TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
103. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    20 19.42%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    27 26.21%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    44 42.72%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    1 0.97%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    11 10.68%

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #5926
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Yet, going by the stats, Republicans have had either significantly more criminal or significantly more incompetent administrations during the last decades:

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...ump-Appointees

    Democrats:
    Years in office: 20
    Criminal indictments: 3
    Criminal convictions: 1
    Prison sentences: 1

    Republicans:
    Years in office: 28
    Criminal indictments: 120
    Criminal convictions: 89
    Prison sentences: 34
    Granted, Nixon alone counts for more than half of those, but it's quite a lead even without him.

    Also, I wonder whether Lord Dampnut will break Nixon's record.

  2. #5927
    And, exactly what's your point?

    You aren't going to "win" any argument with a "But Republicans are bad too" argument because:

    a) A republican having been convicted in the past for something doesn't excuse what happened at the DNC. This SHOULD concern you because the DNC can't beat Trump until they fix their own internal corruption.

    b) Not everyone buys into the Hegelian narrative you do. I don't view the world as "one party good, the other party bad!". I view both party establishments as being far more in agreement with and like each other than with any one of us who lives and works in non-elite circles. Even some of the recent news supports this, such as how the Democrat and Republican party insiders were collaborating to put out the fake FusionGPS dossier.

  3. #5928
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Donald Trump is calling for the execution of the suspect in the New York truck attack. Firstly, aren't you supposed to get a trial first? Secondly, does anyone have numbers for how many American children will be killed because of Trump defunding medical insurance for poor kids?

  4. #5929
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Trump's administration just announced the American program in the next climate talks are to promote fossil fuels to solve the climate change problem, titled “The Role of Cleaner and More Efficient Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power in Climate Mitigation”.

    Sheesh, it's like they aren't even trying. I recall reading the Soviets would spend literally months orchestrating some of their trolls. I don't see that kind of dedication with this administration. It's like Trump came up with that on while sitting on the can before lunch. Probably most of what he does, to the extent he does anything, is decided like that though.

  5. #5930
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    And, exactly what's your point?

    You aren't going to "win" any argument with a "But Republicans are bad too" argument because:

    a) A republican having been convicted in the past for something doesn't excuse what happened at the DNC. This SHOULD concern you because the DNC can't beat Trump until they fix their own internal corruption.

    b) Not everyone buys into the Hegelian narrative you do. I don't view the world as "one party good, the other party bad!". I view both party establishments as being far more in agreement with and like each other than with any one of us who lives and works in non-elite circles. Even some of the recent news supports this, such as how the Democrat and Republican party insiders were collaborating to put out the fake FusionGPS dossier.
    I don't think Democrats are a good party. In fact, I think they are pretty crap and that their record leaves much to be desired. But I can also clearly see that Republicans are much much worse.

    Like for example Democrats want to fix healthcare, or at least attempt to fix it, whereas the Republicans want to burn it all to the ground, consequences be damned.

    As for the dossier, some of it has been independently corroborated and quite a few things have turned out to be true.
    Last edited by Starker; 3rd Nov 2017 at 12:58.

  6. #5931
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    democrats sold out to the insurance industry, the insurance industry is who wrote oclueless care so of course they made it so that they would get bailed out & need massive influx of money from tax payers. Oretard did NOT give people insurance, he gave them a TAX PENALTY for NOT buying it. crooked hillary https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary...r-ever-happen/

    there was nothing :affordable" about the ACA, 12.5k out of pocket cost is far too much.

  7. #5932
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2017
    Location: Vancouver Island - BC

    He will have a hissy fit and quite

    I don't think Trump will make it to a full year in office but not because he gets impeached. I think he will get so fed up with not getting his way and his growing un popularity that he will have a hissy fit on National TV and quit. After that he will lock himself in his room at Trump tower and eat bon bons all day. Cheers!

  8. #5933
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    Trump's administration just announced the American program in the next climate talks are to promote fossil fuels to solve the climate change problem, titled “The Role of Cleaner and More Efficient Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power in Climate Mitigation”.
    That's like holding an orgy to promote abstinence awareness, isn't it?

    Though to be fair, nuclear power is a perfect clean, incredibly efficient source of energy when it's running to standard. It just has that one extreme downside of producing a byproduct that remains toxic for 25,000 plus years.

  9. #5934
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    democrats sold out to the insurance industry, the insurance industry is who wrote oclueless care so of course they made it so that they would get bailed out & need massive influx of money from tax payers.
    What's funny is that I'm friends with this guy, 65 years old, hardline Republican, who's currently retired, enjoying Social Security benefits, and is paying zero per month for his Obamacare plan.

    On one hand, he really likes Trump. "DRAIN THE SWAMP", he screams. "WELFARE IS WHITE SLAVERY", he cries. "DEMOCRATS ARE A BUNCH OF ENTITLED CRYBABIES WHO THINK THEY DESERVE A GOVERNMENT HANDOUT", he touts. On the other, he's really likes getting his large SS check in the mail, and is worried about losing his free insurance, since if the ACA folds, he'll be stuck paying $600 a month for the exact same plan. He's become a walking, talking bundle of cognitive dissonance, always voting against his own interests to support populist notions.

  10. #5935
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    That's like holding an orgy to promote abstinence awareness, isn't it?

    Though to be fair, nuclear power is a perfect clean, incredibly efficient source of energy when it's running to standard. It just has that one extreme downside of producing a byproduct that remains toxic for 25,000 plus years.
    Or makes 1/3 of an entire state uninhabitable for the next five centuries. The Japanese government is going to a lot of effort to sweep Fukushima under the rug before the 2020 Olympics, but there are still a lot of displaced people, still in the 10Ks, that may not ever get their life back into order.

  11. #5936
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    The Republicans who complained bitterly about running up the deficit in the middle of a massive economic downturn are now planning to run up the deficit in an economic upswing.

  12. #5937
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    Or makes 1/3 of an entire state uninhabitable for the next five centuries. The Japanese government is going to a lot of effort to sweep Fukushima under the rug before the 2020 Olympics, but there are still a lot of displaced people, still in the 10Ks, that may not ever get their life back into order.
    There is that, though leveraging newer (or rather older, though never used) technologies would make incidents like Fukushima a non-issue. Thorium salt reactors are considerably safer, since they don't experience meltdowns if things go south.

  13. #5938
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Vertigo, DragonSand, Xeen
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Though to be fair, nuclear power is a perfect clean, incredibly efficient source of energy when it's running to standard. It just has that one extreme downside of producing a byproduct that remains toxic for 25,000 plus years.
    We have all of the energy we will ever need compliments of our sun and natural environment. Does anyone truly know how few wind turbines, solar panels, and water wheels it would take to power this planet of pathetic humans? Of course, we are not a world society that takes care of each other and looks out for all of our continued survival.

    Rather, we are a world where everything costs something. The billions of everyday people on this planet have absolutely NO say so in where the planet heads. Everything is left up to this group of people who have all the money. So, we will continue to burn our planet out at ever increasing rates, just so that dumbass Ted can save 15 cents at Texaco. That is the world we live in, we dont care about each other or our planet, all most folks care about is having enough money to survive.

  14. #5939
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    Trump's administration just announced the American program in the next climate talks are to promote fossil fuels to solve the climate change problem, titled “The Role of Cleaner and More Efficient Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power in Climate Mitigation”.
    In related news, apparently, Lord Dampnut wants to call the new tax reform bill "The Cut Cut Cut Act". This is not a joke or some kind of parody.

    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    democrats sold out to the insurance industry, the insurance industry is who wrote oclueless care so of course they made it so that they would get bailed out & need massive influx of money from tax payers. Oretard did NOT give people insurance, he gave them a TAX PENALTY for NOT buying it. crooked hillary https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary...r-ever-happen/

    there was nothing :affordable" about the ACA, 12.5k out of pocket cost is far too much.
    The ACA is at best only a band-aid on a problem that has steadily been getting worse and worse. But the Republican plans are not even that -- their solution is to make healthcare a privilege for the wealthy. The main reason their healthcare bill failed was that too many Republicans thought it wasn't cruel enough.

  15. #5940
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldmoon Dawn View Post
    We have all of the energy we will ever need compliments of our sun and natural environment.
    If we all decide to take a few step backs, and start living in mud huts again, maybe.

    I'm a big proponent of green energy, and it has come leaps and bounds over the decade, but it can't yet provide for all our energy needs. This is doubly true now that we're making the first tiny steps towards replacing fossil fuels with electric standards. Our current best bet for high population areas is a dense source of energy, such as nuclear or large hydroelectric, lying at the center of a grid supplemented by green energy.

    Of course there's fusion energy waiting in the wings. Its incredibly dense, uses readily available resources as fuel, and leaves nearly no waste. The problem there is we don't yet know when it's going to become viable. Right now, the current estimates for the first large scale fusion plants are somewhere around 20 to 100 years from now.

  16. #5941
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Vertigo, DragonSand, Xeen
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    If we all decide to take a few step backs, and start living in mud huts again, maybe.
    How strange.

    We would live in a technologically advanced age, where we power everything with solar panels, yet we live in mud huts? I dont follow...




  17. #5942
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldmoon Dawn View Post
    How strange.

    We would live in a technologically advanced age, where we power everything with solar panels, yet we live in mud huts? I dont follow...
    I exaggerated a bit for effect. We do live in a technologically advanced age, but we're not quite to the point that solar, wind, et al. can power the nation exclusively. We still need a heavy power source to accommodate the load we put on the grid, especially once we start charging our cars off the wall sockets in the garage.

  18. #5943
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldmoon Dawn View Post
    We have all of the energy we will ever need compliments of our sun and natural environment. Does anyone truly know how few wind turbines, solar panels, and water wheels it would take to power this planet of pathetic humans?
    A couple of months ago, the UK supplied 24 hours of electricity solely from wind and solar power. A first small step but going the right way.

    Idiot-face whose name I can't remember who thinks sexual assault can be cured by having light, wants to expand fossil fuel usage in Africa. Everyone else wants solar panels which don't require massive infrastructure.

  19. #5944
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Vertigo, DragonSand, Xeen
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    We still need a heavy power source to accommodate the load we put on the grid, especially once we start charging our cars off the wall sockets in the garage.
    I too am oversimplifying:

    Does that five foot tall lady *really need* a Cadillac Escalade to pick up two bags of groceries from the store? What about all these five foot nothing "men" out there, jumping up into their big manly trucks, do they *really need* all that! You make it sound like the people that want to change to renewable want to keep *all* of the old ways.

    If we keep wastefully suckling on destructive combustible energy we will pay the ultimate price. Its so funny watching this planet awkwardly realise that we have destroyed our environment and *must* move to renewable energy at some point. The point is, if you want to survive as a species, at some point, we all must "give up" the Cadillac Escalade mentality.

    Im ok with that, as Im sure many folks outside the US would end up being also. This country is great, but man is it a joke sometimes, most of the time. But so funny living in and really experiencing the overwhelming wastefullness of modern America. I was at a gas station owned by an Arab and a Mexican was at the counter trying to purchase something. They were arguing with each other both using the same broken English.

    I laughed.

  20. #5945
    Quote Originally Posted by nickie View Post
    A couple of months ago, the UK supplied 24 hours of electricity solely from wind and solar power. A first small step but going the right way.

    Idiot-face whose name I can't remember who thinks sexual assault can be cured by having light, wants to expand fossil fuel usage in Africa. Everyone else wants solar panels which don't require massive infrastructure.
    Developing areas are actually the best place to install solar panels. Not just because they can power remote villages and outposts, but because fuels pose a very real logistical problem: realistically speaking, any time you order fuel to somewhere like that roughly 2/3 to 3/4 will be stolen before it reaches the destination. Once you account for that impact on the cost of power solar starts looking pretty good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    The ACA is at best only a band-aid on a problem that has steadily been getting worse and worse. But the Republican plans are not even that -- their solution is to make healthcare a privilege for the wealthy. The main reason their healthcare bill failed was that too many Republicans thought it wasn't cruel enough.
    My issue with that statement is that it seems to imply the assumption that Democrats crafted the bill out of good intentions and genuinely seeking to help people, while the Republicans ideas for healthcare is rooted in malice.

    If that's true, then please explain to me why the Democrats decided to go with a healthcare plan based on Republican policies.

    (specifically, the Heritage Foundation's early 90's proposal and Romneycare).
    Last edited by nickie; 5th Nov 2017 at 14:37. Reason: Added source to second quote

  21. #5946
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Because it was the only compromise that could have any chance of passing. And even that compromised solution took some serious fighting, with Republicans vowing to tear it down ever since, consequences be damned. The reason why they modeled ACA on Romneycare was because it worked, not just as a policy but it was also politically acceptable. Or so they thought.

    Now, if Republicans plans to tear down the ACA aren't rooted in malice, please explain to me why haven't they taken up the offers to work with Democrats and help fix the ACA? Why won't they even entertain the idea of universal healthcare, which is what the rest of the advanced industrialised countries have? Why would their plans again leave millions without healthcare and be little more than a tax cut to the rich and the very rich?

    Frankly, I find the squabbling over ACA to be pure madness in the first place. It should be obvious that sick and desperate people are a liability for a country and do way more damage than keeping them healthy would cost.

  22. #5947
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales

  23. #5948
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Apparently, Mueller now has enough evidence to indict Flynn and possibly Flynn's son as well: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...in-flynn-probe

  24. #5949
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Because it was the only compromise that could have any chance of passing. And even that compromised solution took some serious fighting, with Republicans vowing to tear it down ever since, consequences be damned. The reason why they modeled ACA on Romneycare was because it worked, not just as a policy but it was also politically acceptable. Or so they thought.
    The Democrats had a full majority at the time. There wasn't a need to "compromise" and the final bill passed with zero Republicans voting for the bill.

    And then how do you explain this?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...yist-industry1

    Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job


    When the legislation that became known as "Obamacare" was first drafted, the key legislator was the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, whose committee took the lead in drafting the legislation. As Baucus himself repeatedly boasted, the architect of that legislation was Elizabeth Folwer, his chief health policy counsel; indeed, as Marcy Wheeler discovered, it was Fowler who actually drafted it. As Politico put it at the time: "If you drew an organizational chart of major players in the Senate health care negotiations, Fowler would be the chief operating officer."

    What was most amazing about all of that was that, before joining Baucus' office as the point person for the health care bill, Fowler was the Vice President for Public Policy and External Affairs (i.e. informal lobbying) at WellPoint, the nation's largest health insurance provider (before going to WellPoint, as well as after, Fowler had worked as Baucus' top health care aide). And when that health care bill was drafted, the person whom Fowler replaced as chief health counsel in Baucus' office, Michelle Easton, was lobbying for WellPoint as a principal at Tarplin, Downs, and Young.

    Whatever one's views on Obamacare were and are: the bill's mandate that everyone purchase the products of the private health insurance industry, unaccompanied by any public alternative, was a huge gift to that industry; as Wheeler wrote at the time: "to the extent that Liz Fowler is the author of this document, we might as well consider WellPoint its author as well." Watch the five-minute Bill Moyers report from 2009, embedded below, on the key role played in all of this by Liz Fowler and the "revolving door" between the health insurance/lobbying industry and government officials at the time this bill was written and passed.

    More amazingly still, when the Obama White House needed someone to oversee implementation of Obamacare after the bill passed, it chose . . . Liz Fowler. That the White House would put a former health insurance industry executive in charge of implementation of its new massive health care law was roundly condemned by good government groups as at least a violation of the "spirit" of governing ethics rules and even "gross", but those objections were, of course, brushed aside by the White House. She then became Special Assistant to the President for Healthcare and Economic Policy at the National Economic Council.

    Now, as Politico's "Influence" column briefly noted on Tuesday, Fowler is once again passing through the deeply corrupting revolving door as she leaves the Obama administration to return to the loving and lucrative arms of the private health care industry:

    The pharmaceutical giant that just hired Fowler actively supported the passage of Obamacare through its membership in the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) lobby
    . Indeed, PhRMA was one of the most aggressive supporters - and most lavish beneficiaries - of the health care bill drafted by Fowler. Mother Jones' James Ridgeway proclaimed "Big Pharma" the "big winner" in the health care bill. And now, Fowler will receive ample rewards from that same industry as she peddles her influence in government and exploits her experience with its inner workings to work on that industry's behalf, all of which has been made perfectly legal by the same insular, Versailles-like Washington culture that so lavishly benefits from all of this.


    Also to your quote that "Now, if Republicans plans to tear down the ACA aren't rooted in malice, please explain to me why haven't they taken up the offers to work with Democrats and help fix the ACA? Why won't they even entertain the idea of universal healthcare, which is what the rest of the advanced industrialised countries have? Why would their plans again leave millions without healthcare and be little more than a tax cut to the rich and the very rich?"


    What specific "offers to work with Democrats" are you referring to?

    Also worth noting the Republicans don't seem to actually want to do anything against the ACA. Aside from the objective fact that their interest in repealing it suddenly goes away the moment that "opposition" to it amounts to something more substantial than hollow posturing for voters, there's also the fact that a number of Republican staffers and representatives have admitted both on camera and to reporters that the leadership secretly supports keeping the ACA as is.
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 5th Nov 2017 at 16:16.

  25. #5950
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    The Democrats had a full majority at the time. There wasn't a need to "compromise" and the final bill passed with zero Republicans voting for the bill.
    No they didn't. They only passed the bill because three Republicans broke the filibuster: https://www.ohio.com/akron/pages/whe...ol-of-congress

    Don't forget that Republicans also went full obstructionist on Obama, filibustering over 400 times, routinely doing it for virtually every bill they could.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    What specific "offers to work with Democrats" are you referring to?
    There have been quite a few. For example, this one: https://www.efe.com/efe/english/life...000263-3338837

    As for lobbying, the fact that you let corporations write your laws so openly, oftentimes literally, is another thing that baffles me.

    Edit: and again, Republicans take the cake, having an actual corporate bill mill produce legislation for them. The more I look into your politics, the more examples I see that as bad Democrats are, Republicans are way worse.
    Last edited by Starker; 5th Nov 2017 at 17:34.

Page 238 of 344 FirstFirst ... 138188193198203208213218223228233234235236237238239240241242243248253258263268273278283288338 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •