays $1000/month on top of what our employer pays for insurance that is supposed to be “platinum” and we still get the runaround when we go to the doctor. Trump promised a miracle (“everyone will have insurance”) and never even attempted a solution after being elected.
All the Dem candidates have plans. None of them are perfect because there is no perfect solution to a complex problem, but any of these plans would benefit the majority of Americans. The only downside may be higher taxes on the very wealthy.
I’d be happy to hear an alternative plan that wasn’t paranoid ranting about “socialism.”
The references to “trump rage” are a strange double standard. Trump himself does nothing but rage about democrats. (just this morning … he is whining about being “lynched”…) Within the past few days he had a cabinet meeting that was nothing but “rage” against his opponents. His job is to run the country, not whine and editorialize 24/7. He should ignore the drama and focus on getting things done. Instead he creates drama. His only accomplishment has been the tax cuts that were already teed up for him by congress when he took office.
I expect the news media to spew the same nonsense over and over, but not the president himself. It seems that many people can’t see the difference. “CNN does it so I can too” is a ridiculous excuse from the President of the United States.
What does America need, and what has Trump done to provide it?
October 22, 2019 @ 1:09 PM
First step is you show up in
First step is you show up in rural america and listen.
You would be surprised what you can learn.
It can not be all one way, it needs to meet in the middle.
October 22, 2019 @ 1:18 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:First step
[quote=The-Shoveler]First step is you show up in rural america and listen.
You would be surprised what you can learn.
It can not be all one way, it needs to meet in the middle.[/quote]
Did Trump do that in 2016?
Biden is in the middle. That’s why he will beat Trump if he is the nominee. Warren is actually just left of center and she’s from rural America. Sanders won’t be the nominee.
It seems to me that the Democrats are doing more of what you suggest than Trump is. More support for the prediction Trump loses in 2020.
October 22, 2019 @ 1:25 PM
burghMan wrote:
Did Trump do
[quote=burghMan]
Did Trump do that in 2016?
[/quote]
Yes actually he did.
October 22, 2019 @ 1:26 PM
Since you refuse to give
Since you refuse to give examples or specifics, I’m gonna be stepping out.
October 22, 2019 @ 2:07 PM
Shoveler, if you were a
Shoveler, if you were a capitalist, you wouldn’t care about the rural or industrial folks.
The short answer is that capital departed because capital doesn’t see much prospect in those areas.
Milton Friedman, Reagan’s economic mentor, said that in a free economy, people should just move to where the job are, and develop new skills in demand. Easy enough, right?
October 22, 2019 @ 2:23 PM
Why do you want to vote for
Why do you want to vote for someone who will not even come and listen to what you have to say.
You’re not going to get their vote if they don’t feel you a plan for their future.
I still feel the country will split apart at some point.
October 22, 2019 @ 3:11 PM
The future is capitalism.
The future is capitalism. Realistically, coal workers are better off moving to Reno to work for Tesla.
I don’t know if trump visited the “forgotten” areas more than Clinton. But he did talk about coal and manufacturing. All talk and no action. Those “forgotten” guys really want socialism and protectionism, even though they reject it. In fact, the agricultural deal with China if it happens, is all socialism and state planning.
October 22, 2019 @ 3:40 PM
Who ever wins, they will
Who ever wins, they will still need to put a deal together with china.
Getting run over is not an option.
October 22, 2019 @ 4:53 PM
Talking about capitalism and
Talking about capitalism and free trade. I’m a big supporter of free trade deals such as NAFTA and TPP. Seems like the capitalists have gone MIA and people who claim to be anti socialist are actually socialist in many ways. Is the word “socialism” so bad that we can’t utter it is USA?
I’m so glad Trudeau won in Canada. I hope the western liberal order can be saved. Otherwise, China and Russia will win bigly.
October 23, 2019 @ 12:41 AM
I may sit this one out,
I may sit this one out, Sduuude and Shoveler have it well in hand. Warren is not a “moderate, slightly left of center” and the over correction shoveler spoke of. The vegas odds show biden has no chance against her.
I’ll stick with my prediction.
I laughed Sduude when I read your comment about my age and ethnicity but burgh is right, however I am not an old white guy, I identify as middle aged, 51 to be exact. For my second wife I married a woman of color who grew up in the ghetto and had children before she had a drivers license. She is equal parts Native American and Hispanic but she was made a grandmother by the age of 32 as is often the case in poor communities. 5 of the 6 of our combined children married outside of their race (the youngest is 23 and unmarried), so yes, I’ve contributed to the ethnic diversity of Temecula and also it’s languages, which I count as 5 languages (Spanish, English, Vietnamese, Chinese and Arabic). Nobody is fluent in the Native American languages so i didn’t count the two tribal languages.
So now that my diversity card has been punched, am I allowed to criticize Elizabeth Warren or should I just relegate the fight to Sduuude and Shoveler, who have done an admirable job thus far.
To be perfectly honest, I’m comfortable or rich by certain standards, I only care about the kids and the grandkids, hence my interest in politics right now. The kids vary, from a high school drop out to a GED to advanced degrees in STEM and I worry about them all. Since Trump’s election those without educations have fared very well, some have fared 6 figure well and they work for so called evil corporations. Politics is personal, but I feel more connected to a wide spectrum than most and this economy is something I’d prefer to continue if I have the choice. I’d like to hedge my bets, Biden, Pete and Tulsi feel like hedges, Warren and Sanders do not. Oh, and CNN is not middle of the road or right leaning, that’s just as inauthentic as saying Fox is left leaning.
October 23, 2019 @ 8:57 AM
Ha! It looks likes we have
Ha! It looks likes we have 3 amigos here who want to give Trump a pass simply to placate his supporters who somehow feel ignored and slighted. That would only make us a banana republic.
What about the rule of law? Impeachment is the only legal process to hold the president accountable for breaking the law and abuse of power since the justice department will not indict him. For all the people who cried about an imperial presidency…. well that is the Trump presidency.
October 23, 2019 @ 9:02 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:Ha! It looks
[quote=FlyerInHi]Ha! It looks likes we have 3 amigos here who want to give Trump a pass simply to placate his supporters who somehow feel ignored and slighted.[/quote]
2 easy steps to post like FlyerInHi.
Step 1: Open other person’s mouth.
Step 2: Insert words.
October 23, 2019 @ 10:45 AM
temeculaguy wrote:I may sit
[quote=temeculaguy]I may sit this one out, Sduuude and Shoveler have it well in hand. Warren is not a “moderate, slightly left of center” and the over correction shoveler spoke of. The vegas odds show biden has no chance against her.
I’ll stick with my prediction.
I laughed Sduude when I read your comment about my age and ethnicity but burgh is right, however I am not an old white guy, I identify as middle aged, 51 to be exact. For my second wife I married a woman of color who grew up in the ghetto and had children before she had a drivers license. She is equal parts Native American and Hispanic but she was made a grandmother by the age of 32 as is often the case in poor communities. 5 of the 6 of our combined children married outside of their race (the youngest is 23 and unmarried), so yes, I’ve contributed to the ethnic diversity of Temecula and also it’s languages, which I count as 5 languages (Spanish, English, Vietnamese, Chinese and Arabic). Nobody is fluent in the Native American languages so i didn’t count the two tribal languages.
So now that my diversity card has been punched, am I allowed to criticize Elizabeth Warren or should I just relegate the fight to Sduuude and Shoveler, who have done an admirable job thus far.
To be perfectly honest, I’m comfortable or rich by certain standards, I only care about the kids and the grandkids, hence my interest in politics right now. The kids vary, from a high school drop out to a GED to advanced degrees in STEM and I worry about them all. Since Trump’s election those without educations have fared very well, some have fared 6 figure well and they work for so called evil corporations. Politics is personal, but I feel more connected to a wide spectrum than most and this economy is something I’d prefer to continue if I have the choice. I’d like to hedge my bets, Biden, Pete and Tulsi feel like hedges, Warren and Sanders do not. Oh, and CNN is not middle of the road or right leaning, that’s just as inauthentic as saying Fox is left leaning.[/quote]
TG, if you feel so confident about Trump’s reflection, then don’t worry about the Democrats, let them nominate their own candidate.
If the low education folks are doing well under trump, ok, let them vote for more of the same. I’m ok with that.
I’m not a Republican so I am not concerned about the Republican nomination process.
I just sent a check to Elizabeth Warren. I think she can win against a weakened Trump.
I think many women would vote for Warren and not tell their husbands.
October 23, 2019 @ 12:56 PM
temeculaguy wrote: Since
[quote=temeculaguy] Since Trump’s election those without educations have fared very well, some have fared 6 figure well and they work for so called evil corporations. [/quote]
The evil corporations cry is coming from the right perhaps more than from the left.
I’m not a fan of steve Bannon because of his populist opinions. But I watched him just to get a pulse of the Trump working class base. I think enough of them would vote for Elizabeth warren or Bernie. Farmers who are suffering under tariffs could switch. Or coal workers who saws their mines closed despite promises. A lot of people in middle America are suffering while we enjoy prosperity on the coasts.
Trump bragging about the economy and the stocks market might well alienate his base who aren’t seeing the benefits. Remember, the key to winning 2020 are the roughly 100000 voters in “forgotten” America who made all the difference.
https://youtu.be/CKuPYArH0Gs
People are dying in West Virginia from drug addiction.
https://www.ncronline.org/node/176010
October 23, 2019 @ 2:03 PM
temeculaguy wrote:I may sit
[quote=temeculaguy]I may sit this one out, Sduuude and Shoveler have it well in hand. Warren is not a “moderate, slightly left of center” and the over correction shoveler spoke of. The vegas odds show biden has no chance against her.
I’ll stick with my prediction.
I laughed Sduude when I read your comment about my age and ethnicity but burgh is right, however I am not an old white guy, I identify as middle aged, 51 to be exact. For my second wife I married a woman of color who grew up in the ghetto and had children before she had a drivers license. She is equal parts Native American and Hispanic but she was made a grandmother by the age of 32 as is often the case in poor communities. 5 of the 6 of our combined children married outside of their race (the youngest is 23 and unmarried), so yes, I’ve contributed to the ethnic diversity of Temecula and also it’s languages, which I count as 5 languages (Spanish, English, Vietnamese, Chinese and Arabic). Nobody is fluent in the Native American languages so i didn’t count the two tribal languages.
So now that my diversity card has been punched, am I allowed to criticize Elizabeth Warren or should I just relegate the fight to Sduuude and Shoveler, who have done an admirable job thus far.
To be perfectly honest, I’m comfortable or rich by certain standards, I only care about the kids and the grandkids, hence my interest in politics right now. The kids vary, from a high school drop out to a GED to advanced degrees in STEM and I worry about them all. Since Trump’s election those without educations have fared very well, some have fared 6 figure well and they work for so called evil corporations. Politics is personal, but I feel more connected to a wide spectrum than most and this economy is something I’d prefer to continue if I have the choice. I’d like to hedge my bets, Biden, Pete and Tulsi feel like hedges, Warren and Sanders do not. Oh, and CNN is not middle of the road or right leaning, that’s just as inauthentic as saying Fox is left leaning.[/quote]
I’m not sure us white guys can obtain a diversity card through marriage, but it sounds like you have a wonderful and interesting family and I’m glad to have all of you as neighbors.
It seems that Sduuude and Shoveler have only argued that it’s bad form to talk about about the president on a thread with the topic that is the president.
I wish there were not such distinct “teams” in these discussions, but it seems unavoidable in politics today. I think an impeachment discussion would be interesting, there’s more big news today… did we just have a Beer Hall Putsch at the capitol? It’s American history in the making, but one team just wants to steer the conversation back to CNN…. so there’s nothing interesting going on here.
October 23, 2019 @ 3:30 PM
burghMan wrote:It seems that
[quote=burghMan]It seems that Sduuude and Shoveler have only argued that it’s bad form to talk about about the president on a thread with the topic that is the president.[/quote]
A not-so-deft putting of words in someone else’s mouth, in true FlyerInHI style. Nowhere did we ever say, or even remotely imply this.
October 23, 2019 @ 3:33 PM
sdduuuude wrote:burghMan
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]It seems that Sduuude and Shoveler have only argued that it’s bad form to talk about about the president on a thread with the topic that is the president.[/quote]
A not-so-deft putting of words in someone else’s mouth, in true FlyerInHI style. Nowhere did we ever say, or even remotely imply this.[/quote]
I’m gonna put it in a nutshell:
Stop telling us how bad CNN is ….
October 23, 2019 @ 3:36 PM
burghMan wrote:sdduuuude
[quote=burghMan][quote=sdduuuude][quote=burghMan]It seems that Sduuude and Shoveler have only argued that it’s bad form to talk about about the president on a thread with the topic that is the president.[/quote]
A not-so-deft putting of words in someone else’s mouth, in true FlyerInHI style. Nowhere did we ever say, or even remotely imply this.[/quote]
I’m gonna put it in a nutshell:
Stop telling us how bad CNN is ….[/quote]
That will be difficult, but what I won’t do is accuse you of coming to ridiculous conclusions because of CNN’s influence.
October 22, 2019 @ 1:22 PM
Haha, since the founding of
Haha, since the founding of the country, the rural folks have had proportionally more say. There are rural senators where the population of the whole state is less than San Diego. There is the electoral college. That’s not meeting in the middle to me.
The prosperous metropolitan areas have been carrying rural economic deadweight for far too long.
October 23, 2019 @ 1:08 PM
Democrats Think They Can Win
Democrats Think They Can Win without You
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/democrats-think-they-can-win-without-you/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/04/democrats-are-looking-electability-all-wrong-places/
October 23, 2019 @ 1:27 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:Democrats
[quote=The-Shoveler]Democrats Think They Can Win without You
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/democrats-think-they-can-win-without-you/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/04/democrats-are-looking-electability-all-wrong-places/
[/quote]
It’s a little disingenuous.
To echo a previous post:
Stop telling us how bad the (yet to be determined) Democratic candidate is and start telling us how good Trump is.
October 23, 2019 @ 1:37 PM
That’s the whole point.
He
That’s the whole point.
He does not have to be good, he just needs to not be against everything you believe in, or at least not be dismissive of what your needs are.
October 23, 2019 @ 1:55 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:That’s the
[quote=The-Shoveler]That’s the whole point.
He does not have to be good, he just needs to not be against everything you believe in, or at least not be dismissive of what your needs are.[/quote]
So he’s allowed to violate the law.
It’s funny how the topic of impeachment (how bad Trump is) has tuned to how bad Democrats are and Trump does have to be “good” because he echoes some of his base’s grievances. I can think of multiple populist examples around the world.
October 23, 2019 @ 3:44 PM
My final word on impeachment,
My final word on impeachment, until more info comes to light:
I don’t think the phone call is enough to make it happen. The Trump side will either say there is “no thing of value” or “that phone call had nothing to do with the election” or some other legal argument that is way beyond me and make it tough for the impeachment to stick.
I think the Dems jumped the gun on impeachment and should have put all energy into winning the election. I feel it will go south for them.
If, as FlyerInHI suggests, they find a money trail, that could be enough to make it happen, but given they haven’t declared to have found a money trail yet, I have to assume they don’t have the smoking gun. And I just don’t know if they will find it.
I can’t say I’m rooting for either side and Fox News has had no influence on me in this matter.
October 23, 2019 @ 4:21 PM
On impeachment, all democrats
On impeachment, all democrats needs to do is draw articles of impeachment and send them to the senate for trial. That’s where Trump would make his defense.
And that why McConnel told his colleagues to prepare.
October 23, 2019 @ 5:35 PM
sdduuuude wrote:My final word
[quote=sdduuuude]My final word on impeachment, until more info comes to light:
I don’t think the phone call is enough to make it happen. The Trump side will either say there is “no thing of value” or “that phone call had nothing to do with the election” or some other legal argument that is way beyond me and make it tough for the impeachment to stick.
I think the Dems jumped the gun on impeachment and should have put all energy into winning the election. I feel it will go south for them.
If, as FlyerInHI suggests, they find a money trail, that could be enough to make it happen, but given they haven’t declared to have found a money trail yet, I have to assume they don’t have the smoking gun. And I just don’t know if they will find it.
I can’t say I’m rooting for either side and Fox News has had no influence on me in this matter.[/quote]
There’s been some substantial developments since the phone call was revealed (and Trump still refuses to give up the full transcript of the phone call… why? because he’s got nothing to hide?)
There is testimony from multiple credible sources that Trump made US foreign policy decisions, financial decisions, contingent on a foreign government investigating one guy.
Throughout this process, team Trump is screaming that it “not fair” because he doesn’t have “due process” (something that is not even guaranteed by the constitution for impeachment anyway…) Yet, Trump’s use of his power to go after one guy, a private citizen, is exactly what much of the bill of rights is meant to protect. The issue is that Trump has been criminally “not fair” so that he can win an election.
Trump’s not doing it for a suitcase full of money. He’s doing it so that he be the president for another term, which is more lucrative than any bribe money could ever be.
And there is an actual money trail. I told you about it pages ago: Giuliani.
Impeachment will help the Dems with the election. There are actually millions of Americans that won’t vote for a corrupt president. And every day the impeachment process is revealing more evidence of corruption
(sadly it seems there are quite a few that see corruption as a strength in a president, but I’m still hoping that our country on balance isn’t that cynical.)
October 23, 2019 @ 11:20 PM
History in the making
History in the making indeed.
I read Bill Taylor’s opening statement. It’s looking bad for Trump.
I feel sorry for the Ukrainians who have to fend off the Russian. Putin is smiling for sure.
https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/542ee36f-eafc-4f2b-a075-b3b492d981a5/note/5125c5bd-9723-4ea9-8180-7bb6fd714783.pdf
And now, we find out that there was a first phone on April 25. The Ukrainians knew there was a quid pro quo and were trying to stay out of it. They met and talked about it for 3 hours.
https://www.apnews.com/b048901b635f423db49a10046daaf8a8
October 24, 2019 @ 9:15 AM
burghMan – thanks for a
burghMan – thanks for a completely reasonable post ! Well said, argued the points not the motives of other Piggs and made perfect sense. You could very well be right. Time will tell if the circus stays in town.
October 23, 2019 @ 4:18 PM
sdduuuude wrote:
But you
[quote=sdduuuude]
But you never actually found out if people came to a belief due to Fox News or not. You simply assumed they did.[/quote]
I didn’t assume. I try very hard to avoid assumptions. I may presume, but I generally don’t assume.
I think that millions of people all coming to the same, objectively ridiculous conclusions, and those conclusions being the same ones that right-wing propaganda has been selling, makes my presumption that those people were victims of propaganda a reasonable presumption.
How do you explain millions of people all coming to the same, objectively ridiculous conclusions?
October 23, 2019 @ 4:22 PM
zk wrote:sdduuuude wrote:
But
[quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]
But you never actually found out if people came to a belief due to Fox News or not. You simply assumed they did.[/quote]
I didn’t assume. I try very hard to avoid assumptions. I may presume, but I generally don’t assume.
I think that millions of people all coming to the same, objectively ridiculous conclusions, and those conclusions being the same ones that right-wing propaganda has been selling, makes my presumption that those people were victims of propaganda a reasonable presumption.
How do you explain millions of people all coming to the same, objectively ridiculous conclusions?[/quote]
CNN ? 😉
October 23, 2019 @ 4:25 PM
sdduuuude wrote:zk
[quote=sdduuuude][quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]
But you never actually found out if people came to a belief due to Fox News or not. You simply assumed they did.[/quote]
I didn’t assume. I try very hard to avoid assumptions. I may presume, but I generally don’t assume.
I think that millions of people all coming to the same, objectively ridiculous conclusions, and those conclusions being the same ones that right-wing propaganda has been selling, makes my presumption that those people were victims of propaganda a reasonable presumption.
How do you explain millions of people all coming to the same, objectively ridiculous conclusions?[/quote]
CNN ? ;)[/quote]
I would be fascinated to hear a list of objectively ridiculous conclusions reached by CNN listeners.
Not holding my breath, though 😉
October 24, 2019 @ 10:31 AM
ZK, I don’t like to bestow
ZK, I don’t like to bestow victimhood status onto the deplorables. They are who they are and they are responsible for themselves.
I have friend who excuses his mom “oh, she’s like that because she listens to all the Christian programs.” No, certain things are not excusable.
BTW, I believe that you are right, zk. But people are attached to the concept of free will.
And if they are, they should live by their own free will and they should be punished for the bad choices they make. There is no need to give them an out which they don’t appreciate anyway. It reinforces their belief that you’re a weak and condescending liberal.
Yuval Harari argues that our minds are being hacked.
October 24, 2019 @ 3:36 PM
Other funny business with
Other funny business with China.
Trump has been very quiet over Hong Kong…. so much for the initial optimism when Trump took the call from the President of the Republic of China. I still don’t think he knew any better.
There are probably bargains with Russia, Turkey and Britain too (maybe a deal with Boris Johnson for British Intelligence to investigate for a free trade deal after Brexit) The sudden lifting of sanctions against Turkey is very suspicious given the bipartisan outcry over abandoning the Kurds.
We now need the transcript of the June 18 call with Xi.
October 25, 2019 @ 9:55 PM
I have to say that the past
I have to say that the past three years have just crushed my spirit.
Until now, I’ve deeply believed that people did the right thing because it was the right thing.
I no longer believe that. Especially in the political arena. People behave in ways that protect their agenda, their belief system, their estate.
It is very sad.
I have become oh so cynical. I didn’t think that was possible. But here I am.
October 25, 2019 @ 11:30 PM
svelte wrote:I have to say
[quote=svelte]I have to say that the past three years have just crushed my spirit.
Until now, I’ve deeply believed that people did the right thing because it was the right thing.
I no longer believe that. Especially in the political arena. People behave in ways that protect their agenda, their belief system, their estate.
It is very sad.
I have become oh so cynical. I didn’t think that was possible. But here I am.[/quote]
Most politicians were never about doing the right thing. It’s about winning a popularity contest. If you want to be surrounded by people doing the right thing, there are plenty examples of this throughout our country everyday. Normal people that spend time and effort helping others out all the time, not necessarily because they are trying to be popular…Just trying to do humane things. this hasn’t changed no matter who is in office. Ive learned the more one is involved with politics, and talks politics, they less the person is really trying to do the right thing. they are spending their time trying to stir things up and get into pissing matches or reacting to a pissing match. Take heart. America hasn’t really changed… Just the ugly side of people from both sides gets to treat their ugly heads…. Politics is nothing more than a soap opera for old and ugly people.
Just don’t give people the time and day that waste so much time on politics, and the world is so much better. I’ve noticed this at work. I one talk politics that get along with everyone else..And the ones that do bring up politics are usually the ones that no one likes to work with and are alone. lol…
October 26, 2019 @ 11:46 AM
flu wrote:svelte wrote:I have
[quote=flu][quote=svelte]I have to say that the past three years have just crushed my spirit.
Until now, I’ve deeply believed that people did the right thing because it was the right thing.
I no longer believe that. Especially in the political arena. People behave in ways that protect their agenda, their belief system, their estate.
It is very sad.
I have become oh so cynical. I didn’t think that was possible. But here I am.[/quote]
Most politicians were never about doing the right thing. It’s about winning a popularity contest. If you want to be surrounded by people doing the right thing, there are plenty examples of this throughout our country everyday. Normal people that spend time and effort helping others out all the time, not necessarily because they are trying to be popular…Just trying to do humane things. this hasn’t changed no matter who is in office. Ive learned the more one is involved with politics, and talks politics, they less the person is really trying to do the right thing. they are spending their time trying to stir things up and get into pissing matches or reacting to a pissing match. Take heart. America hasn’t really changed… Just the ugly side of people from both sides gets to treat their ugly heads…. Politics is nothing more than a soap opera for old and ugly people.
Just don’t give people the time and day that waste so much time on politics, and the world is so much better. I’ve noticed this at work. I one talk politics that get along with everyone else..And the ones that do bring up politics are usually the ones that no one likes to work with and are alone. lol…[/quote]
Thanks for the pep talk flu. You’re absolutely right.
I think your observations are spot-on.
October 29, 2019 @ 7:54 AM
flu wrote:
Politics is
[quote=flu]
Politics is nothing more than a soap opera for old and ugly people.[/quote]
Is that ageism and body shaming?
[quote=flu]
the importance of being , scholarly, well educated, etc etc etc… Admitedly I then started to flaunt my pedigree degree from pedigree Ivy League school pretty much to make a mockery of the entire thing. I knew my ivy league degree was good for something![/quote]
Conservatism starts at home, my dear. You shouldn’t mock the importance upbringing and education. Education is our competitive advantage. Joseph Stiglitz said it’s very disheartening that Republicans don’t believe in the value of universities.
October 26, 2019 @ 11:13 AM
You know. I just realized
You know. I just realized something.
The contrast between ZK and Brian is a perfect example of why the Democrats are doomed this election cycle…
You have folks like ZK who are moderate, probably someone that can work with across party lines, someone we probably need more of in this country in both parties. And we have the fringy alt-left lunatics that are the most vocal and making the Democrats look as stupid as the current GOP cock suckers. The more the fringy-alt left have a say, the more voters they will lose, as again, the majority of the people in this country are neither extreme. The smart moderate Democrats will end up resigning in as such the moderate Republicans have been falling off the GOP ticket.
I think this is good. Let the fringy alt-left and alt-right have their respective dinosaur parties as we knew them.. Let’s start over with a viable third party.
October 26, 2019 @ 11:45 AM
flu wrote:YAnd we have the
[quote=flu]YAnd we have the fringy alt-left lunatics that are the most vocal and making the Democrats look as stupid as the current GOP cock suckers. [/quote]
What exactly makes Democrats lunatic? Yes, i understand that Republicans are cocksuckers.
October 26, 2019 @ 11:33 AM
Have you guys thought of an
Have you guys thought of an alternative theory to Russia’s mingle in the US? Maybe the point wasnt that Trump was really a Russian agent and to have Trump stay in office for than one term.. Maybe the point was to stir things up so much such that both sides would be so unhappy they would put the most part Xtreme people from both sides and screw up the US. I. pretty sure Russia is just as happy if Warren were to win as trump were to win a reelection. It doesn’t matter, both are bad just in different ways.
Well done Russia.
October 26, 2019 @ 12:01 PM
flu wrote:It doesn’t matter,
[quote=flu]It doesn’t matter, both are bad just in different ways.
[/quote]
Think of economic theory. If you believe “both are bad” , or the choices equal in value, then you would be indifferent who wins. But you’re not indifferent because you frequently spring to the defense of republicans, or attack democrats.
It’s just cop out on your part given that you just blasted Warren.
October 26, 2019 @ 12:50 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:
It’s just
[quote=FlyerInHi]
It’s just cop out on your part given that you just blasted Warren.[/quote]
Nobody puts Warren in a corner.
*sniff
October 26, 2019 @ 2:23 PM
PCinSD wrote:
Nobody puts
[quote=PCinSD]
Nobody puts Warren in a corner.
*sniff[/quote]
That’s why I love her. She actually knows her stuff and is very detailed at policy.
Here is her testimony back in 2005 to Biden who was totally in the pocket of Delaware banks.
https://youtu.be/InVvVzprIxQ
October 27, 2019 @ 4:00 PM
Giuliani butt called about
Giuliani butt called about getting money from some turkey related dude. And trump inexplicably lifted sanctions on turkey.
October 26, 2019 @ 3:19 PM
Warren is Nutjob. AOC is
Warren is Nutjob. AOC is Nutjob. Harris is a Nutjob. Bernie is Nutjob.
Bernie isn’t going to get the nomination. Too old, health questionable. Harris fell out of contention,and she has a bunch of skeletons in her closet. AOC is just stupid that won on luck. won’t last that long, but at least she can write a book and make money off of it. Good for her. Warren is the only one left, and she would get destroyed given how outlandish her ideas are. And rightfully so.
Biden was my hope. He isn’t going to make it I think. Too bad.
It’s interesting to see who the tech companies and CEOs are backing.. It definitely isn’t Warren.. Wonder why? Think about that one… Why are all the sudden all the tech company and CEOs are years of blasting trump are now slowly starting to cozy up to the adminstration…It’s simple. They think a Warren administration is way worse and think she doesn’t have a chance…Why is China starting to cozy up with this administration too? Because they see this and think Warren doesn’t have a chance and holding out for a midterm change, the probability is very low at this point.
October 26, 2019 @ 3:53 PM
flu wrote:Warren is Nutjob.
[quote=flu]Warren is Nutjob. AOC is Nutjob. Harris is a Nutjob. Bernie is Nutjob.
Bernie isn’t going to get the nomination. Too old, health questionable. Harris fell out of contention,and she has a bunch of skeletons in her closet. AOC is just stupid that won on luck. won’t last that long, but at least she can write a book and make money off of it. Good for her. Warren is the only one left, and she would get destroyed given how outlandish her ideas are. And rightfully so.
Biden was my hope. He isn’t going to make it I think. Too bad.
[/quote]
What is so nutjob? Why is AOC stupid? They sound reasonable to me.
Warren is very intelligent. I like that. I trust slim, energetic people.
October 26, 2019 @ 8:14 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:I trust slim,
[quote=FlyerInHi]I trust slim, energetic people.[/quote]
lol.
October 26, 2019 @ 8:19 PM
PCinSD wrote:FlyerInHi
[quote=PCinSD][quote=FlyerInHi]I trust slim, energetic people.[/quote]
lol.[/quote]
I never met someone that doesn’t trust themselves… interesting.
October 28, 2019 @ 11:20 PM
FlyerInHi wrote: I trust
[quote=FlyerInHi] I trust slim, energetic people.[/quote]
I see “slim” and “energetic” and the first thing that comes to my mind is tweakers.
Your not helping yourself Brian. In fact you are going to get kicked out of your own club for body shaming. So you didn’t trust Hilary because she isn’t “slim?” Newsflash, Bernie is not “slim.” You make accusations when someone makes any kind of physical, sexual or racial reference and then you throw out your bias towards “slim.” What makes slim people more trustworthy? I dare you to let a tweaker house sit.
Brian, this is starting to look like a dumpster fire, but you are doing a great job. I’m sure the rest of the country will see Warren like you do, just ignore her policies and focus on how slim she is. Meanwhile, I’m with FLU, there’s never been a better time to create a third party of moderates from both sides because the existing parties can’t seem to nominate one.
October 29, 2019 @ 5:34 AM
temeculaguy wrote:FlyerInHi
[quote=temeculaguy][quote=FlyerInHi] I trust slim, energetic people.[/quote]
I see “slim” and “energetic” and the first thing that comes to my mind is tweakers.
Your not helping yourself Brian. In fact you are going to get kicked out of your own club for body shaming. So you didn’t trust Hilary because she isn’t “slim?” Newsflash, Bernie is not “slim.” You make accusations when someone makes any kind of physical, sexual or racial reference and then you throw out your bias towards “slim.” What makes slim people more trustworthy? I dare you to let a tweaker house sit.
Brian, this is starting to look like a dumpster fire, but you are doing a great job. I’m sure the rest of the country will see Warren like you do, just ignore her policies and focus on how slim she is. Meanwhile, I’m with FLU, there’s never been a better time to create a third party of moderates from both sides because the existing parties can’t seem to nominate one.[/quote]
Well…..Some people are really just PINO’s ( Progressive In Name Only)
October 29, 2019 @ 7:43 AM
TG, you presume a lot.
Yes I
TG, you presume a lot.
Yes I trust slim energetic people. But I also trust fat people. It’s not mutually exclusive. You’re “putting words in my mouth!” Oh man, I’m so insulted!
You do make a good point about tweakers, however.
One of my favorite economists is Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz who is quite a gordito. I admire him and I have read his books and I regularly watch his lectures. He seems like a nice guy too.
October 29, 2019 @ 10:34 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:TG, you
[quote=FlyerInHi]TG, you presume a lot.
Yes I trust slim energetic people. But I also trust fat people.[/quote]
Hey buddy. I don’t wish to presume. But I still love your cool stories about nonexistent people as anecdotes to describe millions.
In any event, you suddenly appear to have changed your goalpost regarding who is trustworthy based on the shape of their body. Shoot, would you trust a portly fellow that could no longer fit into the pilots seat of a commercial jet to routinely fly consumers to and from Hawaii? Asking for a friend.
If you could, please provide us with the traits of fat people you find trustworthy,
October 29, 2019 @ 12:48 PM
Gorditos are lovely people.
I
Gorditos are lovely people.
I think someone might have called me a fat 400 lb dude, in a basement, behind a computer.
I come across many people. Shoot, just in one condo building alone there are Serbian refugees, Thai widow, Vietnamese immigrants, Latino immigrants, Latino Trumpistas, Israeli investors, Indian immigrant, chinese investors, black people, white people, some deplorables, drugs users who we are getting rid of, healthy athletic people. It’s a gentrifying areas so the demographics are very mixed. Very interesting!
I would say that my condos are the most beautiful, very special, maybe the most beautiful ever in the history of the community.
BTW, pilots undergo annual health inspection. The weight standards are loose so someone 6ft, 250lb would pass, but that’s borderline, I believe. That’s obese already, but they don’t want anyone morbidly obese.
October 29, 2019 @ 1:52 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:
I think
[quote=FlyerInHi]
I think someone might have called me a fat 400 lb dude, in a basement, behind a computer. [/quote]
That’s presumptuous. But kinda funny.
*I trust fat people.
October 29, 2019 @ 8:40 PM
Here are the pdf statements
Here are the pdf statements by
Ambassador Bill Taylor
https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/542ee36f-eafc-4f2b-a075-b3b492d981a5/note/5125c5bd-9723-4ea9-8180-7bb6fd714783.pdf
And Lieutenant Colonel Vindman
https://static.politico.com/69/13/cdffb8a4420a8a4d8a65439570f2/vindman-statement-final.pdf
Now, we find out that call transcript/memo of the call omitted information. I wonder If Ukraine or Russia have a voice recording of the call which they could produce at some time in the future, perhaps to discredit the United States.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/alexander-vindman-trump-ukraine.html?campaign_id=60&instance_id=0&segment_id=18348&user_id=3154de4756231a971cc896fe10ac5461®i_id=73626606ing-news
WASHINGTON — Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of a July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts to include them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony.
The omissions, Colonel Vindman said, included Mr. Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption, and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden’s son Hunter.
October 30, 2019 @ 11:26 PM
Brian, do you want to defeat
Brian, do you want to defeat Trump? I’ll tell you how. Put this stuff to rest so Biden doesn’t take the brunt of it, also get him some ginkobaloba and whatever treatments in Germany that Kobe was getting so he keeps it together mentally. Plan B, rally your friends behind Mayor Pete, he’s trying to be the moderate alternative to Biden and he’s in a position to pivot for the general. Plan C, call Bloomberg and tell him he has until Thanksgiving to announce, he stayed out because he didn’t think he could beat Biden and it looks like a miscalculation. Plan D, call Schultz and tell him to come back, that the progressives will stop booing him for stating facts. Plan E, talk to Tulsi, she needs help, I like her but she can’t stay in a lane sometimes and the party wont let her in the cool kids club, they should.
This country, right now will not elect a progressive or a socialist. Denmark and Sweden are not superpowers, they are boutique countries whose model cannot absorb illegal immigration while maintaining world policing. We could copy them, eliminate our military and foreign aid and just watch on TV, but somebody has to do the heavy lifting, unfortunately we’re it right now.
Outside of that, nominating Warren, Sanders, Harris, Booker or others is just electing Trump. You can believe otherwise and you’ll be wrong, just like last election and Hilary was mostly an moderate. Getting worse is not a good plan. Getting more progressive or socialist is a losing strategy. If it goes down that road i expect either a complete revamp of the democratic party or a third party by 2024. I’m kinda hopeful for either result because one of the good things about this country is the constant reinvention of itself, it’s a positive. The democrats were once the party of slavery and the KKK and it reinvented itself (more than once), they can and will do it again, perhaps that will be Elizabeth’s legacy. She ma win the nomination, get smoked in the general and the drawing board produces a better product. It’s a win win, but if you want to win sooner see plans A-E.
October 31, 2019 @ 7:20 AM
temeculaguy wrote:Brian, do
[quote=temeculaguy]Brian, do you want to defeat Trump? I’ll tell you how. Put this stuff to rest so Biden doesn’t take the brunt of it, also get him some ginkobaloba and whatever treatments in Germany that Kobe was getting so he keeps it together mentally. Plan B, rally your friends behind Mayor Pete, he’s trying to be the moderate alternative to Biden and he’s in a position to pivot for the general. Plan C, call Bloomberg and tell him he has until Thanksgiving to announce, he stayed out because he didn’t think he could beat Biden and it looks like a miscalculation. Plan D, call Schultz and tell him to come back, that the progressives will stop booing him for stating facts. Plan E, talk to Tulsi, she needs help, I like her but she can’t stay in a lane sometimes and the party wont let her in the cool kids club, they should.
This country, right now will not elect a progressive or a socialist. Denmark and Sweden are not superpowers, they are boutique countries whose model cannot absorb illegal immigration while maintaining world policing. We could copy them, eliminate our military and foreign aid and just watch on TV, but somebody has to do the heavy lifting, unfortunately we’re it right now.
Outside of that, nominating Warren, Sanders, Harris, Booker or others is just electing Trump. You can believe otherwise and you’ll be wrong, just like last election and Hilary was mostly an moderate. Getting worse is not a good plan. Getting more progressive or socialist is a losing strategy. If it goes down that road i expect either a complete revamp of the democratic party or a third party by 2024. I’m kinda hopeful for either result because one of the good things about this country is the constant reinvention of itself, it’s a positive. The democrats were once the party of slavery and the KKK and it reinvented itself (more than once), they can and will do it again, perhaps that will be Elizabeth’s legacy. She ma win the nomination, get smoked in the general and the drawing board produces a better product. It’s a win win, but if you want to win sooner see plans A-E.[/quote]
There’s a lot that’s wrong about that post, but what is most wrong is the ongoing assumption that Brian represents the democratic party, or the left, or anybody.
tg, you claim to be neutral but your posts clearly show a bias as you describe the democrats as the “other” team. You can also vote in the primaries and have as much control over the winner as Brian does (probably more.) There really aren’t any teams unless one chooses to only see it that way.
October 31, 2019 @ 8:45 AM
tg, it’s kinda weird you have
tg, it’s kinda weird you have a long post about beating Trump but you end with Elizabeth Warren is a win-win because she will lose. If that’s the case, then rejoice!
[quote=temeculaguy]The democrats were once the party of slavery and the KKK and it reinvented itself (more than once), they can and will do it again, perhaps that will be Elizabeth’s legacy. She ma win the nomination, get smoked in the general and the drawing board produces a better product. It’s a win win, but if you want to win sooner see plans A-E.[/quote]
A weak corrupt Trump is as good a time as any to nominate a real progressive. That’s the real fear among Republicans.
I want a better country….. but if the deplorables want Trump again, then, they can have him. If they vote for Trump again, they will own the consequences for good.
October 31, 2019 @ 10:54 PM
Burg and Brian you are
Burg and Brian you are hopeless, this is why few people talk to you (if you are in fact two different people).
Burg, you quoted my entire post, where’s the part about the other team and my bias? You don’t like my words so you fabricate an attack. There are two teams, I’m not on one, but if I had said “the other team” it would be meant to illustrate to Brian that if he wants his team to win, follow my advice.
Brian, I didn’t say Warren losing was a win win because I’m rooting for trump, I said it because it would result in either the democratic party throwing out the progressives and reinventing itself or a viable third party would emerge. That is the win/win.
Neither of you want to realize progressives and socialists are hated by most of the country. I get it, nobody wants to come to the realization that everybody dislikes your opinions and disagrees with you. But it’s like religion, a few keystrokes will not change your mind. Let’s talk in 5 months when the nominations take place and then again in 12 months. If a progressive cannot beat trump, they will never win, ever. So we will see. My point was is that a moderate can win.
But if Warren is the nominee, my vote doesn’t matter because I live in California so I don’t worry about it, my state will vote for whoever the democratic nominee is, I just observe.
October 31, 2019 @ 11:04 PM
FDR won. Why can’t we have
FDR won. Why can’t we have a modern FDR give us the New New Deal?
If Trump, won, Elizabeth Warren can win. We will see.
November 1, 2019 @ 12:08 AM
Actually burg, I apologize,
Actually burg, I apologize, it took a re-read to see your true meaning because of your summary dismissal in the first sentence followed by an accusation put me off, that’s on me. I was temporarily blinded.
I see your point, the democratic party is not brian, but the current poll numbers give pause for concern that the moderates are being demonized. Maybe I will continue my habit of switching parties to whoever is not in power to vote in the primary. It’s really is the only vote that counts for Californian in the presidential election.
November 1, 2019 @ 7:17 AM
temeculaguy wrote:Actually
[quote=temeculaguy]Actually burg, I apologize, it took a re-read to see your true meaning because of your summary dismissal in the first sentence followed by an accusation put me off, that’s on me. I was temporarily blinded.
I see your point, the democratic party is not brian, but the current poll numbers give pause for concern that the moderates are being demonized. Maybe I will continue my habit of switching parties to whoever is not in power to vote in the primary. It’s really is the only vote that counts for Californian in the presidential election.[/quote]
No problem, my post was a little blunt.
Politicians have always tried to characterize the other side as the worst of the extreme. Republicans label their opponents as socialists and create caricatures of crazy woke vegan kooks. The right has been very effective with this technique in recent history, especially on social media where they can flood people with photoshopped images of crazy fanatical liberals and convey the idea that everyone on the “other side” is an one of these extremists.
The Piggington gang has done the same with Brian. He’s been unofficially nominated as the spokesman and sole representative of the left. Anybody who disagrees with the current republican message is automatically lumped in with Brian as if they are all the same person. Tg, you literally made that claim a couple posts ago. I’ve been a member of this forum for ten years, have never really expressed anything political until Trump came along, and you still claim this bullshit. This is what the media is doing to America: Facts and common sense don’t matter anymore, everything is about your “team”
Ironically I don’t call myself a progressive and don’t agree with the positions of many dems. I’m one of those former republicans that still generally supports conservative positions, especially on the economy, but refuses to support the party because it has become so corrupt and cynical. So I find myself voting for democrats because they are often the moderate candidate and I won’t vote for a crooked hypocrite like Duncan Hunter. Republicans have lost their moral compass and no longer participate in good faith (Trump never did of course.) It sucks to see our country toss out its values just because the stock market is doing well.
The right wing media has successfully convinced many that anyone that is not an all-in republican is an extremist lefty, a member of antifa obsessed with nothing but diversity and lgbt issues, someone that want to take all your earnings through taxes and use the money for sex change operations. They’ve also convinced many that because the left is so extreme that the real extremists like Trump deserve some consideration in the interest of “balance” (it’s called “enlightened centerism” another propaganda trick, that works)
I’m not that caricature. I’m just a guy who grew up loving America and would prefer not to have a corrupt and incompetent president that runs the country with his spoiled rich kids and circle of shameless yes men.
I’m interested in the impeachment process because I think it’s important and it’s cool to be alive as history unfolds. I was hopeful that there would be some quality conversation here like there has been in the past, but that’s not happening.
October 26, 2019 @ 4:16 PM
Man, Brian you try too hard
Man, Brian you try too hard to stay relevant on the board. I say one thing about AOC and you go resurrect the AOC thread.
I do/say X, you react Y..
I think you have a mental addiction to politics and to a lesser extent Piggington.. You might want to get help. It’s probably covered by your insurance.
It’s been fun. Have a nice weekend..I certainly will.
October 26, 2019 @ 8:07 PM
You assume a lot flu
I had a
You assume a lot flu
I had a nice run at the park, thank you.
The Trump presidency is too interesting not to look.
October 26, 2019 @ 8:20 PM
Brian..
I’m going to borrow
Brian..
I’m going to borrow Sdude’s not-yet-copyrighted line and say it in this context:
You’re doin’ great buddy ! Keep it up !
And if he has problems with me borrowing it, I’m going to use my equivalent line:
Ok…Sure Brian, if you say so.
[img_assist|nid=26894|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=56]
October 26, 2019 @ 9:11 PM
Thanks for the encouragement,
Thanks for the encouragement, flu. Will do!
October 27, 2019 @ 4:39 PM
Brian, you’re doin’ great
Brian, you’re doin’ great buddy ! Keep it up ! [img_assist|nid=26894|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=56]
November 1, 2019 @ 9:18 AM
Pretty much everyone votes
Pretty much everyone votes their pocketbook.
All the other Hot buttons are more on the fringe than most think.
You find corruption and misdeeds on both sides if you want to see it.
November 1, 2019 @ 10:12 PM
No Americans don’t vote
No Americans don’t vote pocketbook, they vote more identity.
Lots of people don’t have health care, child care, vacation, etc…. they go without. It’s not like Norway or Sweden where people do vote their pocketbook.
Sure, well-off people do vote their pocketbook more often than not.
November 6, 2019 @ 9:09 AM
I love it that Gordon
I love it that Gordon Sondland’s memory has been refreshed by other people’s testimonies. I will use that in the future…
November 11, 2019 @ 4:53 PM
Honestly it’s a coin flip. We
Honestly it’s a coin flip. We all know the House will impeach and the Senate will do nothing. So what will the voters do?
Right now I don’t have a strong feeling on that either way. Because of our weird electoral college system I have a feeling it’s going to boil down to what the unemployment numbers are in a few counties in Ohio and maybe Wisconsin on election night.
Seems like a sane way to determine who will run our country… right?
November 20, 2019 @ 3:57 PM
“Everyone was in the loop. It
“Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret.”
November 21, 2019 @ 12:11 PM
Fiona Hill was a very
Fiona Hill was a very compelling witness. She’s an American by choice, highly intelligent, a PhD. She is steely and knows her stuff. The men conducting foreign policy seem like novices compared to her. I admire how Fiona Hill speaks fast, clearly and precisely. I speak more like David Holmes. But Holmes seem like an amateur compared to Hill.
https://youtu.be/1i0q43hJZrI
December 4, 2019 @ 12:25 PM
I am enjoying Jonathan Turley
I am enjoying Jonathan Turley expressions during the impeachment hearings.
December 5, 2019 @ 7:48 AM
“Rudy Giuliani is literally
“Rudy Giuliani is literally in Ukraine right now”
https://theweek.com/speedreads/882282/rudy-giuliani-literally-ukraine-right-now
What legitimate business would Trump’s personal lawyer have there?
December 5, 2019 @ 12:58 PM
I guess Guiliani is doing
I guess Guiliani is doing some kind of mini documentary.
If Trump and Republicans really believe Ukraine messed our elections, then why not crush them. Unlike Russia, Ukraine is a little bug we can easily punish. Seems dumb not to act.
December 7, 2019 @ 10:00 AM
Impeachment may be an
Impeachment may be an exercise in highlighting the abhorrent actions of the president, but it is not going to result in his removal from office.
That’s just the way it is.
December 7, 2019 @ 1:09 PM
Needle in the haystack. Of
Needle in the haystack. Of the perhaps thousands of phone calls by Trump and not to mention including high level senior staff the Dems have found the single smoking gun? (Ukraine phone call) I think not. One would think there would be a pattern of other similar actions.
Why aren’t they looking at every phone call he has made??
My bet is all of this will just help Trumps re-election.
December 7, 2019 @ 1:59 PM
Hobie wrote:
My bet is all of
[quote=Hobie]
My bet is all of this will just help Trumps re-election.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s my fear too.
December 7, 2019 @ 5:47 PM
Hobie wrote:Needle in the
[quote=Hobie]Needle in the haystack. Of the perhaps thousands of phone calls by Trump and not to mention including high level senior staff the Dems have found the single smoking gun? (Ukraine phone call) I think not. One would think there would be a pattern of other similar actions.
Why aren’t they looking at every phone call he has made??
My bet is all of this will just help Trumps re-election.[/quote]
They haven’t looked at any phone calls because the White House has refused to hand over any documents or records, despite subpoenas and court orders. These actions of course are obstruction of justice, and is an impeachable offense itself. Even the “transcript” of the original phone call was a paraphrased version provided by Trump’s staff. This complete lack of cooperation in a constitutionally-defined process is unprecedented, even during past impeachments.
Why would an innocent man work so hard, and break the law, to hide evidence that he claims would only prove his innocence?
December 8, 2019 @ 12:09 AM
.
.
December 11, 2019 @ 12:14 AM
He is not marrying your
He is not marrying your sister, who cares, the economy is booming and employment numbers are great. Before I installed fake grass I had a great gardener. I really don’t care what kind of a person he is, the yard looked great and his prices were reasonable. I wouldn’t want Bill Clinton to marry my sister or babysit my daughter but my life was pretty good during his tenure. Think of the president as a subcontractor, just focus on the results and check your feelings at the door. I have no clue who runs my most profitable mutual fund and I don’t care, were at 26% YTD AND 19% average over 3 years. If the papers ran a story that said that particular mutual fund manager was having an orgy with goats on his weekends, my response would be, “who cares, as long as he is at work on Monday.” I’m not related to him, he’s not allowed in my house and I don’t own any goats. Or maybe we should fire him and get a really great guy who makes me feel good and earns me 3%.
December 11, 2019 @ 7:17 AM
temeculaguy wrote:He is not
[quote=temeculaguy]He is not marrying your sister, who cares, the economy is booming and employment numbers are great. Before I installed fake grass I had a great gardener. I really don’t care what kind of a person he is, the yard looked great and his prices were reasonable. I wouldn’t want Bill Clinton to marry my sister or babysit my daughter but my life was pretty good during his tenure. Think of the president as a subcontractor, just focus on the results and check your feelings at the door. I have no clue who runs my most profitable mutual fund and I don’t care, were at 26% YTD AND 19% average over 3 years. If the papers ran a story that said that particular mutual fund manager was having an orgy with goats on his weekends, my response would be, “who cares, as long as he is at work on Monday.” I’m not related to him, he’s not allowed in my house and I don’t own any goats. Or maybe we should fire him and get a really great guy who makes me feel good and earns me 3%.[/quote]
You could have just said “ethics schmethics” and saved yourself a lot of typing.
December 11, 2019 @ 8:12 AM
I think Nancy Polosi said it
I think Nancy Polosi said it well. Impeachment is about the constitution. ballot box issues are separate.
If Trump will be re-elected depends on Ohio, Pennsylvania and such. Trump didn’t vin the popular vote; he won the electoral college because of “forgotten Americans” who were forgotten no more. For 2020, keep in mind that Democrats governor races in Kentucky and Louisiana. In Kentucky the Democrat defeated an incumbent Republican.
Forgotten Americans don’t have tech portfolios.
December 11, 2019 @ 11:11 PM
burghMan wrote:temeculaguy
[quote=burghMan][quote=temeculaguy]He is not marrying your sister, who cares, the economy is booming and employment numbers are great. Before I installed fake grass I had a great gardener. I really don’t care what kind of a person he is, the yard looked great and his prices were reasonable. I wouldn’t want Bill Clinton to marry my sister or babysit my daughter but my life was pretty good during his tenure. Think of the president as a subcontractor, just focus on the results and check your feelings at the door. I have no clue who runs my most profitable mutual fund and I don’t care, were at 26% YTD AND 19% average over 3 years. If the papers ran a story that said that particular mutual fund manager was having an orgy with goats on his weekends, my response would be, “who cares, as long as he is at work on Monday.” I’m not related to him, he’s not allowed in my house and I don’t own any goats. Or maybe we should fire him and get a really great guy who makes me feel good and earns me 3%.[/quote]
You could have just said “ethics schmethics” and saved yourself a lot of typing.[/quote]
But that would be missing some of the point, I do not eschew ethics, it depends on that person’s role in my life. I do not care about the education and class ranking of my cleaning lady, I do care about my physician’s education. I want my pet sitter to have a kind heart, but it is not an attribute I care about in a general, I believe Patton was a bit of a jerk from historical accounts, fine with me, just win. I’d like my accountant to be good with numbers, my attorney to be a good public speaker and if I owned a football team my quarterback to be be good at throwing the ball. I would like my CIA director to be invisible and make bad people go away without me knowing and my president to improve the lives and the economy for my countrymen. I met Jimmy Carter, he is a fantastic man, I would be happy to have him as a father, son or brother, but he was a terrible president because our lives were worse off with him as the president and oddly enough better when he was the ex president (he is still my favorite ex-president).
My point was not to exclude an attribute but to look at what attributes are important for what jobs and if you think China or any other nation will bow down to our president on issues or trade because he is a really good guy or gal then Tocqueville was right, “people get the government they deserve.”
December 12, 2019 @ 12:54 PM
temeculaguy wrote:But that
[quote=temeculaguy]But that would be missing some of the point, I do not eschew ethics, it depends on that person’s role in my life. I do not care about the education and class ranking of my cleaning lady, I do care about my physician’s education. I want my pet sitter to have a kind heart, but it is not an attribute I care about in a general, I believe Patton was a bit of a jerk from historical accounts, fine with me, just win. I’d like my accountant to be good with numbers, my attorney to be a good public speaker and if I owned a football team my quarterback to be be good at throwing the ball. I would like my CIA director to be invisible and make bad people go away without me knowing and my president to improve the lives and the economy for my countrymen. I met Jimmy Carter, he is a fantastic man, I would be happy to have him as a father, son or brother, but he was a terrible president because our lives were worse off with him as the president and oddly enough better when he was the ex president (he is still my favorite ex-president).
My point was not to exclude an attribute but to look at what attributes are important for what jobs and if you think China or any other nation will bow down to our president on issues or trade because he is a really good guy or gal then Tocqueville was right, “people get the government they deserve.”[/quote]
You’re assuming that Trump is actually good at anything. There’s really no evidence that he is. He inherited a good economy like he inherited his business, and his policies are all about running up the scoreboard at the expense of the future.
It’s interesting to hear the “economy is good so the president is good” argument on this site, of all places. I’m sure there are a few posts in the forum from 2007 saying Bush was a great president because he was improving the lives and the economy for his countrymen.
December 13, 2019 @ 12:47 PM
Exactly. Trumps role in my
Exactly. Trumps role in my life is to make it easier for hate groups to make outgroups like me more miserable. His other role in my life is to make mistreatment of the women in my life a wink and nod affair. I guess things look great if steve Miller approves of you AND you can get great returns on your investments.
December 14, 2019 @ 8:24 AM
Ladies and gentleman, the
Ladies and gentleman, the fucking president of the united states:
Trump Campaign Bizarrely Edits His Head Onto Greta Thunberg’s Body on Her TIME Cover
https://people.com/politics/trump-campaign-photoshops-his-head-greta-thunberg-time-cover/
Yes, the man is triggered by a child.
He’s going to spiral. The impeachment is going mess with is fragile psyche and he won’t be able to let it go, even after the senate lets him off. There will eventually be some bad news, a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, a turn in the economy that pushes him over the edge. It’s going to get really weird, and really dangerous.
Trump apologists would be wise to distance themselves from him ASAP.
December 15, 2019 @ 8:57 AM
it will be interesting to see
it will be interesting to see in CA how Newsom will make it even tougher for struggling middle class struggle even more.
It sure seems the ones bearing the brunt of all these new changes aren’t the upper income and wealthy or property owners or business owners who’ve been passing the cost onto consumers. It’s pretty interesting restaurants add all these “surcharges” on top of the menu prices, though I suspect these surcharges aren’t going to workers and in some cases people are tipping less . Meanwhile, rent just increased a lot for a lot of people before 2020, lol
pity. oh well, not my problem .
December 15, 2019 @ 5:09 PM
flu wrote:it will be
[quote=flu]it will be interesting to see in CA how Newsom will make it even tougher for struggling middle class struggle even more.
It sure seems the ones bearing the brunt of all these new changes aren’t the upper income and wealthy or property owners or business owners who’ve been passing the cost onto consumers. It’s pretty interesting restaurants add all these “surcharges” on top of the menu prices, though I suspect these surcharges aren’t going to workers and in some cases people are tipping less . Meanwhile, rent just increased a lot for a lot of people before 2020, lol
[/quote]
Looks like those evil socialists know how to play chess:
And while the law doesn’t take effect until Jan. 1, it would apply to rent increases on or after March 15, 2019, to prevent landlords from raising rents just before the caps go into place.
I don’t like the rent control laws, but they will not affect the middle class much. There are so many exceptions that less than half of current rentals will be under the new rules, mostly low income stuff. The max annual increase will be five percent per year plus inflation. This will keep pace with real estate costs.
[quote]pity. oh well, not my problem[/quote]
Happy Holidays, Ebenezer.
December 15, 2019 @ 8:22 PM
burghMan wrote:flu wrote:it
[quote=burghMan][quote=flu]it will be interesting to see in CA how Newsom will make it even tougher for struggling middle class struggle even more.
It sure seems the ones bearing the brunt of all these new changes aren’t the upper income and wealthy or property owners or business owners who’ve been passing the cost onto consumers. It’s pretty interesting restaurants add all these “surcharges” on top of the menu prices, though I suspect these surcharges aren’t going to workers and in some cases people are tipping less . Meanwhile, rent just increased a lot for a lot of people before 2020, lol
[/quote]
Looks like those evil socialists know how to play chess:
And while the law doesn’t take effect until Jan. 1, it would apply to rent increases on or after March 15, 2019, to prevent landlords from raising rents just before the caps go into place.
I don’t like the rent control laws, but they will not affect the middle class much. There are so many exceptions that less than half of current rentals will be under the new rules, mostly low income stuff. The max annual increase will be five percent per year plus inflation. This will keep pace with real estate costs.
[quote]pity. oh well, not my problem[/quote]
Happy Holidays, Ebenezer.[/quote]
I didn’t say socialists, that was your words. But if things were really working for the middle class, don’t you think people in this state would be better off despite windfall that CA industries have had for so long? why is the wealth gap between the top 10% in this state and lower only getting worse. And of course rent is going up this month. Because there’s a lot of old owners that didn’t bother to regularly raise rents over the years. Well, they are now to bring their prices to current market prices before the 2020. You would be an idiot not to.
Especially since all the rent control initiatives have not ended, lol.
It’s been a great year. I guess people that miss out on opportunity bigtime will always feel scroogie this time of year.
Happy Holidays to you too!
December 16, 2019 @ 1:27 AM
Another rant from flu about
Another rant from flu about California when the subject is Donald Trump. Totally unrelated deflection. As if whatever flu feels is so bad in California excuses Trump.
December 16, 2019 @ 6:13 AM
.
.
December 16, 2019 @ 6:38 AM
California is great..For high
California is great..For high net worth tech workers and property owners who can afford to be and remain here..It’s been that way and progressively even more so….No complaint from me at all! Others who can’t cut it here, I guess can move out of state. Maybe to Nevada…It’s not what I personally would advocate, but it’s what it is.
Merry Christmas, Scroogie Boomer Brian!!!!
December 16, 2019 @ 9:11 AM
Flu, what does california’s
Flu, what does california’s policies have to with Trump’s impeachment?
Your whataboutism is not even apropos.
December 16, 2019 @ 8:47 AM
speaking of rent
speaking of rent control…
https://www.registerguard.com/news/20191215/housing-owner-withdraws-2021-beds-over-oregon-rent-control-emails-show?template=ampart
February 4, 2020 @ 1:56 AM
Looks like the Iowa caucus
Looks like the Iowa caucus was a total circus.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/04/politics/election-2020-iowa-caucuses-democrats-donald-trump/index.html
The problem with the Democrat party is it has gotten too big with too many factions that fundamentally no longer share the same views on many issues. Kinda like….the GOP..
The Democrat party really needs to split up. Far left wing progressive nuts can have their own party. Middle moderates can have there own party, and there there would be plenty of middle moderate Republicans that would be able to form a workable party.
The fringe left and fringe right are equality destroying both respective parties.
February 4, 2020 @ 12:38 PM
flu, your attempt at
flu, your attempt at equivalence is failing. How has the GOP gotten “too big”? If anything, it’s too narrow.
It’s never the same. Maybe same same, but different.
February 4, 2020 @ 6:23 PM
Actually, both political
Actually, both political parties are losing members.
My theory is that is why we are seeing what we are seeing from the two major parties – their moderate members are bailing, leaving only the more extreme members to set the platform.
[img_assist|nid=26950|title=Political Party Registration By Year|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=466|height=345]
February 4, 2020 @ 7:38 PM
Good info svelte.
However,
Good info svelte.
However, I believe the “extreme” viewpoint is not objective. From Carter to Clinton to Obama, the Democratic Party has moved to right. No one could say they moved more to the “extreme” left. The next candidate remains to the seen but that time is in future.
The Republicans, however, have definitely moved more to the extreme right, from Nixon to Ford, Reagan, both Bushes and now Trump. To the right wing, Trump has added a nativist and nationalist, anti-immigrant, racist ideology reminiscent of big trade union Democrats of the 70s and 80s.
February 7, 2020 @ 4:19 PM
FlyerInHi wrote: From Carter
[quote=FlyerInHi] From Carter to Clinton to Obama, the Democratic Party has moved to right. No one could say they moved more to the “extreme” left. [/quote]
Can you back this up with data, please.
How has the Democratic party moved to the right. I just don’t see it.
I see support of extreme environmental laws, support of global warming theories, support of nationalized health care, and now even pushing for forgiveness on college debt. The Dems are moving way left, baby. Way left.
And they are going to lose the sympathy of moderates like myself.
February 7, 2020 @ 4:59 PM
svelte wrote:FlyerInHi wrote:
[quote=svelte][quote=FlyerInHi] From Carter to Clinton to Obama, the Democratic Party has moved to right. No one could say they moved more to the “extreme” left. [/quote]
Can you back this up with data, please.
How has the Democratic party moved to the right. I just don’t see it.
I see support of extreme environmental laws, support of global warming theories, support of nationalized health care, and now even pushing for forgiveness on college debt. The Dems are moving way left, baby. Way left.
And they are going to lose the sympathy of moderates like myself.[/quote]
Thank you and precisely..I think if you look at the broaden landscape the majority of the population lie somewhere in the middle. Except now, both parties are represented by the fringy left and fringy right.
Rallying behind Bernie or Warren because you hate Trump is as asinine as voting for Trump. I think Warren is done. Good riddance. I’m personally hoping for Pete.
February 7, 2020 @ 5:43 PM
flu wrote:
Rallying behind
[quote=flu]
Rallying behind Bernie or Warren because you hate Trump is as asinine as voting for Trump. I think Warren is done. Good riddance. I’m personally hoping for Pete.[/quote]
I could not vote for Bernie or Warren. I’d go third party before I’d do that. Funny too because a few years ago when she joined the national scene I liked what Warren was saying. But almost everything that has come out of her mouth since then has put distance between her and me to the point where I won’t even consider voting for her.
I could vote for Pete, Biden, or Bloomberg.
February 7, 2020 @ 8:25 PM
svelte wrote:flu
[quote=svelte][quote=flu]
Rallying behind Bernie or Warren because you hate Trump is as asinine as voting for Trump. I think Warren is done. Good riddance. I’m personally hoping for Pete.[/quote]
I could not vote for Bernie or Warren. I’d go third party before I’d do that. Funny too because a few years ago when she joined the national scene I liked what Warren was saying. But almost everything that has come out of her mouth since then has put distance between her and me to the point where I won’t even consider voting for her.
I could vote for Pete, Biden, or Bloomberg.[/quote]
And that’s the rub. Warren and Bernie and a lot of Democrats are hell bent on “economic equality for all” policy… That’s a bunch of bullshit that only appeals to part of the population that are looking for someone else to make them whole and not reprsentative of a good percentage people on this country. That sort of game will only appeal to people during a period of economic misery in which the majority of the population got screwed over financially.
We aren’t currently in a period of time were we have a widespread financial misery felt by everyone that this sort of thought process would appeal too. (unless you were the individuals in the D&G category that sat out the markets all these years thinking the sky was going to fall …then I could understand why one would be economically miserable for getting left behind)
The reality there are plenty of people in the US with 401ks, IRAs, 529ks, investments, young and old. And for the most part people are happy with the performance, people are happy with the low unemployment, and job growth. It’s a hard sell right now for Warren or Bernie to pitch “economic equality” when things are going well for many, because the obvious reaction is ‘why change, what’s in it for me, and things aren’t bad for me so I can’t relate”
That’s the issue. Short of a financial meltdown in 2020, which is looking more and more unlikely, the message that Warren and Bernie is pitching is a hard sell when the status quo is “ok”.
The other thing is continuously trying to play the “Trump is am awful person” is not going to really affect voters. Everyone already knows he’s an awful person. People have become desensitized to how awful he is
People who hated him still hate h, and people who overlooked all his issues still will. The only thing I think could massively sway things is the economy…
February 7, 2020 @ 11:44 PM
Flu, if Bernie and Liz have
Flu, if Bernie and Liz have hard sells, then why get worked up about socialism? Just let them be. That’s how democracy works.
Plus, what’s your problem? You keep of focusing your ire on Bernie and Liz whom you believe have narrow appeal. Why don’t you focus some energy on Republicans if you really believe they are the other side of the coin. Maybe you’re worried that a Democratic socialist will get the nomination and get elected?
Personally, I like a globalized capitalist system because I’m a competitive person. But I realize that most people are not. I like a Singapore style system that is very competitive and demanding but yet provides good housing, health care and education for people.
Maybe you don’t see it, but there so many dumb Americans who lack health care, education and housing. Most of them are substance addicted. That’s not how a modern society should be.
February 7, 2020 @ 6:10 PM
svelte wrote:FlyerInHi wrote:
[quote=svelte][quote=FlyerInHi] From Carter to Clinton to Obama, the Democratic Party has moved to right. No one could say they moved more to the “extreme” left. [/quote]
Can you back this up with data, please.
How has the Democratic party moved to the right. I just don’t see it.
I see support of extreme environmental laws, support of global warming theories, support of nationalized health care, and now even pushing for forgiveness on college debt. The Dems are moving way left, baby. Way left.
And they are going to lose the sympathy of moderates like myself.[/quote]
Obama and Clinton are Third way Democrats. Their administrations were characterized by economic liberalism, laisse faire capitalism, globalization, welfare cuts, etc… What you mentioned are responses to address inequities of capitalism which they unequivocally supported.
You have to take a longer view and compare to the union Democrats, and protectionist Democrats of the past.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way
If we get Pete, he’d be another third way Democrat. Bernie would be more trade protectionist, union Democrat (more European style Democrat).
February 7, 2020 @ 8:31 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:
Obama and
[quote=FlyerInHi]
Obama and Clinton are Third way Democrats. Their administrations were characterized by economic liberalism, laisse faire capitalism, globalization, welfare cuts, etc… What you mentioned are responses to address inequities of capitalism which they unequivocally supported.
[/quote]
Listen.
I’ve worked my way from having nothing. Nothing.
I don’t need you or anyone else telling me that there are inequalities in capitalism. Hard work is rewarded under capitalism which is why I work so hard and why I have been rewarded. If there wasn’t the work-reward incentive, me and millions like me would not be working our asses off to advance society and at the same time our income.
If you want to head towards a socialist society, go ahead and lay your plans but count on me not voting for your plan, and count on many many other moderates not voting for your plan either.
[quote=FlyerInHi]
You have to take a longer view and compare to the union Democrats, and protectionist Democrats of the past..[/quote]
I have way more experience than you and I am pretty sure way more intelligence than you…I don’t need any lectures or condescending attitude from a young inexperienced lightweight.
I’ve went light on you because you are younger and more naive, but if you want to feel the need to lecture me on what I need to do, I’m gonna take the gloves off my friend.
February 7, 2020 @ 9:09 PM
Just saying we moved to the
Just saying we moved to the right since the 70s. We were a much less capitalist back then. There have been lots of capitalist innovations like mortgage backed securities, etc.. and economic reforms enabled by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Any political scientist would agree. Clinton was to right of Carter and Obama bailed out Wall Street. That’s pretty objective data.
February 7, 2020 @ 9:17 PM
A few points …
(1) Over
A few points …
(1) Over 50% of Americans have no investments to their name. No rental property. No stocks. No 401k. No index funds. Zero, zippo, zilch, nada. They’re too busy living hand-to-mouth, often working two McJobs to think about investing.
(2) No matter how much people want to hide their heads in the sand, environmental problems are real. Our throw-away society can’t last forever. We can’t vomit CO2 into the air forever. Global temperatures are rising. The question isn’t if but when and how much time we have before things get dangerous.
(3) Great. Svelte worked herself up from “nothing, nothing.” Translation: she got lucky. It only takes one health crisis or accident to return your savings to zero in the US system. There’s incentive to move up and work, even with countries with a better safety net, and economic mobility in the US isn’t great anymore. US ranks 16/24 out of wealthy countries in economic mobility. “Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” is a nice myth that takes some combination of luck, good health, energy for hard work, connections, and social skills — not everyone is born with that stuff.
(4) 50+ hour work weeks and basically no vacation doesn’t do much for Americans’ mental health. Wonder why addiction and suicide rates are at a high, while life expectancy is actually falling, despite better medical technology.
(5) If New York can do free public education for all first-time college students with a family income below $120,000, why can’t other states, or even the country as a whole? Free or very cheap public university was the norm, not the exception, until the 1970s and 1980s. But hey, education bad. Everyone should go to a boring trade school, become a plumber, and spend their days covered in other people’s shit. Or, if they want to go to college for free, they should join the military and become a hired murderer who doesn’t own their body (or the enablers of murdering scum). Yay America! U-S-A! U-S-A!
(6) Criminal justice needs fixing. The Great Recession helped reduce incarceration rates, since jailing people is expensive, and financial crises forced state legislatures to look at their criminal justice systems. We’re still the largest incarcerator in the developed world — it’s a national shame, and we don’t even have particularly low crime rates to show for it.
February 7, 2020 @ 10:15 PM
spdrun wrote:A few points
[quote=spdrun]A few points …
(1) Over 50% of Americans have no investments to their name. No rental property. No stocks. No 401k. No index funds. Zero, zippo, zilch, nada. They’re too busy living hand-to-mouth, often working two McJobs to think about investing.
(2) No matter how much people want to hide their heads in the sand, environmental problems are real. Our throw-away society can’t last forever. We can’t vomit CO2 into the air forever. Global temperatures are rising. The question isn’t if but when and how much time we have before things get dangerous.
(3) Great. Svelte worked herself up from “nothing, nothing.” Translation: she got lucky. It only takes one health crisis or accident to return your savings to zero in the US system. There’s incentive to move up and work, even with countries with a better safety net, and economic mobility in the US isn’t great anymore. US ranks 16/24 out of wealthy countries in economic mobility. “Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” is a nice myth that takes some combination of luck, good health, energy for hard work, connections, and social skills — not everyone is born with that stuff.
(4) 50+ hour work weeks and basically no vacation doesn’t do much for Americans’ mental health. Wonder why addiction and suicide rates are at a high, while life expectancy is actually falling, despite better medical technology.
(5) If New York can do free public education for all first-time college students with a family income below $120,000, why can’t other states, or even the country as a whole? Free or very cheap public university was the norm, not the exception, until the 1970s and 1980s. But hey, education bad. Everyone should go to a boring trade school, become a plumber, and spend their days covered in other people’s shit. Or, if they want to go to college for free, they should join the military and become a hired murderer who doesn’t own their body (or the enablers of murdering scum). Yay America! U-S-A! U-S-A!
(6) Criminal justice needs fixing. The Great Recession helped reduce incarceration rates, since jailing people is expensive, and financial crises forced state legislatures to look at their criminal justice systems. We’re still the largest incarcerator in the developed world — it’s a national shame, and we don’t even have particularly low crime rates to show for it.[/quote]
#2 energy secretary just said there is a bright future for coal!
#3 we are not born with equal ability and so social contract obligates us to be socialist and ensure those with less ability some measure of dignity lest they decide society and following laws provide them no benefit at all. Oh yeah, and religion obligates that too.
February 7, 2020 @ 11:25 PM
All you have to do is spend a
All you have to do is spend a day in eviction court to see that not all is well.
I see people living paycheck to paycheck in my rental business. People, can’t afford housing. Sure, on a personal level, a lot of that is self induced — substance addiction and family dysfunction. But there is a role for government. Why is it that people In Switzerland or Finland are well educated and bilingual?
IMO, Trump got elected because white families in “forgotten” areas are experiencing broken homes and drug addiction. They may just vote for Bernie this time around.
Here’s an article on the housing crisis
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/great-affordability-crisis-breaking-america/606046/
February 7, 2020 @ 11:56 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:All you have
[quote=FlyerInHi]All you have to do is spend a day in eviction court to see that not all is well.
I see people living paycheck to paycheck in my rental business. People, can’t afford housing. Sure, on a personal level, a lot of that is self induced — substance addiction and family dysfunction. But there is a role for government. Why is it that people In Switzerland or Finland are well educated and bilingual?
IMO, Trump got elected because white families in “forgotten” areas are experiencing broken homes and drug addiction. They may just vote for Bernie this time around.
Here’s an article on the housing crisis
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/great-affordability-crisis-breaking-america/606046/%5B/quote%5D
Well Brian.. Since you mentioned it and set yourself up for this yourself….If you think life is so unfair and you see people renting from you living paycheck to paycheck and barely able to survive and having to go to eviction court to make them move out …then I have to ask an obvious question. If you are sooooooo concerned about our society and the well being of itjers….WHY DID YOU EVICT THE PEOPLE YOU CARE SO MUCH ABOUT INSTEAD OF SIGNIFICANTLY LOWERING THEIR RENT SO THEY COULD MAKE IT ?????
You said it yourself Brian. You are much more lucky then other people because you have property others don’t. You were lucky because obviously hard work had nothing to do with it as you also suggested. WHY THEN ARENT YOU GIVING BACK AND LOWERING YOUR RENT TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO LIVE THERE. WHY ARE YOU BEING A CAPITALIST PIG AND EVICTING PEOPLE INSTEAD OF GIVING THEM A BREAK?
(dead silence)
This is just the most hysterical post from you as of yet. I don’t think I’ve seen a post from you in a long time for which you walked into your own mess and blatantly demonstrated the painfully obvious hypocrisy. Thanks for the laugh…. Ok Boomer….If you say so.
February 8, 2020 @ 8:10 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:All you have
[quote=FlyerInHi]All you have to do is spend a day in eviction court to see that not all is well.
[/quote]
Because of family dynamics, I have spent considerable time in Northern California recently around people in the same situation you discuss.
And what I’ve seen is that people put themselves in these situations (for the most part, not always) because of stupid, stupid decisions and a total lack of ability to manage their money.
I’ve liquidated a few estates in the past couple of years and, as dictated by wills and trusts, I’ve handed out tens of thousands of dollars to people living paycheck to paycheck.
Knowing that they’ve never had that much money given to them at one time EVER, I counseled them on how they should invest that money in themselves to get ahead and get themselves out of living paycheck to paycheck. In all cases save one, they ignored me and SPENT THE MONEY IMMEDIATELY. On stupid, idiotic, one-time thrill things!
And now they’re broke again and living paycheck to paycheck.
So I don’t want to hear how good savers making wise decisions need to assist poor folks. Anything that is given to most broke folks will be squandered.
If that’s how they want to live their life, that’s fine.
Just don’t expect me to fund it.
February 8, 2020 @ 8:40 AM
Flu, you make no sense.
Flu, you make no sense. Just because we wish for social equity policies that uplift people does not mean we have to give up our money. It’s an old trope. Again fallacy of composition.
Also, Svelte and flu, you’re not directly paying for anything. Why are you guys so selfish about your fellow Americans? It’s like saying you’re directly paying for wars or disabled veterans, many of whom abuse the disability system.
The policy aspects are not the same as individual responsibility. When you have good policies, individuals grow up and become responsible because they have the education and social support Maybe it too late for people who are already adults, but what about future generations?
When we have an educated population, our economy and wealth grows even more. Just a few decades ago, Singapore had an illiterate third world population. Now they’re the best at math and nearly everyone is educated and bilingual. They are one of the most open capitalist societies, with many socialist policies. They have virtually no homelessness or drug problems. So it’s definitely possible to have it both ways.
BTW, back in the 90s, Singapore was the hard disk manufacturer of the world. They have successfully transitioned to software and financial services. In contrast, people in America’s rust belt are twisting in the wind, hoping for a return to coal and smokestack manufacturing. They are angry and voted for Trump. Don’t think they won’t be voting for Bernie if the gets the nomination.
February 8, 2020 @ 8:00 AM
spdrun wrote:A few points
[quote=spdrun]A few points …
.[/quote]
Oh great. The other freeloader pipes in.
As I recall, both you and Brian scrape by with rental properties that you’ve collected, correct? Or is my memory wrong?
And now you expect the rest of us to pay for your healthcare, your education, and all of the other benefits that an employer would pay should you find the energy to actually work a real job.
Well you chose your path. You figure it out! I’m not willing to pay for you to sit on your arse.
I would agree that we should have a basic safety net for those not intelligent enough or too lazy to work. We already have that in this country.
And I did not get “lucky”. I thought carefully about my decisions and chose a path that would get me to my goal. If you and Brian didn’t do that, well that’s your fault not mine and I’m not willing to foot the bill for your lifestyle. You chose it, you figure it out!
The more I hear from far left Democrats, the more I think that maybe what this country needed was a far right Republican. Not saying I think Trump was the right choice, but this whoa is me I need more benefits attitude makes me want to puke.
February 8, 2020 @ 10:32 AM
Svelte — ironically, we have
Svelte — ironically, we have a decent safety net for people who aren’t working. We don’t have a safety net for people who ARE working, meaning that many working Americans are actually stuck with worse health insurance than those on Medicaid, Medicare, or disability.
To my other points — do you really support spending $400 billion a year sending our military all over the world, when the money could be spent on infrastructure, education, healthcare, or simply not taken as taxes or not added to the deficit?
You really don’t think that environmental issues are a real thing, that the current world based on increasing consumption of resources and carbon emissions is sustainable?
February 9, 2020 @ 4:09 PM
spdrun wrote:
To my other
[quote=spdrun]
To my other points — do you really support spending $400 billion a year sending our military all over the world, when the money could be spent on infrastructure, education, healthcare, or simply not taken as taxes or not added to the deficit?
[/quote]
You’re way off, spdrun. Your data is quite old.
$740 billion military budget in Trump’s next budget.
February 4, 2020 @ 8:36 PM
svelte wrote:Actually, both
[quote=svelte]Actually, both political parties are losing members.
My theory is that is why we are seeing what we are seeing from the two major parties – their moderate members are bailing, leaving only the more extreme members to set the platform.
[img_assist|nid=26950|title=Political Party Registration By Year|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=466|height=345][/quote]
Yup. people are sick of the fringy people. Alt left = Alt right.
February 5, 2020 @ 9:01 AM
Repeating and believing it
Repeating and believing it does not make it true, flu.
You need to take a political science class. Clinton and Obama were third way Democrats.
Yes, there is more divisions in the country, but not because Democrats moved to the left. It’s because of people like Rush Limbaugh who got the medal of freedom. And it’s also because of unintelligent Republicans who buy into the grievances sold to them by the right wing media.
BTW, Democrats in the 70s and 80s were nativist and racist like Republicans today. They didn’t want Blacks and foreigner immigrants joining the unions and getting good jobs. But Democrats have moved on and broadened the party.
Basically, Republicans adopted deplorable, discarded Democratic idea and incorporated them into their platform. That’s why the Jim Crow south that previously voted Democrat jumped into the Republican bandwagon, and the progressive metropolitan areas are solidly blue. The up and coming metro areas are also turning blue while the declining areas are going red.
So now we end up with more geographical division. In California, the Inland Empire is turning blue as Latinos and Asians move in, and whites are diluted or cash in on their equity and move eastward.
February 5, 2020 @ 11:16 PM
Nope, that won’t be how it
Nope, that won’t be how it ends. The democratic party will tear itself apart, Trump will be re-elected and progressives socialists will cry, a lot. The moderates will blame the progressives and the Democratic party will reinvent itself as the middle party and the progressive socialists will splinter into a third, obscure party. The new Moderate Democratic party will take back power. I say this because after Trump’s re-election the republicans will get over confident with their next candidate and touch the third rails, pushed by it’s far right. Right now, only the Dems are pushed hard by the extremes. It will hit both sides. 20 years from now, the extremes will be cast out of both parties, but it will take some hard lessons and losses for that to sink in.
I don’t write this for Brian to argue, I do it so I can quote it years from now. Pendulums swing, they’ve always swung, in politics and investments. The next two swings will shake the crazies from both parties and it will be a good thing for the people and both parties.
Nancy got pushed into this and it backfired, Trump is at his highest approval rating and next up is Chima crawling to the table begging. It’s just win after win. Establishment Dems can’t cheat Bernie without scrutiny, Biden is cratering and Socialism only sells in a depression or after a war. James Carville, the D’s greatest architect is losing his mind watching it and saying so on TV.
Or I could be wrong, but that’s how I see it. I also believe we will all be fine and probably better off to lose the radicals from both sides.
February 6, 2020 @ 6:21 AM
Temecula guy, you may well be
Temecula guy, you may well be right that Trump will win again, but that will not be because of Democrats. You make it sound like Trump won a popularity contest. He has not. Remember, he won because of White working class angst in declining industrial states.
My prediction is that we will see more geographical division in USA. The smart people will leave the rust belt and dying rural areas and make something themselves in dynamic metros. The majority, however, will never get the education necessary to make it in an increasingly tech work. It’s no longer possible to join the middle class, just out of HS with no skills.
I predict that the opioid crisis will get worse in dying areas of the country. Personally, I think we, Democrats, should totally abandon those areas and let Republicans and the free market take care of them.
If Trump wins again, it will not be because of Democrats, it will be because Republicans voted for him.
February 6, 2020 @ 6:42 AM
You should read Graham
You should read Graham Alison’s Thucydides’ Trap about China and the USA, the rising power vs the established power.
There is a parallel in US demographics. The White working class or middle class (lower education, not very upwardly or geographically mobile) is the established power of the increasingly obsolescent 20th century economy. They are resisting the rising power of the urbanites, polyglot urbanites and immigrants, metropolitan population of the new economy, a more tech connected world citizenry (even Central American refugees use whatsapp every to connect to their home country).
February 6, 2020 @ 7:35 AM
Farmers can make it big
Farmers can make it big sometimes so can plumbers and air tech’s.
At least someone with just a HS diploma was smart enough not to spend a bunch of money on a liberal arts degree etc..
February 6, 2020 @ 7:54 AM
The-Shoveler wrote:Farmers
[quote=The-Shoveler]Farmers can make it big sometimes so can plumbers and air tech’s.
At least someone with just a HS diploma was smart enough not to spend a bunch of money on a liberal arts degree etc..[/quote]
Actually, a few friends over at PCA-SD were just taking about this. Some of the Porsche guys there are your usual doctor’s, lawyers, etc. But a handleful of them were retired plumbers. Certainly 10x better than those folks that take out a student loan to study “conversational linguistics” or “shakesperian history” that leads to great career prospects only requiring you to say “you want fries with that?” or “grande or vente”….And these are the jokers that like Bernie and Warrens college debt forgiveness plans…lol.
And there are these guys that make a killing with car detailing
https://www.elitefinishdetailing.com/
And these guys everyone loved them. Best PPF installer.
http://www.autoarmour.com/
College and white collar job is not for everyone. for many , college degree doesn’t mean shit. and doesn’t lead to any better career prospects. including many of the new college grads that are buried in student debt but can’t find a job.
February 6, 2020 @ 8:27 AM
Anti-intellectualism runs
Anti-intellectualism runs deep on here, as it does in this country … you know, linguistics has practical applications in psychology and AI, right?
February 6, 2020 @ 8:41 AM
More of a anti elitist
More of a anti elitist snob-ism
February 6, 2020 @ 10:32 AM
spdrun
[quote=spdrun]Anti-intellectualism runs deep on here, as it does in this country … you know, linguistics has practical applications in psychology and AI, right?[/quote]
Yes, and those that I use to work with in those technologies have PHDs and a science dual major… None of them have a BA linguistics degree alone from University of Phoenix.
I think both you and Brian are confused or have schiophrenia. Both of you, on some days argue pro-intellectualism and elitism… And then when the moon and stars align differently on a different day, both of you argue against pedigree degrees from profuse-intellectualism from top rank private universities and ivy leagues. lol
Hence my statement previously… I think you guys are just miserable and find a need to argue for the sake.of arguing because your circular and self-contradictory logic exhibited all the time is amusing and entertaining.
Just like what you said previously on the other thread about trying to financially survive and at the same time willing to bet your entire primary residence on a one hit one time correction to make you financially whole. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
February 6, 2020 @ 11:55 AM
Flu, please…. when did I
Flu, please…. when did I argue against any kind of education. Not me
Some education is better than none if only to become a better human being.
It is you who is miserable and childish. Stop accusing Democrats for Trump. Trump is President because of the people who voted for him, not because of any democrats.
BTW, the University is Phoenix and private diploma mills were enabled by Republicans who believe in the profit motive.
February 6, 2020 @ 11:42 AM
The-Shoveler wrote:Farmers
[quote=The-Shoveler]Farmers can make it big sometimes so can plumbers and air tech’s.
At least someone with just a HS diploma was smart enough not to spend a bunch of money on a liberal arts degree etc..[/quote]
How many?
In the metro areas, sure. If guys and gals were smart, they’d come to metro areas to become plumbers, electricians, etc.
The problem with being “established” is that mobility is diminished. People may have houses and family in western Pennsylvania. Realistically, it’s probably better to abandon the $80k house on 1 acre inherited from grandma and be a plumber operator San Diego.
BTW, farmers get big subsidies. Only the owner makes money.
February 7, 2020 @ 7:51 PM
On my god. I love how the
On my god. I love how the Democrat candidates are ripping Bernie apart. Go Pete!
February 8, 2020 @ 5:22 AM
.
.
February 8, 2020 @ 9:04 AM
This conversation, and the
This conversation, and the thought process of Brian and sp, ensure that I’ll never be a Democrat.
I’m actually starting to sympathize with the Republicans.
February 8, 2020 @ 9:24 AM
Ok. If I have to help
Ok. If I have to help disadvantaged people myself, then you pay for the military and enlist to fight the wars yourself.
Anyway, if Bernie gets the nomination, the Trump deplorables in the states that matter may just vote for Bernie. Btw, I call them deplorables lovingly. It’s just that many aspect their situations are deplorable.
February 8, 2020 @ 9:28 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:Ok. If I
[quote=FlyerInHi]Ok. If I have to help disadvantaged people myself,[/quote]
You can start by not evicting them from your apartments, as flu suggested.
That way, you won’t look like a hypocrite.
February 8, 2020 @ 9:47 AM
To be honest, I only had 1
To be honest, I only had 1 eviction of a tenant I inherited.
But I have helped others with eviction.
That request to house the deadbeat makes no sense. Socialism does not dictate giving up your wealth or being poor. It’s just a system of governance. One can give charity when one wishes, but one is not required. Religion however requires charity.
February 8, 2020 @ 10:32 AM
FlyerInHi wrote: One can give
[quote=FlyerInHi] One can give charity when one wishes, but one is not required. [/quote]
I’m all for voluntary charity.
Just don’t make it mandatory through taxes.
I give to underprivileged children through automatic monthly payments. I do that voluntarily because I think it is worthwhile. The kids didn’t choose to be poor – I want them to have a happy childhood and hope for the future.
One more point then I’m walking away from this conversation: you assert that the Democratic party moved right 40 years ago with Clinton and continued on with Obama. I’m not certain you are correct and don’t really care enough to research it.
But if that is the case, then that is how they got elected: they moved the party right just enough to draw in the moderates who gave them the votes to get elected.
Had they not taken a moderate approach, the only votes they would have received would have been the radical left and that would not have put them in the white house.
So if the Democratic party wants to go far left this time around with Bernie or Warren or some other loon, they will suffer the same fate that Clinton and Obama would have suffered had they done so: humiliating defeat.
You’ve been warned.
February 8, 2020 @ 10:42 AM
Non-mandatory charity through
Non-mandatory charity through things like churches means that it will be distributed unequally … it will be given to “deserving” families, meaning those that toe the line of a given religious superstition (which sums up what I think of most religion). Or it will be geographically limited to areas where secular aid organizations have offices. Or maybe it will end up as a popularity contest — those that are popular enough to raise $200,000 on GoFundMe get the treatment they need, the unpopular and socially unskilled get to die painfully.
Programs like Medicare for all help everyone, regardless whether they have friends, are popular, are religious, or are seen as “deserving” of help by society. They take the prudery and judgement out of the equation, and that’s a good thing. A former prostitute will get the same treatment as a drug user, and they’ll both be treated the same as an upstanding pillar of his church.
Remember, the US had actual death panels when private enterprise was more involved in rationing healthcare…
https://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/Death-Panels-Rationed-Care.html
February 8, 2020 @ 1:54 PM
Yes Clinton moved to the
Yes Clinton moved to the right. He passed welfare reform. It was a lot easier to get welfare before. Clinton felt that he needed to move right and lots of people were upset including Robert Reich who was labor secretary.
Anyway, the Democratic Party is a private club. They can nominate whoever they want. Is you want a voice, join.
I’m not republican, so I’m not worked up about who the Republicans nominate. In fact, I was happy the Republicans nominated Trump because I didn’t think he would win. Obviously, I was wrong.
Less than 100,000 voters in declining areas caused Trump to win the presidency. The same could happen with Bernie or another Democrat, or Trump again. We will see.
Anyway, If you don’t like the Democratic candidate, you can vote for Trump.
I don’t understand why people, especially the right inclined, don’t take responsibility for Trump, Democrats are not responsible for Trump. Trump voters are responsible for Trump.
February 8, 2020 @ 10:40 AM
svelte wrote:This
[quote=svelte]This conversation, and the thought process of Brian and sp, ensure that I’ll never be a Democrat.
I’m actually starting to sympathize with the Republicans.[/quote]
Well,I wouldn’t that far, since the GOP are pretty screwed up right now too. But that’s why short of viable third party… why we need a proportional representation in our government so nothing drastic gets done one way or the other. It’s been demonstrated time and time again absolute power in the hands of any one party is dangerous. And I am glad finally people are beginning to realize that neither the GOP or Democrats are doing anyone any favors right now except the extreme fringy right and left.
February 8, 2020 @ 10:49 AM
Brian’s underlying business
Brian’s underlying business is to rent to poor and disadvantaged people and to take advantage of them…while preaching the virtues of economic equality… That’s a classic Brian self-contradictory hypocrisy. Hey Brian, you’re basically immitating a famous person. Donald Trump’s dad. He was a slumlord too, lol
Come to think about it, you and Donald Trump share many similar characteristics. The only difference is your political ideology, but your thought process and means to achieve goals are pretty much the same.
Lol… thanks for the good weekend laugh Brian
February 8, 2020 @ 11:06 AM
Nothing about my rentals is
Nothing about my rentals is like the slums. They are beautiful urban jewels. Everything is modern, European style — no redneck, rustic or country element such as oak raised panel doors.
March 11, 2020 @ 11:49 AM
Haven’t had a chance to gloat
Haven’t had a chance to gloat on this one.
I guess Brian wasn’t doin’ as great as we thought.
I knew we could rely on the “legal system” not being a “justice system.”
To the original post – I’m gonna keep my “no” answer.