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

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

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

    26 18.06%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    51 35.42%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.72%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.78%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.03%
Page 36 of 559 FirstFirst ... 6111621263132333435363738394041465156616671768186136286536 ... LastLast
Results 876 to 900 of 13953

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #876
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Well, for starters, one of them is running for president. Man spends years being the highest-profile voice dragging out birtherism, and then has the gall to claim that Hillary started it and he ended it.

  2. #877
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Yeah, I don't know about that. Obama still hasn't released his birth video.

  3. #878
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Well, for starters, one of them is running for president. Man spends years being the highest-profile voice dragging out birtherism, and then has the gall to claim that Hillary started it and he ended it.
    Colbert didn't take that lightly...


  4. #879
    is Best Pony
    Registered: Nov 2002
    Location: The magical land of Equestria
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Yeah, I don't know about that. Obama still hasn't released his birth video.
    Au contraire...

  5. #880
    Member
    Registered: May 2003
    Location: Minecraft
    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    Once again, the proof will be revealed in time
    All I'm asking is what evidence do you have that lead you to the conclusion that she's suffering from a neurological disorder. I'm not being obtuse,I'm simply asking how you can claim to know this to be true. If I could only be accused of being obtuse if you'd provided evidence that I then ignored or pretended not to understand.

    'Wait and see' isn't good enough. In nothing happens, you could claim it's being covered up, or she got lucky, or she's getting amazing treatment etc. If it turns out to be the case, how can you claim to have known this and not just guessed?

  6. #881
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2011
    Location: Ferrol - Spain
    All right, but one thing for sure is that Trump has no cure.

  7. #882
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew View Post
    Au contraire...
    Did I say birth? I meant conception, of course. :P

  8. #883
    Quote Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post
    No it's not. I want government transparency, and I want that transparency to be parsed by experts who actually know what laws may or may not be being violated, instead of Joe Dumbfuck who searches a phrase and then posts to 100 right-wing conspiracy blogs that HERE FINALLY IS THE SMOKING GUN THAT WE'RE ALL LOOKING FOR without knowing what that phrase actually fucking means. I want government transparency to lead to signal, not noise. Wikileaks, especially now, is all about making noise. There's a reason that more positive good was done by Edward Snowden initially giving the intel he stole to Glenn Greenwald and other journalists than was done by Chelsea Manning's blanket data dump to Wikileaks (setting aside the Arab Spring and how much of that could actually be attributed to the Manning leaks, and how much good it actually did).
    Has it occurred to you that if the experts were actually doing that, rather than kissing the government's ass, that this would be a moot point? It was more or less an open secret that the NSA was collecting information....hell even multiple congressman warned that this was happening prior to the release and nobody in any "reputable" journalistic publication seemed interested in covering it.


    Oh, please tell us again about your mysterious government contractor days. Were they working for the Securities and Exchange Commission? No? How about the Federal Election Commission? The RNC? The DNC? The CBO? No? Then you know precisely fuck all more about it than I do. Do you know why if you used the phrase 'pay-to-play' in an e-mail it would get you in trouble? Because you did not work in campaign finance and it was not a term of art for your position or profession. This is professional correspondence between people whose entire careers are political law and campaign finance. They are using 'pay-to-play' as a professional term of art, not a colloquialism.
    Nothing nearly so fancy. For one assignment I ended up having to design construction proposals and then oversee the resulting contracts. As a result I had to be fully onboarded in the system....so as it happens I have first hand experience with the rules regarding pay to play. EVERYBODY is bound by them all the way down to the people who are responsible for calling local repairmen to fix the plumbing.

    Regarding the rest of your point you are just being deliberately obtuse. NONE of the examples you mention would ever "make their way into the operating account", nor would they be referred to as funds. You can't take a donation of office space and put it into your bank account.

    You also mentioned a second aspect regarding the leaks....yes, as it happens I actually AM qualified to comment on the contents of those leaks having been involved in similar aspects and familiar with the regular laws. That's a big part of why I make more noise about the Snowden leaks than the Manning leaks. Manning's leaks had a few gems in there(like a diplomat being caught red-handed conspiring to bully national governments on behalf of US agri-business), but for the most part the material was gossip and routine wartime communications. There were a number of ROE violations in there but those are not as newsworthy because they involved low level individuals of little social or political importance. By contrast Snowden's leaks contained information that blew apart the narrative that the US government is anything other than a latent fascist entity.


    Well, for starters, one of them is running for president. Man spends years being the highest-profile voice dragging out birtherism, and then has the gall to claim that Hillary started it and he ended it.
    Except Hillary's camp actually did start it. It just didn't become popular until a republican rag started talking about it.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...still-no-ther/


    All I'm asking is what evidence do you have that lead you to the conclusion that she's suffering from a neurological disorder. I'm not being obtuse,I'm simply asking how you can claim to know this to be true. If I could only be accused of being obtuse if you'd provided evidence that I then ignored or pretended not to understand.

    I recently asked a family member who has about three decades of experience in the field about it. He said his best guess is that it's "something affecting her brain stem" but didn't get more specific than that.



    Also. I've got another one for those of you have criticized my "Crazy conspiracy theories".

    New York Times Just published an article more or less proving what I've been saying about "Twitter Outrage"

    For those of you who think that only left wing sources are reliable just keep that in mind. This is coming from the NEW YORK TIMES, not Alex Jones.
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 24th Sep 2016 at 15:48.

  9. #884
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Except Hillary's camp actually did start it. It just didn't become popular until a republican rag started talking about it.
    Okay, let's assume Hillary did field the birther conspiracy. If she did, it wasn't something greatly pursued. Rather, it seems it something said once, maybe twice in an off the cuff fashion during a heated primary.

    Now, does that make her solely responsible for everything that's happened since? Does the blame for all the fervor over the last 8 years, from Trump's investigations, and claims of interesting findings, to Joe Arpaio, and his claims Obama is a fraud on live TV, to the hundreds of thousands of people running around screaming he's a foreign born Muslim usurper lie solely on Hillary's shoulders?

    Are you all so easily lead that something a single person said as an aside can kick off so much angst and strife? Are your personalities so weak you can't be held responsible for your behavior over the last 2900 days, because "she started it"?

    Don't you all claim to be the party of personal responsibility? What I'm seeing here are a bunch of children who have been caught smearing crayons all over the walls, but you're saying it's not your fault, because you all wouldn't have ever had the chance to misbehave if Hillary didn't buy the big box of crayons for you all to misbehave with.

    Saying you can't be held responsible for your own actions because someone else inspired you to them isn't exactly a good motto for the people who claim their party is the one of personal responsibility

  10. #885
    Isn't that just what I said? That's also what the article says if you actually read it. And there's a division of responsibility. Hillary's strategists bear responsibility for starting it and National Review for taking it mainstream....assuming that we really did regard it as an evil and vile thing. I don't seem to recall anyone thinking it was a vile thing to question Ted Cruz's eligiblity.

    If you read between the lines it gets into an area of ethical parity: both sides are willing to use the story as long as it's in their interests to further it. The moment it becomes disadvantageous anyone who talks about it is a "birther conspiracy theorist".

  11. #886
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    You're well aware of the huge gulf of differences in severity between bringing up the question of Ted Cruz's eligibility, which was a reasonable question, quickly answered, then put to bed, and everything the Birther idiots have stirred up over the last 8 years. Don't try to pretend otherwise.

  12. #887
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Hillary's campaign didn't start the birther controversy. They passed it around a bit after it was already started, then dismissed it as the b.s. it is.

    Trump didn't start it either, but he was instrumental in keeping it in the spotlight for years, and even his recantation is tainted by his saying he just wanted to move on.

  13. #888
    Level 10,000 achieved
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Finland
    Did you guys see that new Between Two Ferns video? Good stuff. Politics! Yeeeeeah. Ok bye.


  14. #889
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Sellout!

    ...I mean you, Henke. In case you're wondering.

  15. #890
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    The first 2016 Presidential Debate begins in one hour!...


  16. #891
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    There will be blood.

  17. #892
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Okay, now that was an entertaining debate.

    Gotta give props to Trump. He held up a lot better than I thought he did. If he could've maintained his momentum through the 2nd half, I would've give the debate to him.

    But he didn't. While he still managed to throw in a few stinging zingers here and there, especially at the end, you could tell he was being worn down, was having a hard time thinking of something to retort with beyond his usual talking points. His usual verve didn't help him. He ended up looking sloppy and desperate when faced against Hillary's calm composure.

    It didn't surprise me. Trump may be a great wheeler and dealer, but he's now facing against an opponent, one on one, who's been doing this for decades. It showed.

  18. #893
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Let's talk about the debate over here...Who Won the First Presidential Debate?

  19. #894
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Again with the Iraq oil (and the oil of Libya, apparently). How the hell does he expect to get it without escalating the conflict and pissing off the rest of the world?
    Last edited by Starker; 27th Sep 2016 at 00:21.

  20. #895
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Didn't watch it, and I'm not sure why anybody needs to.

    Who are the people who make up their minds based on Presidential debates?

    Why is it that the people, and especially the press, continue to be obsessed with the most overt forms of political theater?

  21. #896
    Level 10,000 achieved
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Who are the people who make up their minds based on Presidential debates?
    Well, as a means to finding out what the candidate's standpoints on various issues are, it's not bad, is it? Of course there are other ways too.

    Let me tell you how we do it in Finland, and I'm curious to hear if something similar exists in the US. Come election season the state-sponsored TV/Radio network, Yle, hosts a questionnaire on their website which contains questions like "Should the pension age be lowered?" and "Should we be letting in more immigrants?". You go fill that out, and afterwards you find out how much your answers line up with those of the candidates, who have also filled out the questionnaire. You see your top-matched candidates, their bios, and you can even go through their answers one by one to read little elaborations they've written on where they stand on each issue.

    Of course, you don't have to use the website, but, personally speaking as someone who's not super-into-politics, I've been enjoying it as a handy way to find a competent-seeming candidate whose views line up with my own.

  22. #897
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Yes, when a lot of candidates are running for the party nominations there are online polls like that saying which candidates are close to your positions. This year in particular it really doesn't matter because the rhetoric is very much based around identity and distrust, definitely on the Right, which doesn't care about positions. (It's usually the Left that deals in identity politics, but everything is getting flipped around this year.)

  23. #898
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Personally Henke, that's how I think votes should be cast.

  24. #899
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    There are many such questionnaires every election. Go to US Google and search for something like "Who should i vote for questionnaire 2016" and I'm sure you'll find several of them. One possible difference is that the US Presidential candidates don't write policy statements themselves. For most questionnaires, the writers of the questionnaire interpret the candidates' positions based on speeches and other public statements, plans and policy documents generated by the campaigns, party platforms, history, and their own biases.

    The problem with using debates to make up your mind is that the things the candidates say in a debate mean fuck all, they are not correlated with the things they do once elected. A Presidential debate is just a continuous stream of zingers and bullshit meant to sway the mainstream press who score them on their performance. They treat it like a sporting match. The coverage is all about who scored points, who had the tastiest sound bites, and arguing about who "won". It is political theater in its most obvious and meaningless form.

  25. #900
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    Yes, when a lot of candidates are running for the party nominations there are online polls like that saying which candidates are close to your positions. This year in particular it really doesn't matter because the rhetoric is very much based around identity and distrust, definitely on the Right, which doesn't care about positions. (It's usually the Left that deals in identity politics, but everything is getting flipped around this year.)
    Part of the reason why the focus is more on identity politics is that both of the candidates have major character flaws.

    Another part of it may be that the President the chief executive of the largest bureaucratic organization in the world, not a surrogate for a party platform or a collection of issue stances. 90% of what's written in the party platforms has to come out of the legislative branch. And the other 10% is foreign policy. When it comes to domestic policy, the President has very little ability to change anything via regulation and executive order. They are mostly limited to what they can do with a veto.

    So I think that going issue by issue is a meaningless exercise for the most part. You should be able to choose a candidate by answering a small number of key questions, such as:

    Given the current balance of power in Congress, do I want a President who is going to affirm what Congress does or veto it?
    Given the current balance of power in the SCOTUS and appellate courts, do I want a President who will appoint liberal or conservative justices?
    How are the Presidential candidates likely to conduct foreign policy and use the national security and intelligence state?
    Which of the candidates has the best executive leadership ability?
    Which of the candidates is the best crisis manager?

Page 36 of 559 FirstFirst ... 6111621263132333435363738394041465156616671768186136286536 ... 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
  •