|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
On June 08 2016 03:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 03:35 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If Donald Trump turns out to be an autocratic president, running the country with pen and phone regardless of the Constitution, Congress and the courts will step in to stop him. That's the latest and perhaps most flummoxing rationale Republicans are offering these days as the party seeks to justify its support for its nominee.
Even after endorsing Trump, many Republicans are finding themselves constantly forced to distance themselves from Trump's inflammatory statements. Saying they disagree is beginning to sound hollow so Republicans have taken another tack. They promise that the courts and Congress will safeguard the United States from Trump's authoritarian whims.
If the New York businessman begins carrying out an agenda from the White House that looks anything like the one he's proposed on the campaign trail– like a ban on Muslims –Republicans promise the Constitution guarantees there will be a check and a balance.
“I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told the New York Times last week in a piece highlighting how legal scholars are growing increasingly worried about Trump's authoritarian tendencies. “We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania."
In May, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made a similar proclamation when he was asked in an interview whether he had concerns about the divisiveness Trump's message evoked even from within the Republican Party.
"What protects us in this country against big mistakes being made is the structure, the Constitution, the institutions," McConnell told CBS News last month. “No matter how unusual a personality may be who gets elected to office, there are constraints in this country. You don’t get to do anything you want to.”
Republican strategist John Feehery (who believes Trump won't be that bad) argued in a blog post that if thing got really bad, Trump could always be impeached. Source We are totally backing the guy, but don't worry, we will also totally stop him if he tries to violate the Constitution like he claims. Please vote for Trump.This is real life. This is the GOP trying to find a good way to let go of the Tiger's tail. They're still a bunch of slaves to political correctness who don't want to get too close b/c they don't want to be labeled 'racist/sexist/homophobe' because they're more concerned with their political careers than reality. It's been the story of the entire republican primary.
In the case of some of the GOP members, its because they are not terrible people who have no respect for civil liberties, goverment, the rule of law and the balance of power. Trump is McCarthy 2.0, who attacks everyone who criticizes him and threatens them. Some members of the GOP are finally showing some spine.
|
On June 08 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 03:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:For those who may not be able to see, it says : secret-win-V2-060416 So that was the second version of the "secret win" announcement graphic from the AP, 2 days before they made the announcement. Does that count as evidence Kwiz? Secret probably because they change the permissions of the image prior and use that designation to keep track of what needs to stay hidden on their server. Every news site has articles pre-written for certain outcomes of certain events. This is perhaps the most laughable of conspiracy nonsense you've posted. Lol the graphic wasn't the AP's though. It was Hillary's. I get you all want to snap to defending her, but at least get what you're defending right.
You can't seven see the source of the email or any other information about the page that is displaying it. I have no idea who that is from.
|
On June 08 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 03:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 03:35 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If Donald Trump turns out to be an autocratic president, running the country with pen and phone regardless of the Constitution, Congress and the courts will step in to stop him. That's the latest and perhaps most flummoxing rationale Republicans are offering these days as the party seeks to justify its support for its nominee.
Even after endorsing Trump, many Republicans are finding themselves constantly forced to distance themselves from Trump's inflammatory statements. Saying they disagree is beginning to sound hollow so Republicans have taken another tack. They promise that the courts and Congress will safeguard the United States from Trump's authoritarian whims.
If the New York businessman begins carrying out an agenda from the White House that looks anything like the one he's proposed on the campaign trail– like a ban on Muslims –Republicans promise the Constitution guarantees there will be a check and a balance.
“I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told the New York Times last week in a piece highlighting how legal scholars are growing increasingly worried about Trump's authoritarian tendencies. “We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania."
In May, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made a similar proclamation when he was asked in an interview whether he had concerns about the divisiveness Trump's message evoked even from within the Republican Party.
"What protects us in this country against big mistakes being made is the structure, the Constitution, the institutions," McConnell told CBS News last month. “No matter how unusual a personality may be who gets elected to office, there are constraints in this country. You don’t get to do anything you want to.”
Republican strategist John Feehery (who believes Trump won't be that bad) argued in a blog post that if thing got really bad, Trump could always be impeached. Source We are totally backing the guy, but don't worry, we will also totally stop him if he tries to violate the Constitution like he claims. Please vote for Trump.This is real life. This is the GOP trying to find a good way to let go of the Tiger's tail. They're still a bunch of slaves to political correctness who don't want to get too close b/c they don't want to be labeled 'racist/sexist/homophobe' because they're more concerned with their political careers than reality. It's been the story of the entire republican primary. In the case of some of the GOP members, its because they are not terrible people who have no respect for civil liberties, goverment, the rule of law and the balance of power. Trump is McCarthy 2.0, who attacks everyone who criticizes him and threatens them. Some members of the GOP are finally showing some spine.
Um ok?
I disagree and think you're overreacting to a non-story blown entirely out of proportion again.
Trump's legal team isn't even trying to get the judge replaced. You guys love dramatic flair though.
|
On June 08 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 03:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:For those who may not be able to see, it says : secret-win-V2-060416 So that was the second version of the "secret win" announcement graphic from the AP, 2 days before they made the announcement. Does that count as evidence Kwiz? Secret probably because they change the permissions of the image prior and use that designation to keep track of what needs to stay hidden on their server. Every news site has articles pre-written for certain outcomes of certain events. This is perhaps the most laughable of conspiracy nonsense you've posted. Lol the graphic wasn't the AP's though. It was Hillary's. I get you all want to snap to defending her, but at least get what you're defending right.
Perhaps be a bit more clear as to what you are trying to say instead of dumping more Shaun King bullshit. I am not seeing what makes this image hers, but even if it was, it would still mean nothing.
Edit: Now I see what you mean. The image comes from an HRC address, but that is still meaningless. The polling of superdelegates likely took longer than a single day. I am sure they have been working on this for weeks.
|
On June 08 2016 03:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2016 03:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:For those who may not be able to see, it says : secret-win-V2-060416 So that was the second version of the "secret win" announcement graphic from the AP, 2 days before they made the announcement. Does that count as evidence Kwiz? Secret probably because they change the permissions of the image prior and use that designation to keep track of what needs to stay hidden on their server. Every news site has articles pre-written for certain outcomes of certain events. This is perhaps the most laughable of conspiracy nonsense you've posted. Lol the graphic wasn't the AP's though. It was Hillary's. I get you all want to snap to defending her, but at least get what you're defending right. You can't seven see the source of the email or any other information about the page that is displaying it. I have no idea who that is from.
It's from info@HillaryClinton.com I get the urge, but it's 100% real. You should be able to verify it yourself (presuming you get her campaign emails).
On June 08 2016 03:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2016 03:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:For those who may not be able to see, it says : secret-win-V2-060416 So that was the second version of the "secret win" announcement graphic from the AP, 2 days before they made the announcement. Does that count as evidence Kwiz? Secret probably because they change the permissions of the image prior and use that designation to keep track of what needs to stay hidden on their server. Every news site has articles pre-written for certain outcomes of certain events. This is perhaps the most laughable of conspiracy nonsense you've posted. Lol the graphic wasn't the AP's though. It was Hillary's. I get you all want to snap to defending her, but at least get what you're defending right. Perhaps be a bit more clear as to what you are trying to say instead of dumping more Shaun King bullshit. I am not seeing what makes this image hers, but even if it was, it would still mean nothing.
It's obviously hers/real and it means the AP secretly called the race days ago and told Hillary's camp.
Edit: Now I see what you mean. The image comes from an HRC address, but that is still meaningless. The polling of superdelegates likely took longer than a single day. I am sure they have been working on this for weeks.
EDIT: How do you suppose Hillary knew about it days before anyone else? Also you can take back your "Shaun King bullshit" line too.
|
The parallel between crazy fundamentalists threatening to leave the country in 2008 when Obama was elected to 2016 crazy liberals threatening the same if Trump is elected shouting the downfall of America is worth of another South Park episode.
Have they made one for Trump yet?
|
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi pledged on Tuesday to try to ratify the Paris climate change pact this year, a big boost for President Barack Obama's effort to bring the agreement into effect before he leaves office.
The deal struck in Paris in December requires countries to take action to reduce the greenhouse gases that warm the planet, but Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has vowed to "cancel" the agreement if he is elected.
Modi's promise to work with his Cabinet to greenlight the climate agreement greatly increases the likelihood that the deal will reach the threshold required to enter into force this year, which would make it more difficult for a future U.S. administration to formally renege on its participation.
In a statement issued following a meeting between Modi and Obama at the White House, the U.S. underscored its promise to formally ratify the agreement "as soon as possible this year." India echoed that commitment, saying it "similarly has begun its processes to work toward this shared objective."
While the language gives India some wiggle room to delay ratification, it is the clearest indication so far that India, the planet's third-largest greenhouse gas emitter, backs the global push for the deal to take effect quickly.
The agreement includes provisions that make it difficult for the United States to immediately pull out of the deal after it goes into effect. But those measures likely wouldn't stop Trump from ignoring the agreement altogether and trying to unravel Obama's climate regulations, which form the basis of the United States' pledge to cut emissions 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
Hillary Clinton, for her part, has said she would continue implementing the agreement.
The Paris agreement will enter into force 30 days after 55 countries representing 55 percent of global emissions formally join or ratify it. So far, about three dozen countries making up about half of the planet’s emissions have pledged to ratify the deal this year, and India’s participation would push the deal well over the 55 percent threshold.
”I think we are better-positioned than we ever have been to reach the goal of 55 percent of emissions and 55 countries by the end of this year, and I think this statement should provide significant additional momentum toward this global push,” Brian Deese, a senior energy and climate adviser to Obama, told reporters.
Source
|
On June 08 2016 03:55 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
The parallel between crazy fundamentalists threatening to leave the country in 2008 when Obama was elected to 2016 crazy liberals threatening the same if Trump is elected shouting the downfall of America is worth of another South Park episode.
Have they made one for Trump yet?
Yep. Last season.
|
On June 08 2016 03:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 07 2016 17:28 Surth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2016 12:18 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Hey xDaunt or Testie, why are people who hated Romney's flip floping beind fine with Trump being even worse about it? Romney was just dishonest, Trump is a phenomenon of showbusiness and reality TV. He literally always just says whatever is on his mind, and often what is on his mind contradicts himself (like walt whitman, he contains multitudes). Not that this is necessarily whatyou want in a president. But his flipflopping is a very different beast. Show nested quote +On June 07 2016 13:22 SK.Testie wrote:
I was for Obama in 08 / 12. And was a lefty who demonized any conservative source & ate up Jon Stew & Steven Colbert & thought Bill Maher wasn't just a shill (he is). Because I feel I can see when he knows he's lying for his team now. In highschool I was so left after reading a book on Osama that I was like, "oooh he has a point. It's because we're fucking up shit over there that we get attacked". Now, nay. In the 17th century, Puritans weren't just Christians from birth. They had to come up, at some point in their lives, with a conversion narrative, and tell everyone in church about this conversion. The elders then judged whether it was convincing or not, and only then would you be a proper Christian. These conversion narratives were a distinct genre, with distinct tropes and so on.I find it interesting how often conservatives have conversion narratives. You forgot to quote that fake-Churchill quote though: "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."' Show nested quote +But after having my own business and supporting people monetarily I've changed a lot. I think that should almost be a pre-requisite for voting that you should have a kid or know what it's like to spend your own $ on someone to vote. I think it should almost be a pre-requisite for voting that you are younger than 50, but then, that would be equally undemocratic.  Show nested quote +Obama nerfed our economy pretty hard when he killed that and our economy tanked right away because Harper went all in on oil. In this instance again it's a lot more jobs for a lot more people. And this in itself is a great thing because at least you have a useful happy populace rather than one that is forced to lose their dignity and collect unemployment insurance or other benefits. A fiat currency is not meant to be redistributed so much as it is to be grown and expanded. Trump knows where money comes from and how to make more of it. "haha he was bankrupt 4 times" - Aka he used bankruptcy 4 times to get out of shitty places and his other 9582989258 successful businesses were doing swell. I appreciate the sentiment in favor of FDR-style full employment, but I doubt the oil industry is going to need that much extra-labor. Also, "nerfed our economy", lol. If only he had taken more expo's! We need more vespene gas! Show nested quote +The Military & rule of law - It's very obvious he's going to be the best option for the military as he has called out things that other politicians simply haven't during the campaign. The rule of law has been completely eroded as the left and police are demonized and that's somehow allowed. The riots cannot stand. The police, the border patrol, and the military stand with Trump. The military is a necessary tool for keeping Americas interests in tact. I'm most definitely sickened by the riots. I feel that no matter what happens to me in my life, I will never act violently towards another human being. An inanimate object? Sure. But another human being? Unless it's a fight for survival, then there's no chance of that. The left's constant outright disrespect of laws is deeply concerning. And it has been constant for years and getting worse. And the fact that the Trump supporters are thanking police officers as they walk by them personally, giving them handshakes and having small talk with them shows a better sense of community as a whole. This next sentence could be classified as bullshit, but they genuinely seem like better people who care more about the country than they do themselves. Meanwhile people on the left seem to come off as, "what the fuck has this country done for me?" Even if you're in a terrible position in America, you're lucky to be there by default. You just are. i like how you begin with "military" and end up with "you're lucky to be born in the USA". You have a rambling quality that is slightly reminiscent of Trump, you know. Anyway. I'll just ramble a bit too. 1. you are "sickened by riots" and would "never act violently", but the Military, which is mostly in charge of killing people, is a "necessary tool for keeping Americas interests intact". Okay. 2. I said to samizdat a few days ago about how it remains an important philosophical project to explain how all violence, including systemic violence, is bodily violence. He thought that notion to be obvious, and yet here we are, believing that "we would never act violently ... unless its a fight for survival." Guess what, you and me and our entire life is already violent. Our lives are fundamentally built on top of daily, incessant, terrible violence. Besides, I don't think you have any idea of what it means to be "born in a terrible position in the US". Since you seem to generalize about the left so much, let me make a generalization about conservatives: Somehow you all still buy into the American dream of upwards mobility. It's hogshit. Show nested quote +Immigration - Again, another position I changed on. The left is arguing for a slave class that is consistently dependent on welfare. Again, after owning my own business. "I do not work for you. Nor do I work for a foreign invader that did not respect our laws to begin with." Harsh words, but if Canada's economy were shit, and I just decided to up and move to Japan because I liked their country best without any skills or knowing the language, I think I'd be a questionable person to do that. I think that's kinda.. a shitty thing to do to another country. Entering it against it's will. Isn't that rape? Raping a country?! Ok hyperbole and bad jokes aside. But it is intertwined with the rule of law. These people broke a law. They did not care about your country to begin with, we owe them no allegiance in return. You're an idiot. Well, no, you are right. Certain elements of what you term "the left" end up supporting policies that do in fact perpetuate a slave class thati s consistently dependent on welfare. To think that an actual leftist position would argue for that, is however, idiotic. Show nested quote +wtf is with criminals who've been deported 5-10 times getting access back into the country over and over? How does anyone remotely try to justify that? In many cases, these people are second-generation immigrants from El Salvador and a few other Central and South American countries who have been criminalized under spurious gang laws. They are then deported back to their "home countries", despite being born in the US and never actually having lived in their "home countries". Often they are denied documentation by the authorities in both countries and become quasi-stateless. Under such conditions, they then prefer to return to the US (a country which they at least know, where they might at least know a few streets or blocks), where, as criminalized subjects, they will still lack any possibility of getting a job, and thus be more likely to engage in criminal activity. I can send you heaps and heaps of literature on this, if you want. Rekrul was so much more fun as a progamer than you! Now where's my ketamine? ----- I'll tell you why I'm for George McGovern. George McGovern is one of the few men in public life today any place in the world who has passion in his heart and a commitment to the very depths of his soul. And what this nation lacks, lady [sic] and gentlemen, is a sense of commitment and a sense of passion for all the people of this entire nation and the entire world. George McGovern is not satisfied that 10 million Americans go to bed hungry every night. George McGovern is not satisfied that four and a half million Americans -- families -- live in rat infested and roach encrusted houses. George McGovern is not satisfied that in this nation of ours -- in this great nation of ours -- our infant mortality is so high that we rank 21st in all the nations of the world. [...] And with George McGovern as President of the United States we wouldn't have to have Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago! With George McGovern we wouldn't have a National Guard. You bet! You bet! I am sad that no one has commented on your important point about systemic violence. maybe its because your buried it in a long post. or maybe its because no one knows what you are talking about. That's a really, really deep rabbit hole to go down.
but maybe the most important one to go down. definitely more interesting than "how is msm in hillary's pockets when they might be hurting her w sanders voters by prematurely declaring absolute victory."
|
On June 08 2016 03:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 03:35 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If Donald Trump turns out to be an autocratic president, running the country with pen and phone regardless of the Constitution, Congress and the courts will step in to stop him. That's the latest and perhaps most flummoxing rationale Republicans are offering these days as the party seeks to justify its support for its nominee.
Even after endorsing Trump, many Republicans are finding themselves constantly forced to distance themselves from Trump's inflammatory statements. Saying they disagree is beginning to sound hollow so Republicans have taken another tack. They promise that the courts and Congress will safeguard the United States from Trump's authoritarian whims.
If the New York businessman begins carrying out an agenda from the White House that looks anything like the one he's proposed on the campaign trail– like a ban on Muslims –Republicans promise the Constitution guarantees there will be a check and a balance.
“I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told the New York Times last week in a piece highlighting how legal scholars are growing increasingly worried about Trump's authoritarian tendencies. “We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania."
In May, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made a similar proclamation when he was asked in an interview whether he had concerns about the divisiveness Trump's message evoked even from within the Republican Party.
"What protects us in this country against big mistakes being made is the structure, the Constitution, the institutions," McConnell told CBS News last month. “No matter how unusual a personality may be who gets elected to office, there are constraints in this country. You don’t get to do anything you want to.”
Republican strategist John Feehery (who believes Trump won't be that bad) argued in a blog post that if thing got really bad, Trump could always be impeached. Source We are totally backing the guy, but don't worry, we will also totally stop him if he tries to violate the Constitution like he claims. Please vote for Trump.This is real life. This is the GOP trying to find a good way to let go of the Tiger's tail. They're still a bunch of slaves to political correctness who don't want to get too close b/c they don't want to be labeled 'racist/sexist/homophobe' because they're more concerned with their political careers than reality. It's been the story of the entire republican primary. In the case of some of the GOP members, its because they are not terrible people who have no respect for civil liberties, goverment, the rule of law and the balance of power. Trump is McCarthy 2.0, who attacks everyone who criticizes him and threatens them. Some members of the GOP are finally showing some spine. Um ok? I disagree and think you're overreacting to a non-story blown entirely out of proportion again. Trump's legal team isn't even trying to get the judge replaced. You guys love dramatic flair though.
Lindsey Graham is the one who called Trump another McCarthy. And Trump's legal team is not dumb enough to file a motion to ask the judge to recuse himself because of his race, since it would be denied. But that doesn't matter, since Trump is asking people to look into the judge and making baseless claims of bias based on race.
|
On June 08 2016 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 03:51 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2016 03:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:For those who may not be able to see, it says : secret-win-V2-060416 So that was the second version of the "secret win" announcement graphic from the AP, 2 days before they made the announcement. Does that count as evidence Kwiz? Secret probably because they change the permissions of the image prior and use that designation to keep track of what needs to stay hidden on their server. Every news site has articles pre-written for certain outcomes of certain events. This is perhaps the most laughable of conspiracy nonsense you've posted. Lol the graphic wasn't the AP's though. It was Hillary's. I get you all want to snap to defending her, but at least get what you're defending right. You can't seven see the source of the email or any other information about the page that is displaying it. I have no idea who that is from. It's from info@HillaryClinton.com I get the urge, but it's 100% real. You should be able to verify it yourself (presuming you get her campaign emails). Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 03:53 Mohdoo wrote:On June 08 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2016 03:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:For those who may not be able to see, it says : secret-win-V2-060416 So that was the second version of the "secret win" announcement graphic from the AP, 2 days before they made the announcement. Does that count as evidence Kwiz? Secret probably because they change the permissions of the image prior and use that designation to keep track of what needs to stay hidden on their server. Every news site has articles pre-written for certain outcomes of certain events. This is perhaps the most laughable of conspiracy nonsense you've posted. Lol the graphic wasn't the AP's though. It was Hillary's. I get you all want to snap to defending her, but at least get what you're defending right. Perhaps be a bit more clear as to what you are trying to say instead of dumping more Shaun King bullshit. I am not seeing what makes this image hers, but even if it was, it would still mean nothing. It's obviously hers/real and it means the AP secretly called the race days ago and told Hillary's camp. Show nested quote +Edit: Now I see what you mean. The image comes from an HRC address, but that is still meaningless. The polling of superdelegates likely took longer than a single day. I am sure they have been working on this for weeks.
EDIT: How do you suppose Hillary knew about it days before anyone else?
Hillary has known she was going to clinch the nomination for the last few months ffs.
Yes the only explanation is that this is a massive conspiracy to call the race early so that 'normal' voters who will most likely vote Hillary stay home because the race is over while frothing legions of Bernie fanatics will vote regardless to send a message...
Oh wait no, AP calling the race last night is actually worse for Hillary then doing it today after she wins CA...
|
Bad La Raza! Bad! Again!
MSM: They have no connection!
oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless!
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 08 2016 03:59 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 07 2016 17:28 Surth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2016 12:18 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Hey xDaunt or Testie, why are people who hated Romney's flip floping beind fine with Trump being even worse about it? Romney was just dishonest, Trump is a phenomenon of showbusiness and reality TV. He literally always just says whatever is on his mind, and often what is on his mind contradicts himself (like walt whitman, he contains multitudes). Not that this is necessarily whatyou want in a president. But his flipflopping is a very different beast. Show nested quote +On June 07 2016 13:22 SK.Testie wrote:
I was for Obama in 08 / 12. And was a lefty who demonized any conservative source & ate up Jon Stew & Steven Colbert & thought Bill Maher wasn't just a shill (he is). Because I feel I can see when he knows he's lying for his team now. In highschool I was so left after reading a book on Osama that I was like, "oooh he has a point. It's because we're fucking up shit over there that we get attacked". Now, nay. In the 17th century, Puritans weren't just Christians from birth. They had to come up, at some point in their lives, with a conversion narrative, and tell everyone in church about this conversion. The elders then judged whether it was convincing or not, and only then would you be a proper Christian. These conversion narratives were a distinct genre, with distinct tropes and so on.I find it interesting how often conservatives have conversion narratives. You forgot to quote that fake-Churchill quote though: "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."' Show nested quote +But after having my own business and supporting people monetarily I've changed a lot. I think that should almost be a pre-requisite for voting that you should have a kid or know what it's like to spend your own $ on someone to vote. I think it should almost be a pre-requisite for voting that you are younger than 50, but then, that would be equally undemocratic. Show nested quote +Obama nerfed our economy pretty hard when he killed that and our economy tanked right away because Harper went all in on oil. In this instance again it's a lot more jobs for a lot more people. And this in itself is a great thing because at least you have a useful happy populace rather than one that is forced to lose their dignity and collect unemployment insurance or other benefits. A fiat currency is not meant to be redistributed so much as it is to be grown and expanded. Trump knows where money comes from and how to make more of it. "haha he was bankrupt 4 times" - Aka he used bankruptcy 4 times to get out of shitty places and his other 9582989258 successful businesses were doing swell. I appreciate the sentiment in favor of FDR-style full employment, but I doubt the oil industry is going to need that much extra-labor. Also, "nerfed our economy", lol. If only he had taken more expo's! We need more vespene gas! Show nested quote +The Military & rule of law - It's very obvious he's going to be the best option for the military as he has called out things that other politicians simply haven't during the campaign. The rule of law has been completely eroded as the left and police are demonized and that's somehow allowed. The riots cannot stand. The police, the border patrol, and the military stand with Trump. The military is a necessary tool for keeping Americas interests in tact. I'm most definitely sickened by the riots. I feel that no matter what happens to me in my life, I will never act violently towards another human being. An inanimate object? Sure. But another human being? Unless it's a fight for survival, then there's no chance of that. The left's constant outright disrespect of laws is deeply concerning. And it has been constant for years and getting worse. And the fact that the Trump supporters are thanking police officers as they walk by them personally, giving them handshakes and having small talk with them shows a better sense of community as a whole. This next sentence could be classified as bullshit, but they genuinely seem like better people who care more about the country than they do themselves. Meanwhile people on the left seem to come off as, "what the fuck has this country done for me?" Even if you're in a terrible position in America, you're lucky to be there by default. You just are. i like how you begin with "military" and end up with "you're lucky to be born in the USA". You have a rambling quality that is slightly reminiscent of Trump, you know. Anyway. I'll just ramble a bit too. 1. you are "sickened by riots" and would "never act violently", but the Military, which is mostly in charge of killing people, is a "necessary tool for keeping Americas interests intact". Okay. 2. I said to samizdat a few days ago about how it remains an important philosophical project to explain how all violence, including systemic violence, is bodily violence. He thought that notion to be obvious, and yet here we are, believing that "we would never act violently ... unless its a fight for survival." Guess what, you and me and our entire life is already violent. Our lives are fundamentally built on top of daily, incessant, terrible violence. Besides, I don't think you have any idea of what it means to be "born in a terrible position in the US". Since you seem to generalize about the left so much, let me make a generalization about conservatives: Somehow you all still buy into the American dream of upwards mobility. It's hogshit. Show nested quote +Immigration - Again, another position I changed on. The left is arguing for a slave class that is consistently dependent on welfare. Again, after owning my own business. "I do not work for you. Nor do I work for a foreign invader that did not respect our laws to begin with." Harsh words, but if Canada's economy were shit, and I just decided to up and move to Japan because I liked their country best without any skills or knowing the language, I think I'd be a questionable person to do that. I think that's kinda.. a shitty thing to do to another country. Entering it against it's will. Isn't that rape? Raping a country?! Ok hyperbole and bad jokes aside. But it is intertwined with the rule of law. These people broke a law. They did not care about your country to begin with, we owe them no allegiance in return. You're an idiot. Well, no, you are right. Certain elements of what you term "the left" end up supporting policies that do in fact perpetuate a slave class thati s consistently dependent on welfare. To think that an actual leftist position would argue for that, is however, idiotic. Show nested quote +wtf is with criminals who've been deported 5-10 times getting access back into the country over and over? How does anyone remotely try to justify that? In many cases, these people are second-generation immigrants from El Salvador and a few other Central and South American countries who have been criminalized under spurious gang laws. They are then deported back to their "home countries", despite being born in the US and never actually having lived in their "home countries". Often they are denied documentation by the authorities in both countries and become quasi-stateless. Under such conditions, they then prefer to return to the US (a country which they at least know, where they might at least know a few streets or blocks), where, as criminalized subjects, they will still lack any possibility of getting a job, and thus be more likely to engage in criminal activity. I can send you heaps and heaps of literature on this, if you want. Rekrul was so much more fun as a progamer than you! Now where's my ketamine? ----- I'll tell you why I'm for George McGovern. George McGovern is one of the few men in public life today any place in the world who has passion in his heart and a commitment to the very depths of his soul. And what this nation lacks, lady [sic] and gentlemen, is a sense of commitment and a sense of passion for all the people of this entire nation and the entire world. George McGovern is not satisfied that 10 million Americans go to bed hungry every night. George McGovern is not satisfied that four and a half million Americans -- families -- live in rat infested and roach encrusted houses. George McGovern is not satisfied that in this nation of ours -- in this great nation of ours -- our infant mortality is so high that we rank 21st in all the nations of the world. [...] And with George McGovern as President of the United States we wouldn't have to have Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago! With George McGovern we wouldn't have a National Guard. You bet! You bet! I am sad that no one has commented on your important point about systemic violence. maybe its because your buried it in a long post. or maybe its because no one knows what you are talking about. That's a really, really deep rabbit hole to go down. but maybe the most important one to go down. definitely more interesting than "how is msm in hillary's pockets when they might be hurting her w sanders voters by prematurely declaring absolute victory."
Eh, not really. I don't think that there's any real value in that conversation. All it would accomplish is describe (in starkly Hobbesian terms) how and why things are the way that they are. Nothing's going to come of it.
|
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote:Bad La Raza! Bad! Again! MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
Keep on digging mate. Your bound to hit China at some point.
|
The Shaun King Tweet is showing an image which is a screen shot of a tweet. It is implied that the image is, for some reason, dated and that this date shows that Clinton campaign knew what the tweet would exactly look like and made the graphic before the tweet existed. This makes sense for a lot of reasons. First, the AP would need to have a story and all associated social media ready to pounce. They were fighting for seconds here. They knew the Tweet that would go out and were likely letting the Clinton campaign know. I still see no issue here. The Clinton campaign is obviously thrilled by all this, so it makes perfect sense. There's no wrongdoing.
|
On June 08 2016 03:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 03:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 03:35 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If Donald Trump turns out to be an autocratic president, running the country with pen and phone regardless of the Constitution, Congress and the courts will step in to stop him. That's the latest and perhaps most flummoxing rationale Republicans are offering these days as the party seeks to justify its support for its nominee.
Even after endorsing Trump, many Republicans are finding themselves constantly forced to distance themselves from Trump's inflammatory statements. Saying they disagree is beginning to sound hollow so Republicans have taken another tack. They promise that the courts and Congress will safeguard the United States from Trump's authoritarian whims.
If the New York businessman begins carrying out an agenda from the White House that looks anything like the one he's proposed on the campaign trail– like a ban on Muslims –Republicans promise the Constitution guarantees there will be a check and a balance.
“I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told the New York Times last week in a piece highlighting how legal scholars are growing increasingly worried about Trump's authoritarian tendencies. “We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania."
In May, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made a similar proclamation when he was asked in an interview whether he had concerns about the divisiveness Trump's message evoked even from within the Republican Party.
"What protects us in this country against big mistakes being made is the structure, the Constitution, the institutions," McConnell told CBS News last month. “No matter how unusual a personality may be who gets elected to office, there are constraints in this country. You don’t get to do anything you want to.”
Republican strategist John Feehery (who believes Trump won't be that bad) argued in a blog post that if thing got really bad, Trump could always be impeached. Source We are totally backing the guy, but don't worry, we will also totally stop him if he tries to violate the Constitution like he claims. Please vote for Trump.This is real life. This is the GOP trying to find a good way to let go of the Tiger's tail. They're still a bunch of slaves to political correctness who don't want to get too close b/c they don't want to be labeled 'racist/sexist/homophobe' because they're more concerned with their political careers than reality. It's been the story of the entire republican primary. In the case of some of the GOP members, its because they are not terrible people who have no respect for civil liberties, goverment, the rule of law and the balance of power. Trump is McCarthy 2.0, who attacks everyone who criticizes him and threatens them. Some members of the GOP are finally showing some spine. Um ok? I disagree and think you're overreacting to a non-story blown entirely out of proportion again. Trump's legal team isn't even trying to get the judge replaced. You guys love dramatic flair though. Lindsey Graham is the one who called Trump another McCarthy. And Trump's legal team is not dumb enough to file a motion to ask the judge to recuse himself because of his race, since it would be denied. But that doesn't matter, since Trump is asking people to look into the judge and making baseless claims of bias based on race.
You'd think if Trump was such an autocrat he'd be able to make his legal team do it if he actually wanted them to.
I mean which is it does Trump actually want to force the judge out and get a new one but his legal team stood up against the autocrat in the face of getting fired/violently attacked
or is he not an autocrat anymore now?
or maybe I was right and the left/media ARE blowing this up as a non-issue but he's still an autocratic 'hitler'
Like seriously man you have all sorts of people/media calling him hitler 2.0 (which is totally not inappropriate/offensive) because taking illegal immigrants and sending them back to their home country is just like genocide.
The idiotic hypocrisy and cognitive bias from the regressive left this election is just mind-boggling
|
On June 08 2016 04:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2016 03:51 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2016 03:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:For those who may not be able to see, it says : secret-win-V2-060416 So that was the second version of the "secret win" announcement graphic from the AP, 2 days before they made the announcement. Does that count as evidence Kwiz? Secret probably because they change the permissions of the image prior and use that designation to keep track of what needs to stay hidden on their server. Every news site has articles pre-written for certain outcomes of certain events. This is perhaps the most laughable of conspiracy nonsense you've posted. Lol the graphic wasn't the AP's though. It was Hillary's. I get you all want to snap to defending her, but at least get what you're defending right. You can't seven see the source of the email or any other information about the page that is displaying it. I have no idea who that is from. It's from info@HillaryClinton.com I get the urge, but it's 100% real. You should be able to verify it yourself (presuming you get her campaign emails). On June 08 2016 03:53 Mohdoo wrote:On June 08 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2016 03:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 08 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:For those who may not be able to see, it says : secret-win-V2-060416 So that was the second version of the "secret win" announcement graphic from the AP, 2 days before they made the announcement. Does that count as evidence Kwiz? Secret probably because they change the permissions of the image prior and use that designation to keep track of what needs to stay hidden on their server. Every news site has articles pre-written for certain outcomes of certain events. This is perhaps the most laughable of conspiracy nonsense you've posted. Lol the graphic wasn't the AP's though. It was Hillary's. I get you all want to snap to defending her, but at least get what you're defending right. Perhaps be a bit more clear as to what you are trying to say instead of dumping more Shaun King bullshit. I am not seeing what makes this image hers, but even if it was, it would still mean nothing. It's obviously hers/real and it means the AP secretly called the race days ago and told Hillary's camp. Edit: Now I see what you mean. The image comes from an HRC address, but that is still meaningless. The polling of superdelegates likely took longer than a single day. I am sure they have been working on this for weeks.
EDIT: How do you suppose Hillary knew about it days before anyone else? Hillary has known she was going to clinch the nomination for the last few months ffs. Yes the only explanation is that this is a massive conspiracy to call the race early so that 'normal' voters who will most likely vote Hillary stay home because the race is over while frothing legions of Bernie fanatics will vote regardless to send a message... Oh wait no, AP calling the race last night is actually worse for Hillary then doing it today after she wins CA...
That has nothing to do with what we're talking about but thanks for playing?
Anyways,
AP told us last night, they even say they didn't do finish counting until Monday, yet Hillary had their victory announcement graphic blended into hers already in it's second iteration on Saturday, not Monday. The AP and Hillary's camp were talking about the results before the AP even had them by their own admission.
On June 08 2016 04:04 Mohdoo wrote:
The Shaun King Tweet is showing an image which is a screen shot of a tweet. It is implied that the image is, for some reason, dated and that this date shows that Clinton campaign knew what the tweet would exactly look like and made the graphic before the tweet existed. This makes sense for a lot of reasons. First, the AP would need to have a story and all associated social media ready to pounce. They were fighting for seconds here. They knew the Tweet that would go out and were likely letting the Clinton campaign know. I still see no issue here. The Clinton campaign is obviously thrilled by all this, so it makes perfect sense. There's no wrongdoing.
This makes no sense. It's not implied, check your email and verify it yourself. Hillary sent you her custom AP win graphic and the web address for the img is is called "secret victory" and has the date of 06-04-16.
"Fighting for seconds" makes no sense if they were sitting on the victory they already told Hillary about with the graphic so she could customize it days before they told the rest of us.
It's not a question of "wrong doing" it's that they are coordinating because they are "in the bag" or whatever phrase people want to use for her. This is evidence that the call was a coordinated effort with the campaign at least days before they made the call public.
|
|
|
On June 08 2016 04:04 Gorsameth wrote:Keep on digging mate. Your bound to hit China at some point.
Let's be real - the MSM and regressive left already hit China months ago
|
On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote:Bad La Raza! Bad! Again! MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler +
I think that what a lot of non-lawyers don't understand is how racially partisan some of these legal groups are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.sli.mg/4lhmM0.jpg)
