In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
I'm no longer predicting Trump. It would appear that after so many years of ineffective leaders, people would rather have a strong man type than one who shares their principles. I'm not sure how his victory is inevitable, or how he is running away. Fully 2/3rd of GOP primary voters want someone else. Unfortunately, things are too split. If either Rubio or Cruz were to drop out today, I have a feeling Trump would no longer be leading after SC.
I'm a rather pessimistic person, but I haven't written it off. I rarely make predictions, and after trying once with Trump it's a reminder to not do so again.
Do you have a candidate you are supporting other than Trump or are you just a spectator?
I have my favorites. All I say is I like the actual conservatives, not the fake ones.
So just a spectator then?
Are you asking if I campaign for people?
Whether you actually engage in supporting a candidate in the nomination process or just bitch and whine when they don't win, is what I'm asking.
I don't "bitch and whine" so I'm not sure what you are talking about. I support candidates and ideas among people I know. The rest is none of anyone's business.
If you can't even admit who you support on an anonymous forum you're not a very good supporter. I love the "none of your business" line though lol.
"Bitch and whine" refers to the never ending chorus of conservatives saying their nominees aren't conservatives yet not even being able to say who they supported until after they lose.
Maybe it's because I don't want to go down in the weeds? You realize we are still on a subject you kept pressing.
I'm confused why you place so much emphasis on TL. I don't come here to campaign or advocate for things. I know you are super excited for Sanders and all, but I'm just here to pass the time. I press for things with people in real life, not over the internet.
Edit: meanwhile conservatives do support people, that's what's going on in the primaries right now. It's why there was a blowout in 2010.
There is nothing wrong campaigning for someone that you like, that's how democracy work.
There is nothing to feel ashamed for cheering on who you think its right to support.
But however, that's not going to stop people from criticizing you afterward though.
So you got to be brave.
I don't waste my time doing so on TL.
Edit: I'll debate and get into it on issues, or things people say, but campaigning for people is something different.
On February 17 2016 14:32 KwarK wrote: Trump is very conservative on taxes and redistribution. His tax plan will require huge cuts to public services to compensate for his tax cuts.
He is banking on the free market running its course which may or may not work.
He might be overestimating people's abilities or he might make the best of everybody.
On February 17 2016 13:13 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Do you have a candidate you are supporting other than Trump or are you just a spectator?
I have my favorites. All I say is I like the actual conservatives, not the fake ones.
So just a spectator then?
Are you asking if I campaign for people?
Whether you actually engage in supporting a candidate in the nomination process or just bitch and whine when they don't win, is what I'm asking.
I don't "bitch and whine" so I'm not sure what you are talking about. I support candidates and ideas among people I know. The rest is none of anyone's business.
If you can't even admit who you support on an anonymous forum you're not a very good supporter. I love the "none of your business" line though lol.
"Bitch and whine" refers to the never ending chorus of conservatives saying their nominees aren't conservatives yet not even being able to say who they supported until after they lose.
Maybe it's because I don't want to go down in the weeds? You realize we are still on a subject you kept pressing.
I'm confused why you place so much emphasis on TL. I don't come here to campaign or advocate for things. I know you are super excited for Sanders and all, but I'm just here to pass the time. I press for things with people in real life, not over the internet.
Edit: meanwhile conservatives do support people, that's what's going on in the primaries right now. It's why there was a blowout in 2010.
There is nothing wrong campaigning for someone that you like, that's how democracy work.
There is nothing to feel ashamed for cheering on who you think its right to support.
But however, that's not going to stop people from criticizing you afterward though.
So you got to be brave.
I don't waste my time doing so on TL.
Edit: I'll debate and get into it on issues, or things people say, but campaigning for people is something different.
Fair enough, I am sitting as bystander too just btw. But I will criticize bullshits when I see it.
On February 17 2016 13:13 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Do you have a candidate you are supporting other than Trump or are you just a spectator?
I have my favorites. All I say is I like the actual conservatives, not the fake ones.
So just a spectator then?
Are you asking if I campaign for people?
Whether you actually engage in supporting a candidate in the nomination process or just bitch and whine when they don't win, is what I'm asking.
I don't "bitch and whine" so I'm not sure what you are talking about. I support candidates and ideas among people I know. The rest is none of anyone's business.
If you can't even admit who you support on an anonymous forum you're not a very good supporter. I love the "none of your business" line though lol.
"Bitch and whine" refers to the never ending chorus of conservatives saying their nominees aren't conservatives yet not even being able to say who they supported until after they lose.
Maybe it's because I don't want to go down in the weeds? You realize we are still on a subject you kept pressing.
I'm confused why you place so much emphasis on TL. I don't come here to campaign or advocate for things. I know you are super excited for Sanders and all, but I'm just here to pass the time. I press for things with people in real life, not over the internet.
Edit: meanwhile conservatives do support people, that's what's going on in the primaries right now. It's why there was a blowout in 2010.
There is nothing wrong campaigning for someone that you like, that's how democracy work.
There is nothing to feel ashamed for cheering on who you think its right to support.
But however, that's not going to stop people from criticizing you afterward though.
So you got to be brave.
I don't waste my time doing so on TL.
Edit: I'll debate and get into it on issues, or things people say, but campaigning for people is something different.
This is one of many reasons why you'll lose. You are trying to get specific people to come to your mystery candidate. What we're after is getting people involved.
You won't win in the future that way either. Informing/educating people and engaging them in the process is a winning strategy. There's a huge portion of the population that doesn't vote. By convincing them they can and should be engaged and get informed from diverse resources in order to come to their own conclusions and then listening first and discussing those issues with them we gain a more powerful society and come to better conclusions.
I don't think anyone is buying your not openly identifying a candidate/s as anything other than a strategy to keep a rhetorical advantage.
On February 17 2016 13:55 Introvert wrote: [quote]
I have my favorites. All I say is I like the actual conservatives, not the fake ones.
So just a spectator then?
Are you asking if I campaign for people?
Whether you actually engage in supporting a candidate in the nomination process or just bitch and whine when they don't win, is what I'm asking.
I don't "bitch and whine" so I'm not sure what you are talking about. I support candidates and ideas among people I know. The rest is none of anyone's business.
If you can't even admit who you support on an anonymous forum you're not a very good supporter. I love the "none of your business" line though lol.
"Bitch and whine" refers to the never ending chorus of conservatives saying their nominees aren't conservatives yet not even being able to say who they supported until after they lose.
Maybe it's because I don't want to go down in the weeds? You realize we are still on a subject you kept pressing.
I'm confused why you place so much emphasis on TL. I don't come here to campaign or advocate for things. I know you are super excited for Sanders and all, but I'm just here to pass the time. I press for things with people in real life, not over the internet.
Edit: meanwhile conservatives do support people, that's what's going on in the primaries right now. It's why there was a blowout in 2010.
There is nothing wrong campaigning for someone that you like, that's how democracy work.
There is nothing to feel ashamed for cheering on who you think its right to support.
But however, that's not going to stop people from criticizing you afterward though.
So you got to be brave.
I don't waste my time doing so on TL.
Edit: I'll debate and get into it on issues, or things people say, but campaigning for people is something different.
This is one of many reasons why you'll lose. You are trying to get specific people to come to your mystery candidate. What we're after is getting people involved.
You won't win in the future that way either. Informing/educating people and engaging them in the process is a winning strategy. There's a huge portion of the population that doesn't vote. By convincing them they can and should be engaged and get informed from diverse resources in order to come to their own conclusions and then listening first and discussing those issues with them we gain a more powerful society and come to better conclusions.
I don't think anyone is buying your not openly identifying a candidate/s as anything other than a strategy to keep a rhetorical advantage.
On February 17 2016 13:55 Introvert wrote: [quote]
I have my favorites. All I say is I like the actual conservatives, not the fake ones.
So just a spectator then?
Are you asking if I campaign for people?
Whether you actually engage in supporting a candidate in the nomination process or just bitch and whine when they don't win, is what I'm asking.
I don't "bitch and whine" so I'm not sure what you are talking about. I support candidates and ideas among people I know. The rest is none of anyone's business.
If you can't even admit who you support on an anonymous forum you're not a very good supporter. I love the "none of your business" line though lol.
"Bitch and whine" refers to the never ending chorus of conservatives saying their nominees aren't conservatives yet not even being able to say who they supported until after they lose.
Maybe it's because I don't want to go down in the weeds? You realize we are still on a subject you kept pressing.
I'm confused why you place so much emphasis on TL. I don't come here to campaign or advocate for things. I know you are super excited for Sanders and all, but I'm just here to pass the time. I press for things with people in real life, not over the internet.
Edit: meanwhile conservatives do support people, that's what's going on in the primaries right now. It's why there was a blowout in 2010.
There is nothing wrong campaigning for someone that you like, that's how democracy work.
There is nothing to feel ashamed for cheering on who you think its right to support.
But however, that's not going to stop people from criticizing you afterward though.
So you got to be brave.
I don't waste my time doing so on TL.
Edit: I'll debate and get into it on issues, or things people say, but campaigning for people is something different.
This is one of many reasons why you'll lose. You are trying to get specific people to come to your mystery candidate. What we're after is getting people involved.
You won't win in the future that way either. Informing/educating people and engaging them in the process is a winning strategy. There's a huge portion of the population that doesn't vote. By convincing them they can and should be engaged and get informed from diverse resources in order to come to their own conclusions and then listening first and discussing those issues with them we gain a more powerful society and come to better conclusions.
I don't think anyone is buying your not openly identifying a candidate/s as anything other than a strategy to keep a rhetorical advantage.
Yes, I will lose because I tried to avoid your bait and don't go campaigning on TL. Flawless logic.
On February 17 2016 13:55 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
So just a spectator then?
Are you asking if I campaign for people?
Whether you actually engage in supporting a candidate in the nomination process or just bitch and whine when they don't win, is what I'm asking.
I don't "bitch and whine" so I'm not sure what you are talking about. I support candidates and ideas among people I know. The rest is none of anyone's business.
If you can't even admit who you support on an anonymous forum you're not a very good supporter. I love the "none of your business" line though lol.
"Bitch and whine" refers to the never ending chorus of conservatives saying their nominees aren't conservatives yet not even being able to say who they supported until after they lose.
Maybe it's because I don't want to go down in the weeds? You realize we are still on a subject you kept pressing.
I'm confused why you place so much emphasis on TL. I don't come here to campaign or advocate for things. I know you are super excited for Sanders and all, but I'm just here to pass the time. I press for things with people in real life, not over the internet.
Edit: meanwhile conservatives do support people, that's what's going on in the primaries right now. It's why there was a blowout in 2010.
There is nothing wrong campaigning for someone that you like, that's how democracy work.
There is nothing to feel ashamed for cheering on who you think its right to support.
But however, that's not going to stop people from criticizing you afterward though.
So you got to be brave.
I don't waste my time doing so on TL.
Edit: I'll debate and get into it on issues, or things people say, but campaigning for people is something different.
This is one of many reasons why you'll lose. You are trying to get specific people to come to your mystery candidate. What we're after is getting people involved.
You won't win in the future that way either. Informing/educating people and engaging them in the process is a winning strategy. There's a huge portion of the population that doesn't vote. By convincing them they can and should be engaged and get informed from diverse resources in order to come to their own conclusions and then listening first and discussing those issues with them we gain a more powerful society and come to better conclusions.
I don't think anyone is buying your not openly identifying a candidate/s as anything other than a strategy to keep a rhetorical advantage.
Yes, I will lose because I tried to avoid your bait and don't go campaigning on TL. Flawless logic.
On February 17 2016 14:32 KwarK wrote: Trump is very conservative on taxes and redistribution. His tax plan will require huge cuts to public services to compensate for his tax cuts.
Have you seen budgets lately? Obamacare borrowed from Medicare, now it's going belly up. Social security administration has been writing reports on its financial straights for years now. We've got 19 trillion of debt, whose servicing will continue to increase, and 100 trillion of unfunded liabilities. As far as compensating for lack of revenue, a whole host of public services will have to be cut just based on their current state. The reforms haven't been forthcoming, both parties have avoided talking about it, so it makes little sense to talk about public services now.
Secondly, Trump couldn't be anything else in this primary environment than be a man with a tax cut plan. He strikes me as the kind of guy that would drop the tax schtick in two seconds on election if the political favorability wasn't gale-force behind it. He's got absolutely zero room on the border fence and something hardline on the overall immigration rate. In contrast, he just says he's working on the economy in other ways with his usual bluster and the dialogue centers on the next thing he mentions.
I had to chuckle at what constitutes "conservative on redistribution" these days. The debate's so skewed left if you don't want more robbing peter to pay paul, you're some kind of conservative.
On February 17 2016 12:24 Jibba wrote: In case anyone's wondering, Samantha Bee's new show on TBS is really good. Probably #2 among late night shows behind John Oliver.
If Oliver's is the new Daily Show, Bee's is the new Colbert Report.
John Oliver is the most grating person in the world. Bee is indeed number two judging by the video you posted. These shows all need to die off, they are seriously the worst thing for liberals. If Clinton wins the election I blame the legacy of Jon Stewart, John Oliver et al.
On February 17 2016 12:24 Jibba wrote: In case anyone's wondering, Samantha Bee's new show on TBS is really good. Probably #2 among late night shows behind John Oliver.
If Oliver's is the new Daily Show, Bee's is the new Colbert Report.
John Oliver is the most grating person in the world. Bee is indeed number two judging by the video you posted. These shows all need to die off, they are seriously the worst thing for liberals. If Clinton wins the election I blame the legacy of Jon Stewart, John Oliver et al.
Hey, I got to give it to his people that these are very humorous ads. I drive past in LA.
On February 17 2016 12:24 Jibba wrote: In case anyone's wondering, Samantha Bee's new show on TBS is really good. Probably #2 among late night shows behind John Oliver.
If Oliver's is the new Daily Show, Bee's is the new Colbert Report.
John Oliver is the most grating person in the world. Bee is indeed number two judging by the video you posted. These shows all need to die off, they are seriously the worst thing for liberals. If Clinton wins the election I blame the legacy of Jon Stewart, John Oliver et al.
Jon Stewart was great :[ and Oliver has some good stuff as well. I dunno about Bee yet since I haven't watched her show but Colbert was good too.
When Trump is elected, everything will be the same. The president has very little power. Obama couldn't even close Guantanomo.
At day one, Trump will be told what to do. If he deviates, he will literally get nothing done. If he has the balls, he will throw up his hands halfway and say 'The president doesn't have the power to change this nation. I have the wrong job.'
On February 17 2016 17:56 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: When Trump is elected, everything will be the same. The president has very little power. Obama couldn't even close Guantanomo.
At day one, Trump will be told what to do. If he deviates, he will literally get nothing done. If he has the balls, he will throw up his hands halfway and say 'The president doesn't have the power to change this nation. I have the wrong job.'
You could have fooled me with all the talk of "dictator Obama".
On February 17 2016 17:56 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: When Trump is elected, everything will be the same. The president has very little power. Obama couldn't even close Guantanomo.
At day one, Trump will be told what to do. If he deviates, he will literally get nothing done. If he has the balls, he will throw up his hands halfway and say 'The president doesn't have the power to change this nation. I have the wrong job.'
You could have fooled me with all the talk of "dictator Obama".
I've got a pen and a phone ... and an administrative state with options like the CAA & CWA ... catch me if you can!
The president has power until the legal challenges work their way up (though recent injunctions have been heartening). Direct your agencies with memos, hire the Lois Lerners of the world, and issue executive orders if necessary.
On February 17 2016 12:24 Jibba wrote: In case anyone's wondering, Samantha Bee's new show on TBS is really good. Probably #2 among late night shows behind John Oliver.
If Oliver's is the new Daily Show, Bee's is the new Colbert Report.
John Oliver is the most grating person in the world. Bee is indeed number two judging by the video you posted. These shows all need to die off, they are seriously the worst thing for liberals. If Clinton wins the election I blame the legacy of Jon Stewart, John Oliver et al.
On February 17 2016 12:24 Jibba wrote: In case anyone's wondering, Samantha Bee's new show on TBS is really good. Probably #2 among late night shows behind John Oliver.
If Oliver's is the new Daily Show, Bee's is the new Colbert Report.
John Oliver is the most grating person in the world. Bee is indeed number two judging by the video you posted. These shows all need to die off, they are seriously the worst thing for liberals. If Clinton wins the election I blame the legacy of Jon Stewart, John Oliver et al.
Jon Stewart was great :[ and Oliver has some good stuff as well. I dunno about Bee yet since I haven't watched her show but Colbert was good too.
I liked Jon Stewart as a comedian, and his appearance on Crossfire was pretty cool. His semitic good looks, to quote Lisa Simpson, helped too! But the whole shtick of "criticizing the media as much as the politicians" became 1) a game of "look at FOX being stupid haha!" 2) just another level of perpetuating the status quo ("isnt the world terrible? now continue to do nothing about it but laugh with us!"). RIGHT NOW would be the time to drop the pretense of above-it-all-comedian and just go out and shout WE WANT YOU DO TO BECOME AN ACTIVIST FOR BERNIE SANDERS (I am saying that in the sense that Stewart, Colbert and so on all clearly align with him politically, yet try to be the smart/cynical "oh he wont win" guy in the room), OR BLACK LIVES MATTER, OR ANY LOCAL ISSUE IN YOUR AREA. Instead we get terrible jokes about republicans, or Bernie Sanders' hair. Thanks Colbert.
I have sympathy for Last Week with John Oliver in theory - its like the The CBS Evening News segment on the grain deal in the 1970s: devote an extended amount of TV time to carefully explain something that usually slips through the cracks of news (if you want to know more about that, theres a chapter on that in Timothy Crouse's Boys on the Bus). BUT INCESSANT INTERMITTENT JOKES ARE NOT THE WAY TO GO ON ABOUT THIS. This show would have to be called "Last Week Without John Oliver" to be any good.
And seriously, he is just so fucking punchable. Why does anyone like this style of humor? Aaargh.
On February 17 2016 12:24 Jibba wrote: In case anyone's wondering, Samantha Bee's new show on TBS is really good. Probably #2 among late night shows behind John Oliver.
If Oliver's is the new Daily Show, Bee's is the new Colbert Report.
John Oliver is the most grating person in the world. Bee is indeed number two judging by the video you posted. These shows all need to die off, they are seriously the worst thing for liberals. If Clinton wins the election I blame the legacy of Jon Stewart, John Oliver et al.
Jon Stewart was great :[ and Oliver has some good stuff as well. I dunno about Bee yet since I haven't watched her show but Colbert was good too.
I liked Jon Stewart as a comedian, and his appearance on Crossfire was pretty cool. His semitic good looks, to quote Lisa Simpson, helped too! But the whole shtick of "criticizing the media as much as the politicians" became 1) a game of "look at FOX being stupid haha!" 2) just another level of perpetuating the status quo ("isnt the world terrible? now continue to do nothing about it but laugh with us!"). RIGHT NOW would be the time to drop the pretense of above-it-all-comedian and just go out and shout WE WANT YOU DO TO BECOME AN ACTIVIST FOR BERNIE SANDERS (I am saying that in the sense that Stewart, Colbert and so on all clearly align with him politically, yet try to be the smart/cynical "oh he wont win" guy in the room), OR BLACK LIVES MATTER, OR ANY LOCAL ISSUE IN YOUR AREA. Instead we get terrible jokes about republicans, or Bernie Sanders' hair. Thanks Colbert.
I have sympathy for Last Week with John Oliver in theory - its like the The CBS Evening News segment on the grain deal in the 1970s: devote an extended amount of TV time to carefully explain something that usually slips through the cracks of news (if you want to know more about that, theres a chapter on that in Timothy Crouse's Boys on the Bus). BUT INCESSANT INTERMITTENT JOKES ARE NOT THE WAY TO GO ON ABOUT THIS. This show would have to be called "Last Week Without John Oliver" to be any good.
And seriously, he is just so fucking punchable. Why does anyone like this style of humor? Aaargh.
You want comedy shows to become "deep" newsshows and blame them for not being that... interesting...
I am of two minds on this. Part of me wants privacy at all time. The other side of me doesn’t want law enforcement having to push through 64+ bit encryption with every search warrant. But this needs to be handled by both the court and law enforcement. Of course there should be a key to get into an Iphone/Ipad, but apple should only be required to provide it to the FBI if judge orders it for each specific case/piece of evidence.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ciubeTn.jpg)
