|
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 January 30 2018 01:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 01:18 iamthedave wrote:On January 30 2018 00:32 Danglars wrote:On January 29 2018 22:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
WTF is Clinton doing at the Grammy's for fuck sake. Her hubris is what sunk her in 2016. She should be on Trump’s payroll. The more she gets invited to speak at these things, the more we remember the 2016 choice. Honestly, your guys' obsession with Hilary Clinton is so disturbingly intense that I'm pretty sure you see her face in clouds, puddles of water, and check under your beds every night to make sure she isn't there. I mean... why the flying **** do you care what an old, now retired enemy politician is doing anymore? Are you so upset over the money you wasted trying to pin something on her? I mean... how many times WAS she investigated for things? Your Democrats don't seem to like Bush, but I don't see the same manic obsession over what Bush is doing in his retirement. Genuine question. I genuinely struggle to remember her without remembering an attached investigation. So you’re saying a comment on a Hillary appearance at the Grammys, where she read from a contested book on her general election opponent, that was made by another poster in the thread is Hillary obsession. Meet Trump mania.
Did you not see that video a few pages back of Fox sending a reporter to sneak around in the woods of Hilary's hometown to catch up on what she's doing? Did you miss that period when Fox news called her 'the shadow president' as if she was somehow running your country from the sidelines?
Even if you are not personally obsessed with Hilary, I think it's undeniable you rightists are over in the US. Why, I can't fathom.
|
On January 30 2018 06:34 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 01:51 Danglars wrote:On January 30 2018 01:18 iamthedave wrote:On January 30 2018 00:32 Danglars wrote:On January 29 2018 22:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
WTF is Clinton doing at the Grammy's for fuck sake. Her hubris is what sunk her in 2016. She should be on Trump’s payroll. The more she gets invited to speak at these things, the more we remember the 2016 choice. Honestly, your guys' obsession with Hilary Clinton is so disturbingly intense that I'm pretty sure you see her face in clouds, puddles of water, and check under your beds every night to make sure she isn't there. I mean... why the flying **** do you care what an old, now retired enemy politician is doing anymore? Are you so upset over the money you wasted trying to pin something on her? I mean... how many times WAS she investigated for things? Your Democrats don't seem to like Bush, but I don't see the same manic obsession over what Bush is doing in his retirement. Genuine question. I genuinely struggle to remember her without remembering an attached investigation. So you’re saying a comment on a Hillary appearance at the Grammys, where she read from a contested book on her general election opponent, that was made by another poster in the thread is Hillary obsession. Meet Trump mania. Did you not see that video a few pages back of Fox sending a reporter to sneak around in the woods of Hilary's hometown to catch up on what she's doing? Did you miss that period when Fox news called her 'the shadow president' as if she was somehow running your country from the sidelines? Even if you are not personally obsessed with Hilary, I think it's undeniable you rightists are over in the US. Why, I can't fathom.
So you bring up an unrelated “Fox dummies behave like Fox dummies” vignette because you can’t defend your “Hillary obsession” comment directed at me? Are you really that desperate?
|
United Kingdom10022 Posts
On January 30 2018 06:34 iamthedave wrote:
Even if you are not personally obsessed with Hilary, I think it's undeniable you rightists are over in the US. Why, I can't fathom.
Its simply to distract everyone, including themselves, from asking why on Earth they made Trump the president.
|
On January 30 2018 06:33 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 00:32 Danglars wrote:On January 29 2018 22:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
WTF is Clinton doing at the Grammy's for fuck sake. Her hubris is what sunk her in 2016. She should be on Trump’s payroll. The more she gets invited to speak at these things, the more we remember the 2016 choice. It might be better for your side to forget that trump ran against a reasonable candidate, and to pretend that he ran unopposed. Lest you cons forget that you voted for the orange clown when you had a reasonable alternative.
Trump looks pretty bad until you think back at who would’ve been in the White House had Trump not won.
|
On January 30 2018 06:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 06:33 hunts wrote:On January 30 2018 00:32 Danglars wrote:On January 29 2018 22:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
WTF is Clinton doing at the Grammy's for fuck sake. Her hubris is what sunk her in 2016. She should be on Trump’s payroll. The more she gets invited to speak at these things, the more we remember the 2016 choice. It might be better for your side to forget that trump ran against a reasonable candidate, and to pretend that he ran unopposed. Lest you cons forget that you voted for the orange clown when you had a reasonable alternative. Trump looks pretty bad until you think back at who would’ve been in the White House had Trump not won.
Wait.... are you admitting to everyone point that everyone only brings up HC to justify voting for trump?
|
On January 30 2018 06:41 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 06:39 Danglars wrote:On January 30 2018 06:33 hunts wrote:On January 30 2018 00:32 Danglars wrote:On January 29 2018 22:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
WTF is Clinton doing at the Grammy's for fuck sake. Her hubris is what sunk her in 2016. She should be on Trump’s payroll. The more she gets invited to speak at these things, the more we remember the 2016 choice. It might be better for your side to forget that trump ran against a reasonable candidate, and to pretend that he ran unopposed. Lest you cons forget that you voted for the orange clown when you had a reasonable alternative. Trump looks pretty bad until you think back at who would’ve been in the White House had Trump not won. Wait.... are you admitting to everyone point that everyone only brings up HC to justify voting for trump?
No ... lol read the post. He pretends it’s better to forget that Hillary was some reasonable alternative (consequences of Hillary injecting herself back into the public discourse). That’s a stupid notion.
|
This is some petty shit, even for Trump. Car pooling creates bias and an inability to do ones job.
|
I honestly hope the orange clown and every single one of his living relatives spends the rest of their days in prison once this is over. I honestly think the complicit house republicans and everyone who voted for him deserves the same.
|
lol that he wanted Comey to find his own way home after he fired him from across the entire continent, after letting him find out by reporters, is by far the pettiest thing i’ve heard from him. that can’t possibly be true.
at first i thought this was from McCabe. reading is hard. i’m going to hold onto hope here that this is made up.
|
On January 30 2018 06:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 06:33 hunts wrote:On January 30 2018 00:32 Danglars wrote:On January 29 2018 22:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
WTF is Clinton doing at the Grammy's for fuck sake. Her hubris is what sunk her in 2016. She should be on Trump’s payroll. The more she gets invited to speak at these things, the more we remember the 2016 choice. It might be better for your side to forget that trump ran against a reasonable candidate, and to pretend that he ran unopposed. Lest you cons forget that you voted for the orange clown when you had a reasonable alternative. Trump looks pretty bad until you think back at who would’ve been in the White House had Trump not won.
Genuinely, in what reality do you live?
What fracturing occurs between your senses and the mind that processes them?
Trump would dissemble the entire f***ing government, bar the bits of it that give him control, if he could. His picks like Pruitt are already frighteningly close to doing just that.
|
We should totally re-litigate the 2016 elections, because that is productive. But I can see why some posters would want to drag it back there, when it was all “well he might not be that bad.” Now we are in 2018 and it is clear Trump is trying to core out any government agency he disapproves of.
|
On January 30 2018 07:08 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 06:39 Danglars wrote:On January 30 2018 06:33 hunts wrote:On January 30 2018 00:32 Danglars wrote:On January 29 2018 22:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
WTF is Clinton doing at the Grammy's for fuck sake. Her hubris is what sunk her in 2016. She should be on Trump’s payroll. The more she gets invited to speak at these things, the more we remember the 2016 choice. It might be better for your side to forget that trump ran against a reasonable candidate, and to pretend that he ran unopposed. Lest you cons forget that you voted for the orange clown when you had a reasonable alternative. Trump looks pretty bad until you think back at who would’ve been in the White House had Trump not won. Genuinely, in what reality do you live? What fracturing occurs between your senses and the mind that processes them? Trump would dissemble the entire f***ing government, bar the bits of it that give him control, if he could. His picks like Pruitt are already frighteningly close to doing just that.
he lives in one of the heavy right bubbles. lotta people think the same way as 'im. iirc we've already gone over the various psychological processes that cause this kind of thinking in people; though I don't hvae the best explanatory posts of them onhand.
|
On January 30 2018 07:14 Plansix wrote:
We should totally re-litigate the 2016 elections, because that is productive. But I can see why some posters would want to drag it back there, when it was all “well he might not be that bad.” Now we are in 2018 and it is clear Trump is trying to core out any government agency he disapproves of.
No no, remember it was a "dice roll". Because you know, electing a megalomaniac unstable pond scum is a dice roll, (between "awful" and "god damn fucking awful", I guess).
Btw, I am still amazed that (unless I missed it), no one here has come forward and said "oh well, I fucked up, shouldn't have voted for that guy he is awful".
|
There's only one metric that I think Trump is definitively better than having Clinton and that's the digging into political corruption.
I mean we're still doing a shit tier job at it, and this will probably be the most obvious case of corruption/grifting/incompetence/etc... we get from a president exposing the toothless nature of our justice system for those in power and so on.
We all know if Hillary was in, whatever scandal came up would be dismissed as Republican's obsessed with hating Hillary and how it's not as bad as what Trump would have done.
For the "abortion/birth control is murder" crowd it's not hard to see how Trump is bad but still less bad than someone who would vote to make killing babies easier (not withstanding she was the less pro-choice Democratic candidate).
Danglars isn't quite that extreme so it's a bit tougher for him and has primarily endorsed Trump as his (begrudgingly) chosen warrior for the culture wars, which for me is far more problematic than someone who thinks abortion is murder and can't vote for the person who would never consider more restrictions (in their own mind, Hillary actually appealed to restrictions during her reaching out to the right).
As to Hillary still being around, I don't want to hear from her unless it's about wanting to clean up her previous mistakes (besides the whole losing to the worst presidential nominee ever one )
|
On January 30 2018 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
There's only one metric that I think Trump is definitively better than having Clinton and that's the digging into political corruption.
I mean we're still doing a shit tier job at it, and this will probably be the most obvious case of corruption/grifting/incompetence/etc... we get from a president exposing the toothless nature of our justice system for those in power and so on.
We all know if Hillary was in, whatever scandal came up would be dismissed as Republican's obsessed with hating Hillary and how it's not as bad as what Trump would have done.
For the "abortion/birth control is murder" crowd it's not hard to see how Trump is bad but still less bad than someone who would vote to make killing babies easier (not withstanding she was the less pro-choice Democratic candidate).
I know you believe that if shit gets much worse something is gonna have to change for the better.
I would really love to agree with you, but historically, when things have gotten worse, they have gotten worse. If you worry about the state of corruption in the US, Trump's victory is no good news, in any scenario, and under any circumstances. Having the most corrupt administration in US history will simply create a precedent and let everyone know that half the people in that country are too partisan to care that their republic is being shat over endlessly as long as the guy has a R next to his name.
|
On January 30 2018 07:08 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 06:39 Danglars wrote:On January 30 2018 06:33 hunts wrote:On January 30 2018 00:32 Danglars wrote:On January 29 2018 22:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
WTF is Clinton doing at the Grammy's for fuck sake. Her hubris is what sunk her in 2016. She should be on Trump’s payroll. The more she gets invited to speak at these things, the more we remember the 2016 choice. It might be better for your side to forget that trump ran against a reasonable candidate, and to pretend that he ran unopposed. Lest you cons forget that you voted for the orange clown when you had a reasonable alternative. Trump looks pretty bad until you think back at who would’ve been in the White House had Trump not won. Genuinely, in what reality do you live?
What fracturing occurs between your senses and the mind that processes them?
Trump would dissemble the entire f***ing government, bar the bits of it that give him control, if he could. His picks like Pruitt are already frighteningly close to doing just that.
You seem a little crazy with rage. Maybe step back from politics from a bit and then come back with a fresh attitude. You just can’t reason or debate with blind rage.
|
On January 30 2018 07:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 07:14 Plansix wrote:
We should totally re-litigate the 2016 elections, because that is productive. But I can see why some posters would want to drag it back there, when it was all “well he might not be that bad.” Now we are in 2018 and it is clear Trump is trying to core out any government agency he disapproves of. No no, remember it was a "dice roll". Because you know, electing a megalomaniac unstable pond scum is a dice roll, (between "awful" and "god damn fucking awful", I guess). Btw, I am still amazed that (unless I missed it), no one here has come forward and said "oh well, I fucked up, shouldn't have voted for that guy he is awful".
my vague recollection is we did have a couple such people. or maybe they were people who expressed that sentiment but didn't vote or something.
|
On January 30 2018 07:14 Plansix wrote:
We should totally re-litigate the 2016 elections, because that is productive. But I can see why some posters would want to drag it back there, when it was all “well he might not be that bad.” Now we are in 2018 and it is clear Trump is trying to core out any government agency he disapproves of.
It would be far more productive to recognize each side had their own reasons for voting, with less of the pseudo-psychological “you hate being reminded that there was no good reason to vote” bullshit. It would save the Trump haters time and effort.
|
On January 30 2018 07:38 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 07:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 30 2018 07:14 Plansix wrote:
We should totally re-litigate the 2016 elections, because that is productive. But I can see why some posters would want to drag it back there, when it was all “well he might not be that bad.” Now we are in 2018 and it is clear Trump is trying to core out any government agency he disapproves of. No no, remember it was a "dice roll". Because you know, electing a megalomaniac unstable pond scum is a dice roll, (between "awful" and "god damn fucking awful", I guess). Btw, I am still amazed that (unless I missed it), no one here has come forward and said "oh well, I fucked up, shouldn't have voted for that guy he is awful". my vague recollection is we did have a couple such people. or maybe they were people who expressed that sentiment but didn't vote or something.
IIRC realityisking or something came out and said he was wrong to vote for trump, but then went on to defend some other batshit crazy conservitive ideas. Maybe I'm wrong?
|
On January 30 2018 07:42 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 07:38 zlefin wrote:On January 30 2018 07:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 30 2018 07:14 Plansix wrote:
We should totally re-litigate the 2016 elections, because that is productive. But I can see why some posters would want to drag it back there, when it was all “well he might not be that bad.” Now we are in 2018 and it is clear Trump is trying to core out any government agency he disapproves of. No no, remember it was a "dice roll". Because you know, electing a megalomaniac unstable pond scum is a dice roll, (between "awful" and "god damn fucking awful", I guess). Btw, I am still amazed that (unless I missed it), no one here has come forward and said "oh well, I fucked up, shouldn't have voted for that guy he is awful". my vague recollection is we did have a couple such people. or maybe they were people who expressed that sentiment but didn't vote or something. IIRC realityisking or something came out and said he was wrong to vote for trump, but then went on to defend some other batshit crazy conservitive ideas. Maybe I'm wrong?
I don't remember what he did; but there's not much need to speculate on the names of such people when our memory is fuzzy, they can identify themselves in thread or pm as they wish. that such people exist is known, they're just not that common.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
