US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7912

On June 22 2017 07:38 Danglars wrote:

Once again, you pretend objectivity in what's "actively dangerous and harmful to the republic." You've yet to make a cogent case for our disagreements being anything more than policy disagreements.

I thought both of them pretty well unfit for the presidency. I had to lower my standards and swallow my disgust to cast my vote for the person I thought least unfit. I don't think you had the intellectual fortitude to read the Flight 93 Election last time you did a routine "It's unsound" response. You would've found there resignation at the terrible choices presented ... that "only in a corrupt republic, in corrupt times, could a Trump rise." I think if you took a deep breath and looked at "however barely," you'd realize we're basically both sitting on a knife's edge of who was really barely acceptable.

I have zero need to prove myself by apportioning more time attacking him than I already do and have done on multiple occasions and on multiple issues. Apologists are different than selective defenders, and posts ought to be judged by the content of the defense and not the man with the stopwatch monitoring total time spent. This isn't a new Zlefin game of rising to your ever-changing standards. I'll restate it one last time: the dichotomy between Trump opponent and Trump apologist is stupid, reductive, and makes callous opponents where you might otherwise expect a sympathetic ear. I cannot help your blindness to only see the posts where I defend him, and miss those when I attack him and defend him, or attack him entirely. That one's on you. Your past posts have shown rank disregard for context, like when Mohdoo asked for Democratic analogues for Republican stupid-voter-statistics after several posts on only stupid Republican voters. If you'd rather skip to the part when you post that I'm factually trolling and unable to follow basic argumentation and then repeat the same "shitposter" angle on website feedback, I'm sure we can save everybody a bundle of time. You're teaching me that your pretend responses are only pretexts for more indignant slams.

On June 22 2017 07:43 zlefin wrote:

The case for actively dangerous and harmful to the republic has been made, numerous times already in this thread, there's no need to rehash it when you do not listen to it, it will do no good. It's not pretending objectivity, the evidence for it is ample from countless sources on all sides of the political spectrum.

On June 22 2017 07:47 Doodsmack wrote:


Donald Trump, US President, represents a danger to the republic that supersedes any nuance on right of center issues. To choose Donald Trump in a Flight 93 analogy is to remove yourself from the logical faculties of your brain.

On June 22 2017 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:


As someone far to the left of and who disagrees with virtually everything Danglars says I'd say he's not press secretary material, but he's certainly more prone to defend Trump than I am (though I do my fair share). I wouldn't call him an apologist for Trump specifically, he certainly is for a whole boat load of life destroying policy though.

Balancing him against someone like oneofthem or election season Kwizach he's not nearly as bad about Trump as they were for Clinton/Democrats. Probably closer to Moh or P6. + Show Spoiler +

The one thing I don't understand is that the Mueller investigation is going nowhere and going to eventually clear Trump of anything devastating/impeachable so I don't get the pretending that he's going to be biased toward Comey. Lol, he's going back to the private sector after this and Comey is done in the public sector, Mueller is going to make sure Comey gets a prime job out of this, Trump gets some mud on his khakis, and maybe some poor idiot (Flynn) ends up being Trump's Libby (except Trump is the only one who cares, so he probably pardons him).

This is why there is already no air in the collusion balloon and all that's left is a obstruction case which is plainly obvious to everyone (albeit ineffective and ill planned) but essentially meaningless because people already know and it hasn't shifted the opinions it needed to in order to make impeachment viable.

I'll be impressed if everyone can drag this out until 2020 and we'll have effectively just watched everything get worse and Joe Biden will still be the best hope for Democrats (that's bad news).

On June 22 2017 08:04 Doodsmack wrote:


Don't forget the possibility of crimes completely unrelated to the 2016 campaign.

On June 22 2017 08:04 Doodsmack wrote:


Don't forget the possibility of crimes completely unrelated to the 2016 campaign.

On June 22 2017 08:11 crms wrote:

That's the only thing that I can see happening as a result of this investigation. I don't think Trump actively colluded with Russia to win the election. I think as many others have stated, Russia wants to sow unrest and knew Trump is a wildcard likely incapable of leading the country and would be to inexperienced/naive to deal with global affairs, so their propaganda twitter/fake news/etc army skewed towards favoring him but not due to any sort of deal with Trump. I think it's reasonable as the investigation expands that Trump, his associates or businesses get caught in other illegal activities unrelated to the initial probe as stones get turned over but what that ultimately leads to only time will tell.

On June 22 2017 07:59 Danglars wrote:

Don't use arguments in absentia if you have to appeal to authority before your first sentence is done. Secondly, pretending the debate is settled in your favor and then posting such is lazy debating. Simply saying that Trump is actively dangerous and harmful to the republic and calling to your side anonymous sources does not make it so. Simply saying that aforementioned unproved "facts" undermine my argument is saying absolutely nothing substantial at all. It's politics, friend, and I happen to think he can get very little accomplished with separation of powers for his own authoritarian impulses. I've provided both my thinking on my stance and yours in the last post, so do you want to provide yours or just dodge to outside authorities once again?

GOP Senator Tom Cotton’s intern is not shy about spouting off incendiary comments, as the young Republican calls Speaker Paul Ryan “a cuck” and the British “faggots.”

In a recorded conversation with this reporter, Hill intern “Nate” blasted Ryan for not having a hardline immigration stance, saying “Paul Ryan is a cuck, he’s a cuck, get him out” and “Paul Ryan: cuck first and Yankee second.”

(Editor’s note – we are choosing to only use the intern’s first name just to keep his name clean from any future employer’s Google search but as is obvious from the piece, are not actively seeking to protect his identity.)

The term “cuck” originated in political spaces during 2015, as white nationalists and the far-right began calling Republicans they deemed too moderate “cuckservatives.” The word is racially charged, as “cuck” that Joan Walsh described as a pornographic genre “in which a white husband, either in shame or lust, watches his wife be taken by a black man.”

In reference to Ryan, the “cuck” slur towards him originated on alt-right and white supremacist websites. Ryan has been deemed a “cuck” from white nationalist leader Richard Spencer, neo-Nazi websites The Daily Stormer and Stormfront and alt-right pundit Mike Cernovich. Ryan even received the title “Cuck of The Year For 2016” by the Reddit page President Trump used to host an online town hall event.

This intern has a long record with the GOP, as he has worked in the Arkansas senator’s office since January, worked for the Republican Party of Kentucky and lead the Western Kentucky University College Republicans — per his Facebook page.

He continued his conversation with this reporter by saying “Americans are the superior race to everyone in the world . . . we’re superior people” — his evidence for such an assertion came from America’s wartime record. Nate then brought up the Revolutionary War during this rant and called the British “faggots” and American defector Benedict Arnold “a homoesexual.”

When it came to the Trump administration’s controversial Muslim immigration policies, the intern believes we should close the borders, saying “they say ‘we need to lax our immigration system and let more of these people in,’ fuck no!”

“Am I a bigot [towards Muslims]? I guess damn so!” Nate added.

Nate also claims that the idea of health care being a human right is “garbage” and “fundamentally wrong.”

“You will die in the streets if you are an idiot . . . we believe in Social Darwinism, the idiots will get fucked,” he said.

Additionally — though Nate has been interning in Cotton’s office for six months — he has quite a history of controversial social media posts, as he repeatedly said “fag” and “faggot” and used “gay” as a derogatory term on his public Twitter page before being hired. These Twitter rants also include the use of the slur “tranny.”

Nate has made a name for himself for his controversial and homophobic rhetoric in the halls of Congress, as this reporter heard about him from multiple Hill staffers.

Cotton is a Trump-ally who has called for a crackdown on immigration and pushed for the president’s “extreme vetting” policies of majority-Muslim countries, saying “I doubt many Arkansans or Americans more broadly object to taking a harder look at foreigners coming into our country.”

Perhaps Republicans should apply their extreme vetting policies to their intern hiring process.

Mediaite has reached out to the office of Senator Cotton. A spokesperson tells us that Nate “is no longer an intern in Senator Cotton’s office. Beyond that, I cannot comment on personnel matters.”

On June 22 2017 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:


Of which I'm sure Trump and probably every billionaire is guilty of to one degree or another, but in case you haven't noticed, our system is set up so they never get punished beyond possibly paying some of the money back.

If you think Trump is going to prison, you've drank far too much of the Democratic party/Media kool-aid.

On June 22 2017 08:43 Plansix wrote:


Trump won't go to prison, but these investigations and his ability to be a total dumb ass about them will cripple his administration. It is just a question of how many people lose their healthcare in the meantime.

On June 22 2017 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
Trump seems wholly incompetent of achieving any sort of policy goals, even without the Russia hysteria. What it seems to be crippling is the observation that Democrats are fighting for and consider a win leaving 20,000,000+ Americans uninsured indefinitely.