PDA

View Full Version : Neonazis Love Trumps uncomdemnation



Nickdfresh
08-13-2017, 01:29 PM
Joe Scarborough‏Verified account @JoeNBC 14h14 hours ago

Joe Scarborough Retweeted Soledad O'Brien

Hey Trump, Mission Accomplished. The Nazis, white supremacists and the KKK still love you. #Shame

https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/896575936484605955

After, the rightwing terrorist base needs kudos!

jacksmar
08-13-2017, 07:06 PM
https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/896575936484605955

After, the rightwing terrorist base needs kudos!

What am I missing here, nick? Not dense, just don't get it. Explain please.

Nickdfresh
08-13-2017, 07:45 PM
You can Google? There's a whole host of articles of even Republicans condemning Trumps pansy statement on what was Neonazi terrorism...

jacksmar
08-13-2017, 09:05 PM
OK, wasn't debating or choosing a side or a stance or feigning ignorance. Just didn't get it. Got it now; without google.

Seshmeister
08-13-2017, 10:56 PM
https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20799169_2145950882159270_3252347768006567043_n.jp g?oh=d891bf84809df9b104f4962673474ec4&oe=59EBF019


Reminding people of this seems to have worked quite well in the UK from time to time when the extreme right wing nationalists start their shit.

If you point out that some if not most of the greatest achievements of the country in living memory has been fighting what they are espousing it puts them in a really awkward position. Of course the people at these things are dumb nasty fucks but it's more about stopping the next tier people joining with them.

Nickdfresh
08-14-2017, 02:43 PM
The main complaint is that he didn't specifically condemn neonazi and white supremacist cunts by name and made it sound like both sides were at fault when it was clear that the murderer was a nazi and most of the violence stemmed from the extremist rightists. That's why he came back on today and specifically condemned it as an act of terrorism,like at least McMasters had the brains to do Sunday....

Terry
08-14-2017, 04:44 PM
Yeah, but the problem with Trump and this issue goes well beyond the speed of his condemnation or the all-inclusiveness of his initial remark.

From Trump's "it's clear they're all guilty" stance on the Central Park Five case (before the defendants were even tried...and even after they were later cleared and won a civil settlement against NYC, Trump never apologized or admitted he was wrong), to his propagating of the whole manufactured Obama Birther 'issue' (which he only begrudgingly admitted might not have been true last summer, several years after it was disproven), to his cutesy "I don't even know who David Duke is" remarks during the primaries...I mean, shit, even going back to the early 1970s when Trump and his father discriminated against minorities in terms of renting their apartment spaces to them...Trump has a long, LONG history of displaying racist attitudes toward blacks.

If Trump didn't already have this history of actions and remarks that has been well-documented prior to this current incident, one could possibly say his initial comments were a verbal gaffe.

Because Trump does have this history, it's clear what his attitudes are, so him walking back or expanding upon the initial comments is meaningless, if not downright insulting. Trump's chief political strategists, along with his Attorney General, all share Trump's viewpoint.

Anybody with a pulse, half a brain and the ability to see/hear/read knows what the score is with Trump, blacks and white supremacists in terms of how [Trump] feels.

It is what it is, and his feelings were - yet again - made clear with his initial response. So why should anybody bullshit themselves about it?

Seshmeister
08-14-2017, 06:39 PM
Part of the problem is Trump seems to be easily swayed to the opinion of who he spoke with last. I really think he is a lot less smart than GW was. Al Gore came away from meeting him thinking he had won him around on climate change.

While Trump surrounds himself with people like Bannon then shit like this is going to happen a lot.

Terry
08-14-2017, 06:46 PM
Part of the problem is Trump seems to be easily swayed to the opinion of who he spoke with last. I really think he is a lot less smart than GW was. Al Gore came away from meeting him thinking he had won him around on climate change.

While Trump surrounds himself with people like Bannon then shit like this is going to happen a lot.

Yes, but you have to ask yourself why Trump surrounds himself with the likes of Bannon, Miller, "The Mooch", Sessions and the like in the first place: the staff reflect their boss, not the other way around.

Nickdfresh
08-14-2017, 07:49 PM
Part of the problem is Trump seems to be easily swayed to the opinion of who he spoke with last. I really think he is a lot less smart than GW was. Al Gore came away from meeting him thinking he had won him around on climate change.

While Trump surrounds himself with people like Bannon then shit like this is going to happen a lot.


Rumor has it that Bannon is about to be dumped into the East River,,,

Seshmeister
08-14-2017, 07:53 PM
He's a fat lazy spoiled old asshole. I don't think he cares about any cause other than his own ego.

He doesn't have enough energy to be a nazi.

Also I think we should refuse to use the term Neo-Nazi from now on as what's new and it allows them to try and distance themselves from the utter fucking failure and humiliation of the Hitler and Mussolini regimes.

Va Beach VH Fan
08-14-2017, 09:02 PM
Yeah, but the problem with Trump and this issue goes well beyond the speed of his condemnation or the all-inclusiveness of his initial remark.

From Trump's "it's clear they're all guilty" stance on the Central Park Five case (before the defendants were even tried...and even after they were later cleared and won a civil settlement against NYC, Trump never apologized or admitted he was wrong), to his propagating of the whole manufactured Obama Birther 'issue' (which he only begrudgingly admitted might not have been true last summer, several years after it was disproven), to his cutesy "I don't even know who David Duke is" remarks during the primaries...I mean, shit, even going back to the early 1970s when Trump and his father discriminated against minorities in terms of renting their apartment spaces to them...Trump has a long, LONG history of displaying racist attitudes toward blacks.


It's quite simpler than that.

1. Trump's father was arrested at a KKK rally in Queens in 1927.

2. One of Trump's senior aides (Gorka) is a Nazi-sympathizer, opening wearing the "Order of Vitezi Rend", whose group murdered hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews in WWII.

3. His Chief Strategist (Bannon) is an admitted White Nationalist.

Frankly, the press is still not "going there", meaning there should be articles in all of major media outlets. They should be pounding those questions in every media availability to Trump and his minions....

Terry
08-14-2017, 09:41 PM
Rumor has it that Bannon is about to be dumped into the East River,,,

Now THAT might be interesting.

If only because unlike Spicer or Priebus, Bannon doesn't really care about a future in Establishment Republican politics. I'd also tend to doubt he's going to go the Karl Rove route and try and be some Establishment Republican meta-guru via a PAC. Bannon's viability is directly tied to Trump and Trump alone: once Trump shit cans him (which Trump WILL inevitably do at some point because Trump has no enduring loyalty to anyone other than himself), For those reasons, Bannon might be willing to tell a few tales with little care or concern for his political viability in terms of working within mainstream politics and media.

However, I think Bannon was too smart to get directly involved with the Russian connections, and probably made it his business to willfully not know anything about any of that stuff. Bannon might be able to provide some detailed stories about Trump's inability to concentrate for lengthy periods of time and other character flaws...but would any of that really be anything other than yet another person confirming what we already know about Trump?

If Bannon is to be dumped, Trump should ditch Bannon's toady Miller (on loan from Jeff Sessions) right along with him. Stop buying into all that "dismantling the deep state" Bannon-propagated fantasy nonsense, go for a modest tax cut and a small-ball infrastructure plan.

At some point, Trump is going to have to put some sort of success up on the board: some type of legislation that will actually improve the lot of the lives of those who voted for him. And the clock is ticking, with a little more than a year to go until the 2018 mid-terms. I'm not saying the Dems will retake Congress in 2018 - they may well not - but if they do, at the rate Trump is going thus far his one accomplishment he'll be able to tout in 2020 (assuming he actually runs again) will be...what? His Supreme Court nomination being appointed? Temporarily saving 500 jobs at Carrier?

twonabomber
08-15-2017, 10:20 PM
So the counter protesters are calling the original group losers, for supporting the Nazis and the Confederacy. You know, both lost a war. But aren't most of the counter protesters Hilary supporters and voters? Didn't they just lose in November? Hello pot, meet kettle.

Von Halen
08-16-2017, 07:55 AM
So the counter protesters are calling the original group losers, for supporting the Nazis and the Confederacy. You know, both lost a war. But aren't most of the counter protesters Hilary supporters and voters? Didn't they just lose in November? Hello pot, meet kettle.

Are you comparing them to our own three stooges here? Sesh, FORD and NickDickless?

Seshmeister
08-16-2017, 10:33 AM
So the counter protesters are calling the original group losers, for supporting the Nazis and the Confederacy. You know, both lost a war. But aren't most of the counter protesters Hilary supporters and voters? Didn't they just lose in November? Hello pot, meet kettle.


http://www.collectedcurios.com/B3TA_Trump_Churchill_2017.jpg

Nickdfresh
08-16-2017, 11:12 AM
Now THAT might be interesting.

...

It's said that Bannon is one of the "Leakers"...

Nickdfresh
08-16-2017, 11:16 AM
In a rare comment on domestic policy, U.S. military chiefs what the fat old orange topped fucktard hasn't the balls too...

US military leaders condemn racism after Charlottesville violence
Zachary Cohen
Barbara Starr-Profile-Image

By Zachary Cohen and Barbara Starr, CNN

Updated 10:22 AM ET, Wed August 16, 2017


Three of the US Joint Chiefs have condemned the violence in Charlottesville
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson was the first member of the military brass to weigh in

Washington (CNN)In a rare move, top commanders in the US military are speaking out in the wake of the deadly violence that erupted at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend.
Despite the criticism swirling around President Donald Trump's recent remarks -- in which he appeared to draw a moral equivalency between neo-Nazis and counter-protesters by blaming "both sides" for violence -- four US Joint Chiefs are issuing public condemnations of neo-Nazis, the Klu Klux Klan and white supremacist groups.
The statements are not directly addressing Trump's comments but are instead presented as a message to the general public, their troops and potential recruits. The statements are notable as US military leaders traditionally uphold an ironclad commitment to stay out of politics.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson was the first member of the military brass to weigh in on the issue, tweeting as news of the violence unfolded on Saturday.
"Events in Charlottesville unacceptable and musn't be tolerated @USNavy for ever stands against intolerance & hatred," the post said.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/joint-chiefs-charlottesville-racism/index.html

Nickdfresh
08-16-2017, 11:18 AM
So the counter protesters are calling the original group losers, for supporting the Nazis and the Confederacy. You know, both lost a war. But aren't most of the counter protesters Hilary supporters and voters? Didn't they just lose in November? Hello pot, meet kettle.

When was that ever the fucking point? I thought it was that Trump failed to condemn what was a terrorist murder by a Nazi fucktard that was the typical pussy that couldn't cut it in the military and is probably gay, so he becomes a Nazi...

Nickdfresh
08-16-2017, 11:19 AM
Are you comparing them to our own three stooges here? Sesh, FORD and NickDickless?

Nope, just missing the point that uneducated white fucktards voted for a Nazi sympathizer and a Russian fuckpuppet....

twonabomber
08-16-2017, 11:45 AM
When was that ever the fucking point? I thought it was that Trump failed to condemn what was a terrorist murder by a Nazi fucktard that was the typical pussy that couldn't cut it in the military and is probably gay, so he becomes a Nazi...

I wasn't going to start another thread so I dumped a semi-related thing in this one.

Seshmeister
08-16-2017, 11:46 AM
Nope, just missing the point that uneducated white fucktards voted for a Nazi sympathizer and a Russian fuckpuppet....

See I don't think that making your argument that way is a great way to bring people across to not voting for Trump in future... :)

Nickdfresh
08-16-2017, 12:05 PM
See I don't think that making your argument that way is a great way to bring people across to not voting for Trump in future... :)

Well, cancel my political career then...

And where has Ford been?

vandeleur
08-16-2017, 12:59 PM
Come on .... spice this up a bit. We need input from our resident "insert term" you liberals ain't saying anything cuntrovertial. I want the roth army alt alt right to gimme some sugar :D

Seshmeister
08-16-2017, 05:17 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GxQR6ssap4

Nitro Express
08-17-2017, 12:18 PM
It's always either Trump's fault or George Soro's fault. I guess this is what has replaced pro-wrestling as entertainment. Agitating the masses.

Nitro Express
08-17-2017, 12:26 PM
What kind of fucking Nazis carry tiki torches that were purchased at the dollar store? Oh well. Let's tear down some more historical monuments and that will end all this faggotry.

Nickdfresh
08-17-2017, 12:38 PM
What kind of fucking Nazis carry tiki torches that were purchased at the dollar store? Oh well. Let's tear down some more historical monuments and that will end all this faggotry.

Homosexuality actually plays a big component in Nazism. Some times repressed, sometimes celebrated as some Spartan throwback of child rape and prison prostitution...

Meet Ernst Rohm:

https://daily.jstor.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ernst_rohm_1050x700.jpg

https://daily.jstor.org/ernst-rohm-the-highest-ranking-gay-nazi/

Nitro Express
08-17-2017, 03:25 PM
Homosexuality actually plays a big component in Nazism. Some times repressed, sometimes celebrated as some Spartan throwback of child rape and prison prostitution...

Meet Ernst Rohm:

https://daily.jstor.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ernst_rohm_1050x700.jpg

https://daily.jstor.org/ernst-rohm-the-highest-ranking-gay-nazi/

Not that I have anything against tiki torches but carrying them in your so called Nazi march is pretty gay. The one thing that needs to be looked into is who financed the whole show. Antifa are paid troublemakers. I'm sure the so called Nazis are just a similar charade. Also interesting the police protection wasn't what it should have been.

Seshmeister
08-17-2017, 07:15 PM
What kind of fucking Nazis carry tiki torches that were purchased at the dollar store? Oh well. Let's tear down some more historical monuments and that will end all this faggotry.

What counts as 'historical' anyway? How old exactly are these ancient relics, this isn't exactly the fucking pyramids we are talking about is it?

Terry
08-17-2017, 09:30 PM
It's said that Bannon is one of the "Leakers"...

It wouldn't surprise me.

Kushner and Ivanka have leaked plenty of stories about how they have tried to influence various decisions Trump has made.

Apparently, there are plenty of White House staffers leaking, along with various "deep bureaucratic state" employees in the State Department, EPA, Department of Energy, etc. Trump, in his typical fashion, has gone out of his way to be a prick to everybody. His various Cabinet heads have followed suit. Pushback was inevitable. Jeff Sessions trying to root out the leakers is a Fool's Errand.

It wouldn't surprise me if Trump is doing plenty of off-the-record leaking. He has a long history of that.

It has also been said that Bannon is literally taking his role within the Administration day by day. Hey, everybody who signed on with Trump had to have known Trump has very, very few longstanding ties far as loyalty goes. Bannon's no dummy, wrongheaded as I think he is on a whole host of issues. Bannon knows Trump won't hesitate to ditch him in a heartbeat of [Trump] suddenly determines such a move serves his interests. This whole blather about Steve Bannon being some iconic, indispensable totemic figure to Trump's hardcore base is bullshit.

Nickdfresh
08-18-2017, 01:40 PM
Bannon. Out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/politics/steve-bannon-trump-white-house.html

Nitro Express
08-18-2017, 02:55 PM
What counts as 'historical' anyway? How old exactly are these ancient relics, this isn't exactly the fucking pyramids we are talking about is it?

I would say the US Civil War was historical. Do you remove a monument just because some ass wipes throw a tirade? A tirade over something that has nothing to do with the monuments. Nobody gave a damn until the media hyped it anyways.

Nitro Express
08-18-2017, 02:58 PM
Bannon. Out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/politics/steve-bannon-trump-white-house.html

Think he will shave and shower now? He was one sloppy looking son of a bitch.

Nitro Express
08-18-2017, 03:03 PM
It wouldn't surprise me.

Kushner and Ivanka have leaked plenty of stories about how they have tried to influence various decisions Trump has made.

Apparently, there are plenty of White House staffers leaking, along with various "deep bureaucratic state" employees in the State Department, EPA, Department of Energy, etc. Trump, in his typical fashion, has gone out of his way to be a prick to everybody. His various Cabinet heads have followed suit. Pushback was inevitable. Jeff Sessions trying to root out the leakers is a Fool's Errand.

It wouldn't surprise me if Trump is doing plenty of off-the-record leaking. He has a long history of that.

It has also been said that Bannon is literally taking his role within the Administration day by day. Hey, everybody who signed on with Trump had to have known Trump has very, very few longstanding ties far as loyalty goes. Bannon's no dummy, wrongheaded as I think he is on a whole host of issues. Bannon knows Trump won't hesitate to ditch him in a heartbeat of [Trump] suddenly determines such a move serves his interests. This whole blather about Steve Bannon being some iconic, indispensable totemic figure to Trump's hardcore base is bullshit.

What got Trump elected was people were just tired of career politicians. They were willing to give an outsider a chance for the simple fact that it couldn't get any worse than it already was. Simple as that. It's not that Trump was that great it's that Hillary stunk so bad. The Dems shot themselves in the head running that bitch. Would Trump have beaten Bernie or someone else? Maybe not.

Nickdfresh
08-18-2017, 03:10 PM
I would say the US Civil War was historical. Do you remove a monument just because some ass wipes throw a tirade? A tirade over something that has nothing to do with the monuments. Nobody gave a damn until the media hyped it anyways.

Except many monuments, like the Lee statue in Charlotte, were essentially put up by the KKK during its resurgence in the 1920's. Not like in the period of 1866-1900, of which most monuments I have no problem with. There's even monuments in the North at Gettysburg where thousands of Confederate soldiers bravely (and stupidly) died in Pickett's Charge. BTW, Gen. Lee wanted no Confederate monuments and refused to fly the Confederate (Army's battle) flag while he was a dean at a southern college...

And a bunch of nazi fucktards marching with Tiki torches, in their latently gay hipster haircuts and chanting "Jews will not replace us!", could give fuckall about the history of the American Civil War...

Nitro Express
08-18-2017, 03:23 PM
Except many monuments, like the Lee statue in Charlotte, were essentially put up by the KKK during its resurgence in the 1920's. Not like in the period of 1866-1900, of which most monuments I have no problem with. There's even monuments in the North at Gettysburg where thousands of Confederate soldiers bravely (and stupidly) died in Pickett's Charge. BTW, Gen. Lee wanted no Confederate monuments and refused to fly the Confederate (Army's battle) flag while he was a dean at a southern college...

And a bunch of nazi fucktards marching with Tiki torches, in their latently gay hipster haircuts and chanting "Jews will not replace us!", could give fuckall about the history of the American Civil War...

Ah someone engineered all this to get reactions out of people. Create some nazis for the left to hate and and then use that to motivate people to tear down Confederate monuments in hopes this creates a backlash of some sort while the media calls everyone the left hates racists. Especially Trump. It's all so contrived.

Seshmeister
08-18-2017, 04:27 PM
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trumps-golf-course-plaque-honors-fake-civil-war-battle-w498383

Donald Trump's Golf Course Plaque Honors Fake Civil War Battle

http://img.wennermedia.com/article-leads-horizontal-800/donald-trump-virginia-golf-course-civil-war-plaque-3cd15650-fb3a-4972-b5f6-1fb8a3b96379.jpg

A 2015 report about a factually inaccurate plaque featured at Donald Trump's Northern Virginia Trump National Golf Club has resurfaced this week in light of the president's controversial remarks about the violent weekend in Charlottesville – and his tweets about preserving Civil War memorabilia Thursday.

The New York Times story, published with the headline "In Renovation of Golf Club, Donald Trump Also Dressed Up History," historians disputed the veracity of a plaque that sits between the 14th hole and the 15th tee of one of the club’s two courses.

The plaque, which is attached to a flagpole on a stone pedestal overlooking the Potomac, reads: "Many great American soldiers, both of the North and South, died at this spot. The casualties were so great that the water would turn red and thus became known as 'The River of Blood.' It is my great honor to have preserved this important section of the Potomac River!"

A Trump family crest appears under the inscription, along with Trump's full name. The plaque purportedly designates that portion of the Potomac as "The River of Blood."

According to the Times story, three historians asserted that no such battle or designation has ever been given to that spot.

"No. Uh-uh. No way. Nothing like that ever happened there," Richard Gillespie, the executive director of the Mosby Heritage Area Association, told the Times. "The only thing that was remotely close to that" was something that took place 11 miles up the river. The conflict there was known as the Battle of Ball's Bluff, took place in 1861 and involved several hundred deaths on the Union side.

Trump was adamant about the accuracy of the plaque, however, and told the publication that he was certain the area was "a prime site for river crossings. So if people are crossing the river, and you happen to be in a civil war, I would say that people were shot – a lot of them."

The closest historic spot where crossings took place during the Civil War is indeed not too far from Trump's club, but according to the historians, no one died in a crossing at that point, or in any other notable battle in the nearby area.

Retorted real estate mogul: "How would they know that? Were they there?"

Trump, a self-professed "big history fan," was unable to name the historians he claimed had told him the site was known as the River of Blood.

Seshmeister
08-18-2017, 05:03 PM
4 down...


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/13F46/production/_97443718_bannonannotate.jpg

Va Beach VH Fan
08-18-2017, 07:35 PM
What got Trump elected was people were just tired of career politicians. They were willing to give an outsider a chance for the simple fact that it couldn't get any worse than it already was. Simple as that. It's not that Trump was that great it's that Hillary stunk so bad. The Dems shot themselves in the head running that bitch. Would Trump have beaten Bernie or someone else? Maybe not.


I agree in retrospect that the Dems put all of their eggs, in a DNC point of view, into the Hillary basket WAAAAAY too early. Their bias towards Hillary wasn't even hidden, it was TOO obvious....

That said, what would (or COULD is the better way to phrase it) she have done in her first six months in office that would have been so horrible, especially considering how obstructionist the Republican Congress was throughout the Obama presidency?

Raise taxes on millionaires? Nope, it would be blocked....

Attempt to tweak Obamacare? Nope, it would be blocked....

Infrastructure? Nope, it would be blocked....

The only thing she probably could have done is nominate Garland to the Supreme Court (assuming), although the Republicans would make that as painful as possible before finally relenting....

Seshmeister
08-18-2017, 08:04 PM
I agree in retrospect that the Dems put all of their eggs, in a DNC point of view, into the Hillary basket WAAAAAY too early. Their bias towards Hillary wasn't even hidden, it was TOO obvious....



The "because it's her turn" slogan may be one of the worst ideas in electoral history.

The Nitro statement about people voting for Trump because 'it couldn't get any worse than it already was' is exactly correct and the same reason that Brexit too happened, both on very narrow majorities but anyhoo.

That people could think that things couldn't get any worse is astonishing. Things can always get much much worse. I wonder if it's a lack of knowledge of history but then in both the Trump vote and Brexit it was the old people that voted for it. Here's a thought after another atrocity in Spain yesterday, terrorist murders in Europe are a small fraction now than they were in the 1970s. Public disorder, killings in the US, again a small fraction of what they were.

Bullshit however is up big time.

Terry
08-18-2017, 08:11 PM
What got Trump elected was people were just tired of career politicians. They were willing to give an outsider a chance for the simple fact that it couldn't get any worse than it already was. Simple as that. It's not that Trump was that great it's that Hillary stunk so bad. The Dems shot themselves in the head running that bitch. Would Trump have beaten Bernie or someone else? Maybe not.

Apparently, at least in terms of the popular vote and the registered voters who bothered to turn out, three million more people weren't tired of career politicians than the ones who were. At least in terms of the choice being Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Could Hillary have been beaten by anybody other than Donald Trump?

Terry
08-18-2017, 08:19 PM
I agree in retrospect that the Dems put all of their eggs, in a DNC point of view, into the Hillary basket WAAAAAY too early. Their bias towards Hillary wasn't even hidden, it was TOO obvious....

That said, what would (or COULD is the better way to phrase it) she have done in her first six months in office that would have been so horrible, especially considering how obstructionist the Republican Congress was throughout the Obama presidency?

Raise taxes on millionaires? Nope, it would be blocked....

Attempt to tweak Obamacare? Nope, it would be blocked....

Infrastructure? Nope, it would be blocked....

The only thing she probably could have done is nominate Garland to the Supreme Court (assuming), although the Republicans would make that as painful as possible before finally relenting....

Had she been elected, Congressional investigations over The Clinton Foundation and everything else under the sun would have taken off immediately.

However, if the Congressional Republicans approached those hypothetical investigations with the same competency as they did with the "repeal and replace" health insurance reform, Hillary would have had little to worry about.

I mean, 7 years to get their shit together, they control all three branches of government and they can't even convincingly explain their strategy, rollout, funding/financing and the basic math of it in a way that convinced enough people it would be worth supporting? McConnell couldn't even get the fucking VOTES in line? Some "Master of the Senate":headscratch:

Thankfully these republicans are proving to be as inept, disorganized and dysfunctional as the democrats: if either faction actually had their shit halfway together, they could possibly do us all some real damage.

Seshmeister
08-18-2017, 08:41 PM
I try to avoid being in a bubble and to read stuff from all sides, I think that's important.

This just popped up on my feed and it really just shows the ridiculous point things have got to now...

http://theconservativetruth.com/just-discovered-obama-gave-neo-nazis-5-billions-of-taxpayers-dollars/

Terry
08-18-2017, 09:00 PM
I try to avoid being in a bubble and to read stuff from all sides, I think that's important.

This just popped up on my feed and it really just shows the ridiculous point things have got to now...

http://theconservativetruth.com/just-discovered-obama-gave-neo-nazis-5-billions-of-taxpayers-dollars/


I think it's important to read informed commentary/articles/editorials from a wide range of viewpoints. Bubble-groupthink, regardless of which end of the political spectrum it encapsulates, isn't useful for much other than reinforcing beliefs one already holds to be true. You have to be prepared to challenge the assumptions you have made, as it's pretty tough to learn anything new if you already think you know it all.

The key word, though, is "informed" as in verifiable information. As opposed to a reality created from opinion-based perceptions, where the opinions often can't be articulated by the opinion-holders as to...you know...WHY they hold those opinions to be true, what FACTS they have utilized in formulating those opinions. I think what I'm really describing are belief-based opinions derived from faith-based facts in terms of the ridiculousness of what is passing for 'news' these days in some quarters.

You know, how many times has Sean Spicer or Huckabee Sanders made a glib reply along the lines of "well, the President believes it to be true" when asked about Trump's incorrect assertions on a number of issues? So, therefore, if somebody only believes strongly enough in something that has been proven demonstrably false, it isn't a lie if somebody keeps repeating the untruth because their level of belief in the falsehood is unshaken? Where the fuck does that leave us?

Nitro Express
08-18-2017, 09:37 PM
Had she been elected, Congressional investigations over The Clinton Foundation and everything else under the sun would have taken off immediately.

However, if the Congressional Republicans approached those hypothetical investigations with the same competency as they did with the "repeal and replace" health insurance reform, Hillary would have had little to worry about.

I mean, 7 years to get their shit together, they control all three branches of government and they can't even convincingly explain their strategy, rollout, funding/financing and the basic math of it in a way that convinced enough people it would be worth supporting? McConnell couldn't even get the fucking VOTES in line? Some "Master of the Senate":headscratch:

Thankfully these republicans are proving to be as inept, disorganized and dysfunctional as the democrats: if either faction actually had their shit halfway together, they could possibly do us all some real damage.

Most of the US Congress are crooks. There really is no difference regarding the Dems and Reps as far as corruption goes. I don't know if both parties or even the federal government will survive the corruption and scandals. It really has become a joke. We are witnessing devolution in progress.

Seshmeister
08-19-2017, 07:26 AM
You really need campaign spending limits. It's surprising that the people in there at the moment don't get tired of begging for money 6 hours a day and vote for it, wouldn't you?

The fact they don't shows that deep down they know that the one real skill they have over potential opponents is that they are better at raising money.

Terry
08-19-2017, 07:36 PM
Most of the US Congress are crooks. There really is no difference regarding the Dems and Reps as far as corruption goes. I don't know if both parties or even the federal government will survive the corruption and scandals. It really has become a joke. We are witnessing devolution in progress.

In practical terms, far as legislation goes, neither major political party in the US has a monopoly on wisdom - nor the interests of the non-moneyed classes at heart - as far as I can see.

In the end, it tracks back to what Sesh said about campaign spending limits, along with the harm Citizens v. United did in legalizing the opening of the financial floodgates: you're loyal to the God that feeds you. If I were a politician and my principal/majority donors were Wall Street financial houses or ideologue billionaires like the Koch brothers, you'd better believe I'd make sure their wants and desires were taken care of before everyone else's.

When this whole recent idea of Kid Rock running for the Senate was floated...if it is just a publicity stunt on Rock's part or not, when I take a look at the bulk of people in Congress these days, I'm not seeing or hearing The Astounding Wisdom Of Elected Democracy in action. What I'm seeing largely consists of a bunch of empty suits with law degrees in their background who managed to cobble together victories in no small part because voter apathy is rampant, where winning 55% percent of the vote in any given race (when only 60% of those who could vote actually turned out to do so) can now be called a 'mandate' and the objective of the elected official is to live high on the hog off of the perks of the public teat as long as he/she can, while making sure to grease the donor class with the laws they want passed so after the career in elected politics ends the politician can get a safe landing as a lobbysit or sit on multiple corporate boards or get a job with the televised pundit class...or all three...and then go on to make some REAL big money.

Put another way, I'm not exactly overwhelmed with a sense of awe when I see McConnell, Ryan, Rubio and the like on television. EVen Senators I would tend to agree with more ideologically such as Warren and Sanders have been utterly ineffective when it comes to actually implementing the ideas they so boldly and passionately speak of.

In a way, though, it's just a reflection of where we are as a nation. One way or the other, we usually end up getting the kind of democracy we deserve.

Seshmeister
08-19-2017, 08:57 PM
I think the US and the UK have two of the shittiest systems of democracy because we were early adopters.

Hardly anyone else has these stupid first past the post, pretty much 2 party systems. Everyone else learned from our mistakes and did it better...

Terry
08-19-2017, 10:54 PM
Yes, but at least your Prime Minister has to have enough wits to stand up to Question Time and a thorough grilling on a semi-frequent basis.

Frankly, when I look at such Presidents as Ford, Reagan, GW Bush and Trump, I don't think any of those guys would have lasted (or currently would last) ten seconds in that type of environment, where they can't just read off a teleprompter or take non-threatening questions from the careerists of the White House Press Corps. Where you actually have to KNOW in some detail policy issues and actually know your shit beyond campaign platitudes, otherwise you're going to be eviscerated by the inquiries.

Terry
08-19-2017, 11:00 PM
That's perhaps the oddest thing about Trump, to me, in that he personally hasn't given near the amount of press conferences I thought he would have, being that he loves the sound of his own voice. Although maybe after the last round of them last week, perhaps it's better if he didn't...

Va Beach VH Fan
08-20-2017, 10:23 AM
That's perhaps the oddest thing about Trump, to me, in that he personally hasn't given near the amount of press conferences I thought he would have, being that he loves the sound of his own voice. Although maybe after the last round of them last week, perhaps it's better if he didn't...


He's too ignorant about the issues to do press conferences with any regularity....

He can't give even a high level answer about Afghanistan, or Syria, or health care, or tax reform, or much anything else....

Plus the fact that the last couple of times he's taken questions, it's quickly turned into a circus, in which he's not good at defending himself....

Seshmeister
08-20-2017, 08:08 PM
It was interesting listening to Penn Jillette who spent literally more than 100 hours with Trump speak about it again last week on his podcast, he hated Hilary, is a libertarian and wasn't a fan of GW either.

He said that if you went into a shoe shop with GW Bush he would probably be the smartest guy in the room, Trump wouldn't.

I kind of object to that analogy because I think I'm smarter than GW but his point was more that GW was only dumb by president standards, Trump is just kind of dumb in general.

Maybe a better way of thinking about it is he is that 70 year old uncle who gets all his info from Fox TV and thinks he knows everything. Corners you at family gatherings and is sometimes kind of funny right up until the point he says something about n*****s.

Terry
08-20-2017, 08:36 PM
It was interesting listening to Penn Jillette who spent literally more than 100 hours with Trump speak about it again last week on his podcast, hates Hilary is a libertarian and wasn't a fan if GW either.

He said that if you went into a shoe shop with GW Bush he would probably be the smartest guy in the room, Trump wouldn't.

I kind of object to that analogy because I think I'm smarter than GW but his point was more that GW was only dumb by president standards, Trump is just kind of dumb in general.

Maybe a better way of thinking about it is he is that 70 year old uncle who gets all his info from Fox TV and thinks he knows everything. Corners you at family gatherings and is sometimes kind of funny right up until the point he says something about n*****s.

I never bought into the notion that W Bush was a dumbass.

Intentionally simplistic, mildy dyslexic and willfully ignorant? Yes. Not what I would call stupid, though.

Trump I think just views everything through the Darwinist prism he was taught to believe in.

I'm sure Trump really thinks America's greatest days were the two decades following World War II, when America basically ruled the world, and America was ruled by white men (and women and minorities largely knew 'their place'). When things like climate change, economic inequality and social justice were either non-factors or easily relegated to the margins of the national conversation. I'm equally sure Trump thinks he can somehow roll back the clock to that period.

The problem is that Trump hasn't realized those conditions immediately following World War II no longer exist and aren't going to be replicated. America isn't the country it was back then, and the world isn't what it was back then, either. His hardcore followers/voters haven't realized this, either.

You combine all of this with Trump's other longstanding belief that facades, images and appearances can forever cloak realities, you've got a man who is unsuited to lead this country in these times. I also think he has a lack of ability to focus and a lack of ability to think about detailed solutions to complex problems beyond how those problems and solutions directly (and solely) affect him.

Those characteristics matter far beyond his personal demeanor, his boorishness, lack of class and general assholishness. These things are just symptoms which manifest themselves as the result of deeper intellectual and emotional flaws.

I mean, does it really matter if Mike Pence's character traits are more tolerable than those of Trumps if Pence reaches the same conclusions about various political/social/economic/environmental issues that Trump has? Like, all of that is acceptable because Mike Pence is a loudly self-proclaimed Christian who wouldn't dream of grabbing a woman other than his wife by the pussy (and even with his wife strictly for the purposes of procreation within the sanctity of heterosexual, church-recognized marriage)?

Nitro Express
08-23-2017, 11:10 AM
Homosexuality actually plays a big component in Nazism. Some times repressed, sometimes celebrated as some Spartan throwback of child rape and prison prostitution...

Meet Ernst Rohm:

https://daily.jstor.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ernst_rohm_1050x700.jpg

https://daily.jstor.org/ernst-rohm-the-highest-ranking-gay-nazi/

I never thought about this before but what you are implying is Sammy Hagar is a Nazi.

Va Beach VH Fan
08-26-2017, 09:59 AM
I never bought into the notion that W Bush was a dumbass.

Intentionally simplistic, mildy dyslexic and willfully ignorant? Yes. Not what I would call stupid, though.


I would agree with that. I think simplistic really nails it.

In fact, in reference to what he will go to his grave with the first line of his obituary, the war in Iraq, and the genned-up bullshit "evidence" that came leading up to it, came as a result of Saddam's attempted assassination of Daddy Bush in 1993. 9/11 simply gave him the opportunity to pull it off.

Terry
08-26-2017, 10:28 AM
I would agree with that. I think simplistic really nails it.

In fact, in reference to what he will go to his grave with the first line of his obituary, the war in Iraq, and the genned-up bullshit "evidence" that came leading up to it, came as a result of Saddam's attempted assassination of Daddy Bush in 1993. 9/11 simply gave him the opportunity to pull it off.

Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton and the rest of the neo-con lot - under the auspices of Cheney - that came back into government after the Supreme Court appointment of W to the presidency in December of 2000...none of those guys in 1991 thought HW Bush's response re: Iraq was adequate. Those guys all believed that the US should have toppled Hussein in the first Gulf War. They all also believed that a US-occupied/controlled Iraq represented what could be a foothold for US strategic interests in the region.

I mean, they were - I think - true believers about this stuff. There wasn't much cynicism in their circles about this. They bought into their own hype that it would be fairly easy, wouldn't require a lot of boots on the ground because the superior US air power and missile capabilities would bring Iraq to heel with relative ease, that reconciling the multiple ethnic factions within Iraq wouldn't be problematic...the neo-cons were blinded by their own sense of intellect and hubris over what they thought was the righteousness of the US cause with regard to Iraq.

All of that momentum was being ramped up from January of 2001 up until September 11th of the same year by those guys. W went along with all of it, and frankly so did the American media. The intelligence about Iraq's weapons capacity, capabilities and intent was cooked in the sense that the threats were cherry-picked and grossly exaggerated by Cheney and his gang. The immediate aftermath of 9/11 made all of this easy to swallow by the bulk of the American public.

All of these neo-cons weren't really ready to fight an asymmetrical war with terrorists, which is certainly what the 9/11 attacks were. They were more comfortable with the notion of fighting a conventional war with a nation state. Because fighting something porous or amorphous like a terrorist organization that isn't tethered to a specific region is much more difficult: how can you ever be sure you've eradicated all the terrorist cells, or that for every one terrorist you're killing you're not breeding two more? Plus, if you're going to fight a quiet war using subtle means, it requires not boasting about success and being prepared to fight that fight for an indefinite period of time.

It's distressing that Trump is now willing to go down into the Afghanistan rabbit hole, but in a way he has no choice. Not to do so would leave him open to claims of being insufficient in terms of combating terrorists, but the idea of there being a quantifiable goal that can actually be eventually reached...I don't see it. The Gulf War Part 2 was an instance of trying to create a war with such a goal. The result hasn't been a stabilization of Iraq, nor has it been an eradication of terrorism.

Unfortunately, the only lesson America has learned from its mistakes is how to repeat them perfectly again and again.

Seshmeister
08-26-2017, 02:58 PM
I would agree with that. I think simplistic really nails it.

In fact, in reference to what he will go to his grave with the first line of his obituary, the war in Iraq, and the genned-up bullshit "evidence" that came leading up to it, came as a result of Saddam's attempted assassination of Daddy Bush in 1993. 9/11 simply gave him the opportunity to pull it off.

Someone asked him what he thought his legacy would be and he answered 'who cares we'll be dead'.

Nitro Express
08-26-2017, 11:46 PM
Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton and the rest of the neo-con lot - under the auspices of Cheney - that came back into government after the Supreme Court appointment of W to the presidency in December of 2000...none of those guys in 1991 thought HW Bush's response re: Iraq was adequate. Those guys all believed that the US should have toppled Hussein in the first Gulf War. They all also believed that a US-occupied/controlled Iraq represented what could be a foothold for US strategic interests in the region.

I mean, they were - I think - true believers about this stuff. There wasn't much cynicism in their circles about this. They bought into their own hype that it would be fairly easy, wouldn't require a lot of boots on the ground because the superior US air power and missile capabilities would bring Iraq to heel with relative ease, that reconciling the multiple ethnic factions within Iraq wouldn't be problematic...the neo-cons were blinded by their own sense of intellect and hubris over what they thought was the righteousness of the US cause with regard to Iraq.

All of that momentum was being ramped up from January of 2001 up until September 11th of the same year by those guys. W went along with all of it, and frankly so did the American media. The intelligence about Iraq's weapons capacity, capabilities and intent was cooked in the sense that the threats were cherry-picked and grossly exaggerated by Cheney and his gang. The immediate aftermath of 9/11 made all of this easy to swallow by the bulk of the American public.

All of these neo-cons weren't really ready to fight an asymmetrical war with terrorists, which is certainly what the 9/11 attacks were. They were more comfortable with the notion of fighting a conventional war with a nation state. Because fighting something porous or amorphous like a terrorist organization that isn't tethered to a specific region is much more difficult: how can you ever be sure you've eradicated all the terrorist cells, or that for every one terrorist you're killing you're not breeding two more? Plus, if you're going to fight a quiet war using subtle means, it requires not boasting about success and being prepared to fight that fight for an indefinite period of time.

It's distressing that Trump is now willing to go down into the Afghanistan rabbit hole, but in a way he has no choice. Not to do so would leave him open to claims of being insufficient in terms of combating terrorists, but the idea of there being a quantifiable goal that can actually be eventually reached...I don't see it. The Gulf War Part 2 was an instance of trying to create a war with such a goal. The result hasn't been a stabilization of Iraq, nor has it been an eradication of terrorism.

Unfortunately, the only lesson America has learned from its mistakes is how to repeat them perfectly again and again.

Trump deploying more troops to Afghanistan is breaking his promise to get us out of unnecessary deployments. Everyone knows we don't need to be over there and it's gone on for 18 years. You are spot on about the neocons. This is all about making money. Eisenhower warned this kind of stuff would happen.

Terry
08-28-2017, 09:17 AM
Trump deploying more troops to Afghanistan is breaking his promise to get us out of unnecessary deployments. Everyone knows we don't need to be over there and it's gone on for 18 years. You are spot on about the neocons. This is all about making money. Eisenhower warned this kind of stuff would happen.

Trump's inclination - one of the few things he was consistent about in his comments for the last decade or so - was that Afghanistan and Iraq were mistakes. Not just in terms of the mechanics of how those conflicts were pursued, but the total rationale for going in. Same with Libya, Syria, etc.

Thus, his recent speech was...whatever the value of the reportage that Trump was disinclined to re-engage in Afghanistan prior to meeting with the generals, if that was truthful or not or just a planted story to provide cover for Trump in terms of allocating possible future blame ("I didn't want to put more troops in, but the generals said they could win...Generals are Bad!")...it was just disheartening to see him decide to re-up the ante in Afghanistan in terms of conventional forces and speak the teleprompter text that he expected to "win" in Afghanistan.

As far as Eisenhower and the military-industrial complex, you have roughly 25% of GDP funding the military: it's only natural to follow that you're going to have to utilize the military in some fashion to justify the perpetuation of conventional weapons manufacturing and maintaining armed forces personnel. Otherwise, why spend so much money? Eisenhower was also pretty spot-on about missile defense systems, in that once you have reached the capability of essentially destroying the entire planet, any missiles built beyond that point are just a waste: once you have a sufficient deterrent, producing arms beyond that doesn't make the deterrent any stronger. Now, we are looking at spending a trillion dollars to overhaul, modernize and upgrade our nuclear capability. All for weapons that nobody short of the insane wants to see used...ever. It's crazy on the face of it and crazy through and through, despite what the usual cast of Pentagon-advocating talking heads will say in terms of the necessity of it (as they have been for 50 years now).

Seshmeister
08-28-2017, 09:37 AM
Someone asked him what he thought his legacy would be and he answered 'who cares we'll be dead'.

When I said 'Someone' I should have looked it up in these days of 'fake news', I got the quote a bit wrong too. :)



George W. Bush, when asked by Bob Woodward "how is history likely to judge your Iraq war?" replied, "History, we don't know. We'll all be dead." (Woodward Shares War Secrets, CBS News, 60 Minutes, April 18, 2004).


There seem to be various thesis around on how this showed that Bush expects the apocalypse and is a big Revelations follower like our own FORD.

To me it's more likely he was just shrugging.

vandeleur
08-28-2017, 10:21 AM
Ford has left the building ... choked on his home brew carrot and fig lager :D

Nickdfresh
08-29-2017, 10:07 AM
Trump deploying more troops to Afghanistan is breaking his promise to get us out of unnecessary deployments...

Which promise hasn't he broken?

Seshmeister
08-29-2017, 10:09 AM
Ford has left the building ... choked on his home brew carrot and fig lager :D

Run out of town by DONNIEP and his crew? :D

https://i.imgur.com/xdxvnyA.jpg

vandeleur
08-29-2017, 11:23 AM
Run out of town by DONNIEP and his crew? :D

https://i.imgur.com/xdxvnyA.jpg

Haha can I guess which one is Donnie :biggrin:

Von Halen
08-29-2017, 11:44 AM
Haha can I guess which one is Donnie :biggrin:

The one to the right of NickDickless?

Nitro Express
08-29-2017, 04:57 PM
Which promise hasn't he broken?

The border is more secure than it was. He really can't do anything with healthcare unless the Republican Party wants to work with him. A lot of Trump not being able to fulfill promises is the Republicans in the congress are breaking their campaign promises. As far as deploying more troops to Afghanistan goes Trump owns that mistake. As Terry has said he was against more troop deployments before he even ran for president and he campaigned on getting us out of unnecessary conflicts.

Nitro Express
08-29-2017, 05:00 PM
Trump's inclination - one of the few things he was consistent about in his comments for the last decade or so - was that Afghanistan and Iraq were mistakes. Not just in terms of the mechanics of how those conflicts were pursued, but the total rationale for going in. Same with Libya, Syria, etc.

Thus, his recent speech was...whatever the value of the reportage that Trump was disinclined to re-engage in Afghanistan prior to meeting with the generals, if that was truthful or not or just a planted story to provide cover for Trump in terms of allocating possible future blame ("I didn't want to put more troops in, but the generals said they could win...Generals are Bad!")...it was just disheartening to see him decide to re-up the ante in Afghanistan in terms of conventional forces and speak the teleprompter text that he expected to "win" in Afghanistan.

As far as Eisenhower and the military-industrial complex, you have roughly 25% of GDP funding the military: it's only natural to follow that you're going to have to utilize the military in some fashion to justify the perpetuation of conventional weapons manufacturing and maintaining armed forces personnel. Otherwise, why spend so much money? Eisenhower was also pretty spot-on about missile defense systems, in that once you have reached the capability of essentially destroying the entire planet, any missiles built beyond that point are just a waste: once you have a sufficient deterrent, producing arms beyond that doesn't make the deterrent any stronger. Now, we are looking at spending a trillion dollars to overhaul, modernize and upgrade our nuclear capability. All for weapons that nobody short of the insane wants to see used...ever. It's crazy on the face of it and crazy through and through, despite what the usual cast of Pentagon-advocating talking heads will say in terms of the necessity of it (as they have been for 50 years now).

The problem with Afghanistan is we have no clear objective there. It's a failed state with no real functioning government. We have been there with our thumb up our ass for 18 years. I wish I was making money off it.

Terry
08-29-2017, 07:06 PM
The border is more secure than it was. He really can't do anything with healthcare unless the Republican Party wants to work with him. A lot of Trump not being able to fulfill promises is the Republicans in the congress are breaking their campaign promises. As far as deploying more troops to Afghanistan goes Trump owns that mistake. As Terry has said he was against more troop deployments before he even ran for president and he campaigned on getting us out of unnecessary conflicts.

A lot of Trump not being able to fulfill promises is that Trump isn't going to be able to provide "wonderful health care - better than we've ever seen - for everybody" via Executive Order. Plus, much like Trumps "tax plan" Trump's "healthcare plan" (or the Repeal and Replace Ryan plan) isn't one his voters wanted once they got beyond the campaign rhetoric and discovered both plans amount to giving massive tax breaks to the top 10% and everybody else the middle finger.

Infrastructure is something Trump might actually be able to do something with, but the idea of massively defunding various federal governmental agencies in an attempt to get them to collapse via neglect, giving perfunctory block grants to individual states to do with as they please (in terms of funding health insurance, individual state infrastructure, etc.) and calling that a "national health insurance plan" or a "national infrastructure plan" isn't going to pass muster. Even Trump's most hardcore supporters are going to expect something tangible from him at some point, and him merely pointing his finger at Congress (or Obama, or Hillary, or immigrants, or Islamic terrorists, or the 'fake news media') and blaming them for [Trump's] failures...I mean, maybe that will work long enough to get him a 2nd term...

Nickdfresh
08-29-2017, 07:30 PM
Haha can I guess which one is Donnie :biggrin:

He's the one next to VonHagar;;;
http://www.newnownext.com/wp-content/uploads/backlot/richardsimmonsimg01.jpg

Terry
08-29-2017, 07:34 PM
The problem with Afghanistan is we have no clear objective there. It's a failed state with no real functioning government. We have been there with our thumb up our ass for 18 years. I wish I was making money off it.

In addition, every Afghani faction knows that America won't be there forever. Even if we put 100,000 more troops in there, in the short term we might be able to - at best - temporarily secure the political and religious infighting. Long run, it'll just go back to shit when we eventually declare 'victory' and pull the bulk of our troops out. The nation has had no real economy outside of opium for decades, and the chances of America bringing anything resembling US democracy there that would actually take root and hold in terms of the long run...nothing short of invading the entire country, completely taking it over and remaining there forever is going to make that happen.

4,000 more troops (or whatever number the generals have convinced Trump will get the 'job' done) is a mere band aid on a mortal wound.

Nitro Express
08-29-2017, 08:49 PM
A lot of Trump not being able to fulfill promises is that Trump isn't going to be able to provide "wonderful health care - better than we've ever seen - for everybody" via Executive Order. Plus, much like Trumps "tax plan" Trump's "healthcare plan" (or the Repeal and Replace Ryan plan) isn't one his voters wanted once they got beyond the campaign rhetoric and discovered both plans amount to giving massive tax breaks to the top 10% and everybody else the middle finger

Infrastructure is something Trump might actually be able to do something with, but the idea of massively defunding various federal governmental agencies in an attempt to get them to collapse via neglect, giving perfunctory block grants to individual states to do with as they please (in terms of funding health insurance, individual state infrastructure, etc.) and calling that a "national health insurance plan" or a "national infrastructure plan" isn't going to pass muster. Even Trump's most hardcore supporters are going to expect something tangible from him at some point, and him merely pointing his finger at Congress (or Obama, or Hillary, or immigrants, or Islamic terrorists, or the 'fake news media') and blaming them for [Trump's] failures...I mean, maybe that will work long enough to get him a 2nd term...

There is so much infighting and back stabbing now we are politically fucked. Everyone is just out for themselves to the point we are killing the golden goose. We are headed for a collapse.

Terry
08-29-2017, 09:57 PM
There is so much infighting and back stabbing now we are politically fucked. Everyone is just out for themselves to the point we are killing the golden goose. We are headed for a collapse.

We have a massively banked elite who have spent the last 40 years paying off elected officials of both parties to allow American businesses to relocate manufacturing jobs overseas with virtually nothing in the way of meaningful penalties in terms of tariffs or taxes to dissuade these corporations from doing so. We've got a financial sector that is free to do virtually whatever they want in an essentially consequence-free environment in terms of whatever fines DO end up being attached to these companies for breaking the law are much, much smaller than the profits to be made for doing so. We have a prison system that has become more and more privatized, which only incentivizes putting more and more people (usually the poor) in the prisons. We have local police forces who have become virtually militarized in terms of the hardware and policing tactics they utilize to keep the underclasses in line. A majority of our citizenry would find it difficult to come up with $1,000 in cash at any given time in the event of an emergency. Everybody is floating on credit. Our population is rapidly aging in terms of the median population age (and overall we're getting fatter as a society): the elderly are living longer on the whole, but now people are beginning to outlive their retirement savings. Wages have flat lined for the working class for decades. 90% of us working at Walmart/Starbucks while the other 10% swap and trade bad loans and packaged debt doesn't seem to be viable. And all of the above is just a start!! You and I and everyone else on this site could keep adding to this list for pages and pages.

Yeah, it feels like we're on the verge of something that's not going to be pleasant, to say the least. It's hard to imagine this way of life being sustained in the manner that it currently is for much longer: at some point, it's probably gonna snap.

Nitro Express
08-31-2017, 10:29 PM
The "because it's her turn" slogan may be one of the worst ideas in electoral history.

The Nitro statement about people voting for Trump because 'it couldn't get any worse than it already was' is exactly correct and the same reason that Brexit too happened, both on very narrow majorities but anyhoo.

That people could think that things couldn't get any worse is astonishing. Things can always get much much worse. I wonder if it's a lack of knowledge of history but then in both the Trump vote and Brexit it was the old people that voted for it. Here's a thought after another atrocity in Spain yesterday, terrorist murders in Europe are a small fraction now than they were in the 1970s. Public disorder, killings in the US, again a small fraction of what they were.

Bullshit however is up big time.

You also have to add in that the Democratic Party stole Bernie Sander's nomination and gave it to Hillary. That pissed people off.

Nitro Express
08-31-2017, 10:30 PM
Bernie was popular. I don't know if Trump could have beat Bernie fever.

Nitro Express
08-31-2017, 10:33 PM
We have a massively banked elite who have spent the last 40 years paying off elected officials of both parties to allow American businesses to relocate manufacturing jobs overseas with virtually nothing in the way of meaningful penalties in terms of tariffs or taxes to dissuade these corporations from doing so. We've got a financial sector that is free to do virtually whatever they want in an essentially consequence-free environment in terms of whatever fines DO end up being attached to these companies for breaking the law are much, much smaller than the profits to be made for doing so. We have a prison system that has become more and more privatized, which only incentivizes putting more and more people (usually the poor) in the prisons. We have local police forces who have become virtually militarized in terms of the hardware and policing tactics they utilize to keep the underclasses in line. A majority of our citizenry would find it difficult to come up with $1,000 in cash at any given time in the event of an emergency. Everybody is floating on credit. Our population is rapidly aging in terms of the median population age (and overall we're getting fatter as a society): the elderly are living longer on the whole, but now people are beginning to outlive their retirement savings. Wages have flat lined for the working class for decades. 90% of us working at Walmart/Starbucks while the other 10% swap and trade bad loans and packaged debt doesn't seem to be viable. And all of the above is just a start!! You and I and everyone else on this site could keep adding to this list for pages and pages.

Yeah, it feels like we're on the verge of something that's not going to be pleasant, to say the least. It's hard to imagine this way of life being sustained in the manner that it currently is for much longer: at some point, it's probably gonna snap.

She's gonna blow captain she can't take no more!

Seshmeister
09-01-2017, 07:29 AM
Bernie was popular. I don't know if Trump could have beat Bernie fever.

Apparently 10-15% of Bernie voters switched to Trump.

Nickdfresh
09-01-2017, 12:15 PM
You also have to add in that the Democratic Party stole Bernie Sander's nomination and gave it to Hillary. That pissed people off.

They didn't "steal" it, Hillary always had the delegates. And I wanted Bernie...

Nickdfresh
09-01-2017, 12:19 PM
Bernie was popular. I don't know if Trump could have beat Bernie fever.


Bernie would have gotten much of Trump's voting demographic and would have generated more of the youth vote...

Seshmeister
09-01-2017, 07:44 PM
They didn't "steal" it, Hillary always had the delegates. And I wanted Bernie...

Where's FORD?

In his absence have you seen this?

http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/

Terry
09-02-2017, 10:37 AM
They didn't "steal" it, Hillary always had the delegates. And I wanted Bernie...

Yes, but let's not kid ourselves that the - shall we say - 'centrist establishment' wing of the DNC, which had control of the apparatus, wanted what amounted to a smooth coronation of Hillary Clinton going back as far as the day after the 2012 election.

The (I think needlessly) overcomplicated allocation of delegates in the primaries and caucuses did mean in the end that Hillary Clinton won the majority of primary votes based on the rules of the road. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her cronies may well have honestly believed that Bernie getting the nomination rather than Hillary would have meant certain defeat for the party. They may have honestly believed this in spite of the way the math was stacking up during the primary season, where Hillary was winning her largest margins in southern states that NO democrat would have even hoped to have possibly carried in a general election. Yet you heard all these fantasies: "Oooh! Hillary is competitive in Georgia! She is catching up in Texas!!! She could win Arizona!!!!" - how did all of THAT work out come November? As opposed to asking, "What the hell is happening in Michigan and Wisconsin? Why is California so close? Why is it taking so long for Hillary to put Sanders away in a convincing way, considering virtually the entirety of the mainstream media is acting as shills for Hillary? Why IS Sanders able to raise such vast sums of money entirely via small donation sums, with no corporate assistance?"

Whatever rigging during primary season that occurred - and to be clear, it did occur - was a symptom of the DNC whistling past the graveyard in terms of the red flags/hairs raising on the back of the neck moments the Sanders candidacy should have raised. But nobody wanted to vocalize it. Everybody fell into the groupthink that if only Hillary got past the primaries, she was a shoo-in come November, because she couldn't possibly lose to Donald Trump (or Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio, or Jeb Bush)!

Then in comes Lynch, Comey, the email server rears its ugly head again and again, Trump weaponizes her husbands bimbos against her in the 2nd debate, WikiLeaks releases her emails which show her and her cronies to be the money-grubbing corporate stooges everyone had suspected they always were...death by a thousand cuts, at least 900 of them self-inflicted.

Hillary Clinton's legacy will be that she lost to Donald Trump in an election that she should have easily won but for the fact that she was who she is, that she'll never accept personal responsibility for that loss in a proportion larger than outside/external sources (racism, sexism) which were out of her control, and that probably all she needed to do was have Sanders ON HER FUCKING TICKET instead of that perennial ineffectual weasel Kaine and she'd be in the White House today.