Submitting false information on a voter registration form is a third-degree felony in Florida, punishable by up to five years in prison.(http://www.adenbrook.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/adenbrook-straw1.jpg)
However, Mr Bannon did not vote in Florida which is likely to lower the odds of the investigation against him coming to prosecution.
The Washington Post reports several details of bizarre incidents at the property, including strange visitors and loud noises during the night and property damage worth tens of thousands from doors being padlocked or removed entirely or a hot tub seemingly destroyed by "acid".Sounds like a good setup for a Call of Cthulhu one-shot scenario
Donald Trump refuses to acknowledge questions about his fabricated wiretapping accusations, and dismisses Time magazine reporter by saying "I'm President and you're not." (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/trump-time-interview-wiretaps-falsehoods/) The president then issued an official announcement that he was taking his ball and going home, and closed the interview by adding "nanny nanny boo-boo, stick your head in dog doo."
The President's tantrum was soon calmed later that day when he got to climb up into a big rig truck and pretend to drive it around (http://time.com/4711764/donald-trump-pretend-truck-photo-white-house/). They even let him toot the horn.
This man is an actual fucking toddler.
Donald Trump refuses to acknowledge questions about his fabricated wiretapping accusations, and dismisses Time magazine reporter by saying "I'm President and you're not." (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/trump-time-interview-wiretaps-falsehoods/) The president then issued an official announcement that he was taking his ball and going home, and closed the interview by adding "nanny nanny boo-boo, stick your head in dog doo."
The President's tantrum was soon calmed later that day when he got to climb up into a big rig truck and pretend to drive it around (http://time.com/4711764/donald-trump-pretend-truck-photo-white-house/). They even let him toot the horn.
This man is an actual fucking toddler.
The Potus has commented:
"Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!"
But I've NEVER seen corruption handled so poorly, so blatantly... Never in a way of "we're doing this shit openly and world wide, to maybe even prove the point that citizens are too weakened and complacent to actually do anything about it."
Ninja'd
Trump is claiming it was done as retaliation for the chemical attacks earlier this week
and now he starts world war iii, did not even take him 3 months.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/06/us-military-has-launched-more-50-than-missiles-aimed-at-syria-nbc-news.html
Should've just given Syria some money to ask them to cut the bullshit.
and now he starts world war iii, did not even take him 3 months.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/06/us-military-has-launched-more-50-than-missiles-aimed-at-syria-nbc-news.html
Apparently in another forum, Hilary stated she was going to do the same thing if she was in his position so yeah, World War III regardless...
Hopefully we can last long enough so I can watch the entirety of Samurai Jack first.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8x-aUYXUAAF2sH.jpg)Not directed at the poster
Flag:I need an adult
Trump: I am the most mature adult you'll ever meet.
Flag:Uh
Trump: Join me flag together we will make adults GREAT AGAIN
So meanwhile the world is still filled with lies with all forms of news being untrustworthy aka another day in America.
children were being massacred, someone had to do something about it.Nobody's denying that, the whole world is agreeing with that, no one said that was the problem.
this is pretty much the only good thing trump has done.
assad's air forces have been massacring civilians with bomb strikes and sarin attacks for a long time, it's about time they have a taste of their own poison.
also, the reason for that strike was NOT to retaliate against the sarin attacks, it was to take away one of assad's most useful weapons in this war. those planes could wipe out an entire camp of fighters. as long as they're there, bashar will eventually win this war. so trump just evened the odds for the opposition.
and to everyone who's scared from russia, just fuck off man. children were being massacred, someone had to do something about it.
He offered an apology hours later (http://nypost.com/2017/04/11/sean-spicer-apologizes-for-hitler-comments/)."Tell us exactly who you're apologizing to" "uuuh anyone who was offended ? (like... do you want names, or...)" lol that reporter was quite clearly hurling Spicer right back into the pit because it's obvious he's not savvy about anything like that and he's just saying whatever goes through his mind at the time and there's nobody to double-check any text or make a good sitrep on a given crisis. ........ Yep, looking up this guy, Wolf Blitzer, his parents were holocaust survivors straight from Auschwitz. So if Spicer had any idea what he was doing, the first response would have been "you". It did pretty pointedly look like that's what he wanted to hear.
“Quote, ‘Hitler didn’t even sink to the level of using chemical weapons.’ What did you mean by that?” the reporter asked.You could argue "*the* gas" specifically meant sarin gas somehow, but it's more likely that he realized when asked that the gas chambers were included in chemical weapons and tried to backpedal immediately. Sure people are piling up on him now for a dumb mistake when he didn't realize what he was talking about and he's tried to revert it all back, but after everything these past few months, who would defend him.
Spicer seemed confused by the question and stuttered an answer: “I think when you come to sarin gas, there was no — he was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing.”
Trump said the Chinese are “not currency manipulators.” Just last week, he said they were “world champions” of currency manipulation, and he pledged throughout his campaign to label China a currency manipulator on his first day in office. He tweeted in 2012 that President Barack Obama’s failure to call China a currency manipulator “helped China steal even more jobs and money from us.”
Trump said, “I do like a low interest-rate policy.” During his campaign, he excoriated the Federal Reserve for keeping rates low, and said in 2011 that the policy would lead to hyperinflation.
Trump said he was open to the idea of reappointing Janet Yellen to head the Federal Reserve. On the campaign trail, he said he would “most likely” replace her. “I like her, I respect her,” Trump told the Journal at the time.
Trump said he supported the Export-Import Bank, noting that small companies are “really helped” by the institution. During the campaign, he said the bank was unnecessary.
On each of these issues, Trump’s turnabout puts him in lockstep with the Washington economic policy consensus. And in each case, Trump is walking away ― at least for now ― from the heterodox views he expressed during the campaign. This week’s reversals follow his shift on Syria last week, when Trump fired cruise missiles at an airbase after repeatedly saying he opposed U.S. involvement in the country’s civil war.
Also on Wednesday, Trump reversed his position on NATO, telling reporters, “They made a change and now they do fight terrorism. I said it was obsolete. It’s no longer obsolete.”
It is rare for Trump to admit he is changing positions. During the campaign, for example, he insisted he had opposed the Iraq War before the 2003 U.S. invasion, even though he supported it during a radio interview at the time.
In an interview with Fox Business Network that was taped on Tuesday, Trump blasted Obama for not striking Syria in 2013 ― even though Trump repeatedly tweeted at the time that Obama should not do so.
In The Wall Street Journal interview, Trump also waded back into the debate over the relative value of the U.S. dollar, saying, “I think our dollar is getting too strong, and partially that’s my fault because people have confidence in me. But that’s hurting—that will hurt ultimately.”
Trump said the dollar was too strong in January, prompting it to fall.
I don't see how this is odd... Seems pretty American to me.
To do the obviously stupid wrong thing over and over again without owning up to it. Then either waiting till something goes right and boast that you were never wrong to begin with, or just openly pretend that nothing is as bad as everything around you says it is.
[Huffpo]Yuck.
That aside I'm waiting for Trump to do a 180 on the wall. He's backpedaled from so much not-so-dumb shit in the last few months and he's still pushing that fucking wall.
President Donald Trump weighed firing his FBI director for more than a week. When he finally pulled the trigger Tuesday afternoon, he didn't call James Comey. He sent his longtime private security guard to deliver the termination letter in a manila folder to FBI headquarters.See, totally normal. (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/comey-firing-trump-russia-238192)
He had grown enraged by the Russia investigation, two advisers said, frustrated by his inability to control the mushrooming narrative around Russia. He repeatedly asked aides why the Russia investigation wouldn’t disappear and demanded they speak out for him. He would sometimes scream at television clips about the probe, one adviser said.
Trump received letters from Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, and Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, calling for Comey's dismissal, on Tuesday, a spokesman said. The president then decided to fire him based on the recommendations and moved quickly. The spokesman said Trump did not ask for the letters in advance, and that White House officials had no idea they were coming.Nothing to see here.
But several other people familiar with the events said Trump had talked about the firing for over a week, and the letters were written to give him rationale to fire Comey.
While shock dominated much of the FBI and the White House, the mood was more elated at Roger Stone's house in Florida. Several Stone allies and friends said Stone, who has been frequently mentioned in the investigation, encouraged the president to fire Comey in conversations in recent weeks.haha look at how normal this is now. hahahahahaha
It's almost like everyone has always been super corrupt. Only now it's corrupt...er
Every time FBI Director James B. Comey appeared in public, an ever-watchful President Trump grew increasingly agitated that the topic was the one that he was most desperate to avoid: Russia.Got no jokes here. This is just too fucking terrifying. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.dc0f511b85d2)
Trump had long questioned Comey’s loyalty and judgment, and was infuriated by what he viewed as the director’s lack of action in recent weeks on leaks from within the federal government. By last weekend, he had made up his mind: Comey had to go.
[...]
Trump was angry that Comey would not support his baseless claim that President Barack Obama had his campaign offices wiretapped. Trump was frustrated when Comey revealed in Senate testimony the breadth of the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s effort to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election. And he fumed that Comey was giving too much attention to the Russia probe and not enough to investigating leaks to journalists.
[...]
In the weeks leading up to Comey’s firing, Trump administration officials had repeatedly urged the FBI to more aggressively pursue leak investigations, according to people familiar with the discussions. Administration officials sometimes sought to push the FBI to prioritize leak probes over the Russia interference case, and at other times urged the bureau to investigate disclosures of information that was not classified or highly sensitive and therefore did not constitute crimes, these people said.
pffffhahahahahamakes you think of all the shit he got away with running his own company; now he thinks he is runing his country.
Except putting The Joker on the same level as Trump is an insult to The Jokermake america laugh again (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6UUwzaoD9s)
President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said that Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html
The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
[...]
Trump has repeatedly gone off-script in his dealings with high-ranking foreign officials, most notably in his contentious introductory conversation with the Australian Prime Minister earlier this year. He has also faced criticism for lax attention to security at his Florida retreat Mar-a-Lago, where he appeared to field preliminary reports of a North Korea missile launch in full view of casual diners.
U.S. officials said that the National Security Council continues to prepare multi-page briefings for Trump to guide him through conversations with foreign leaders but that he has insisted that the guidance be distilled to a single page of bullet points, and often ignores those.
U.S. officials said that the National Security Council continues to prepare multi-page briefings for Trump to guide him through conversations with foreign leaders but that he has insisted that the guidance be distilled to a single page of bullet points, and often ignores those.lol
I remember hearing the same thing from Bush, but thought it was hyperbole. Pretty sad the current resident is outdumbing Bush.
Ha, ha, ha! Never let it be said Americans are unconcerned about foreign countries. You're so nice to us you very kindly elected a complete[avatar]http://i.imgur.com/EFijY5v.png[/avatar]vegetableclown as your president, so we can all point and laugh!
This man is an actual fucking toddler.Further evidence on your statement
U.S. officials said that the National Security Council continues to prepare multi-page briefings for Trump to guide him through conversations with foreign leaders but that he has insisted that the guidance be distilled to a single page of bullet points, and often ignores those.Imagine him being lectured like a 5 year old by his parents not to go around divulging personal family matters to everyone he meets.
The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false. The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation. At no time — at no time — were intelligence sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials who were present, including the secretary of state, remember it being the same way and have said so. Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources. And I was in the room. It didn’t happen.
There is a fear among some of Mr. Trump’s senior advisers about leaving him alone in meetings with foreign leaders out of concern he might speak out of turn. General McMaster, in particular, has tried to insert caveats or gentle corrections into conversations when he believes the president is straying off topic or onto boggy diplomatic ground.jfc (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/white-house-staff.html)
This has, at times, chafed the president, according to two officials with knowledge of the situation. Mr. Trump, who still openly laments having to dismiss his first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, has groused that General McMaster talks too much in meetings, and the president has referred to him as “a pain,” according to one of the officials.
In private, three administration officials conceded that they could not publicly articulate their most compelling — and honest — defense of the president: that Mr. Trump, a hasty and indifferent reader of printed briefing materials, simply did not possess the interest or knowledge of the granular details of intelligence gathering to leak specific sources and methods of intelligence gathering that would do harm to United States allies.
President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.uhhh
“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.
The existence of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.
Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence a continuing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
[...]
Mr. Comey created similar memos — including some that are classified — about every phone call and meeting he had with the president, the two people said. It is unclear whether Mr. Comey told the Justice Department about the conversation or his memos.
[...]
Mr. Comey’s recollection has been bolstered in the past by F.B.I. notes. In 2007, he told Congress about a now-famous showdown with senior White House officials over the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. The White House disputed Mr. Comey’s account, but the F.B.I. director at the time, Robert S. Mueller III, kept notes that backed up Mr. Comey’s story.
BTW I don't even know why the fuck do we still call it the "alt" right. It's basically the "mainstream" right now.Because they're not the Right but the Far Right, being alone doesn't change their position on this board, it actually means something. It's just that there's no Right, there's a Far Right.
Because they're not the Right but the Far Right, being alone doesn't change their position on this board, it actually means something. It's just that there's no Right, there's a Far Right.The alt right isn't the far right either. Most of the people the alt right worships are demagogues with heterodox policies. Trump himself is an example: back in the Republican primaries he was almost the only candidate (along with Jeb!) who believes the rich should pay more taxes. Trump built his plataform around hatred of foreign trade. He's barely to the right of Hillary on most issues outside of immigration.
Trump [] was almost the only candidate [] who believes the rich should pay more taxes.Well, maybe he said that, but I'm pretty sure he's not doing it. Being a demagogue made him say that and got him votes from people who are neither far right nor alt right, but that's definitely not a thing he's actually doing, that's not his own policy. He himself was raised and advised by the likes of Bannon and his "news" site whose name I already forgot, which is resolutely far right in everything but name. And the far right uses fake promises and demagogy to get votes from outside their circle. Nothing that Trump has actually done should make you think he's anything but far right. The "alt right" movement was born form those guys, it was never anything more than rebranding.
President Donald Trump, amid his own swirling controversies, advised United States Coast Guard Academy graduates that while things aren't always fair, "you have to put your head down and fight, fight, fight."
The comment was a clear reference to the fact that Trump's White House is now besieged by bipartisan questions about his alleged request that former FBI Director James Comey halt an investigation into his former top national security aide.
Then, dropping the pretext even more, he bemoaned the media coverage of his presidency. "Look at the way I have been treated lately, especially by the media," he said. "No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly.
lol kennedy died for his country.
i'm surprised that republicans aren't taking any actions to control him, dude is wrecking his own party.
red scare 2.0lol no.
^ This was a big part of his appeal. You're finally starting to get it.
President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.Never fear, there's a completely plausible explanation for all of this:
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”
Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, did not dispute the account.See? Stop taking Trump so literally. He was just joking; this is all just "locker room talk"!
In a statement, he said that Mr. Comey had put unnecessary pressure on the president’s ability to conduct diplomacy with Russia on matters such as Syria, Ukraine and the Islamic State.
“By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,” Mr. Spicer said. “The investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations."
A third government official briefed on the meeting defended the president, saying Mr. Trump was using a negotiating tactic when he told Mr. Lavrov about the “pressure” he was under. The idea, the official suggested, was to create a sense of obligation with Russian officials and to coax concessions out of Mr. Lavrov — on Syria, Ukraine and other issues — by saying that Russian meddling in last year’s election had created enormous political problems for Mr. Trump.
Now that's something that's actually newsworthy!
It kinda annoys me how much news outlets are trying to dig up these little Trumpisms and pass it off as journalism when there are much more important things going on, good or bad (mostly bad). I wouldn't be surprised if Person Man one day links an article saying "Just to prove how much of an egomaniac Trump is, he was found in the men's bathroom sticking a finger up his own butthole (for pleasure)."
Like how the pope, after meeting Trump, looked super bummed for the first time since he became pope ? Or how Melania slapped and escaped Trump trying to reach for her hand twice ? Or like how Macron and Trump met today, and on the fateful handshake, if you go frame by frame, you clearly see Trump trying to escape twice from Macron's grip ? (After Trudeau, everyone's showing off)
This is like the usual celebrity watch, but with world leaders now. It's hilarious and it's a change from all the impending doom of nuclear war against North Korea -Trump off-handedly publicly revealed that there were two nuclear submarines next to North Korea- and the collusion with Russia -the former CIA director revealed in a hearing that they know for a fact Moscow tried to recruit some of Trump's staff but they don't know if they succeeded.
pay himIsn't that
Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin (https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html)
Russian Once Tied to Trump Aide Seeks Immunity to Testify Before Congress (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/us/politics/oleg-deripaska-paul-manafort.html)
Senate Intel Committee demands Trump campaign to turn over all docs (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/335381-senate-intel-committee-demands-trump-campaign-to-turn-over-all?amp)
It's really hard to keep track of the news these days.
You do realize that's not actually something Trump does, right??? (the website says that it tries to mimic his handwriting)pay himIsn't that
Like
Illegal for him
Trump retaliated on Twitter. “Chuck Jones, who is President of United Steelworkers 1999, has done a terrible job representing workers. No wonder companies flee country!” Trump tweeted of the local union leader, adding that “If United Steelworkers 1999 was any good, they would have kept those jobs in Indiana. Spend more time working-less time talking. Reduce dues.”
President Trump has excellent lawyers. They have a challenging client.:stare:
In a series of Twitter posts Monday morning, Mr. Trump may have irretrievably undermined his lawyers’ efforts to persuade the Supreme Court to reinstate his executive order limiting travel from six predominantly Muslim countries.
Saying he preferred “the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version” he had issued in March, Mr. Trump attacked both the Justice Department and the federal courts.
[...]
Last week, lawyers in the solicitor general’s office filed polished briefs in the Supreme Court. They urged the justices to ignore incendiary statements from Mr. Trump during the presidential campaign, including a call for a “Muslim ban.” The court should focus instead on the text of the revised executive order and statements from Mr. Trump after he had taken the inaugural oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” the briefs said.
he outright proclaimed that the WH's justification for firing him (mishandling of the Clinton emails) is bullshit, and that he was fired for the Russia investigationSimply not true at all.
The closest thing to obstruction claimed is Trump saying "Flynn is a good man and I hope you can let this go." which it wasn't. As a result Comey kept his people investigating away from Trump and didn't inform the investigators of Trump request out of frustration. He also made clear that Trump wanted Comey or the FBI to tell the media that he himself wasn't under investigation. Pretty much confirmed by the hearing that it wasn't obstruction, but you'll have lawyers on both sides beating their chest over it and ultimately doing nothing. So no chance of impeachment for obstruction, as no obstruction took place.I think you should read this thread by an expert
(18) And under "Obstruction by Intimidation, Threats, Persuasion, or Deception (18 U.S.C. 1512 (b)), Trump DID "attempt to persuade" Comey.
Effectively what this proved is Trump-Russia so far was just a masturbatory conspiracy theory by people who just wanted to see him destroyed (also the piss-gate dossier was effectively thrown on a drawer for obvious reasons), this was pretty much confirmed a week or 2 ago as well when Senators on both sides start saying Trump isn't subject to an investigation. He was, as expected and reconfirmed, not under investigation and never was. The only person under actual investigation was Flynn instead of every single person in Trumps administration who were likely checked and cleared. So no chance of impeachment here.That's not what Comey said. He said Trump himself wasn't under investigation at the time, but his campaign staff was (starting with Flynn, but then it's been revealed in the last few months that it's moved to include others), and he made it pretty obvious that whoever takes over may very well take it all the way to the top if that's where it goes.
The closest thing to obstruction claimed is Trump saying "Flynn is a good man and I hope you can let this go.".... Well yeah, that's pretty much the entire case, did he tell him to let go or not. After asking him if he intended to keep his job. And making any witness leave the room. And then when Comey didn't, Trump fired him. That's the whole subject of the investigation, if he did that, it IS obstruction, that's the entire basis for a potential impeachment, that's why Comey leaked his memos and that's what the special prosecutor needs to rule on. Paul Ryan's defense on that part was claiming that Trump didn't know he wasn't allowed to do that. This part which you're trying to minimize for some reason is the entire grounds for impeachment.
Oh you'll also have stories about "Trump expecting loyalty from his administration and the US govt" is bad, if they aren't up already. Despite it being pretty expected for a president to want his workers to be loyal and not seek to undermine him at every turn. Nothing out of line about that, but I'm expecting "loyalty" to be a bad word for the next week just from the way things like to swing in US news.Expecting loyalty, asking the chief of the FBI if he wants to keep his job, asking him to drop a case, and then firing him when he doesn't.
He detailed the confusion of the shifting explanations given to him for his firing, and that Trump's administration defamed him after the firing saying the bureau was "in disarray" and the workforce had "lost confidence in its leader". And he called out those "lies, plain and simple". And he straight up said he believes he was fired because of the Russia investigation. This is absolutely true.Quotehe outright proclaimed that the WH's justification for firing him (mishandling of the Clinton emails) is bullshit, and that he was fired for the Russia investigationSimply not true at all.
Oh you'll also have stories about "Trump expecting loyalty from his administration and the US govt" is bad, if they aren't up already. Despite it being pretty expected for a president to want his workers to be loyal and not seek to undermine him at every turn. Nothing out of line about that, but I'm expecting "loyalty" to be a bad word for the next week just from the way things like to swing in US news.
Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland sued President Trump on Monday, alleging that he has violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House.https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-and-maryland-to-sue-president-trump-alleging-breach-of-constitutional-oath/2017/06/11/0059e1f0-4f19-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html
The lawsuit, the first of its kind brought by government entities, centers on the fact that Trump chose to retain ownership of his company when he became president. Trump said in January that he was shifting his business assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate potential conflicts of interests.
But D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) say Trump has broken many promises to keep separate his public duties and private business interests. For one, his son Eric Trump has said the president would continue to receive regular updates about his company’s financial health.
So Trump yelled that he was ready to testify under oath and mocked people that they'd be disappointed when looking for tapes of his conversations with Comey
And today, Maryland attorney general is filing a lawsuit against Trump about receiving payments from foreign powers through his companies.
Maybe that'll throw a wrench in his "drain the swamp" support, knowing that Republicans are unlikely to impeach him as long as he still has "his base".
Apparently we now know its an acronymWell, it wasn't, but a Democrat made one up for shit 'n giggles and ran with it for the buzz.
Also one of Trump's business partners is claiming that Trump is considering firing the special prosecutor assigned to handle the Russia investigation (http://nypost.com/2017/06/12/trump-pal-says-president-is-considering-firing-robert-mueller/).
The ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Democrat Adam Schiff, responded forcefully by saying Mueller would be brought back “immediately.”... If he's firing the prosecutor, can't you just assume there's a reason and already determine that this absolutely IS an obstruction of justice and be done with the entire issue ?
The US Supreme Court has partially lifted an injunction against President Donald Trump's travel ban. America's highest court also granted an emergency request from the White House allowing part of the refugee ban to go into effect. The justices said they would consider in October whether Mr Trump's policy should be upheld or struck down. The Supreme Court said in Monday's ruling: "In practical terms, this means that [the executive order] may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of [the executive order]."
The court said it could not uphold lower court injunctions barring enforcement of the ban against foreigners who have no connection to the United States at all. "Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national," the court said. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch wrote in the ruling that they would have allowed the travel ban to go into full effect, pending a review.
CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
Him being a racist hick doesn't make CNN's actions any better. It'd be equally wrong if a right wing news outlet hunted down for some random SJW posting about how he hates all white straight males on tumblr and threatened to dox him if he didn't apologize and refrain form posting stupid shit on the internet forever. Witch hunts are bad regardless of who leads them.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.this is the line that's worrying most people. nobody really cares this much when this happens to authorities, celebrities or criminals, but when it happens to common people, common people worry because they know they might be next
There's no indication anywhere that CNN actually got in touch with the guy before the apology and the scrubbing (they say they attempted to contact him). I'd like to understand where you guys are fishing the idea that they threatened him first, other than your collective asses. It looks like the scrubbing happened after all his posts were spread around to show the kind of threads he posted in and the kind of comments he made - and after he realized that CNN and everyone else could find out his identity. That's not CNN's fault. Then he's the one who contacted them and confirmed his identity.
You guys are reversing the order of events and just generally making shit up.
Because he said that before they even talked to him ?? How do you coerce someone into doing something he already did before you could meet him
He (rightfully) got scared on his own when he realized everyone could figure out who he was.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
The only thing that cnn did that seems distasteful is saying they would reserve the right to release the name if he resumes the behaviour, might as well just do it..
how is any of this CNN's fault ? The guy posted stuff that CNN didn't like and apparently anyone who looks through the guy's posts can figure out who he is. He got scared of that but CNN didn't actually do anything. Comparing that to the mafia just because CNN did their job (because that's what any decent journalist does all the time regardless of who's involved, woop de doo big news) and did what anyone else could do is just plain bullshit.Well, we can believe:
The "CNN reserves the right etc." bit is shitty but that's basically saying they didn't make any agreement with the guy. It was about something he already did, in case he backpedals. That's no different from any other legal disclaimer, because this IS a news site, not a mafia.
Weirding me out the most are the people going : "who here never wrote at length about how they want jews and blacks dead while they thought they were anonymous throw the first stone"for the sake of the argument just replace making very racist posts with a wide array of things that could be considered bad or embarrassing
They're holding another persons private informations hostage and are threatening to fuck up his life cause he made a memeYou seem to be missing the part where he made videos about wanting to shoot people for their color or religion or whatever and he deleted that when he freaked out and said he wouldn't do it again, and they basically said they'd check if he started doing those things again
Why were they looking for the guy to begin with?Because they all do that for everyone. This should be obvious, why are you having such a hard time getting that. Why are you being paranoid over this, why are you drawing such weird conclusions like that
Why were they looking for the guy to begin with? It was another chance to make the president and his supporters look bad. Oddly, it would've worked just fine had they not decided it was worth looking for the identity of a racist shitposter. They should've left it at ripping Trump for reposting that. It's Kotaku-level journalism, and puts in perspective to that O'Keefe video about "business before ethics."
I have no sympathy for anything being taken out of context in respect to CNN, or the massive ridicule they're now facing, because they could've avoided the whole thing in the first place. No amount of logistical fact-checking changes this horrid lapse in judgement.
Most people didn't care about who the gif creator was.Okay so you just don't know how media works. You could have just said so from the start.
And proceed to say what amounts to "don't do it again or else."You mean "don't do those racist, antisemitic calls for mass murder / apology or else" ? Again, they could have taken that info and gone straight to the police with it.
In the meantime, here's what extortion ACTUALLY looks like.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/white-house-if-cnn-bashes-trump-trump-may-block-merger.html
One wrongI think you're confused, you mean 50 million wrongs for Trump. But yeah, let's focus on CNN.
it becomes a real problem when it begins to effect the quality of journalism.
Unless you think it's okay for police to get invovled because someone said mean things on the internet. (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/world/europe/germany-36-accused-of-hateful-postings-over-social-media.html) edit: looking into legitimate threats and coertion is fine, but what classifies as hate speech has the potential to be misused or done incorrectly.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/us-politics/trump-putin-press-journalists-meeting-russia-president-points-which-ones-insulting-you-a7830046.htmlWhat?
Awww they are bonding over wanting journalists dead
They aren't as bad as you are implying here and those links you posted are a pretty big extreme bomb theating a corporate airline or posting pictures of a rifle out your window and tweeting "I'll shoot a cop for retweets" whether a joke or not carry real weight to them, both imply a direct and serious threat.it becomes a real problem when it begins to effect the quality of journalism.Sending out threats and talking about wanting to kill people are not "MEAN posts" and yeah police gets involved over far less
Unless you think it's okay for police to get invovled because someone said mean things on the internet. (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/world/europe/germany-36-accused-of-hateful-postings-over-social-media.html) edit: looking into legitimate threats and coertion is fine, but what classifies as hate speech has the potential to be misused or done incorrectly.
The guy that was doing it KNEW he was likely to get fucked up over his threats and thats precisely why he imediately started trying to make up for it.
We are living in the dumbest possible universe.
FiveThirtyEight says Kanye has a 71.4% chance of winning.We are living in the dumbest possible universe.Wait until The Rock wins the 2020 election before saying that.
Abu Sayed was confirmed dead following a strike on the terror cult’s headquarters in Kunar province. The Pentagon today revealed the emir was killed on Tuesday as US forces decimate the jihadis in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
Sayed's death marks the third time an ISIS-K leader has been killed within a year. Hafiz Sayed Khan was killed in July 2016 and Abdul Hasib was killed during a joint US-Afghan commando raid in April. The news comes just days after ISIS confirmed that leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had been killed. The Russian Defence Ministry reported in June that the IS leader and 30 gunman had been killed by a Russian airstrip in Syria in May. (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/827254/Islamic-state-Deash-al-Baghdadi-leader-dead-Mosul) However, other reports claim that he was killed during a US bombing in Iraq.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Tuesday they had information straight from high ranking ISIS people that he was dead, but that claim has been made several times then proven wrong, and Washington is still saying they can't confirm that, they're cautious about it.QuoteThe Russian Defence Ministry reported in June that the IS leader and 30 gunman had been killed by a Russian airstrip in Syria in May. (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/827254/Islamic-state-Deash-al-Baghdadi-leader-dead-Mosul) However, other reports claim that he was killed during a US bombing in Iraq.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-lawyers-seek-to-undercut-muellers-russia-investigation/2017/07/20/232ebf2c-6d71-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.dc7c61829c66
Trump is now looking into avenues to pardon himself, family members, and close staff targeted by the Russia investigation.
Sean Spicer has resigned as White House Press Secretary.
The move came just moments after President Trump offered New York financier Anthony Scaramucci the job of communications director.
Spicer is vacating his position just six months and one day after he first stood at the podium and made his controversial remarks about the size of President Trump's inauguration crowd.
A few weeks into his new job, The Journal said, Spicer asked his aide to go to the executive office building located near the White House and tell junior staffers to send him their mini-fridge.
The staffers reportedly refused to do so. As a result, Spicer was forced to wait until the evening, when the staffers had all left, and was "spotted by a fellow White House official lugging the icebox down the White House driveway after 8 p.m.," The Journal reported.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he would not permit transgender people to serve in the U.S. military, citing "tremendous medical costs and disruption," an action condemned by critics as "raw prejudice" and a political stunt.
[...]"After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military," Trump wrote in a series of Twitter posts.
"Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail," the Republican president wrote.
Trump's action appeared to halt years of efforts to eliminate barriers to military service based on sexual orientation. The Pentagon last year under Obama announced that it was ending its ban on transgender people serving openly in the military, with officials calling the prohibition outdated.
[...]The Pentagon had been expected to start allowing transgender people to begin enlisting this year, provided they had been "stable" in their preferred gender for 18 months. But Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on June 30 approved a six-month delay in allowing transgender recruits to join the military.
transgender people show more courage when they leave their fucking houses in the morning than donald trump has shown his entire life
It seems like no actual legal or executive action has actually taken place yet, and even if it did it get shut down immediately. Both the Dems and the GOP have all pretty much immediately come out against this.They'll tut-tut and issues statements of disapproval, and then proceed to continue about their usual business.
They'll tut-tut and issues statements of disapproval, and then proceed to continue about their usual business.
Like with every other time something like this has happened with regards to Trump.
Donnie was a proponent of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, so it's not like he has no awareness of the matter.It's looking pretty likely right now that he already didn't understand a thing and was just saying controversial things to get attention and support from at least one side.
“The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, Title VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination,” the brief said. “It does not, as has been settled for decades. Any efforts to amend Title VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts.”
Meanwhile in the White House, it looks like Scary "stab you from the front" mucci is just gonna come and go like a wild fire. He went completely apeshit over the phone with a New Yorker jounalist about Priebus and Bannon, and not "off the records", about fucking leaks and cockblocking him and Bannon sucking his own dick (in a nutshell).
And now we have the President of the United States of America openly encouraging police brutality. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-police-brutality_us_597b840fe4b02a8434b6575a)
His remarks received significant applause.
For every CEO that drops out of the Manufacturing Council, I have many to take their place. Grandstanders should not have gone on. JOBS!alright!
Rather than putting pressure on the businesspeople of the Manufacturing Council & Strategy & Policy Forum, I am ending both. Thank you all!oh
To be fair, in America, most kids here grow up thinking that General Lee was actually anti-slavery but chose to fight for the South due to familial and friend loyalties. So if you never advanced beyond elementary-level American History, Lee is a good guy and it's sad that his statue is getting torn down.The cool thing about Lee is that he was actually against the whole "the south will raise again" mentality and his own hero worshipping after the civil war, believing southern people should move the fuck on.
To be fair, in America, most kids here grow up thinking that General Lee was actually anti-slavery but chose to fight for the South due to familial and friend loyalties. So if you never advanced beyond elementary-level American History, Lee is a good guy and it's sad that his statue is getting torn down.
Underlining this "all united" line is like pointing out that the Monday speech specifically condemned neo nazis. It's blaringly obvious which parts were his true feelings.
Oh yea, and he even changed that story. When he used it during the campaign, he said there was no terror attacks for 25 years. And in this tweet, he upped it to 35. This is so ridiculous.
(PS, if you think this is me supporting racism, if you think Bannon is a racist, open this spoiler)Oh. Wow. That totally turned me over, those quotes completely make up for all the insane shit that was regularly posted on Breitbart. See, there's a big difference between "just racist" and "batshit insane fuckwad". And that guy is definitely not a racist.Quote...
so warn or ban those posters
Trump resigned the presidency already — if we regard the job as one of moral stewardship, if we assume that an iota of civic concern must joust with self-regard, if we expect a president’s interest in legislation to rise above vacuous theatrics, if we consider a certain baseline of diplomatic etiquette to be part of the equation. By those measures, it’s arguable that Trump’s presidency never really began.
The rest is more insane attempts to claim he didn't denounce white supremacy, one of the most disgusting organized lies I've seen thus farI dunno, that lie right here is pretty up there on the scale of disgusting lies.
Keep justifying yourself with your "technically true" faith but everyone can see through it.You're just cherry picking the stuff you want to read while ignoring every other explanation. Literally everyone else in the world but you knows it's a lie.
Literally everyone else in the world
Keep justifying yourself with your "technically true" faith but everyone can see through it.You're just cherry picking the stuff you want to read while ignoring every other explanation. Literally everyone else in the world but you knows it's a lie.
please make this thread. i would love nothing more than piss on alt right morons like this shitbag who photoshopped antifa's logo into this stock picture:1: i dont think you know what stock picture means
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHmECerVoAA8ltT.jpg)
Putting you on ignore nowOkay good luck putting the rest of the world on ignore then.
The very very pro-LGBT President Trump has officially gone through with the trans soldier ban (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-directs-pentagon-to-implement-ban-on-transgender-service-members-bans-sex-reassignment-surgery/2017/08/25/c8c604d8-89e4-11e7-9ce7-9e175d8953fa_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_transgender-730pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.162c423ce714), because he loves LGBT people so much. That's also why this ban prevents the military from providing medical treatment for gender confirmation surgeries. Because he's so pro-LGBT. Yep.
Dude even the neo nazis and the whole shabang also knows that Trump didn't sell them out and did the next best thing to explicitly supporting them. You're the only one hanging on to your blinders like a madman. You're the only one lying (well, and Trump), and you're only lying to yourself.
Yeah...except providing medical treatment would be too expensive as well as providing surgery for transgendered soldiers.The military spends 10 times the cost of trans-related health care on Viagra. Surely Trump will wisely institute a ban on such unnecessary medication. Our soldiers should be fighting, not fucking!
Yeah...except providing medical treatment would be too expensive as well as providing surgery for transgendered soldiers.The military spends 10 times the cost of trans-related health care on Viagra. Surely Trump will wisely institute a ban on such unnecessary medication. Our soldiers should be fighting, not fucking!
also don't double post
you do know sildenafil is used as a blood thinner to improve the circulation of the blood and relaxes the muscles very useful for surgeries and not just for bed? it is was intended for that use but like marijuana they got used for recreation just to get sales charts up. i'm kinda pissed off about this a lot of drugs that could help people who really needs it can't get them because they're illegal because some junky can't stop injecting it to their already brain dead bodies and the media and lawmakers doesn't even do research about it they just feed people with half ass opinions that those drugs are evil and you'll be satan himself you take some.I'm not actually serious about banning Viagra; even if it didn't have any additional effects besides ED, it'd still be worth paying for (cuz ED and related issues effect mental health and stuff). The point I was making is that it's absurd to try and deny medical coverage to trans soldiers under the guise of saving money, cuz there's so, so, so, so, so many things the military spends way more money on, and singling out medical treatment for trans soldiers is just bigotry disguised as a budgetary concern.
I've seen this number thrown around ad nauseum, but nobody seems to realize A) the military is predominantly formed by males and B) erectile dysfunction is far, far more common than GID. It doesn't really counter the point that transpeople are disproportionately expensive personnel.Yeah...except providing medical treatment would be too expensive as well as providing surgery for transgendered soldiers.The military spends 10 times the cost of trans-related health care on Viagra. Surely Trump will wisely institute a ban on such unnecessary medication. Our soldiers should be fighting, not fucking!
also don't double post
there's so, so, so, so, so many things the military spends way more money on, and singling out medical treatment for trans soldiers is just bigotry disguised as a budgetary concern.This I can agree with, though. The army isn't going bankrupt for letting a few transpeople in.
Trump has issued a presidential pardon to Joe Arpaio (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/25/politics/sheriff-joe-arpaio-donald-trump-pardon/index.html?sr=fbCNN082517sheriff-joe-arpaio-donald-trump-pardon0813PMStory) who was recently found guilty of criminal contempt for his open refusal to stop racially profiling citizens and violating civil rights.
But no, Trump's not a racist. He's just a really, really big fan of them and wants them to be free to keep up the good work.
Look at the little dope trying to be human being... what's next, WeegeeTheTrumpTard? You going to shout out 'Fake News!' at the mention of anything that isn't from Fox News? Oh, you going to bust out the dead horse that is Benghazi? I know, he's going to blame Obama for all the ills in the world because you're too dumb to see the reality.
So, sit down and let the adults speak here, okay? Thank you.
My dude calm down. It doesn't really matter if you actually have a point when you express it like that. If the guy is being an idiot just let him be an idiot and move on without responding in kind, no one's going to hear your message when there's insults every other line.
sorry snakebyte, luigi's dethroned you as the king of entertainment
fuck
your argument is irrelevant. it's YOU who can't be taken seriously, you forfeit that right when you childishly discredited a news site just because it show how much of a shithead your leader is.sorry snakebyte, luigi's dethroned you as the king of entertainment
fuck
So...are you actually going to address my arguments or no?
your argument is irrelevant. it's YOU who can't be taken seriously, you forfeit that right when you childishly discredited a news site just because it show how much of a shithead your leader is.sorry snakebyte, luigi's dethroned you as the king of entertainment
fuck
So...are you actually going to address my arguments or no?
But to humor the memest of lords, weegee, I have a BBC news source (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41058851). Trump didn't call them fake news, right?
I'd post Trump's own tweet where he said he granted a full pardon to Arpaio because "he kept Arizona safe", as well as Arpaio's own response thanking Trump in a tweet, but you'll probably call that fake news too because who uses Twitter as a source for news.
Also I can't be bothered to post a tweet properly. Plus you're a big irrelevant joke anyway so who cares about making a point to you, you don't know the truth when it hits you.
Then why are you replying to me?What's that have to do with anything ? Is it not allowed ?
I wasn't denying Arpaio was pardoned. He ISN'T however racist.The law disagrees with you. And that's a fight you're not going to win.
cnn has been bad lately, but there's no fully reliable unbiased source of news, unless it's a brand new website with five articles and that one would eventually fall too. complain about how shitty cnn/whatever other site is when someone posts a link that has factual mistakes or leans way too much in one direction
when someone posts a link to a simple cnn article like Trump Drank Water Once and you go FAKE NEWS!!! CNN IS AIDS!! you just look like an asshole
Then why are you replying to me?What's that have to do with anything ? Is it not allowed ?I wasn't denying Arpaio was pardoned. He ISN'T however racist.The law disagrees with you. And that's a fight you're not going to win.
Why are any of you bothering to talk politics with someone who calls himself "Meme Lord."
He is literally defining himself as someone who mindlessly parrots things other people came up with.
You mean like how you mindlessly parrot things you hear from random articles on the internet and news networks? I just love the logical fallacies being used here.lol this reasoning is so dumb
I was actually mocking Person Man for citing CNN, since it implies he probably watches CNN to get his information. (If he doesn't, then pardon me.)that's what would make you an asshole
You're also an asshole when you think every conservative watches Fox News because they don't believe sources coming from left-leaning ones.seadragon has meltdowns about fox news every chance he gets and should be ignored
If my opinions and arguments are irrelevant, why reply? Seems contradictory, dont you think? It shows that my arguments ARE actually relevant since you're paying attention to them.this isn't how arguing works
You mean the same BBC that thought Roman Britain was ethnically diverse even though it wasn't?quoted above: the reason why you also shouldn't trust bbc news, because they had a theory about something.
You mean the same BBC that thought Roman Britain was ethnically diverse even though it wasn't?quoted above: the reason why you also shouldn't trust bbc news, because they had a theory about something.
you're a joke lil buddy.
BBC didn't establish it as a theory, they established it as a cold hard fact, you dimwit.how dare they!!! even tho you have no proof that they're wrong. you're basing everything on your dumbass assumptions about them, while they had actually researched it and consulted actual history professors.
Seriously guys, just ignore him. No matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on, conservative or liberal, engaging with people like this guy is never going to be productive. People like him don't actually care about politics, or having an informed opinion, or even reality; They only care about "winning." Being able to say "I am right" regardless of whether or not that actually means anything. They treat politics like it's a high school sporting event. As long as you can shout and bully and harass the other team enough and you end up in the lead, nothing else matters.
You post these little links to mainstream media articles that show ZERO proof... Uh, remind me what exactly you think is wrong in any of the articles that was being discussed ? What proof are you saying isn't given, proof of what ? Because you're not denying that Trump pardoned the guy, you claim that the guy in question is not a racist even though the court declared he was and you're factually wrong (and also that has nothing to do with anything that anyone was talking about in the first place)... What exactly were you here to fight about ? Because the only thing you said so far is "lol CNN as a source" and "lol BBC as a source".
You've shown no interest in letting people prove that you may be wrong.But... He's not wrong, you're wrong and you reject all proof of that you're wrong as "NU-UH !"
seadragon has meltdowns about fox news every chance he gets and should be ignored
seadragon has meltdowns about fox news every chance he gets and should be ignored
Not always, dude. Come on... I did have my moments. I just don't appreciate the little twit here trying to act like the Army of Morons I see on a daily basis on Facebook.
Oh, and believe or not: It's not a generalization that most conservatives watch Fox News and then are uninformed... it's true. At least Snakebyte is informed... this guy isn't, and that's why he's on the ignore list.
Should I post Pew Research Group poll results or is that a faulty source? EDIT: Eh, fuck it
(http://i.imgur.com/f6skCc4.png)
Also another poll from a the Brookings Institute and the Public Religion Research Institute:
(http://i.imgur.com/x1vD7OZ.png)
Yes, and the Conservatives that do watch are roughly half of them if you paid attention to the numbers there. 47% for one poll, 53% for another.
The Conservatives who took that poll, you mean.huh i guess no poll results are useful then
First, what research do they do if they don't take information from anyone ? Because "not taking information from anyone" just sounds like "they're guessing" which is not how information or research work at all.
Second, you talk like those polls are the same as the "corporate media". You're just wrong.
Third, you didn't answer my questions.
I never once implied those polls are the same as corporate media.Uh, yeah, you did, when you claimed that we wouldn't find a poll that has republicans and conservatives who don't follow corporate medias, you're very literally claiming that those polls are taken by corporate medias and anyone who doesn't follow corporate medias can't possibly be in those polls. What other link could there possibly be between taking those polls and following corporate medias or not ?
I mean they dont just go by what they hear and look things up for themselves. This should be obvious.Look it up where and how exactly ? All information come from somewhere, anyone who looks up anything looks it up from somewhere. If the information doesn't come from someone else, then it's called guessing, not research.
I was actually mocking Person Man for citing CNN, since it implies he probably watches CNN to get his information. (If he doesn't, then pardon me.)
You're also an asshole when you think every conservative watches Fox News because they don't believe sources coming from left-leaning ones.
And before any of you say anything, Person Man actually GAVE me a reason to believe he watched CNN since he posted a link to it. However, @Seadragon77 busted out of nowhere with the generalization that all Conservatives watch Fox News with NO evidence.
Seriously guys, just ignore him. No matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on, conservative or liberal, engaging with people like this guy is never going to be productive. People like him don't actually care about politics, or having an informed opinion, or even reality; They only care about "winning." Being able to say "I am right" regardless of whether or not that actually means anything. They treat politics like it's a high school sporting event. As long as you can shout and bully and harass the other team enough and you end up in the lead, nothing else matters.
Oh, and believe or not: It's not a generalization that most conservatives watch Fox News and then are uninformed... it's true. At least Snakebyte is informed... this guy isn't, and that's why he's on the ignore list.
Byakko: I'm going to regret this, but... How can the courts 'declare that someone is a racist'?He was sentenced over racially targeted behavior. Don't nitpick over bullshit that's easy enough to understand.
Jango: How old are those polls? The political landscape has changed A FUCKING LOT in the last 2 years.Yeah, I wanted to say, Jon Stewart retired from the Daily Show in 2015. But at least it's not older than 1999.
I never once implied those polls are the same as corporate media.Uh, yeah, you did, when you claimed that we wouldn't find a poll that has republicans and conservatives who don't follow corporate medias, you're very literally claiming that those polls are taken by corporate medias and anyone who doesn't follow corporate medias can't possibly be in those polls. What other link could there possibly be between taking those polls and following corporate medias or not ?I mean they dont just go by what they hear and look things up for themselves. This should be obvious.Look it up where and how exactly ? All information come from somewhere, anyone who looks up anything looks it up from somewhere. If the information doesn't come from someone else, then it's called guessing, not research.
So please, once again, do tell me exactly what information you have that contradicts those CNN and BBC reports of Trump pardoning a sheriff sentenced to prison over racism, and where did you get it ?
WHOAH BOY SOME THINGS HAPPENED HUH.I was actually mocking Person Man for citing CNN, since it implies he probably watches CNN to get his information. (If he doesn't, then pardon me.)
You're also an asshole when you think every conservative watches Fox News because they don't believe sources coming from left-leaning ones.
And before any of you say anything, Person Man actually GAVE me a reason to believe he watched CNN since he posted a link to it. However, @Seadragon77 busted out of nowhere with the generalization that all Conservatives watch Fox News with NO evidence.
Your mocking wasn't productive, Person Man most likely just googled the event and found the information. I personally hate CNN with a burning passion because of the whole 'It's different for the media' wikileaks things, but if it's an easily verifiable fact, there's no reason to blow up about it.
That said, I strongly agree with you about the Fox News thing. There are two major camps within conservatism, and the younger, anti-establishment ones that like memes and Breitbart hate Fox. These people are not likely to be captured by polls partially because of age and partially because a good chunk is people who don't vote regularly but were motivated to vote for Trump. FYI, this is one of the main reasons why the polls were off in the election; the polls only capture 'likely voters', and Trump's base had a huge chunk of unlikely voters who weren't polled, which threw things off. It wasn't so much deliberate fuckery with the polls (there may have been some? who knows?), it was that a methodology that worked for more traditional elections failed here.Seriously guys, just ignore him. No matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on, conservative or liberal, engaging with people like this guy is never going to be productive. People like him don't actually care about politics, or having an informed opinion, or even reality; They only care about "winning." Being able to say "I am right" regardless of whether or not that actually means anything. They treat politics like it's a high school sporting event. As long as you can shout and bully and harass the other team enough and you end up in the lead, nothing else matters.
People like this exist on both sides. I'm not totally sure this guy is here in bad faith, maybe he just doesn't know how to have a respectable discussion. Politics is really hostile these days and he's not the only one flinging insults by any stretch. I might be wasting my time here, but eh, I like to give massive amounts of the benefit of the doubt.
I mean, Luigi guy, you can have an insult slap fight with Byakko all you want, but it's going to be an insult slap fight, whatever political points you're trying to make aren't going to be heard.
Byakko: I'm going to regret this, but... How can the courts 'declare that someone is a racist'?
They can't if they dont even know thats what happened.Oh, and believe or not: It's not a generalization that most conservatives watch Fox News and then are uninformed... it's true. At least Snakebyte is informed... this guy isn't, and that's why he's on the ignore list.
I don't think it's true that most conservatives watch Fox anymore, I'd say it's closer to half. Also, thank you for the compliment. For the record, though, I am not a conservative. I'm expecting most people not to believe that given how I post in politics threads, but it's true.
Jango: How old are those polls? The political landscape has changed A FUCKING LOT in the last 2 years. Not saying the results are wrong, just bringing up the possibility, if they're current I'll accept them.
No, I never said they were taken by corporate medias. Why are you mucking up this stuff?So I repeat my question : how exactly do you posit that republicans and conservatives who do not follow corporate medias will not be included in those polls, simply because they do not follow corporate medias ?
like how I provided proof that CNN and BBC are crappy sources and are untrustworthy.lol no you didn't. You threw an opinion.
They actually dont know if the Maricopa County police officers actually DID detain plaintiffs based on race, if you read the entire document.Yeah, but
ISSUE PRESENTEDThey still forbade him to keep doing whatever he was doing and when he didn't comply, they charged him with criminal contempt. You're nitpicking and dodging the question.
Petitioner, then a county sheriff, violated a preliminary injunction that prohibited
him from enforcing federal civil immigration law. The district court initiated criminal
contempt proceedings based on that violation. Petitioner moved to dismiss the criminal
contempt proceeding as time-barred, or in the alternative, for a jury trial. Is Petitioner
entitled to mandamus relief to challenge the district court’s denial of that motion?
CONCLUSION
This Court should deny the petition.
No, I never said they were taken by corporate medias. Why are you mucking up this stuff?So I repeat my question : how exactly do you posit that republicans and conservatives who do not follow corporate medias will not be included in those polls, simply because they do not follow corporate medias ?Quotelike how I provided proof that CNN and BBC are crappy sources and are untrustworthy.lol no you didn't. You threw an opinion.QuoteThey actually dont know if the Maricopa County police officers actually DID detain plaintiffs based on race, if you read the entire document.Yeah, butQuoteISSUE PRESENTEDThey still forbade him to keep doing whatever he was doing and when he didn't comply, they charged him with criminal contempt. You're nitpicking and dodging the question.
Petitioner, then a county sheriff, violated a preliminary injunction that prohibited
him from enforcing federal civil immigration law. The district court initiated criminal
contempt proceedings based on that violation. Petitioner moved to dismiss the criminal
contempt proceeding as time-barred, or in the alternative, for a jury trial. Is Petitioner
entitled to mandamus relief to challenge the district court’s denial of that motion?
CONCLUSION
This Court should deny the petition.
Byakko: I'm going to regret this, but... How can the courts 'declare that someone is a racist'?He was sentenced over racially targeted behavior. Don't nitpick over bullshit that's easy enough to understand.
Yeah those are late 2014. There may be more recent polls but they were the first result in a google search lol
Mainstream media articles say Trump pardoned him for a "RACIST CRIME!!!!!!111", yet that is clearly not the case.Oh, did they
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio on Friday, sparing the controversial former Arizona sheriff a jail sentence after he was convicted of criminal contempt related to his hard-line tactics going after undocumented immigrants.Did you actually read the CNN link posted earlier ? What part of it does the court record contradict ? And what part of it was unclear about the reason for Trump pardoning him when the explanation came straight from the White House ?
The move drew outcry from civil rights groups, which accuse Arpaio of violating the Constitution in his crackdown on illegal immigration.
[...]
In a brief statement released late Friday evening, the White House praised Arpaio's career.
"Throughout his time as sheriff, Arpaio continued his life's work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration," the statement read. "Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now 85 years old, and after more than 50 years of admirable service to our nation, he is (a) worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon."
He was convicted of criminal contempt over his behavior targeting specific groups of migrants based on race, why do you absolutely need this spelled out when it's obvious what everyone is talking about since the start and why are you so full of shit ? This is the exact thing that started this discussion, what the hell did you think I was talking about ?He was sentenced over racially targeted behavior. Don't nitpick over bullshit that's easy enough to understand.So you were pulling shit out of your ass.
Mainstream media articles say Trump pardoned him for a "RACIST CRIME!!!!!!111", yet that is clearly not the case.Oh, did theyhttp://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/25/politics/sheriff-joe-arpaio-donald-trump-pardon/index.html?sr=fbCNN082517sheriff-joe-arpaio-donald-trump-pardon0813PMStory said:Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio on Friday, sparing the controversial former Arizona sheriff a jail sentence after he was convicted of criminal contempt related to his hard-line tactics going after undocumented immigrants.Did you actually read the CNN link posted earlier ? What part of it does the court record contradict ? And what part of it was unclear about the reason for Trump pardoning him when the explanation came straight from the White House ?
The move drew outcry from civil rights groups, which accuse Arpaio of violating the Constitution in his crackdown on illegal immigration.
[...]
In a brief statement released late Friday evening, the White House praised Arpaio's career.
"Throughout his time as sheriff, Arpaio continued his life's work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration," the statement read. "Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now 85 years old, and after more than 50 years of admirable service to our nation, he is (a) worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon."He was convicted of criminal contempt over his behavior targeting specific groups of migrants based on race, why do you absolutely need this spelled out when it's obvious what everyone is talking about since the start and why are you so full of shit ? This is the exact thing that started this discussion, what the hell did you think I was talking about ?He was sentenced over racially targeted behavior. Don't nitpick over bullshit that's easy enough to understand.So you were pulling shit out of your ass.
And with that I'm bowing out as shit appears to be devolving.
The article says Joe was convicted of criminal contempt......but where is the fucking proof he did?
On July 31, 2017, Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt of court. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton wrote that Arpaio had "willfully violated an order of the court" by failing "to ensure his subordinates' compliance and by directing them to continue to detain persons for whom no criminal charges could be filed." Arpaio was scheduled to be sentenced in October 2017.
The sentencing phase will begin Oct. 5. Arpaio, 85, faces up to six months in confinement, a sentence equivalent to that of a misdemeanor.This is what he was pardoned from.
Mainstream media articles say Trump pardoned him for a "RACIST CRIME!!!!!!111", yet that is clearly not the case.is false.
Two minutes in GoogleLOL google, how about you use a search engine that isnt run by liberals and find the REAL story
The best thing to do is to ignore him Byakko. He's not going to listen to facts or reason unless it confirms his biases.
You would be surprised at some of the shady shit Google has done lately in terms of screwing with search results.It took me to wikipedia then some Arizona news site that had the actual court report. So far it's good enough.
Infowars-esque conspiracy theories
You would be surprised at some of the shady shit Google has done lately in terms of screwing with search results.It took me to wikipedia then some Arizona news site that had the actual court report. So far it's good enough.
Two minutes in GoogleLOL google, how about you use a search engine that isnt run by liberals and find the REAL story
Parts of Twitter lit up on Wednesday evening with the news the Federal Communications Commission, which is now headed by Donald Trump appointee and unflinching net neutrality opponent Ajit Pai, had posted a statement insulting the chairman in the grossest possible terms.
The message—which is not real—is hosted on the FCC website, and purported to be a public relations statement just 16 words long: “Dear American citizenry, we’re sorry Ajit Pai is such a filthy spineless cuck. Sincerely, the FCC.”
In interviews, law enforcement authorities made clear that Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric and policies — first as a candidate and then as president — helped to create a situation that has escalated so quickly and extensively that they do not have a handle on it.
“It was in that period [as the Trump campaign emerged] that we really became aware of them,” said one senior law enforcement official tracking domestic extremists in a state that has become a front line in clashes between the groups. “These antifa guys were showing up with weapons, shields and bike helmets and just beating the shit out of people. … They’re using Molotov cocktails, they’re starting fires, they’re throwing bombs and smashing windows.”
Almost immediately, the right-wing targets of the antifa attacks began fighting back, bringing more and larger weapons and launching unprovoked attacks of their own, the documents and interviews show. And the extremists on both sides have been using the confrontations, especially since Charlottesville, to recruit unprecedented numbers of new members, raise money and threaten more confrontations, they say.
“Everybody is wondering, 'What are we gonna do? How are we gonna deal with this?'” said the senior state law enforcement official. “Every time they have one of these protests where both sides are bringing guns, there are sphincters tightening in my world. Emotions get high, and fingers get twitchy on the trigger.”
I truly don't understand why MSM suddenly turned on Antifa so I can't even talk about it intelligently.
My politics-fu has utterly failed me on this point.
I look at it and it's like people suddenly decided to start having a conscience and while that's awesome it's also mystifying.
I will never understand the American left's refusal to respect immigration laws.
As late as one hour before the decision was to be announced, administration officials privately expressed concern that Mr. Trump might not fully grasp the details of the steps he was about to take, and when he discovered their full impact, would change his mind, according to a person familiar with their thinking who spoke on condition of anonymity without authorization to comment on it.This is all very normal for a president to do on the eve of a huge policy change, Actually, and anyone who disagrees is just a dirty liberal who refuses to respect immigration laws.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/us/politics/trump-daca-dreamers-immigration.htmlQuoteAs late as one hour before the decision was to be announced, administration officials privately expressed concern that Mr. Trump might not fully grasp the details of the steps he was about to take, and when he discovered their full impact, would change his mind, according to a person familiar with their thinking who spoke on condition of anonymity without authorization to comment on it.This is all very normal for a president to do on the eve of a huge policy change, Actually, and anyone who disagrees is just a dirty liberal who refuses to respect immigration laws.
But hey, don't worry, Congress might step and save the Dreamers, as long as they make a downpayment on the border wall! (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/04/trump-congress-dreamers-daca-242310)
I also find that dismissing out of hand the very idea of anonymous sources—even ones reported on by one of the most highly respected news organizations in the world—is very smart, too.
In a major, upcoming Supreme Court Case, the Justice Department is siding with a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/in-major-supreme-court-case-justice-dept-sides-with-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple/2017/09/07/fb84f116-93f0-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html?utm_term=.90d88a4d3918)
Y'know, because Trump is so pro-LGBT.
force private organizations to bake gay wedding cakesWow, that is so awful, what kind of man would dare do that to a poor wedding cake baker, have you no heart, think of the trauma the poor baker would experience if he did the work he makes a living from
This is not "Liberal" at all.you should really try working on your argumentative skills some more before you try a "checkmate, atheists" kinda thing. Save some embarrassment, and all, y'know?
the time you spent making that post couldve been spent on googling "TIMES NYT WAS COMPLETELY WRONG" and tossing a few links into a post. that shouldnt be hard if the wrong stories were supposedly widely knownEven so, no news organization is gonna be 100% right, but the NYT has a sterling reputation for good reason, and a few examples of them getting stuff wrong isn't gonna change that (especially since most of them wind up getting a correction issued).
Freedom of religion does not give one the right to discriminate. This is pretty well established case-law, it just hasn't yet been extended to LGBTQ-related issues.
Try replacing "baker refuses to bake wedding cake for gay couple" with "baker refuses to bake wedding cake for interracial couple", or perhaps with "baker refuses to bake wedding cake for Jewish couple", or what have you, and see where that leads you.
Also FYI,This is not "Liberal" at all.you should really try working on your argumentative skills some more before you try a "checkmate, atheists" kinda thing. Save some embarrassment, and all, y'know?the time you spent making that post couldve been spent on googling "TIMES NYT WAS COMPLETELY WRONG" and tossing a few links into a post. that shouldnt be hard if the wrong stories were supposedly widely knownEven so, no news organization is gonna be 100% right, but the NYT has a sterling reputation for good reason, and a few examples of them getting stuff wrong isn't gonna change that (especially since most of them wind up getting a correction issued).
The guy clearly did not refuse service to them because they were gay. That would be wrong. But simply refusing to contribute to a gay wedding by baking a cake for them is not discriminatory in any way, shape or form.do you know what discrimination means
Twitter bans people with right-leaning views, but they have the right to do that. (And yes, they do do that. In their case, that's wrong, but they still can do it.)they've suspended left leaning accounts too. twitter bans are mostly arbitrary and they are incompetent with everybody regardless of political alignment
refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple is not discriminatory. Private organizations fully withhold the right to refuse services such as baking cakes, or anything else. Twitter bans people with right-leaning views, but they have the right to do that. (And yes, they do do that. In their case, that's wrong, but they still can do it.)
So basically you think it's ok force private organizations to bake gay wedding cakes? This is not "Liberal" at all.
refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple is not discriminatory. Private organizations fully withhold the right to refuse services such as baking cakes, or anything else. Twitter bans people with right-leaning views, but they have the right to do that. (And yes, they do do that. In their case, that's wrong, but they still can do it.)So basically you think it's ok force private organizations to bake gay wedding cakes? This is not "Liberal" at all.
Unless you have a problem with forcing organizations to bake wedding cakes for black people, then yes, it is okay.
The guy clearly did not refuse service to them because they were gay. That would be wrong. But simply refusing to contribute to a gay wedding by baking a cake for them is not discriminatory in any way, shape or form.do you know what discrimination meansTwitter bans people with right-leaning views, but they have the right to do that. (And yes, they do do that. In their case, that's wrong, but they still can do it.)they've suspended left leaning accounts too. twitter bans are mostly arbitrary and they are incompetent with everybody regardless of political alignment
Yes I do. Why are you asking me this question?Because refusal of service on the sole ground of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, hair color or whatever is exactly the definition of discrimination. How is this even a question and how do you not understand that.
even if some racist fuck refused to make wedding cakes for black people, he would still had a right to do that. It doesn't make it RIGHT, however. You fail to understand that freedom of expression and speech applies to everyone, including people you loathe.... And it's called discrimination. This isn't freedom of speech or expression.
Guess Naked Ape's account getting banned was just coincidence.I have no idea who that is but yes, yes it was. Literally a single droplet in a sea of other accounts that also get banned for any reason at all - except race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, hair color or political affiliation because that would be discrimination.
The guy clearly did not refuse service to them because they were gay. That would be wrong. But simply refusing to contribute to a gay wedding by baking a cake for them is not discriminatory in any way, shape or form.So... he refused to bake a cake for a couple because they were gay. Got it. :yeses:
Most of you LGBT supporters have a hard time seeing the difference between discrimination and disagreement with one's lifestyle though, so i'm honestly not surprised.If you run a business, you don't get to discriminate against your customers based on race, religion, sexuality, or what have you. It has precisely nothing to do with whether you argree with someone's "lifestyle" or not. If you aren't willing to bake cakes for gay people, then don't run a fucking bakery.
I have no idea who that is but yes, yes it was.
The guy clearly did not refuse service to them because they were gay. That would be wrong. But simply refusing to contribute to a gay wedding by baking a cake for them is not discriminatory in any way, shape or form.So... he refused to bake a cake for a couple because they were gay. Got it. :yeses:Most of you LGBT supporters have a hard time seeing the difference between discrimination and disagreement with one's lifestyle though, so i'm honestly not surprised.If you run a business, you don't get to discriminate against your customers based on race, religion, sexuality, or what have you. It has precisely nothing to do with whether you argree with someone's "lifestyle" or not. If you aren't willing to bake cakes for gay people, then don't run a fucking bakery.
Again, what exactly is the difference between this dude refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple and him refusing to bake one for an interracial couple? Don't get all haughty about how "pathetic" it is to compare the discrimination of two marginalized groups, actually explain your reasoning, or don't bother replying.
I have no idea who that is but yes, yes it was.
Naked Ape is one of the dime-a-dozen "rational" youtubers, except he's "special" in that he really really wants to be the next Milo Yiannopoulos so he makes blatantly false accusations on twitter in a sad attempt to garner attention.
It was NOT because they were gay, but he didn't want to contribute to a gay wedding.He didn't want to contribute a cake to a wedding because it was a gay wedding do you even understand the sentences you type or what
That's not how it works, silly. If you own a business, then you can pretty much do as you like and run it how you want as long as it's legal. What this baker did was NOT illegal.It's literally exactly how it works, dingus. Owning a business subjects you to various laws, several of which relate to preventing discriminatory behavior.
Everyone's just condemning this guy because they wanna jack themselves off to how morally righteous they think they are for "supporting the rights for the LGBTQBBQKFC+ pplz!!!!11"I'm deeply, truly sorry that my personal interest in wanting to see discrimination against fellow queer people stamped out is causing you such pain and torment, to the point that you're vividly imagining people furiously masturbating. I truly apologize.
What blatantly false accusations are you referring to? Please provide examples.
It was NOT because they were gay, but he didn't want to contribute to a gay wedding."it wasn't because they're gay but it was because they're being gay"
Second, refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple is not discriminatory.It is if you do for straight couples, unless the definition of discriminate changed when everyone was sleep.
Private organizations fully withhold the right to refuse services such as baking cakes, or anything else.The civil rights act prohibits private business from dening any public accomadation based on race, religion, or nationality. Sexual orientation simply isn't covered.
Twitter bans people with right-leaning views, but they have the right to do that.Twitter doesn't charge you to use their platform. Banning someone from a free service =/= denying an accomadation to a customer.
Coming from someone who's black, even if some racist fuck refused to make wedding cakes for black people, he would still had a right to do that.The civil rights act literally prohibits anyone from doing this, wtf?
Again, you're all arguing politics with someone who calls himself "meme lord." Nothing worthwhile is going to be gained here.
That's not how it works, silly. If you own a business, then you can pretty much do as you like and run it how you want as long as it's legal. What this baker did was NOT illegal.It's literally exactly how it works, dingus. Owning a business subjects you to various laws, several of which relate to preventing discriminatory behavior.
I'd advise you to read up on American history in the 1950s and 60s, specifically about the civil rights movement of that era. You might find the parts about businesses trying to use freedom of religion/expression to defend against racial dicrimination charges especially enlightening.Everyone's just condemning this guy because they wanna jack themselves off to how morally righteous they think they are for "supporting the rights for the LGBTQBBQKFC+ pplz!!!!11"I'm deeply, truly sorry that my personal interest in wanting to see discrimination against fellow queer people stamped out is causing you such pain and torment, to the point that you're vividly imagining people furiously masturbating. I truly apologize.
What blatantly false accusations are you referring to? Please provide examples.
Kind of hard to provide evidence when the account in question is gone.
Typically how he'd go about is @ing people (left-wing YTs usually) and then accusing them of being a pedophile or saying insidious bigoted things in DM. Then when the person responded back telling him he's just making shit up he'd go "lolool look at this triggered snowflake". Total worthless sack of shit, glad he's gone from twitter. Maybe he can go be a jackass on Minds or whatever Twitter-alternative the alt-right is shitting up.
It was NOT because they were gay, but he didn't want to contribute to a gay wedding."it wasn't because they're gay but it was because they're being gay"
the logic here is mindbogglingly idiotic. bravo memelord, you're the biggest moron i've ever seen.
Except what happened in the 60's does not apply here. Nobody is homophobic for not wanting to contribute to a gay wedding.Which leads us back to this:
Again, what exactly is the difference between this dude refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple and him refusing to bake one for an interracial couple?Please answer the question.
Except what happened in the 60's does not apply here. Nobody is homophobic for not wanting to contribute to a gay wedding.Which leads us back to this:Again, what exactly is the difference between this dude refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple and him refusing to bake one for an interracial couple?Please answer the question.
If you were paying attention earlier I answered with this:wow that really changes everything
"The difference is the ACTUAL reason why this guy did it. It was NOT because they were gay, but he didn't want to contribute to a gay wedding. Please, look past your bias for one second sir."
If you were paying attention earlier I answered with this:Nah, cuz that didn't answer my question. If this baker has a sincerely held religious belief that interracial marriages are against the will of God, and thus refuses to bake a cake because he doesn't want to contribute to an interracial marriage, then what makes that different from him doing the same for a gay wedding?
If you were paying attention earlier I answered with this:Nah, cuz that didn't answer my question. If this baker has a sincerely held religious belief that interracial marriages are against the will of God, and thus refuses to bake a cake because he doesn't want to contribute to an interracial marriage, then what makes that different from him doing the same for a gay wedding?
Please answer the question.
Nobody is homophobic for not wanting to contribute to a gay wedding.That is literally the definition of homophobia and discrimination. Why can't you get that through YOUR skull. And if your religion tells you that gays are bad, then your religion is literally homophobic. Even if your religion is called Christianism and even if it's written in the Bible, because I've got news for you : the Bible is homophobic.
If you were paying attention earlier I answered with this:"slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling" (Ephesians 6:5),
"The difference is the ACTUAL reason why this guy did it. It was NOT because they were gay, but he didn't want to contribute to a gay wedding. Please, look past your bias for one second sir."
Basically, he shouldn't have to bake a cake if he does not wish to. This does not make him homophobic. Anyone who says otherwise is a twit who doesn't understand what discrimination is and isn't.
also dude snakebyte, if you're working fulltime don't waste your free time with petty arguments. i have this MAGAsshole at work who is always talking politics and until recently I'd always be arguing with him and searching up sources to support my claims and he'd shoot each one down as "typical brainwashing from the globalist elite" or someshit like that. moment he revealed he was a 9/11 truther i just decided fuck this this isn't worth cutting out my shitposting and jay owen time at home to look up sources to argue with this dipshit.
also dude snakebyte, if you're working fulltime don't waste your free time with petty arguments. i have this MAGAsshole at work who is always talking politics and until recently I'd always be arguing with him and searching up sources to support my claims and he'd shoot each one down as "typical brainwashing from the globalist elite" or someshit like that. moment he revealed he was a 9/11 truther i just decided fuck this this isn't worth cutting out my shitposting and jay owen time at home to look up sources to argue with this dipshit.
hahaha no i do not talk politics in my real life
it is ZERO FUN without the ability to block the crazy people
also at whoever said something about someone being 'the new milo yiannopoulos', milo yiannopoulos is still the current milo yiannopoulos.
he's far, far too fabulous to be defeated that easily.
Deuteronomy 7:3-4
"Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you."
Joshua 23:12-13
“But if you turn away and ally yourselves with the survivors of these nations that remain among you and if you intermarry with them and associate with them, then you may be sure that the LORD your God will no longer drive out these nations before you. Instead, they will become snares and traps for you, whips on your backs and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from this good land, which the LORD your God has given you."
You can always find something in the old Testament to support hate.
And even if those passages didn't exist, things don't have to explicitly appear in the Bible to be a sincerely held religious belief. Purgatory, for instance, isn't in the Bible, but certainly no one would argue that it isn't a sincerely held religious beliefs by a number of Christian sects.
I'm going to have to say this again, but it would really be helpful for you to research some American history. You'd learn so much about how so many businesses used the argument that their sincerely held religious beliefs against interracial relationships made it OK for them to discriminate against them. It didn't turn out too well for them!
If you were paying attention earlier I answered with this:"slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling" (Ephesians 6:5),
"The difference is the ACTUAL reason why this guy did it. It was NOT because they were gay, but he didn't want to contribute to a gay wedding. Please, look past your bias for one second sir."
Basically, he shouldn't have to bake a cake if he does not wish to. This does not make him homophobic. Anyone who says otherwise is a twit who doesn't understand what discrimination is and isn't.
"tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" (Titus 2:9).
Slavery has often been said to be God’s means of protecting and providing for an inferior race (suffering the “curse of Ham” in Gen. 9:25 or even the punishment of Cain in Gen. 4:12).
So it seems there are religious justified reasons why they can claim you should be a slave. Nothing racist about that, They just dont want to contribute to your "not being a slave" situation.
It never ceases to amuse me how the people who are quickest to bring up the Bible as a defense of *insert reprehensible behavior here* never seem to know what's actually in it.
Guys, why are you arguing with this nincompoop? Let him rot in that stew of anger, hatred and Anti-American views.
I didn't like what you said, so you're part of the alt-right!!!111111
Haven't read about that, but whoever did use those quotes to justify their actions obviously misinterpeted the verses themselves and needed to actually read the BibleNah nah nah nah nah, that's not how things work. Those people sincerely believed in their interpretation of the Bible, your own interpretation doesn't supercede theirs, because that's what freedom of religion is all about! No one's religion comes before anyone else's!
and it looks like the same thing should go for you, Jmorph.No. Also, why?
Haven't read about that, but whoever did use those quotes to justify their actions obviously misinterpeted the verses themselves and needed to actually read the BibleNah nah nah nah nah, that's not how things work. Those people sincerely believed in their interpretation of the Bible, your own interpretation doesn't supercede theirs, because that's what freedom of religion is all about! No one's religion comes before anyone else's!
So you don't have an actual argument. Thanks for clearing that up for us. Less time will be wasted.ironically tho, him not having an argument is much better than having a retarded one like "it wasn't because they're gay but it was because they're gay".
Haven't read about that, but whoever did use those quotes to justify their actions obviously misinterpeted the verses themselves and needed to actually read the BibleNah nah nah nah nah, that's not how things work. Those people sincerely believed in their interpretation of the Bible, your own interpretation doesn't supercede theirs, because that's what freedom of religion is all about! No one's religion comes before anyone else's!
But you obviously agree that their sincerely held religious belief that interracial relationships are evil should not allow them to discriminate against such couples, so... again. Why is it different for interracial couples compared to gay couples?
Please answer the question.and it looks like the same thing should go for you, Jmorph.No. Also, why?
Haven't read about that, but whoever did use those quotes to justify their actions obviously misinterpeted the verses themselves and needed to actually read the BibleNah nah nah nah nah, that's not how things work. Those people sincerely believed in their interpretation of the Bible, your own interpretation doesn't supercede theirs, because that's what freedom of religion is all about! No one's religion comes before anyone else's!
^
There is no such thing as a misinterpretation of a religion. It's all interpretation. No one has the authority to say their interpretation is any more correct than anyone else's--or rather, everyone has just as much authority. I can say 'no, it's you doing the misinterpreting' and there's nothing logical you can say to that.
Religion is crap. If it's what you're basing your politics or opinions on, stop, and rethink everything about your life.
So you don't have an actual argument. Thanks for clearing that up for us. Less time will be wasted.ironically tho, him not having an argument is much better than having a retarded one like "it wasn't because they're gay but it was because they're gay".
so you might want to stop being a hypocrite.
also, if you're actually black and you'd be fine with someone not serving you because of your skin color, then allow me to tell you that you're a very spineless person.
So you think being against gay marriage means you hate gays.Who said that and why are you so dumb
I already explained why the assumption that the Bible condemns interracial relationships was wrong. Please scroll up and read what I said.Again, it doesn't matter what your interpretation of the Bible is. The only thing that matters is what their interpretation is. Their religion told them that interracial couples were forbidded by God. Their religious beliefs are protected under the Constitution, even though you strenuously disagree with them.
I've already told you the baker did not refuse service to them because they were gay. There's a difference between being against gay marriage and actually hating gay people.Let's go back to the start again. Our hypothetical baker from the 50s refuses to bake a cake for an interracial couple, not because he's racist, but simply because he doesn't want to violate his religion and contribute to an interracial marriage.
Nope. Unless you have a direct line to God, you have no authority to say that their take is 'wrong'. If you claim to have a direct line to God, they can refute that by claiming they also have a direct line to God. It doesn't work. At all.
Anyone can deem all religions crap. It doesn't take authority. Do you understand what 'authority' means, in this sense?
Wait, what on earth are the other reasons for being against gay marriage aside from hating/disliking/being discomforted by gay people?
And I mean like valid ones, so not religion stuff.
I already explained why the assumption that the Bible condemns interracial relationships was wrong. Please scroll up and read what I said.Again, it doesn't matter what your interpretation of the Bible is. The only thing that matters is what their interpretation is. Their religion told them that interracial couples were forbidded by God. Their religious beliefs are protected under the Constitution, even though you strenuously disagree with them.
Futhermore, what the Bible says or doesn't say doesn't actually mean jack in this situation. What about non-Christians? And heck, some Christian sects include or exclude different books from the Bible! Some prefer only one specific translation! Freedom of religion doesn't only apply to Christians who follow one specific version of the Bible.I've already told you the baker did not refuse service to them because they were gay. There's a difference between being against gay marriage and actually hating gay people.Let's go back to the start again. Our hypothetical baker from the 50s refuses to bake a cake for an interracial couple, not because he's racist, but simply because he doesn't want to violate his religion and contribute to an interracial marriage.
What makes this baker different from a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay one? Please answer the question.
There's plenty of reasons to be against gay marriage, just like there's many reasons to support it. If you think that people are only against it because "DEY HATE GAY PPL!!!11" then you obviously need to expand your viewpoints more.Ok. I was asking you what those reasons are.
Nope. Unless you have a direct line to God, you have no authority to say that their take is 'wrong'. If you claim to have a direct line to God, they can refute that by claiming they also have a direct line to God. It doesn't work. At all.
Anyone can deem all religions crap. It doesn't take authority. Do you understand what 'authority' means, in this sense?
So basically nobody can misinterpret things about the Bible? Hate to break this to you, but yes they can. You're basically saying everything people say about the Bible is true. In that case, someone can say The Bible condones pedophilia, cite no verses, and yet no one can tell him that he is blatantly wrong.
OH I see! What THEY interpret is correct. (even though it isn't.) What's funny is that you said yourself it didn't matter what the Bible actually says. Why are you flip-flopping?You need to work on your reading comprehension.
Again I already explained and you just denied what I said. I think this whole thing was pointless in the start, and I should have just moved on.I'm genuinely curious to piece together your hilariously contrived, hypocritical views on this subject. And I'm still missing a few pieces of the puzzle. You say that it's totally fine for a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding because of the baker's religion, but only because the baker doesn't want to contribute to the wedding, not because they hate gay people. So, what exactly is the difference between that example, and a baker who genuinely is not racist, but nonetheless has a sincerely held religious belief that interracial marriages are forbidden by God (or maybe Xenu, who knows what this baker worships), and thus refuses to contribute in any way to the wedding.
There's plenty of reasons to be against gay marriage, just like there's many reasons to support it. If you think that people are only against it because "DEY HATE GAY PPL!!!11" then you obviously need to expand your viewpoints more.Ok. I was asking you what those reasons are.
OH I see! What THEY interpret is correct. (even though it isn't.) What's funny is that you said yourself it didn't matter what the Bible actually says. Why are you flip-flopping?You need to work on your reading comprehension.
Freedom of religion means no one's personal religious beliefs supercede others. That necessarily means your own interpretation of the Bible is not inherently correct, nor does it trump all other people's interpretation. Furthermore, freedom of religion also means that people can have sincerely held relgious beliefs irrespective of the Christian Bible. Perhaps those anti-interracial marriage bakers are Jewish, or perhaps they're Hindu, or perhaps they're Scientologicsts. None of those groups follow the Christian Bible, so, naturally, when discussing the potential for someone's religion allowing discrimination, your own personal interpretation of the Christian Bible has no bearing on the situation unless we are addressing only the very specific situation of someone who shares your exact religious views who also wants to discriminate against a group. Which we are not currently doing, as the law is not determined by such singular, specific cases like the one I just described. When deciding on legal matters, things must be as universal as possible.
This is pretty simple stuff, but I'm not that surprised that it's causing you such difficulty to understand. So I'm trying very hard to explain this as simply as possible, taking care to explain things that I genuinely should not need to be explaining.Again I already explained and you just denied what I said. I think this whole thing was pointless in the start, and I should have just moved on.I'm genuinely curious to piece together your hilariously contrived, hypocritical views on this subject. And I'm still missing a few pieces of the puzzle. You say that it's totally fine for a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding because of the baker's religion, but only because the baker doesn't want to contribute to the wedding, not because they hate gay people. So, what exactly is the difference between that example, and a baker who genuinely is not racist, but nonetheless has a sincerely held religious belief that interracial marriages are forbidden by God (or maybe Xenu, who knows what this baker worships), and thus refuses to contribute in any way to the wedding.
Thus far, your only real explanation is that your personal interpretation of the Christian Bible is what makes scenario A OK, but scenario B illegal. This seems like a pretty bad basis for a legal system, so I must ask once more: why is it OK to discriminate against gay couples, but not interracial ones?
Please answer the question.
In the Bible, it clearly condemns homosexuality. If a baker who happens to be a Christian doesn't want to contribute to a gay wedding DUE to his beliefs on homosexuality, there is nothing wrong with that.Well yes, it's called discrimination. The Bible is wrong. Shocking !
Some view gay marriage as unnecessary and a non-issue meant to distract people from more serious issues. After all if they wanted the benefits of marriage, they could go for civil unions. But enough about that.baker: i won't bake a cake for you two.
Some view gay marriage as unnecessary and a non-issue meant to distract people from more serious issues. After all if they wanted the benefits of marriage, they could go for civil unions. But enough about that.That's only one reason and not valid at all. It's not any more unnecessary then regular marriage and what other more serious issues are you talking about? Your statement is really lacking in details. Not enough, gimme more.
To be fair, from a business-perspective, any given business has the right to refuse service for any reason whatsoever.??? It's well established case law that businesses can NOT discriminate against customers (or their own employees) based on their race, religion, or sex. Businesses can refuse customers for any reason except for those. The only thing being argued is whether or not that protection should be extended to sexuality/gender identity.
Some view gay marriage as unnecessary and a non-issue meant to distract people from more serious issues. After all if they wanted the benefits of marriage, they could go for civil unions. But enough about that.baker: i won't bake a cake for you two.
gay couple: why?
baker: because your marriage is unnecessary and a non-issue.
the more you post, the more of your idiocy is shown.
Look, I know you're really hyper-focused on Christianity and the Bible, but guess what? No one else is, nor is the Constitution, nor the court system. Your personal interpretation of the Christian Bible is completely and uttetly irrelevant to this entire discussion. All that matters is what these bakers (either real of hypothetical) believe. Like shit, what about Christian congregations that are welcoming to queer people? Are they all inherently wrong because your interpretation of the Bible supercedes everyone else on the planet?
You may find their beliefs invalid, or unsupported by the text of the Bible, but guess what? Your opinion doesn't mean shit, cuz it's their personal beliefs! I mean shit, you didn't even know about those court cases a day ago, how do you even know the people using the freedom of religion defense were even Christian? It doesn't fucking matter!
So enough about the Bible. Enough about Christianity. Why does a baker who's a member of the We Hate Gay Marriage religion allowed to refuse to bake a cake or otherwise contribute to a gay marriage, but a baker who's a member of the We Hate Interracial Marriage religion NOT allowed to refuse to bake a cake or otherwise contribute to a gay marriage?
Please answer the question.
The people who own that business have a right to refuse service to whom they please.Again, you really, really, really need to read up on your American history. Your mind is gonna be blown when you get to the parts about businesses being forced to serve people of all races!
Those anti-discrimination laws jeopardize those property rights, however, and it's a problem. This is why I actually believe private business should FULLY withold the right to refuse service to anyone, no matter how "bigoted" it is.OK, so I think I've gotten everything. Your ultimate problem with extending anti-discrimination laws to gay people is that you fundamentally reject the entire concept, right?
What I don't understand is why you want to convince yourself that forcing people to bake gay wedding cakes means you're just oh so concerned about the rights of gay people, but meh.I'm gay. I'm concerned about my rights. I know you have a lot of comprehension problems but surely you can understand something basic like this, right?
To be fair, from a business-perspective, any given business has the right to refuse service for any reason whatsoever.
And what exactly are you contributing here? Nothing.good. one less retarded trump supporter i'd have to worry about.
Since you're acting like a piece of shit right now, I'm just going to put you on ignore.
The people who own that business have a right to refuse service to whom they please.Again, you really, really, really need to read up on your American history. Your mind is gonna be blown when you get to the parts about businesses being forced to serve people of all races!Those anti-discrimination laws jeopardize those property rights, however, and it's a problem. This is why I actually believe private business should FULLY withold the right to refuse service to anyone, no matter how "bigoted" it is.OK, so I think I've gotten everything. Your ultimate problem with extending anti-discrimination laws to gay people is that you fundamentally reject the entire concept, right?
Please answer the question.What I don't understand is why you want to convince yourself that forcing people to bake gay wedding cakes means you're just oh so concerned about the rights of gay people, but meh.I'm gay. I'm concerned about my rights. I know you have a lot of comprehension problems but surely you can understand something basic like this, right?
And even if I wasn't, who gives a shit? You don't need to be personally invested in an issue to care about it, especially if you care about the plight of others. But I guess empathy might be too tough of a subject for you...
To be fair, from a business-perspective, any given business has the right to refuse service for any reason whatsoever.
that would be true if we were talkign about a libertarian country;
and I posted this because the first thing that caught my attention was mme lord not even being able to know the difference between liberalism adn libertarianism... and you want to argue freedom of religion with him ?
Meme lord, reply to my reply you coward.
SERIOUS issues such as poverty, economic instability, Crime, and etc.What do those have to do with gay marriage? Why would people be any less capable of focusing on those if they bring up the gay marriage thing? Why would that stuff be the responsiblity of people advocating for gay marriage in the first place? Are you suggesting people are actively focusing on gay marriage in order to draw away focus from such issues? If so, who's doing it?
I stated that as a reason people are against it. There's many more reasons, but I'm not going to list a shit ton of them here.LuigiTheCowardLord
Aww, boo hoo! :bigcry: You're gay and you're just concerned about your rights being taken away because someone didn't want to bake you a cake...aww... :(.give me a fucking break. You're not losing any rights here. If you want a cake without any problems, go to Publix or Wal-Mart. Problem solved.Making the problem about the cake... What happens then when this extends to every other service? Like, not being able to buy a car, or get on the bus, or buy food and water from a grocery, or any other service they may need, all because the people behind the businesses don't want to serve gay people? You don't see an issue there?
Aww, boo hoo! :bigcry: You're gay and you're just concerned about your rights being taken away
SERIOUS issues such as poverty, economic instability, Crime, and etc.this is a moronic argument. people can worry about more than one issue at the same time otherwise smaller issues would never be solved
But seriously, you should know what issues are more important than gay marriage.
SERIOUS issues such as poverty, economic instability, Crime, and etc.What do those have to do with gay marriage? Why would people be any less capable of focusing on those if they bring up the gay marriage thing? Why would that stuff be the responsiblity of people advocating for gay marriage in the first place? Are you suggesting people are actively focusing on gay marriage in order to draw away focus from such issues? If so, who's doing it?I stated that as a reason people are against it. There's many more reasons, but I'm not going to list a shit ton of them here.LuigiTheCowardLord
Aww, boo hoo! :bigcry: You're gay and you're just concerned about your rights being taken away because someone didn't want to bake you a cake...aww... :(.give me a fucking break. You're not losing any rights here. If you want a cake without any problems, go to Publix or Wal-Mart. Problem solved.Making the problem about the cake... What happens then when this extends to every other service? Like, not being able to buy a car, or get on the bus, or buy food and water from a grocery, or any other service they may need, all because the people behind the businesses don't want to serve gay people? You don't see an issue there?
Aww, boo hoo! :bigcry: You're gay and you're just concerned about your rights being taken away
Yeah. And you're not concerned when people's rights are being taken away. Stop being a fucking bigot, plzkthx.
SERIOUS issues such as poverty, economic instability, Crime, and etc.this is a moronic argument. people can worry about more than one issue at the same time otherwise smaller issues would never be solved
But seriously, you should know what issues are more important than gay marriage.
I was simply pointing out there's more important issues than gay marriage and this is why some conservatives were against it. That is not moronic.It is absolutely moronic to think that just because there are more important problems, this issue shouldn't be resolved. So it is getting resolved EVEN THOUGH there are "more important" issues out there, and you're a massive bag of shit for saying it's not important enough and therefore it should be ignored in favor of other more important stuff (that are not getting resolved either anyway)
It is absolutely moronic to think that just because there are more important problems, this issue shouldn't be resolved.Indeed. Its the good old Fallacy of the Lesser Importance.
I don't care about that. Anti-Discrimination laws aren't going to change the fact that there are still bigoted people out there.So I guess I finally got an answer to my question. Took quite a lot, like getting blood from a stone, but at least it's an answer.
At least the laws that apply to private businesses. All these stupid laws are a threat to certain freedoms.
I don't care about that. Anti-Discrimination laws aren't going to change the fact that there are still bigoted people out there.So I guess I finally got an answer to my question. Took quite a lot, like getting blood from a stone, but at least it's an answer.
At least the laws that apply to private businesses. All these stupid laws are a threat to certain freedoms.
You think that the difference between a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple and a baker refusing to bake a cake for an interracial couple is that there is no difference because actually we should bring once again allow legalized discrimination (and thus, bring back segregation).
... which is certainly an Opinion. I think I'm done here. It's been an absolute joy to talk with you.
It's like a Sonic avatar, it never ends well.
It's like a Sonic avatar, it never ends well.
I'LL SLAP YOUR SHIT YOU SUMBITCH
Unless you mean avatars of the character Sonic the Hedgehog in which case I'll allow it
Yes it is worthless shit when they can live together and do whatever they want to, but instead flood politics over a "right" that is actually an institution which already loss any meaning or worth.(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjF7hhqUoAI1wom.jpg)
Yes it is worthless shit when they can live together and do whatever they want to, but instead flood politics over a "right" that is actually an institution which already loss any meaning or worth.The blacks wanting to legally marry the whites instead of just living together and do whatever they want away from the public eye is indeed a thing people get all bothered around.
Try reading the topic before posting meme pics.Yes it is worthless shit when they can live together and do whatever they want to, but instead flood politics over a "right" that is actually an institution which already loss any meaning or worth.Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty
Already covered all these things, it's not a right, the whole concept is all butchered and useless, and being married and being over the public eye means nothing.Yes it is worthless shit when they can live together and do whatever they want to, but instead flood politics over a "right" that is actually an institution which already loss any meaning or worth.The blacks wanting to legally marry the whites instead of just living together and do whatever they want away from the public eye is indeed a thing people get all bothered around.
how dare them going around expecting to have the same legal rights before the law as the god fearing white couples /s
It's like a Sonic avatar, it never ends well.
I'LL SLAP YOUR SHIT YOU SUMBITCH
Unless you mean avatars of the character Sonic the Hedgehog in which case I'll allow it
That.
Also, the "memelord" in his username really, really doesn't help matters. In fact that was more of a red flag tbh
Try reading the topic before posting meme pics.ive read the topic and not even luigimemes has posted a sentence as poorly written as yours
Oh boy, we got a functionally illiterate here.Try reading the topic before posting meme pics.ive read the topic and not even luigimemes has posted a sentence as poorly written as yours
Oh boy, we got a functionally illiterate here.Try reading the topic before posting meme pics.ive read the topic and not even luigimemes has posted a sentence as poorly written as yours
an institution which already loss any meaning or worthoh boy we functionally alliteration here
Wait, what on earth are the other reasons for being against gay marriage aside from hating/disliking/being discomforted by gay people?A common argument is that the tax benefits married couples get exist as an incentive for people to couple up and create more taxpayers, which gays obviously can't do, but I don't think the argument holds water since people already get tax benefits just for having children.
And I mean like valid ones, so not religion stuff.
Whatever your stupidity makes you believe.an institution which already loss any meaning or worthoh boy we functionally alliteration here
Yes it is worthless shit when they can live together and do whatever they want to, but instead flood politics over a "right" that is actually an institution which already loss any meaning or worth.
Whatever your stupidity makes you believe.it's supposed to be "already lost any meaning", captain mensa
Homosexuals shouldn't get gay marriage as a right because they already have civil unions and also marriage is meaningless?I was referring to the legal process, marriage as the ceremony is up to who organizes it. Don't know about differences on how marriage works through US states but that wasn't what I was talking.
it's supposed to be "already lost any meaning", captain mensaAnd you couldn't understand it because of that? No wonder I'm captain mensa to you.
It should be noted that one of the major reasons behind the push for marriage equality was because in the vast majority of all states, not even civil unions were on the table for gay couples. All that effort wasn't just so gay people could use the word marriage to describe their union! It was because they literally couldn't get those benefits!Even if your state had civil unions, it was legally worthless across state lines.
A common argument is that the tax benefits married couples get exist as an incentive for people to couple up and create more taxpayers, which gays obviously can't do, but I don't think the argument holds water since people already get tax benefits just for having children.The original purpose of marriage was to perpetuate wealth across bloodlines. Gay men getting married would suck resources from both families without producing heirs, so the practice was largely unacceptable in most of the ancient world.
And you couldn't understand it because of that? No wonder I'm captain mensa to you.your sentence was a pile of shit and you shouldn't call other people illiterate when you can't get basic words right
your sentence was a pile of shit and you shouldn't call other people illiterate when you can't get basic words rightComing from someone who wants to criticize my posts while can't even understand a phrase, don't even punctuate and capitalize what he says, childishly repeating my posts and posting dumb memes, give me a break.
at least we can understand his posts. your original post required a translation from Dumanios to interpret.lol, if reaction pictures are what you guys can understand that's pretty sad, that guy Iced understood and responded to me perfectly on the other hand.
so far, the cons who frequent this forum seem to have an alarming lack of self awareness and comprehensions skills. i guess you have to a pretty delusional idiot to support trump lol.
Im used to dealing with semi iliterate people, doesn't mean your post made any sense. I had to take several leaps in logic to get what you were talking about.Having what is being discussed in mind while one post didn't precisely pointed it out again ain't a logical leap, your experience with these guys really seems to be stunting your thinking, but you were still spot on despite whatever you want to claim along with them now.
Your writing is really sub par and you should consider exposing views better if you want to talk about them instead of having people assume you are talking about something in order to reply to you.
"Having what is being discussed in mind while one post didn't precisely pointed it out again ain't a logical leap"
Is english your first or second language? Because you literally just did it again and this sentence is bonkers.Let me draw it then:
You cant possibly think this is easy to understand or is giving off any sort of message.
it reads like it's your fifthYou can't read in the first place, everything will look like that to you.
Even with the added parentheticals, it's still an extremely unwieldy and grammatically torturous sentence.It's arranged in a condensed manner, something more practical then a wall of text.
You can't read in the first place, everything will look like that to you.if you could read you would've realized by now that we're not the ones with reading issues, you're the one making really bad posts
if you could read you would've realized by now that we're not the ones with reading issues, you're the one making really bad posts"Everything will look like a "fifth language" to you"
also it's "than"
maybe you could help stop the topic from getting derailed in the future by writing intelligiblyOh, shut the fuck up, a bunch of morons who can't even write themselves begin to criticize me and turn the whole topic over this and I'm on the wrong here.
just a thought
in the wrong*
maybe you could help stop the topic from getting derailed in the future by writing intelligiblyOh, shut the fuck up, a bunch of morons who can't even write themselves begin to criticize me and turn the whole topic over this and I'm on the wrong here.
just a thought
It wouldn't be a surprise but apparently no he didn't get it. Yet he seems to be claiming he did. The AP article even says he already admitted he was open to exclude wall talks from DACA negotiations before meeting the Dems.
What's funnier is that somehow it looks like Trump has figured out that he won't pass anything with the Republicans, and he's now trying to have his name on good things through the Democrats. And he calls it bipartisan (even though Reps get kicked out of the meetings). As long as they can make him sign stuff he doesn't read...
He never really wanted it, he outright said it in a campaign meeting, he only started repeating something he heard and he was surprised by the response he got so he just figured it was what his "base" really wanted. He doesn't care about it but he thinks it will make his "base" love him, and that's all he ever cares about, getting praised. As long as people talk about it, he'll bring it up.
That's not even close to true. That was about phrasing, not policy.What, the "build the wall" thing ? That's literally what he himself said. He didn't care for it, repeated something someone said, people started chanting about it and he ran with it.
I don't need a source to prove that a man didn't say something.You do need proof that the Democrats are lying when they announce that they have a deal. You can't just come out and claim "they're lying" whenever anyone says anything about a private meeting, that's just talking out of your ass. You literally don't have the shred of a hint that they may be lying for some reason, where did you even get that idea.
There is a deal. There isn't literally a final bill that's ready to be sent to Congress, but it's happening. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/trumps-dealing-on-daca-sparks-confusion-shifting-alliances-on-capitol-hill/2017/09/14/c9b2c904-994c-11e7-82e4-f1076f6d6152_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_dacahill-1125a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2a26ab0578af) Further talks specifically about strengthening border security are going to be held in a few days. This isn't all some elaborate conspiracy being advanced by both parties in order to make Trump look bad
I don't need a source to prove that a man didn't say something.You do need proof that the Democrats are lying when they announce that they have a deal. You can't just come out and claim "they're lying" whenever anyone says anything about a private meeting, that's just talking out of your ass. You literally don't have the shred of a hint that they may be lying for some reason, where did you even get that idea.
He never really wanted it, he outright said it in a campaign meeting, he only started repeating something he heard and he was surprised by the response he got so he just figured it was what his "base" really wanted. He doesn't care about it but he thinks it will make his "base" love him, and that's all he ever cares about, getting praised. As long as people talk about it, he'll bring it up.
That's not even close to true. That was about phrasing, not policy. It's really disgusting how people run with lies like this.
Says the guy spouting complete lies and refusing to ever back it up with a source.Both myself and everyone else in this topic have done that multiple times every time you shouted that someone was lying - and yes, I do have to pull sources all the time about everything, you're just lying because you don't like the proofs you get.
You two are literally saying the same crap to each other over and over.welcome to every discussion thread feauturing byakko
To get back on a non-Byakko-related topic:It's pretty clear a deal of some sort was made. It kinda just feels like arguing over semantics at this point. The White House may or may not consider the arrangement they came to with the Democrats a "deal" because it may end up falling through, and it's got a ways to go, and yet.
@Jmorphman: This (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-no-deal-was-reached-democrats-extend-daca-n801236) was what I read right before making that original response to you, and what was in my head when I wrote it. Trump himself was pretty insistent over there not being a deal.
Problem is his base quite clearly want daca gone as well as a true wall so tweets like that are pointless if that's his strategy
Oh and he also took the opportunity to blame Hillary Clinton for NK's nuclear program (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/20/trump-blames-hillary-clinton-north-korea-nuclear-weapons-program/684183001/)
There is no easy solution here. Hell, even what Snakebyte mentioned (which is pretty much code for 'assassination') would cause problems.
There is no easy solution here. Hell, even what Snakebyte mentioned (which is pretty much code for 'assassination') would cause problems.
????????????????????
I was in no way suggesting assassination.
All I was saying was that getting into a fight with them would have been a much smarter option in the past, before they had nukes, and we're in the current situation of them being a real opponent that could end our civilization due to our earlier inaction.
I look up things and try to learn about what options there are for North Korea.
Everyone knows they're masters of saber rattling... Always talking about fighting but never actually putting boots to the ground outside of the military parades they have. Here's the catch: North Korea has just as big an army as we do. Getting into a fight with them might be a rather big slog.
There's also the fact that they have nukes and aren't afraid to show it off. What if they target Seoul, which is 35-40 miles from the border? That would be catastrophic on a major scale.
There is no easy solution here. Hell, even what Snakebyte mentioned (which is pretty much code for 'assassination') would cause problems.
U bum @StephenCurry30 already said he ain't going! So therefore ain't no invite. Going to White House was a great honor until you showed up!lol (https://www.twitter.com/KingJames/status/911610455877021697)
Trump going as far as calling Kaepernick a son of a bitch is very telling to me. A black man protesting racial injustice is spoken of harshly, but those Charlottesville protesters? Very fine people.
Kushner (along with many many other White House aides) set up a private email account after the election and has been using it for White House business. (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/24/jared-kushner-private-email-white-house-243071)
This is Actually very different from Hillary because stuff.
Trump going as far as calling Kaepernick a son of a bitch is very telling to me. A black man protesting racial injustice is spoken of harshly, but those Charlottesville protesters? Very fine people.
If America had so much "racial injustice" as Kaepernick claims, he wouldn't have any chance of becoming as a successful as he is now.
He honestly deserves the shit he's getting in my opinion. Anyone who disrespects the flag that America's soldiers died for is simply a cunt in my eyes.
You are both shouting dumb partisan things at eachother and it's making you both look dumb.
You are both shouting dumb partisan things at eachother and it's making you both look dumb.
While that is oh so true that I look bad, I feel it's the only way to fight back... trying to use facts and reason is impossible against Trump supporters, so the only option is to go down on their level and mud sling as well. When the current Idiocracy is gone, then there might be a chance for reason to return... until then, it's probably going to be a long four years.
(although NASCAR is sticking with His Orangeness)
There's also the "keep sports and politics separate" claim that people like to use (which is fine), but for most that's little more than "politics is bad when it's the opinion I don't agree with." :(
The kneeling represents fighting against that, and I find it to be misguided to put it kindly. It suggests that it's an epidemic when the truth is it represents a small percentage of the country.
It's also unfair to the many servicemen and officers who do their job correctly
That said, Trump handled it poorly, surpise. There's no problem with pointing out the issue, but calling on people to "boycott the NFL" (lmao, America is too obsessed with fantasy football and gambling to do so) is a direct slight on the owner's pockets, people who aided Trump's campaign btw. But the other side isn't boycotting the NFL for that reason either now aren't they? And ripping players does nothing to alleviate the situation, you don't change people's minds by saying they should be out of work. Not to mention it sounds draconian as fuck, and that a vast majority of players actually did stand for the anthem before this week, go figure.
There's also the "keep sports and politics separate" claim that people like to use (which is fine), but for most that's little more than "politics is bad when it's the opinion I don't agree with." :(
18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch
(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—
(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(b) In this section, the term “covered government person” means—
(1) a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
(2) an employee of either House of Congress; or
(3) the President, Vice President, an employee of the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).
If they do their job honorably, which most of them do, it doesn't apply to them.
Well, you're one of the rare ones Snakebyte. I usually hang around on Facebook and look at sites like Media Matters, whose job is to point out the con game the right wing is doing.Jesus Christ man.
So then why take a course of action that subtlety implies that the country is full of dishonorable police instead of the minorty that they are? The criticism is that he's disrespecting the nation at large and not just those select individuals.
I get all that, just pointing out that the reaction wouldn't be the same if the position being expressed was 'pro-American.' The same people had no problem with Tebow kneeling (albeit he did it in-game) since it was a display of his Christianity. Reaction would be much different if any celebration was a "Hands up, don't shoot" gesture.
It's more about that base not wanting "leftist" politics in their sports or entertainment. Or anything that goes against the good of what they feel the country stands for. Some people are neutral about it but I'd wager most aren't.
Well, you're one of the rare ones Snakebyte. I usually hang around on Facebook and look at sites like Media Matters, whose job is to point out the con game the right wing is doing.
To me, the kind of idiocy show by most of the Trump supporters disgusts me. There's no place in this world, or any world, where the kind of antics shown by him and his supporters are even remotely acceptable. It's clear that facts and reason don't work against them because they don't want to hear facts and reason, they want to hear anything that confirms their biases. I have my biases as well, but it's clear (at least to me) that until the right wing learns that "compromise" isn't a dirty word, then this cycle is just going to keep on.
BTW, I'm not offended in any way... It's actually nice that you care Snakebyte. But, sometimes... I just need to unleash my venom and hatred towards those who harm our country by supporting people and policies that don't help our fellow man.
the president of the United States of America; the man who swore an oath to serve and protect those people, is devoting all of his time and energy to having a fucking twitter war with professional athletes because he thinks they're not being nice enough to him.
How anyone who calls themselves an American, conservative or liberal, can look at that objectively and still think to themselves "I trust this person to be in charge of this country" boggles the mind.
I think it's pretty great. A man who spends all day starting shit on the internet is someone I can really empathize with. And, I mean, consider the alternatives...That's... terrible.
You know, all that high-minded faux intellectualism you seem so proud of really rings as being disingenuous when you're freely admitting that you form your political opinions through dank memes and petty contrarianism.
You know, I could be extremely wrong. I could be... but what about you? You could wrong as well man.(https://i.imgur.com/mZZsWlc.png)
Yeah, I caught the grammatical error and fixed it.it's not so much the grammatical error as it is that it might be the most vapid sentence i've seen in a long time
Yeah, I caught the grammatical error and fixed it.
Anyhow, I feel it's hard to have a decent conversation with someone who is on the right wing because more often then not, they start with mud slinging. How am I supposed to have a decent conversation when your first instinct is to attack? That makes it hard on my end to do anything other then attack.
Look at the pissing matches between you and Byakko, Snakebyte. Neither one of you guys budged from your views and it made the conversation into a volley of shots. It didn't sink to the level of mud slinging, but it was shown that when neither side can budge, no one wins.
Trustworthy? Let's see...I'm not sure how you're attempting to argue trustworthiness with some of your points there but..
...
This hasn't happened. The ACA replacement failure is currently on the side of the GOP, the same people who lost their party to Trump, because they've been so pisspoor at representing their constituents interests for decades now and also pisspoor at getting anything done period.Yeah, that's simply not accurate. When one party controls both Congress and the White House, legislation is a team sport, a coordinated, multi-pronged effort that takes advantage of the unique strengths and abilities of both entities. Like, take the ACA: surely no one would seriously try to argue that the Obama administration sat idly by while Congress spent a year writing and holding hearings for the bill. This thing was given the name "Obamacare" for a reason: the Obama administration worked tirelessly, working not only to help craft the exact language that would become the final bill, but it also pulled out all the stops to whip the vote, coaxing nervous Democratic members of Congress who were incredibly reluctant to support the bill. And eventually, those efforts succeeded, and the ACA was passed by Congress and signed by the President.
If I remember correctly Trump claimed to be THE advocate for LBGTQ yet his trans ban says otherwise so how's that trustworthy? Trumps absolutely refuses to show his tax returns yet claimed he would after they've been "audited" to which the IRS already stated he could show them whenever like every other president in the past 40 some years has. Did you "trust" Trump while he claimed Obama wasn't a U.S. citizen for like 3 years even AFTER he had already been proven wrong about it? What about all the evidence he claimed to have had on Obama wiretapping him? Where's that at? If I were describe Trump, trustworthy is not a word I'd use let's not forget he invited Russia in to "find" the rest of Hilary's email's only last year.
Donald Trump is different. He doesn't lie like a politician does. He does it constantly, consistently, nearly every single day. He makes absurd, sweeping untruths without any seeming effort at all. Where normal politicians stick to (mostly) slightly stretching the truth, he makes up entirely fake, lurid pieces of fiction. He exaggerates needlessly, fabricating numbers and statistics that are wildly off base for no real reason.
His lying has stymied, and still is stymieing, most major news outlets; their normal tools and methods of interacting with and reporting on politicians simply don't apply, or aren't useful to Trump. They're used to dealing with normal politicians, who generally take care to never make a directly provably false statement, preferring instead to offer half-truths and misleading supporting statements. This is not true of Trump, and it has made for an incredibly rough adjustment.
The dedicated fact checking websites and fact checking sections at traditional news outlets are frequently at a loss, unable to keep up with the sheer volume of deception coming out of Trump's mouth. But an even cursory glance at these sites makes the difference between an ordinary politician and Trump crystal clear. The Toronto Star has a pretty good one, and it even generously (perhaps overly so) gives Trump the benefit of the doubt by calling these "false claims", and not straight up lies, because it's possible not every false claim was an intentional lie.
But yeah, lies, huh? Here's one from today, I guess: despite Trump's repeated claims during the campaign that he would be so, so much better at protecting LGBTQ rights than his opponent, his Justice Department argued today in federal court that employers should be allowed to fire people because of their sexuality, as they interpret Title VII's protection against discrimination based on sex to refer solely to gender, and not to sexual orientation (which is how most courts are interpreting it these days).
This case is especially odd because the Justice Department's opponents in this case are the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The DOJ inserted itself into this case in July, filing a brief supporting the employer that fired the gay employee who is suing.
But that's not gonna stop Trump from continuing to boast of his support of the LGBTQ community.
You're never going to convince me that the trans military ban is somehow an 'attack'. It is in line with how the military treats anyone with a medical condition, and being exempted from the draft is not cruel. It is kind. It is insane to twist this into bigotry.
You are not entitled to see the tax returns of a private citizen.
If you followed the news a little more closely, you'd see that he has been vindicated about the wiretapping. CNN posted an 'exclusive' on it roughly six months after the fact verifying the story.
I don't understand how anyone has a problem with that Russia comment either. Just more hysteria.
Travel ban : call it a Muslim ban instead, facts be damned, proof that Trump is a xenophobic fascist.
Incorrect. It's the major news outlets and fact checking sites that are lying constantly, nearly every single day.Pretty much what I expected. Like I said before, it's difficult to imagine any worthwhile discussion coming out of this when the two sides are so far apart that they might as well exist in alternate realities.
and i know i'll sound like a bigot idiot but i do think they have a point excluding trans in the military. if you look at it in business perspective. and oh boy i'm gonna look like an ass here but surgically reassigned individuals cost a lot more to "maintain". they'd need to spend more money on consultation and research to "maintain" the health of this surgically reassigned individuals seeing this is new territory for the military they won't know if the drugs and medicine they are using right now is safe to used by these individuals or they could have side effects on their hormone injected bodies.Trans soldier's health costs are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay smaller than the military's budget for boner pills; the financial argument just doesn't hold water.
Since the tax returns were brought up, Donald Trump is NOT a private citizen. Every Presidential candidate going back decades has revealed their tax returns. First he said they were under audit and that he couldn't release them
That's a lie. There's no law prohibiting the release of the returns while they're being audited. Let's assume he meant he would prefer to do so after for his own peace of mind. He still hasn't done it. Insisting no one cares. He says it over and over until people seemingly give up. I don't trust politicians, and I don't trust corporate business men either. I think he's hiding something.
Can't really blame the media for this one can you?
Pretty much what I expected. Like I said before, it's difficult to imagine any worthwhile discussion coming out of this when the two sides are so far apart that they might as well exist in alternate realities.
I don't think it's going to be a productive use of anyone's time to go through those lists to argue over each and every entry.
This is one trustworthy dude that I would want on my side mocking the disabled.
Also: That's the point. That's why people compile those giant lists. Because when bullshit reaches a certain peak, no one bothers to wade through it and just assumes it has to be true.That's pretty fucking ridiculous, my dude. Don't go around claiming people are living in bubbles when you can't engage in the idea that a list could be assembled containing the various lies Trump has said could be for anything other than evil, nefarious purposes.
I'm glad to know that it's OK to mock a (probably) terminally ill POW's physical ailments as long as one considers him a sell-out.
QuoteThis is one trustworthy dude that I would want on my side mocking the disabled.
Nice job reducing Senator McCain to his disability. That's super ableist, guy. McCain deserves to be mocked because he has absolutely no principles and sells out his constituents literally every chance he gets, but just keep on calling Trump a bigot, it's worked out so well for everyone so far...
So you're just going to go on about how every journalist automatically tells the truth and refuse to post any of the lists, and do any work looking into the claims?I already posted a list. (http://mugenguild.com/forum/msg.2377014) There's a lot more online, but I had only posted that one as an example. If you wanna go through all of the stuff listed there—and not just randomly bringing up a Trump claim about Clinton emails as an example of how they're all bullshit (especially when the list in question that I posted specifically lists "false statements", not lies)—be my guest; no one's stopping you from doing that.
Yes he is lol. You have no right to see his tax returns, stop whining.
actually you can, there's no law that prevents someone private or not to see your tax returns even if it's being audited. . but on the other hand there's no law against making a false tax return too. ahahahaha i'm not even an american citizen why the fuck do i care.
The tax returns you want to see are those from when he was a private citizen. You do not have a right to retroactively unprivatize his tax returns.
doesn't matter what time it was, it's like saying i raped a person when i was 16 so you can't sue me.
nobody is claiming that trump didn't helped, it's expected that the president would lead an relief, but what people didn't expect is a negative remark towards the LGU of puerto rico , which i agree on him it's just bad timing.
Trump is now openly attacking Puerto Rico (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/353216-trump-criticizes-san-juan-mayors-poor-leadership-during-puerto-rico) for being too weak and lazy to avoid being destroyed by a hurricane, while praising himself for having done almost nothing to help.What an absolute piece of shit.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. ;)"I have absolutely nothing to add at all but I had the last say so haha try again sweetie" looks so nice coming from a moderator
Sorry, but that's a terrible reply. This is pretty much a minor story, being made to look bigger than it actually is because the Ruskies are involved.The specific Russia-Facebook ads story or the Russia-collusion one? I'm honestly baffled by the idea that the former could be construed as being "minor", cuz it's literally a story featuring a foreign power making a direct attempt at swaying an election. I mean, sure, it's not the first one of these stories to pop up this year, but that doesn't make it "minor".
Because all blame deflection and identity politics will do is make Trump 2020 a reality, at least someone within the DNC knows that.Identity politics are just politics that affect other people. Black civil rights are identity politics. Gay rights are identity politics. All of those, and more, are absolutely goals worth pursuing.
Russian-linked Facebook ads targeted Michigan and Wisconsin (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/russian-facebook-ads-michigan-wisconsin/index.html); wow what a shocking coincidence.
But I know, I know. It's that obviously fake Russian conspiracy that's been debunked by very reputable news sources, and even worse, it's being reported on by the great Satan himself, CNN. So don't even bother clicking it or complaining about it, it's just fake news, after all!
but why would we care if Trump coordinated with some random guy in Russia?
Also, no, 'identity politics' is acting like people's politics are because of their identity, like when every black conservative is called horrible racist names by all the anti-racists because they don't conform to what a black person should think.Huh? Is this like, a Canadian thing or something? I genuinely have never heard of this definition before. Like, it's definitely related to the , but it's still distinct. (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/identity-politicsgenerally accepted definition[/url)
Also, no, 'identity politics' is acting like people's politics are because of their identity, like when every black conservative is called horrible racist names by all the anti-racists because they don't conform to what a black person should think.Huh? Is this like, a Canadian thing or something? I genuinely have never heard of this definition before. Like, it's definitely related to the , but it's still distinct.
(http://www.dictionary.com/browse/identity-politicsgenerally accepted definition[/url)
Trump made a speech at an anti LGBT hate group event, (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-anti-lgbt-address-hate-group-summit-meeting-first-president-us-homphobia-a7997401.html) praising them for their good work and assuring them that he will protect Christian values in America.
Can't wait for Snakebyte to come in and explain to all us libtards how this is a fake news conspiracy and how openly condoning discrimination and hate speech is actually a bold, presidential action that proves how much Trump cares about equal rights.
Today, Trump signed an executive order that will eventually rewrite key ACA regulations, and potentially allow individuals to purchase short-term health insurance that don't cover the ACA mandated essential health benefits (i.e., stuff like preexisting conditions and other stuff that makes health insurance actually worthwhile) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/12/this-executive-order-is-trumps-most-significant-step-yet-to-undermine-obamacare/?utm_term=.d830f31f9613), which pretty much every expert agrees will destabilize the existing healthcare marketplaces, and see an exodus of young, healthy people who will go buy the very cheap, very skimpy health plans, leaving the existing marketplace full of sick and elderly people (who can't use those skimpy plans), which will naturally cause premiums to skyrocket. It's an idea that no one in particular seems to love (except Rand Paul, I guess), but I guess spite is a good way to govern!
But it's not all bad: this order doesn't do anything immediately, it just sets up a process by which those regulations will eventually be rewritten. So there's always a chance cooler heads could prevail, and no disastrous decisions are made. No need to panic right this second...
Except, oh wait, in an even more massive bombshell, the White House announced tonight that the government will no longer pay the cost-sharing reductions to the insurance markets that help keep the premiums affordable. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-to-sign-executive-order-to-gut-aca-insurance-rules-and-undermine-marketplaces/2017/10/11/40abf774-ae97-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_aca-execorder-1025pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.06638c37d1d9) Such a move is almost guaranteed to cause the ACA markets to implode; uncertainty about whether Trump would cancel the payments or not have already caused a big increase in premiums for 2018, and that's only the beginning. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that premiums will increase by 25% by 2020, and that the deficit will increase by $6 billion in 2018 and $21 billion by 2020.
So uh yeah, things are pretty fucked up right now.
So Paul Manafort and Rick Gates are now indicted for charges of laundering money to Ukraine as a result of Mueller's investigation into the Russian election hacking (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/paul-manafort-indicted.html)
Hopefully government run healthcare will implode and they can give it to the open market. Like it should be. Government should never be a part of healthcare. That's socialism. Give it to the open market and watch the prices for insurance drop. More then likely this is the end game. Get back to pure Capitalism.
News form the Washington Compost? Seriously? Of course they'll spin it to look bad. It'll be just fine in the long run. Hopefully government run healthcare will implode and they can give it to the open market. Like it should be. Government should never be a part of healthcare. That's socialism. Give it to the open market and watch the prices for insurance drop. More then likely this is the end game. Get back to pure Capitalism.LOL, would you prefer a link from the New York SLIMES? Or maybe the Chicago TRASHBUNE? Or the uh... Des Moines RAGISTER? ok i'm done
wake up sheeple to the reptilian jew conspiracy to turn our frogs gay with vitamin water and starbucks pumpkin spice lattes
gay frogs will then give george soros enough money to outlaw video games worldwide which will turn everyone into a cultural marxist #gamergate #askquestions #obamasfemacamps
Why would I prefer those when I don't even respect the Washington Compost? Dumb comeback.
Any of you who think single-payer is a good thing are completely ignorant. Canada has better healthcare than the US? Freaking stupid. Do you know how long it takes to get an MRI appointment there? Do you know how many people come to the US from Canada to get their surgeries and treatments? What are you guys talking about? Their ability to treat their own citizens is sub par because everything is so expensive. Since their government pays for everything the prices have sky rocketed. So there's not enough to go around. The ACA wasn't meant to do anything but open up a door for Socialism/Communism. It was supposed to fail. You guys are so blind. Obama is a Communist. A Marxist pure and simple. The ACA was made to fail during Hillary's presidency so that single-payer could be ushered in to "save the day". When in actuality it would be the way to get this country into communism. The globalist movement is trying to dominate this country and ignorant people like you guys are helping it along. The government has no business in healthcare. Giving it to the free market will fix way more then any other solution at this point. You'll always have sorry individuals making money the wrong way. But it's better then giving complete control of something like healthcare to the government. Wake up.
>ObummercareI don't believe you are going to get threw to this person at all.
how are these people real
All Obama did was allow kids to become leeches until they're 26. So stupid. Get a job and get your own insurance.
If you can't afford healthcare for yourself then it's your own fault. Try harder.
Only to a leech.The guy came into the country 2010 and had no ties to any known terrorist groups at the time, ISIS had no presence in Syria yet, let alone Uzbekistan.
C'mon let's talk about the Muslim that killed those people in NY. Any thought on that. Do we need stricter vetting procedures? Were the Dems wrong for pushing for the inclusion bill that got this guy into the USA?
I think Snakebyte is actually right here; This guy isn't real. No actual human talks like that unless they're fishing for a reaction.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
C'mon let's talk about the Muslim that killed those people in NY.Obvious troll is obvious.
Why would I prefer those when I don't even respect the Washington Compost?it's a joke, you dork
C'mon let's talk about the Muslim that killed those people in NY.Sorry, that's offtopic.
I think Snakebyte is actually right here; This guy isn't real. No actual human talks like that unless they're fishing for a reaction.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Gonna be honest, Person Man saying I'm right about something has thrown me more than this actual guy did.
*EDGY POLITICS*
What u should be asking is if what I said was true. Canada is a globalist cesspool. It's a pathetic country with a feminist man boy prime minister. I pray their next leader is a real man. What did thy do to me? They're helping to reinforce the globalist movement right above my country.
U know if your weren't Canadian I might actually care what u think.
The law says doctors have to treat you.If they have to treat you doesn't that mean the government is involved in healthcare? They just dont pay for it. Even then you know you have to pay them, right? Most declarations of bankruptcy (over half of all personal bankruptcies) in the US are caused by medical bills, you know that, right?
Obamacare is why my insurance rates went up from $60 a week to $120 a week in that last 4 years.
His lousy father did nothing more then destroy all accounts of Scottish history in your country to see to it that French history would be all that remains. Pathetic.I gotta say.. Pierre trudeau did a shit job of erasing all Scottish history in canada, considering my province, Nova Scotia (AKA NEW SCOTLAND) has tons of people marching around in kilts every holiday and my school has one of many bagpipe bands, with Every university here has a degree in Celtic studies and even most high schools have a class. That is pathetic, its almost like he didn't do that at all and you're talking out of your ass.
Socialism never works. It killed more people then Hitler. It doesn't work.I could mention how despite "never working" every 1st world nation on the planet has socialized healthcare except the US. (Just one of many "everyone but the US" list). Instead, I'll just say IDK, Nazis were called the National SOCIALIST workers party, check and mate, socialists.
Everything I have said can be backed by 100% facts.No it cant, fuck off.
Forget this freak and let's talk about Trump trying really hard to push away the question of gun control after the Texas Church shooting. Again.
You can't talk about that here remember. It's off topic like when I was trying to bring up the Muslim Islamic terrorist that ran over all those people in New York. Jmorphmans words not mine.do you know what the fucking title of the thread is
Another Canadian talking about Merica.Well, you keep talking about how "terrible" Canada is so I figure it's only fair.
I'm talking about all of Canada not just "New Scotland". Canada was rich with Scottish history throughout. Now it's been reduced to your "New Scotland". Pierre was a joke.
$60 a week is a third of what you make? You know you're not supposed to work at McDonald's your whole life. Do better for yourself.
Actually trying to put down Trump when man boy is your president? Trump was born with millions but he alone turned it into billions. You couldn't do that with your life on the line. The average person couldn't do that. Many successful businessmen use bankruptcy as a method of "restarting" their empire. It's common practice. And he wasn't just a reality TV star. His show was #1 each and every season. The man is a winner. Always has been and always will be.
And with Mike Pence at his side he's only gotten better.
And just saying what I said can't be backed by facts is not good enough. You're supposed to prove it.But saying "everything I said is 100% true" is?
Forget this freak and let's talk about Trump trying really hard to push away the question of gun control after the Texas Church shooting. Again.
Oh and Whiplash I didn't ignore what you said. I just didn't see the relevancy. What was your point?
And stop putting words in my mouth. I never said mcdonalds employees like yourself can't have health insurance. What I was saying was its a starter job for teens.
If you can't afford healthcare for yourself then it's your own fault.
I know what the name of this thread is and I was trying to start a conversation about Trump saying that the NY terrorist deserved the death penalty but Jmorphman said it was off topic. Liberals and their double standards.
C'mon let's talk about the Muslim that killed those people in NY. Any thought on that. Do we need stricter vetting procedures? Were the Dems wrong for pushing for the inclusion bill that got this guy into the USA?what the fuck are you talking about dude
And by the way they did work on her even with her bad insurance. Proves my point. I never said you wouldn't be stuck with a bill. I said they have to work on you. It's the law.That's why I thought that article would be a great example: it shows off how medical care isn't just some one time event, it's often an ongoing, expensive process. The woman profiled in that piece received medical care immediately after the shooting, but will still need medical services every day for the rest of her life. There is no law in place that ensures that she get that medical care.
Repealing the second amendment would leave us vulnerable to our government. That's why it's there. To help us kill the government if it tries to take over all aspects of our lives which some of you might be ok with. So no lets not talk about that.Yeah, let's not talk about how no other civilized country has that because no one else is insane enough to think like that and it's never an issue.
Repealing the second amendment would leave us vulnerable to our government. That's why it's there. To help us kill the government if it tries to take over all aspects of our lives which some of you might be ok with. So no lets not talk about that.
I mean what is the perfect law for gun control that would reduce gun deaths to the point that they would be at a rate that you would be happy? They would never go away 100%. Too many dumb people out there who would accidentally shoot themselves or some that would use them for suicide. So it will never be perfect but what is the best law possible?
Anyways removing the second amendment wouldn't make a difference. Japan has no second amendment and they're home to the yakuza which has more guns and explosives then u could imagine. Criminals will get their guns.Wow, you're trying to compare USA gun crime rates to Japan gun crime rates and you pretend that'll go your way, okay
Japan has one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. In 2014 there were just six gun deaths, compared to 33,599 in the US. What is the secret?Maybe it was "not allowing guns" ??
I'm enjoying myself."JOKE'S ON U I'M ONLY HAVING FUN"
I'm not comparing japan and USA gun crimes.Liar.
BBC huh? SMH Do u really believe there were only 6 gun deaths in japan in 1 year? Really?Prove them wrong.
Seriously what law do we need to stop gun crime? U can't answer that can u? None of u can.Liar. Everybody gave you an answer. You're just pretending it didn't happen because you don't like it. Not a single thing you say is true, plus you completely avoided giving any answer yourself to our questions, again pretending it didn't happen.
@ Jmorphman - All that article did was get people like you riled up about free healthcare. For you all you know she may have already had Obamacare? Do you really think some other socialist health plan could do better? Where will the money come from? How will we pay for it all? Tax the 1% elite more? If we taxed them at a 100% tax rate it wouldn't be enough to pay for all of the unpaid college tuitions in this country. Do you think it would be enough to pay for everybody's medical bills? It wouldn't. There's just not enough money to go around. There never will be. We could lower the pay rates for doctors and surgeons. That might work. Until they leave and go somewhere else to work with better incentives. Like the Indians do when they leave India to come to the USA to make some real money. So where would the money come from?Ah, OK. It should've already been clear to me before, but now you've made it really clear. You're not really interesting in having a debate about any of this, you just want to keep shouting the same tired, poorly-supported arguments you've been slinging for pages and pages before.
And I didn't see any questions for me.You pretended to laugh at the notion that Japan only had 6 gun deaths in 2016. Prove it wrong.
More of the same from u. Trying to make me look like something I'm not but this time instead of putting words in my mouth you're pointing out things I didn't say.
That's very interesting but it wasn't a question. Just saying.Yeah, keep telling yourself it makes a difference and it makes it okay to dodge points you don't like.
But their must be more to it. I mean using common sense would tell u that the mob has to kill more people with guns then they're letting on. I mean it's the mob. They have guns. They would use them wouldn't u think?No, it's really just you who doesn't understand it. Funnily enough the article I linked to also talks about that. I took 5 seconds to Google it and it addresses everything you're talking about.
Wouldn't xenophobe be more accurate? Since when are Canadians a race!?
have you not watched southpark ?
Wow, This guy is like a sentient Alex Jones rant. This is the kind of stuff people make up when they’re trying to exaggerate to make fun of ignorant Trump supporters. There is no way he is an actual, real person.
You guys are shooting yourselves in the foot.
it's a culture thing look at switzerland they basically have a law that it's citizen should know how to use a firearm but their gun related violence is pretty low and majority of this are suicide ,
that's why stricter gun laws should be implemented in the usa , again stricter doesn't mean the government will make it hard for people to own a gun but there should be procedure to be followed before one can legally own one and buy one. i'm a gun owner myself i have 4 pistols and 2 rifles.
there should be a standard gun law that would prevent over the counter purchase , your standard back ground check , the buyer should have proper training , there should be a tier class level of licenses on what type of weapon you could own, like tier 1 should be pistols , tier 2 shotgun and rifles , etc. and before owning one you must be subjected to train how to handle one , and of course ANNUAL mandatory psychological test.
and i do believe that if a person has any crime history or violent out burst they should not own a gun, and this is just me it's my opinion but owning assault rifles is stupid, this is coming from a bolt guy btw. yeah learn to aim before spraying your bullets all over the place. this way if you're a responsible gun owner it won't even matter if there's a stricter gun law , the only one who are against it are the ones who are irresponsible.
That's the thing though. Driving a car is a privilege. Owning a gun is a right. You're kind of hindering people from their right to have a gun if you require a permit to have a gun in their own house that they have to pay for.
yes, teaching people about proper handling and keeping. if you want to own a gun you should be prepare for responsibility of owning a gun.
there are alot of cases that the offender isn't the owner of the gun but some dumb ass can't lock their guns. there should be a punishable offense for this kind of irresponsible behavior. the NRA and the gov't should be more vocal about the responsibility of gun owners and punishment if they don't comply. it's better than arguing with people who are against guns.
@Ricepigeon: What the fuck is wrong with you?
you're using a national tragedy to push your own opinion.
VGames, I just wanna say that you should be aware this is a very international forum. You're talking to a lot of people like they're Americans and they're dumb for being anti-gun, but I don't think that many people here are. A lot of the anti-gun opinions you're getting are from people who live in historically anti-gun countries.
Not going into it any deeper than that, just you may want to filter your expectations through that a bit, I think it's part of why you weren't being taken seriously.
You edited your thread title to what it currently is right now.
Not only does this have nothing to do with Donald Trump (who I'm all for making fun of), you're using a national tragedy to push your own opinion. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
I feel you're wrong about the tax cuts, I would like to hear an explanation on how the working class is going to be screwed harder then Thai hookers in heat.
China, another very strict gun law country, had 10083 homicides in the same year Japan had 395.
Unemployment rate: He inherited it from the last administration
Dow Jones: Ditto
Lower levels of illegal immigration: Ditto
Respect?: No, and in case you missed it the first time, HELL NO! We are now the only country in the world that stands against the Paris Accord. The only one... that's not leadership, that's being a stubborn idiot pandering to a base full of idiots.
Tax cuts: Unless you're a billionaire, it's going to screw you harder then a Thai hooker in heat. The rich get the cuts because why, again? Because they're rich and people like you still believe in that magical voodoo called trickle down... yeah, something is trickling down from them, but it's not money.
Holy shit, he's a climate change denier too. Just when you think he can't possibly be more of cartoon character. XD
The Paris agreement would make a microscopic difference, all the hoopla about the media ripping Trump is pressure to get every country on board. Though all it does is gimp everyone economically while giving slap on the wrists to China and India, even though they're responsible for the majority of the emissions.
I know I'm parroting what's already been said, but it's obvious where their mindstate is when articles are using Syria joining the accord as a prop on why "everyone should be all in."
Yeah sorry trying to do better. It's a work in progress.
I think I made my intentions pretty clear: I'm screwing with you because I think it's funny. People like you, it's so easy to poke a hole in that chest-thumping, jingoistic nationalism you're so proud of and watch you sputter around like a deflating balloon.
I feel you're wrong about the tax cuts, I would like to hear an explanation on how the working class is going to be screwed harder then Thai hookers in heat.
The cuts are meant for those who are rich, not to mention that some tax credits will be axed in the process.
The big sticking points? It's said that this bill could add $1.5 billion to our deficits AND how they want to pay for it is pretty simple... cut everything near and dear to those who need the help.
Look, this is just how I feel... but I highly doubt anyone can defend this plan without being a fool.
Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?" Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!
This stupid, spray-tanned motherfucker is going to launch a nuclear holocaust so he can win a dick-measuring contest.
Let the record show that it was at this point Snakebyte started arguing in favor of nuclear war.not really, what he's saying is that the opinion on war here sways according to what trump says. you could argue that point instead of saying HMMMM SO YOURE SAYING WAR IS GOOD NOW?? your quick snipes in this thread that add nothing to the discussion are getting really old
He never said thatThat didn't stop Snakebyte from praising Trump's method of avoiding war or claiming that people actually want a nuclear war now that Trump is trying to avoid it, so piss off.
what he's saying is that the opinion on war here sways according to what trump says.And that would be a lie since no one said anything good about war after Trump claimed he tried to make friends with Kim.
Let the record show that it was at this point Snakebyte started arguing in favor of nuclear war.not really, what he's saying is that the opinion on war here sways according to what trump says. your quick snipes in this thread that add nothing to the discussion are getting really old
Trump has insulted Kim Jong-in multiple times in the past and threatened atomic fire on North Korea, yet now when Kim Jong-in insults him, suddenly he wants to be friends?
No he didn't. I want sources on the insulting that occurred multiple times in the past. And he never threatened NK with nuclear fire. He said "Fire and Fury" and he was talking about bringing fire and fury down on them if they continued doing what they were doing. He needs to tell them how it is. That's his job. Why are you standing up for a psychotic dictator that feeds on the very lives of his own people?
Still that's not multiple times.Uh yes it is.
if Kim wants to fire nukes because of a put down he's the one with the serious problem.Welcome to North Korea
He's being diplomaticNo he's not.
I hope when Kim is dead you guys can go on living.There have been three of them since the fifties, how are you not getting this
There have been three of them since the fifties, how are you not getting this
Kim Il-sung in the seventies, Kim Jong-il in the nineties, then Kim Jong-un. One single person is not the problem.There have been three of them since the fifties, how are you not getting thisWhat?
Read up above. Dumanios was clearly saying Kim was in the right since Trump made fun of him first and nobody got upset about Trump poking fun at him when he called him little Rocket man which he is. That's backing the dictator. None of you are backing Trump on this issue even though he's clearly in the right. We have to attack NK. It's gonna happen. Therefore you are backing Kim.Everything in this statement is objectively false. The world isn't as binary as Breitbart has told you to believe. It's entirely possible to be against both sides in an issue. Both Kim and Trump are mentally unstable egomaniacs who shouldn't be in charge of a country.
I was referring to the fact that you guys are backing Kim more then your own president who is looking out for us all.
Hey VGames, what country was the obviously secret Muslim Obama born in?
Both Kim and Trump are mentally unstable egomaniacs
Unless you happen to be gay, muslim, or working for CNN
Hawaii I believe was the last place they said he was born.Nice weasel words. C'mon, tell us what you really believe. Lets see how deep this rabbit hole goes.
Hawaii I believe was the last place they said he was born. What does that have to do with anything?
Muslims need to step up and denounce the things that the "radical" ones are doing if they want to get out of the terrorist spotlight.
@ Person Man - Hey quit attacking my character. Instead point out a Muslim Islamic organization in the US that's denouncing all these Islamic Terrorist attacks.
WHERE'S DA MODERATE MUSLIMS AND DERE CONDEMNATIONS OF ISLAMIC TERROR?!?!?!?! (https://muslimscondemn.com)Fake news, only reputable news sources like www.usandonlyusnewsandreports.org, www.infotainmentwars.co.uk, and www.obamaisakenyanmuslimwhohatesanime.biz are allowed here.
Yeah the pic was a joke. It was pretty funny though. You guys are gullible. I told u I don't know about Obama's birthplace.yeah man totally, the best jokes are is the kind where one posts long paragraphs of absolute nonsense and everyone of all different political beliefs points and mocks them relentlessly. But little do they know they're all being pranked by a master troll!
@ Mechy - Why would me being Hispanic have anything to do with the way I see people for what they are? Should I be a victim too? Or should I shut up since I'm not higher up on the pecking order?Oh no, you can talk all you want, since it's america and all. Just oughta keep in mind that just as you see muslims as born evil invaders who's only good contribution ever was kebab, majority of that pecking order regards you as a drug bringing rapist that can't grasp the concept of borders and who's only good contribution is lawn care.
Former national security adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty Friday to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, in an ominous sign for the White House, said he is cooperating in the ongoing probe of possible coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election.Flynn has flipped, and made a deal. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michael-flynn-charged-with-making-false-statement-to-the-fbi/2017/12/01/e03a6c48-d6a2-11e7-9461-ba77d604373d_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_flynn-937am-duplicate%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.57cedb1d20d3) Quite an eventful day it's been.
When Flynn was forced out of the White House in February, officials said he had misled the administration, including Vice President Pence, about his contacts with Kislyak. But court records and people familiar with the contacts indicated he was acting in consultation with senior Trump transition officials, including President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, in his dealings with the diplomat.
Flynn’s plea revealed that he was in touch with senior Trump transition officials before and after his communications with the ambassador.
The Texas Democrat previously called Trump “the chief inciter of racism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, sexism, ethnocentrism.” Impeachment articles he introduced in October state that Trump “brought disrepute on the presidency” and “undermined the integrity of his office” but did not make criminal accusations.Pfffft. Not even "muh russia", just "Trump is a meanie". This is pathetic.
Trump under fire, including a condemnation by British PM May, for both tweeting anti-muslim videos...
The resistance is getting desperateDems that voted against are aware that this would go nowhere, and that it would de-legitimize their serious efforts with the public opinion on the Mueller front, so they decided to shoot this on sight and leave the traction and excitement for the finishing blow.
at least nothing on the planet can ever go lower than the Reps on credibility lol
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald on Sunday addressed a report that President Donald Trump’s administration had banned the CDC from using seven words or phrases in next year’s budget documents.
The terms are “fetus,” “transgender,” “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “evidence-based” and “science-based,” according to a story first reported on Friday in The Washington Post.
But Fitzgerald said in a series of tweets on Sunday said there are “no banned words,” while emphasizing the agency’s commitment to data-driven science.
[..]
“The assertion that H.H.S. has ‘banned words’ is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process,” Matt Lloyd, an agency spokesman, said in a statement. “H.H.S. will continue to use the best scientific evidence available to improve the health of all Americans. H.H.S. also strongly encourages the use of outcome and evidence data in program evaluations and budget decisions.”
Wait, so the Trump Administration isn't even banning certain buzzwords at the CDC? This just proves that Trump is weak and unable to execute his policies properly. Sure can't wait for all the helpful Trump supporters to try and explain how this is a strong, righteous, American decision.
I'd bet the letter the WH send wasn't even tailored for the CDC (why would it mention entitlement programs and diversity?) but was a generic memo sent to multiple agencies.And out of the two, this is the worse. A generic "please dont use words list" is just craziness.
at least nothing on the planet can ever go lower than the Reps on credibility lolHe's, like, really smart.
Michael Wolff's new book includes interview with some of Trump's inner circle who, among many allegations, stated that neither Trump nor his campaign team ever intended on winning the 2016 election (http://www.newsweek.com/top-20-revelations-trump-fire-and-fury-book-about-golden-showers-ivanka-bannon-769899)
though i wanna know how on hillary got an authority to sell armaments to the russiansThat is... pretty wildly off base. This is a pretty thorough look at the Uranium One deal (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/24/what-you-need-know-about-hillary-clinton-and-urani/), but to be brief: it wasn't armaments, it was an American uranium company that had a majority of its shares bought by the Russian nuclear agency (do note that this uranium company did not, and still does not have a license to export any of the uranium outside of the US); before the sale was allowed to proceed, it was reviewed by a committee of nine different government agencies including the Defense Department, Department of Homeland Security, and State Department (which is where Clinton comes in). All nine agencies signed off on the deal, and so it went though. No one agency was able to override the others and approve the deal, they all had to agree in order for it to happen.
then it's legal? so what's all the fuzz about hillary's emails then?
Trump: "If you had a teacher who was adept at firearms, they could very well end the attack very quickly, and the good thing about a suggestion like that -- and we're going to be looking at it very strongly...but the good thing is you'll have a lot of [armed] people with that."
If a potential “sicko shooter” knows that a school has a large number of very weapons talented teachers (and others) who will be instantly shooting, the sicko will NEVER attack that school. Cowards won’t go there...problem solved. Must be offensive, defense alone won’t work!
What many people don’t understand, or don’t want to understand, is that Wayne, Chris and the folks who work so hard at the @NRA are Great People and Great American Patriots. They love our Country and will do the right thing. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
who is going to kill 17 people in a few minutes with a hammer exactly ?
Some of you clowns have obviously never set foot on a farm. I love how liberals and leftists spend so much time talking about things they know nothing about. On a farm you may be required to do anything from defend your family from a human intruder to defend your live stock from a 4 legged predator. In many cases to defend from a fox, coyote, wolf, large cat or bear you need something with range. A shotgun is not nearly as effective at range as an AR15. The farmer has an AR15 because it is the most well rounded weapon to handle most situations he might run into. And the question was very well answered. The question was what is something good done with an AR15. Not what was something good done by an AR15 that something else could have done better. In the case of a farmer there isn’t any better weapon for versatility. Now all you liberals leave the farmer alone and quit worrying about what he’s carrying, I’m sure you’ll all be perfectly safe in your gun free zones. No one ever brings guns to those places.
UK implemented strict gun laws after 1 school shooting and their mass shooting drastically went down. canada also , americans being so sensitive about gun laws baffles me, US congress even ban the CDC to study gun violence , that's messed up , probably most US congress are in the pockets of the NRA.
don't get me wrong i like guns , i still fire a couple of rounds whenever i visit our ancestral home with my cousins.
and of course even after a new gun law is impose the threat is still there , but reducing the numbers even if it's a fraction is still worth trying rather than doing nothing.
The FBI ignored a tip last month that accused Parkland, Florida, school killer Nikolas Cruz was at risk of committing a school shooting and has opened an investigation into what went wrong, the agency said Friday.
“On January 5, 2018, a person close to Nikolas Cruz contacted the FBI’s Public Access Line (PAL) tipline to report concerns about him,” the FBI said in a news release. “The caller provided information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting."
QuoteThe FBI ignored a tip last month that accused Parkland, Florida, school killer Nikolas Cruz was at risk of committing a school shooting and has opened an investigation into what went wrong, the agency said Friday.
“On January 5, 2018, a person close to Nikolas Cruz contacted the FBI’s Public Access Line (PAL) tipline to report concerns about him,” the FBI said in a news release. “The caller provided information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting."
http://fortune.com/2018/02/23/donald-trump-video-game-violence/
For Christ's sake if it's not Hillary it's Trump now assaulting our good games. LEAVE THE GAMERS ALONE.
Thing is we are human. We like sex, we like violence and despite any sort of peace we are violent in our own way imaginable. I just do not understand how or even why people would be so stupid to not realize that maybe, just maybe it's not tools we use or even the entertainment we enjoy, but the person themselves. It was stated in games, movies, even books and we as over-intelligent apes and the majority of the species does not listen, let alone care about the moral?
I get it's the parent's responsibility but in reality of this, even back in the 90s, you will get certain ones that just do not care about these sort of things and let the kid play Mortal Kombat, and the kids came out OK. They didn't go rally about in violent protests like they do in GTA because you know it's fake, a game, ENTERTAINMENT. why do we as movie lovers, gamers, and overall people in general need to have our stuff be censored/nerfed even harder because little anti-social depression guy decides to do so arguably retarded in Real life because of his/her FEELINGS, but will not even admit to feelings and instead PLAY THE BLAME GAME..
At meeting on school safety, President Trump says violence in video games and movies is responsible for shaping young people’s thoughts: “We have to do something about maybe what they’re seeing”
We carry in my church. Peaceful as can be.(http://cdn2us.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeekus/files/styles/main_wide/public/2017/12/far-cry-5.jpg?itok=Z1STt8Fn)
Armed Educators (and trusted people who work within a school) love our students and will protect them. Very smart people. Must be firearms adept & have annual training. Should get yearly bonus. Shootings will not happen again - a big & very inexpensive deterrent. Up to States.
Why not have some armed guards or police officers at the
entrances with metal detectors, all other doors locked.
You pass thru the metal detectors and then the main door
unlocks so you can get yo ass to class. Main doors dont unlock
until your good to proceed. Someone in the inside controls
the door locks after the officer on the outside says so.
No need to have all teachers with guns, just the officers outside.
Why not have some armed guards or police officers at the
entrances with metal detectors, all other doors locked.
You pass thru the metal detectors and then the main door
unlocks so you can get yo ass to class. Main doors dont unlock
until your good to proceed. Someone in the inside controls
the door locks after the officer on the outside says so.
No need to have all teachers with guns, just the officers outside.
Why not have some armed guards or police officers at the
entrances with metal detectors, all other doors locked.
You pass thru the metal detectors and then the main door
unlocks so you can get yo ass to class. Main doors dont unlock
until your good to proceed. Someone in the inside controls
the door locks after the officer on the outside says so.
No need to have all teachers with guns, just the officers outside.
Ignoring how inconceivably barbaric this "solution" is for the moment, it's already been proven to not work by this exact incident. There were four armed deputies outside of the school, and not one of them entered the school to help (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/parkland-school-shooting-broward-deputies/index.html) until nearly five minutes after the shooting started.
The "good guy with a gun" is a myth. This is the kind of faulty logic dreamed up by right-wing gun nuts who fantasize about being a real life John McClane or Rambo. The kind of people who'd rather let other people die than give up on their twisted macho power fantasy.
Maybe I'm the crazy one here, but treating a children's educational institution as if it were military compound in the middle of an active warzone is the type of solution that only a complete psychopath would come up with.
Maybe I'm the crazy one here, but treating a children's educational institution as if it were military compound in the middle of an active warzone is the type of solution that only a complete psychopath would come up with.
Or we just make it so that nobody in this situation has guns in the first place. If we're talking about preferred body counts, I'd go with zero.
The long and short of it is that guns are made to kill and injure people. It is literally the only reason these objects exist in the world. There is no other practical application for guns. The only reason anyone carries a firearm is because they expect to have to use it to kill or injure a person. It's base common sense that these things should be heavily regulated, much more so than they are now. For fuck's sake, it's easier to get a potential murder weapon in this country that it is to get a car or a bank loan.
The only sane solution is much, much stricter gun control, but that gets in the way of republicans' dreams of starring in their own personal action movie, so they won't let it happen.
The idea of "we don't need gun control laws because people will still get guns if they want them" is not an argument against gun control, it's an argument against the very concept of law.
"There's no point in having larceny laws, because people will still steal things if they really want to."
"There's no point in having drug laws, because people will still sell drugs if they really want to."
"There's no point in having homicide laws, because people will still kill people if they really want to."
See how asinine that reasoning sounds when you apply it to literally anything other than gun control? Just because people would attempt to break the law doesn't mean that we shouldn't even bother trying to stop them.
either that or have tighter gun laws. the latter worked for the UK.Not to mention pretty much all other first world countries.
You read my first sentence right? Because I never said "theres no point" lol
I'm saying that even with stricter laws criminals will find a way to get them
and that's reality. I know a ton of felons and ex cons that would never
be able to step foot in a gun shop but are heavily armed with guns that
have serial numbers scratched off.
I'm all down for harder laws but its not gonna do much but make the next
wannabe killer pay a visit to his local hood instead of pops gun shop.
You read my first sentence right? Because I never said "theres no point" lol
I'm saying that even with stricter laws criminals will find a way to get them
and that's reality. I know a ton of felons and ex cons that would never
be able to step foot in a gun shop but are heavily armed with guns that
have serial numbers scratched off.
I'm all down for harder laws but its not gonna do much but make the next
wannabe killer pay a visit to his local hood instead of pops gun shop.
So you're saying that you advocate for just giving up entirely? That because criminals commit crimes, we shouldn't bother having any laws in the first place? I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
The first step is making it impossible for these types of people to obtain guns legally, then start cracking down hard on illegal activity. The argument was made earlier that these shooters are cowards, so isn't it just as likely that they'll think twice if they have to turn to hoods and drug dealers to get the guns they're looking for instead of just casually strolling into a Wal-Mart?
.... So you're saying laws are useless. This is exactly what you're saying.either that or have tighter gun laws. the latter worked for the UK.Not to mention pretty much all other first world countries.
Laws work in two ways:
1) they deter crime by making the average person think "oh, the benefits of doing this illegal activity don't outweigh the cost of getting caught and suffering punishment".
2) they stop people that have *already* committed crime from doing so again, at least temporarily (i.e. prison time).
These two don't work on school shooters. These people don't operate under regular logic because they don't have anything to lose, their lives are pure shit. That's why the vast majority of shooters an hero themselves before the cops even make visual contact with them. Do you honestly think the possibility of getting caught while buying weapons and paying a 5,000 USD fine and/or spending a year in jail is really going to scare away someone who already plans to blow his brains out?
So what exactly is your point then? You say you don't think laws are useless but then in the exact same sentence you say that you don't believe laws will do anything.
But we do have a choice: To start making the steps to move away from this gun-centric culture we've created for ourselves. The problem of there being too many guns in schools will never, by any stretch of the imagination, be solved by putting even more guns in schools. It's only going to lead to more violence and more deaths. We have to stop creating a country where firearms have more rights and are treated with more respect than human beings.
but the moment they see one being used by security guards protecting the president of the US that logic goes out the door. "If they were so bad how come cops use them?" they'll ask.And why exactly can't they get the same answer as all the other countries where guns are regulated and the leader / president / king is still protected
If guns were suddenly gone then those psychos would just make home made explosives.1- they wouldn't
The NRA and the GOP proposed a law that would create statutory federal minimum jail time for someone caught with an illegal gun. The Democrats opposed it because they said it was racist.
We're not talking about other countries. We're talking about the US.And I'm telling you about other countries. The US aren't a special little snowflake where things that work everywhere else won't work just because.
Did you not see the link I posted a little ways back about the deadliest school massacre. Explosives were used. And they were detonated in a truck in a parking lot.And how many times has that happened compared to mass shootings
QuoteThe NRA and the GOP proposed a law that would create statutory federal minimum jail time for someone caught with an illegal gun. The Democrats opposed it because they said it was racist.
Like I said guns are easier to use because you can get them anywhere. Legally and illegally.I already talked about that. It's not an excuse to not make laws.
You act like taking guns away will drop the murder count significantly but it won't.That's just a lie you tell yourself.
Mass murderers will find another way to get the job done. Something else will take the place of guns. Taking away their preferred way to kill won't take them away. They still have a motive so they'll just find a different tool.And yet it doesn't happen anywhere else ! So what, does no other country have crazy people who want to be mass murderers, is it only guns that turn people in the US into mass murderers and then even if you take away the guns they're still mass murderers and they'll use other tools ? Again, it's a lie you tell yourself to justify having guns.
Not at all. A lot of the people that snapped and went on a rampage already owned a gun before they decided to kill. That's usually the case.... Yes, that's exactly the point I was making.
But did the gun make them kill? No.Yes. Having the guns made them think it was a good idea. You just refuse to accept it.
The gun made them think it was a good idea? LOL You better stay away from guns. I wouldn't want them giving you any bad ideas. LOL
I think the point is it depends on the type of gun, TBQH.
Like a .357 doesn't make me want to shoot kids, but an AR15 does. It always seems like a good idea at the time.
Similarly whenever I hold a Glock 22 I have an urge to shoot at both armed and unarmed black men, and the one time I got to fire a TEC-9 I really felt like I needed to do a drive-by. Fuck any kind of scoped rifle though. That shit just makes bitches camp doors. Sniper pussies need to get fucked, fucking AWPs.
Big legal win today. U.S. judge sided with the Trump Administration and rejected the attempt to stop the government from building a great Border Wall on the Southern Border. Now this important project can go forward!
You don't agree that liberals who scream at the sky or go on insane rants on youtube about how the country is going to die and blacks are going to be put in concentration camps now that Trump is president are weak minded? That's the very definition of weak minded. I'm not insulting anybody unless they are weak minded. If you're weak minded too bad.I don't get why you're labeling at all TBH. It's weird to me how there are people that only seem to be concerned about crazies in 1 party. The way you focus so much on democrats and "libs" makes you come off as one of those. The same way there were all the idiots when Obama was president that thought Fema camps were shadow government facilities and he was going to declare martial law and give the USA to the Muslims. When all your arguments seem to insinuate one group has crazies and the other doesn't it makes them sound like propaganda.
@ 地獄の花 - How are you so sure arming school staff won't work? And what other gun laws do we need? We've got some strict laws as it is. Let's just wait and see.
@ 地獄の花 - How are you so sure arming school staff won't work? And what other gun laws do we need? We've got some strict laws as it is. Let's just wait and see.
i'm not, i'm actually open to it. it'll be better if they hire trained security guards. rather than arming teachers and staff. but it won't end there , lunatics who could easily own a gun would just target different area like i dunno parks and las vegas casino strip , and funny part about the last part is there are tons of security there and it didn't stopped that guy from shooting people. next thing you know we'll be arguing whether to arm park goers or diners or coffee shops.
you need a comprehensive law that would prohibit people who are mentally deranged to have an access to weaponry.
just a few months ago a sjw girl almost shot people because of she got offended. and it was well documented how she got a gun and taking pictures of it, there's even comments on her facebook that people she knows are not comfortable her having a gun and brandishing it. and a week after she got arrested for threatening to shoot people while holding her gun.
there are data and proof that proper gun laws help decrease gun violence. proper back ground check , proper mental tests and proper training is needed.
alot of people who own guns have no proper knowledge on what is a gun capable of and responsibilities of being a gun owner.
Vice President Pence predicted Tuesday that legal abortion would end in the U.S. "in our time."
"I know in my heart of hearts this will be the generation that restores life in America," Pence said at a luncheon in Nashville, Tenn., hosted by the Susan B. Anthony List & Life Institute, an anti-abortion organization.
"If all of us do all we can, we can once again, in our time, restore the sanctity of life to the center of American law."
people have the right to do what they want their bodies. Nobody should be able to tell someone else what they can and cant do with their bodies.
im a black male, so u sound mental. Religion? 99% of that shit isnt even real. i just think anybody and everybody should be able to do what they want with their bodies.
I can see abortion being ok so long as it is still in the zygote-embryo stage. Once it's a fetus, just deal with the birth and place the baby for adoption if you don't want it.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-georgia-respond-shots-fired-high-school-174003843.html
geez this fucking idiot is proving we cant trust teacher's with guns now.
still school staff shouldn't be armed, hire security guards or station a police officer. even private companies wouldn't arm their employees they hire professionals.
I'm Swiss. We have almost as many guns per household as the US. I probably have more guns than the average American.
My biggest regret is that we did not have a 2nd Amendment to protect us against political meddling. In 1999, they took away our right to carry guns as we see fit and since then, our violent crime rates have exploded. We now have at least 600% more violent crime than in 1998. And all this ... to please foreigners!
The only reason our rights were restricted was because our neighbors don't know the benefits of a gun culture.
QuoteI'm Swiss. We have almost as many guns per household as the US. I probably have more guns than the average American.
My biggest regret is that we did not have a 2nd Amendment to protect us against political meddling. In 1999, they took away our right to carry guns as we see fit and since then, our violent crime rates have exploded. We now have at least 600% more violent crime than in 1998. And all this ... to please foreigners!
The only reason our rights were restricted was because our neighbors don't know the benefits of a gun culture.
Yeah I think that's the main issue with hiring soldiers. It's just not economically feasible. I think Trump's idea of appointing school staff with backgrounds in the armed forces is ideal. When I was in school a lot of teachers and coaches had military and police backgrounds. I'm sure there's just as many today.
Oh and 地獄の花 I completely agree with your stance on abortion. It's mainly for whores.
Non Whore Reasons for abortion rates:
rape 0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %)
incest 0.03 % (0.01-0.1 %)
physical life of mother 0.1 % (0.01-0.2 %)
physical health of mother 0.8 % (0.1-3 %)
fetal health 0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
mental health of mother ?? (0.1-8 %)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
There's just not enough good instances to justify aborting babies. It totals up to 12.9%. And that's using the highest %'s. That means 87.1% of people that get an abortion are whores and need to learn to keep their legs closed.
physical life of mother
physical health of mother
fetal health
whores need to learn to keep their legs closed.No. Eat shit.
yeah I mean women who got raped and got pregnant from it should totally be punished with a 9+ month reminder of the traumatic event.
whores need to learn to keep their legs closed.No. Eat shit.
L: kill people so they don't become criminals
Good come back. Always a waste of time from you Byakko.It's still more constructive than your absolutely insane "sex is for whores who can't control themselves" rant that can't hide its raving need to control what people do because you don't like it. Your rants are going nowhere. You were talking earlier about something that's not going away - this is something that's not going away. Bigot lunacy is what's going away.
Good come back. Always a waste of time from you Byakko.It's still more constructive than your absolutely insane "sex is for whores who can't control themselves" rant that can't hide its raving need to control what people do because you don't like it. Your rants are going nowhere. You were talking earlier about something that's not going away - this is something that's not going away. Bigot lunacy is what's going away.
@ Foobs Sese Seko Nkuku - here's an idea, stop having sex before you're sure you're ready to take care of a child and before your absolutely sure your baby daddy isn't gonna skip town on you. In other words use your brain not your genitals.
Dumb decisions are what makes life hard for people. Not people trying to do right thing. You lay you pay.
Never said that. Try harder.
87.1% of people that get an abortion are whores and need to learn to keep their legs closed.Yeah, go and pretend that what you said was different. Act like your long list of numbers was totally not the same as calling women whores for having sex. Keep telling yourself that you walk the fine line of reason.
That's not me that's biblical. Take it up with God.No, I'm taking it up with you because you're the one preaching around about who should do what if they're married or not, while quoting a book to evade all responsibility for what you say because you're only following your faith in someone else's words while preaching in hope that the laws of society change your way.
NEW: President Trump to meet with video game industry executives next week as part of ongoing debate over school safety.Seems like he is going all in with video games
If you have sex out of wedlock as a female you are a whore.marriage doesn't automatically fix problems that exist in people. deceitful, unloyal or materialistic people will stay the same, if anything marriage actually benefits them alot later down the line.
Back on the Trump topicWhat a rotting ham. Does Trump know or even care about what he has planning? Seriously look at other countries and their gun control, and you get video games, not one of them have any problems VG related (Save for the play too damn long no break problems but even so you play a game responsibly).
https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/969300010683850752QuoteNEW: President Trump to meet with video game industry executives next week as part of ongoing debate over school safety.Seems like he is going all in with video games
If you have sex out of wedlock as a female you are a whore. If you have sex out of wedlock as a male you are a whore monger. Both are equally bad.So the world is nearly completly filled with whores and whore mongers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Seriously just take religion out of this and we're just normal as animals. all of this bullshit about whores n sluts is stupid. Now if you like kids too damn much (In a creepy weird way), that's a different story that just makes you gross.If you have sex out of wedlock as a female you are a whore. If you have sex out of wedlock as a male you are a whore monger. Both are equally bad.So the world is nearly completly filled with whores and whore mongers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What happens if I use contraception on my whore monger activites, so abortion should not be a topic in that case.
I hurt nobody and I kill nobody with that, does that make me a semi-whore monger at least?
If you have sex out of wedlock as a female you are a whore.marriage doesn't automatically fix problems that exist in people. deceitful, unloyal or materialistic people will stay the same, if anything marriage actually benefits them alot later down the line.
when you're not married however, you can split up with no obligations towards them.
its best to let people save marriage for partners they truly know and love, and not make it the first thing they do when they start a relationship.
There really isn't any correlation considering most people know it as entertainment, not real life. Any complaints or blames on video games or movies because of stupid shit is merely just that: a blame game to mask the reality that they actually wanted to do something stupid in real life. It is not our fault that our species has people with much lower IQ so why should a country be stigmatized the the ignorance and arrogance of lil ralphie pulling off a move from Jackass, when the message is made clear "It's a stunt done by Professionals DON"T TRY THIS AT HOME."
Of all the countries I've seen that have gotten decent-strict gun control, they still have violent games, some of which were uncensored to the core. Among those countries you can correlate that religion barely has any sort of control for some (Japan only has 4% of Christianity where the United States is rather significantly high), and most cases of unfair laws and bullshit that has happened in human history from bloody wars to sacrifices to stupid things like pedophilia have often occurred because of a strict belief in a certain faith. It's simply a game within itself: Control the masses like sheep.
Pretty sure racial discrimination was pretty big before 1960 causing a lot of murder, rape and crimes... But nah life was perfect before in Americathere was also wealth discrimination, and slavery regardless of race (whites included. What VG Doesn't understand is that in most cases, religion and corruption was a top reason for a lot of conquering, annihilation and absolute chaos way back when. When Christianity was formed it was even worse, considering the widespread reach brought on by not peace, but force (Spanish Inquisition was just a minor part). Our history back then as a species regardless of where we came from is often stained in blood and greed, goodness forbid if you ever question the pope way back in Italy lest you wish a public execution or worse. So when I see stuff like video games being blamed for violence happening, I literally facepalm at the sight of it because we all know this is not the case. I get we have troubled youth in the US being a commonplace, as well as a major problem with age of consent for firearms, we also have a problem with how to deal with our economic and reconstruction problems for roads, buildings, etc. and this is just naming a few. The factor is in dealing with problems at hand, you must strive to have a proper hand in dealing with these problems in a positive way, not play the blame game in means of control. If one were to truly understand history and realize the problems in hand, better solutions may be made possible at hand regardless of where you live at. Personally in dealing with firearms, we should follow up on Japan's solution, while forming around a constitutional basis using the Second Ammendment to preserve Constitutional law while protecting the masses, not play ignorant by blaming Grand Theft Auto or Super Mario and try to play the Hillary Clinton game.
Check this out: https://videogames.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003627
Scroll down to section 21 and it is clear that violent games actually do take a toll on youth. This is not entirely up to date but it's a good start. Kind of sucks to see.
(the punchline is that there is no god and it was actually just good people making a difference)
If you guys think that teacher shooting one kid in the ankle was an actual attack and not staged then you guys need to seriously wake up. This is all a plant. Trump suggests we arm certain staff members and then what happens not a week later, a teacher locks themselves and their kids in a room and ends up shooting one of them in the ankle. Freaking stupid.
Oh and 地獄の花 I completely agree with your stance on abortion. It's mainly for whores.
That means 87.1% of people that get an abortion are whores and need to learn to keep their legs closed.
If you have sex out of wedlock as a female you are a whore.I think I've heard enough. This is all completely out of line, no matter what one's political views are. VGames, tone down your posts, or you'll suffer consequences.
I found many MANY sites that have statistics to show the decline of rape, murder, and violent crime in general. I found this site particularly nice in how it laid everything out.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/12/the_world_is_not_falling_apart_the_trend_lines_reveal_an_increasingly_peaceful.html
(the punchline is that there is no god and it was actually just good people making a difference)Yes, that was the point GTOAkira was making : "[sarcasm] let's forget all the good work these fine individuals did, it was all god's work ! [/sarcasm]"
NEW: The WH announced Trump will meet w video game industry execs next week.
But, tonight, the Entertainment Software Assn says neither ESA, nor any of its members — the biggest names in video games (Nintendo, Microsoft, PlayStation, EA) — has received any such invitation.
I know, I did read it. Your conclusion from reading it is bad.
I wasn't even referring to a graph.Do you have reading comprehension issues or something ? This page is a bunch of graphs. That table you're looking at is one of them, and I'm talking about all these graphs in general. Don't be dense.
What are you talking about? I never said it had anything to do with violent crimes.I didn't say you did ? I'm the one talking about the other graphs.
Of course it doesn't have to do with violent crimes.
I simply said it showed some evidence of increased aggression.But see, that's the thing : it doesn't show that at all. There's no increase at all, there's no movement in that table.
The keyword in that headline is "house Republicans". That report is by the majority only, everyone else still disagrees and says that report is bogus and massively incomplete.
There are other investigations still running, and some of them are bipartisan.
Why would you even read Fox News
Also I thought yesterday Trump claimed to a few reporters in a briefing room that there was going to be big news on North Korea that they should give him credit for, coming the same afternoon. Nothing happened, and the next morning, Tillerson was receiving a phone call from his staff to check Trump's Twitter account, where he learned that he was fired, three hours before actually receiving an official phone call to tell him that.
Trump reminds me of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They're both racist idiots but I think neo-nazis liked Iran's former president better.
Heck the remaining member's of Martin Luther King's family likes and supports Trump. Doesn't that tell you anything?
Heck the remaining member's of Martin Luther King's family likes and supports Trump.Nope, not the case (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/us/martin-luther-king-children-trump.html)
This coming less than a week after Tillerson condemned Russia for the nerve agent attack they orchestrated in the UK. (https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/12/politics/rex-tillerson-white-house-russia-nerve-agent-attack/index.html)
One more time for the kids in the back: Trump fired his own secretary of state for saying something bad about Russia. Golly gee, that sure doesn't sound suspicious at all.
This coming less than a week after Tillerson condemned Russia for the nerve agent attack they orchestrated in the UK. (https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/12/politics/rex-tillerson-white-house-russia-nerve-agent-attack/index.html)
One more time for the kids in the back: Trump fired his own secretary of state for saying something bad about Russia. Golly gee, that sure doesn't sound suspicious at all.
I too can come up with a random event that happened before another event and claim they are connected.
Did you know that less than a week after Tillerson ate breakfast, Trump fired him?
Trump fucking hates breakfast, guys.
@ Jmorphman - that's only 2 kids. He had 4. Keep trying.Buddy, you can't make a crazy claim like "MLK's whole family is pro-Trump" (when there's only one niece who does support Trump), and then, when presented with evidence that two of MLK's children are vehemently anti-Trump, demand that you be shown a quote from *every* surviving memeber of MLK's family that makes it clear they're anti-Trump.
--Being super duper serious for once
It doesn't and never should have mattered who supports what candidate. I know the 2016 and soon to be 2018 election will be advertised by our lovely media personalities as the fairly honest Democrats vs LITERAL NAZI WHITE MEN LYING REPUBLICANS! But don't bring yourselves down to western media's level by saying shit like, "Richard Spencer or David Duke supports Trump therefore it implies some sort of meaning behind Trump himself!"
It's like a similar extreme to the fools saying Trump or anyone else needs to "disavow" a specific group or individual, otherwise they have unwavering support for said group or individual (never forget "both sides=nazi defender"). It's one of the LCDs of politics that everyone gets suckered into since it's the trash we get peddled on a daily basis.
Arguing partial facts as absolutes which is all we've had since 2016(and earlier honestly). Some people in a group support Trump, but others in the same group don't! So depending on whether you're pro/anti Trump either side has a card to play! Both sides feel self-gratified and the facts are lost or were irrelevant to begin with.
Article posters should try and use more Reuters btw, they still seem to be pretty solid(I hear AP is good too, but IIRC they used to fuck up a lot trying to be 1st on reporting). CNN/FOX News/WAPO have become absolute trash and should be consumed with the utmost cynicism, if at all.Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty
On May 1, 1989, real estate magnate Donald Trump called for the return of the death penalty when he took out full-page advertisements in all four of the city's major newspapers. Trump said he wanted the "criminals of every age" who were accused of beating and raping a jogger in Central Park 12 days earlier "to be afraid".[82] The advertisement, which cost an estimated $85,000,[82] said, in part, "Mayor Koch has stated that hate and rancor should be removed from our hearts. I do not think so. I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer ... Yes, Mayor Koch, I want to hate these murderers and I always will. ... How can our great society tolerate the continued brutalization of its citizens by crazed misfits?
Whatever. Get use to the racist. You got 6 more years. Nothing I can say will change your minds in this echo chamber.
Did you guys here about the National Guard being sent down to the southern border by Trump to stop those idiots from Honduras? Was that racist even though they said there would be mass violence if they weren't allowed in?
Same as in Europe - why do 90% of them appear to be males between the ages of 18-40?
2 more years, if he doesn't get a second term that is. People forget that a prez only gets 4 years a term and needs to be voted back in when the next elections take place after those 4 years (the year 2020 in this case). It's odd that people forget that.It's a joke, a meme, a troll, whatever you want to call it. It's intentionally stated to annoy people who despise Trump. It's the same shit from 2016 when people were whinging about "4 years of Donald Drumpf" and the retort would be a picture of The Count with a number 8.
If people requesting assilum while being in the other side of the border is enough to call them idiots or illegal immigrants, well you can see why illegal immigrants don't want to put up with immigration laws.There are actual processes and meanings behind "seeking asylum" such as fulling out form I-589 for starters. Starting a march to cross another countries border illegally, prior to asylum being granted is not part of that process. It's fair to call it idiotic, desperate, or dare I say.. illegal. Well if it was successful at least. Apparently the caravan was already dispersed thanks to Mexico's government. So no US laws had to be broken by "asylum seekers". Can't say the same for Mexico's laws, but I don't think Mexico's government gives a shit what laws are broken anymore, depending on who's paying them anyway.
2 more years, if he doesn't get a second term that is. People forget that a prez only gets 4 years a term and needs to be voted back in when the next elections take place after those 4 years (the year 2020 in this case). It's odd that people forget that.It's a joke, a meme, a troll, whatever you want to call it. It's intentionally stated to annoy people who despise Trump. It's the same shit from 2016 when people were whinging about "4 years of Donald Drumpf" and the retort would be a picture of The Count with a number 8.
Yeah, that's the generic answer I have read dozens of times when people talka bout illegal immigration, it's not even adressing the points my post. I find it pretty fun that the same political party that says that the minimum wage should be abolished because people with marketing skills worth less than minimum wage should also have a chance to get jobs, yet they complain about people that don't want to make minimum wage driving the wages down. The same political party that while complaining about foreign countries giving their opinion of the usa's gun laws because it's not the other countries problems they complain about mexico letting "illegal" immigrants walk in the streets of mexico unmolested.So aside from your generic stereotypical and exaggerated views on "muh republicans" that sound like they came off Salon or Huffington Post. Your points in the prior post were against VGames apparent personal claims, which I couldn't give a shit about, followed by a broad brush whinging about illegals being called illegals by intolerant Americans it's the same tired shit we see over here daily about not fully ignoring illegal immigration, which is a net negative for the US people but a net bonus for corporate interests.
If people requesting assilum while being in the other side of the border is enough to call them idiots or illegal immigrants, well you can see why illegal immigrants don't want to put up with immigration laws.was a point I covered in my generic response you read and shrugged off before whinging about those damn Republicans, clearly, the ones and only ones behind it all. If you think them trying to illegally immigrate yearly is in anyway a defense, I have some choice words for your scope of social and legal acceptability.
So according to you, this is all the points I failed to address in your post. One. The answer is because women shit out a half dozen or more kids that need to be taken care of and men are stronger and better workers. It doesn't change the fact that when they come to this or any country illegally, they are illegally immigrating and thus called "illegals". Don't think I can break that down for you anymore than that. There's all 1 of your points I ignored, because it was pretty irrelevant.QuoteSame as in Europe - why do 90% of them appear to be males between the ages of 18-40?is who certain people in first world countries are so disconnected from third world countries problems that they can't think of the normal reason for this.
I find it pretty fun that the same political party that says that the minimum wage should be abolished because people with marketing skills worth less than minimum wage should also have a chance to get jobs, yet they complain about people that don't want to make minimum wage driving the wages down.I've never heard that reason for "abolishing" the minimum wage, and that reasoning doesn't make sense how I'm reading it. Regardless, the actual reasoning, whether you agree with it or not is to abolish the federal minimum wage so that state and local governments can set a minimum in its place. The reason being, in the US much like any country there are varying costs of living based on location. Businesses in a lower cost of living area may not be able to sustain their workforce if the federal minimum wage (based off some calculated mean) increases, this will cause some people to be laid off and QoL to turn to shit for some workers who now have an increased or doubled workload, this issue is especially true for local small businesses. Likewise a worker working minimum wage might not be able to afford anything more than an apartment in a higher cost of living area. The other reasoning is if minimum wage increases nationally, then theoretically there is more money on each person, which marketing teams for most major corporations will study to adjust how much to inflate the cost of their services to get the most money out of you. There are actual ups and downs to the issue, which is why the "evil republicans" stance is so unfair and ignorant but it won't stop the clickbait from focusing on the stupidest of the GOP reasons for the "abolishing of minimum wage". IMO, maintaining a federal minimum and also enforcing a state/local minimum that can't drop below the federal minimum would be ideal. But that might come with it's own problems, and a local government could screw its population over due to poor studies due to lack of funds or via corruption which is common in many local govts here especially visible in cities such as Detroit.
The same political party that while complaining about foreign countries giving their opinion of the usa's gun laws because it's not the other countries problems they complain about mexico letting "illegal" immigrants walk in the streets of mexico unmolested.I'm not sure if your are complaining about Republicans or conservatives here, and I feel like you're probably making the same mistake a lot of people do who actually believe being conservative or right-wing automatically make the individual in complete support of the Republican party and therefore mixing the two together despite the 2016 presidential election we just had here proving that voter bases on either side aren't all war hungry neo-cons or drooling progressives.
In what kind of marriage, to what kind of man, does a spouse conclude there is only a 99 percent chance her husband didn’t do that?
They are going to force this ww3 weather the people like it or not. Syria, N.Korea, Iran, they will soon. They feed propaganda all day on the news here, this shit is weird times we are living in. Last Trump talked about leaving Syria, but this week...
https://twitter.com/RealSteveCox/status/983576500837298176
In January/February, 2017, Trump said we were “no longer seeking regime change in Syria”. One week later, a reported gas attack. For 14 months, no gas attacks. Trump says we’re pulling out of Syria, 3 days later, another gas attack.
that's why the past administration didn't supported the rebels.Minor correction(Niitris covered this already before I finished my post), the US started supporting the Syrian rebels since ~2013 (IIRC) and has been ever since. Obama's administration did have some strong words that the rebels(who they were arming and funding) were bad boys in 2016 but didn't stop supporting them. Israel and Saudi Arabia two countries who are also well known for their peace-seeking tolerance(/s) and endless attempts to stabilize(/s) other countries in the Middles East, much like the USA(/s), have also been balls deep in Syria supporting the rebels. Trump just passed a serious interest in ending the support and pulling the US out of Syria, a place the US never should have been in the first place, way less reason than even Iraq. It's a shame he waited til 2018 to finally voice a potential move on this though.
Can you even reply in a civilized tone ? I am not reading that answer.That explains it, I didn't fail to address your points previously, you just didn't read anything I addressed. Thanks for clearing everything up!
with no actual proof or investigation having occurred at the time.That's a lie.
First attack occurred Tuesday April 3rd. Article from April 4th (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/world/middleeast/syria-gas-attack.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/world/middleeast/syria-gas-attack.html)) states:with no actual proof or investigation having occurred at the time.That's a lie.
On Tuesday(April 3rd) night, Britain, France and the United States were pushing the Security Council to adopt a resolution that condemns the attack and orders the Syrian government to provide all flight logs, flight plans and names of commanders in charge of air operations, including those for Tuesday, to international investigators.The USA also blames Assad for it. So completely off the assumption so far, because Assad is our bad guy, and theirs no way the terrorists/rebels he's fighting against and bombing could have these chemical weapons in any capacity. I know the US government is highly competent and gets all it's facts straight before declaring the problem and course of action. Hence why the US stayed out of Iraq back in 2003. Oh wait...
Not saying "Animal Assad" absolutely didn't do it! Just saying it's not worth jumping to conclusions over and riling up your audiences/people before the evidence is put forwardYou're saying they have no proof he did it. But you have no proof of what they have or don't have, ergo, you're lying. You just THINK it's way too fast to have any proof, but you don't actually know who saw what and who knows what, so your claim that they have no proof is a lie.
Remember when Donald Trump wanted out of the TPP? (https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/04/13/president-trump-reconsiders-tpp.html)From the article: "Would only join TPP if the deal were substantially better than the deal offered to Pres. Obama. We already have BILATERAL deals with six of the eleven nations in TPP, and are working to make a deal with the biggest of those nations, Japan, who has hit us hard on trade for years!" The issue with TPP is it was a major net-negative for the US. Trump interest in revisiting is if he can make a 'better deal' for the USA.
Yeah. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/world/asia/trump-tpp-asia.html)
Oh please. I already showed my dispute with their claims and did https://www.politico.eu/article/turkey-autopsies-confirm-assad-used-chemical-weapons-in-syria/ (http://your legwork) for you, no proof was presented until the 6th which was a day after NPR (https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/2017/04/05/522705705), CNN (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6SnIvQKN1Y), and NBC pundits all ran under the assumption that Assad was behind it. That was based off Turkey autopsies (which should come with it's own concerns, and not be taken as 100% proof, given their relationship with Syria and Assad), before telling the American people that 'Trump needs to strike or he will appear weak'. I don't care if you're okay with America getting involved into wars based off "a likely scenario" but I'm not.Not saying "Animal Assad" absolutely didn't do it! Just saying it's not worth jumping to conclusions over and riling up your audiences/people before the evidence is put forwardYou're saying they have no proof he did it. But you have no proof of what they have or don't have, ergo, you're lying. You just THINK it's way too fast to have any proof, but you don't actually know who saw what and who knows what, so your claim that they have no proof is a lie.
By the way, it's not just the US saying that. Unlike with Iraq back then, it's everyone.
By the way, it's not just the US saying that. Unlike with Iraq back then, it's everyone.That's a lie. See, if you want to play bullshit weaseling games, I can do it too.
no proof was presented until the 6th which was a day after NPR (https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/2017/04/05/522705705), CNN (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6SnIvQKN1Y), and NBC pundits all ran under the assumption that Assad was behind it."No proof was presented" doesn't mean they didn't already have it. You think something doesn't exist until they show it to you ?? They had it, they said "we have proof", and later they showed it to someone.
Except you're wrong. France immediately said we had proof, the UK also jumped in fast. So no, it's not just the US saying that.QuoteBy the way, it's not just the US saying that. Unlike with Iraq back then, it's everyone.That's a lie. See, if you want to play bullshit weaseling games, I can do it too.
I've already shown you're full of shit with the first one so I'm not going to walk in circles with you as per your standard argument tactic, like I said it's tiresome. You either get it or you don't. I've already shown our media plasters bogus stories/narratives to be first on reporting. Whether you want to eat their bullshit is your problem, it doesn't hwoever make me a liar.no proof was presented until the 6th which was a day after NPR (https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/2017/04/05/522705705), CNN (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6SnIvQKN1Y), and NBC pundits all ran under the assumption that Assad was behind it."No proof was presented" doesn't mean they didn't already have it. You think something doesn't exist until they show it to you ?? They had it, they said "we have proof", and later they showed it to someone.
Intelligence is an actual thing that governments do, and they don't always show things to everyone. If they say "we have proof", you can't really just start shouting "they don't have proof". You could ask them to show their proof, it's definitely never going to happen because that's completely not how intelligence works, but going "they don't have proof" after they said they have proof is just being full of shit. It's your words against theirs, and your words have no value.
So you're saying it isn't "everyone"? By your own reasoning, you lied.Except you're wrong. France immediately said we had proof, the UK also jumped in fast. So no, it's not just the US saying that.QuoteBy the way, it's not just the US saying that. Unlike with Iraq back then, it's everyone.That's a lie. See, if you want to play bullshit weaseling games, I can do it too.
By the way, it's not just the US saying that. Unlike with Iraq back then, it's everyone.if you believe it was ever just the US gunning for Iraq.
I've already shown you're full of shit with the first oneNo. Nothing you showed says that the different governments involved don't have any proof as they say they have.
Also I never said "just the US said that" those were your words.That's.... That's fucking stupid. Are you pretending to misunderstand this or what ?
You're lost. You accusation of me pretending to misunderstand you, is EXACTLY what you are doing to me, that's why I turned your own shitty tactic on you, and as expected you can't even see it because you're so up your own ass or you have ZERO reading comprehension skills.I've already shown you're full of shit with the first oneNo. Nothing you showed says that the different governments involved don't have any proof as they say they have.QuoteAlso I never said "just the US said that" those were your words.That's.... That's fucking stupid. Are you pretending to misunderstand this or what ?
With Iraq, there actually were very few countries behind the US, and several countries outright disagreeing with them. Including France. This time, it's different. There is no country that claims this didn't happen (well, Russia tries to stall and pretend to ask for an investigation while blocking any investigator from coming in), at best they try not to talk about it, but no one is saying it's false, and there are other countries expressly saying they also have evidence of the attacks, unlike with Iraq.
So your comparison with the Iraq stuff is bullshit. That's what I'm saying. But as usual, you're just deflecting and pretending to misunderstand and twist my words.
No. Nothing you showed says that the different governments involved don't have any proof as they say they have.You want to know why? Because I never said the "different governments involved had no proof.". I know you love spinning people's arguments so you can try and force them to defend points they weren't even making, but my critique is, was, and always has been on the US media. Why you insist on twisting the point I made to some overfocused place I wasn't talking about is beyond me, but I am aware this is how you've done it for as long as I've read your ignorant opinions on the US, and funny enough you can't handle it being given right back to you the same way.
You want to know why? Because I never said the "different governments involved had no proof.".But that has been your entire point. "No proof was presented", "everyone ran under the assumption that Assad did it", you somehow claimed they might have evidence but it was "not proof", you insist that "no investigation was completed at the time", throwing links about articles saying the investigation is being blocked and implying it can only mean they don't have proof... All of this is an attempt to throw discredit. You're trying to imply it's possible they're either wrong or lying, because you remember how it went last time the US government did the same thing.
Hahaha oops
That moment when a Fox & Friends host accidentally calls Trump a dictator and no one even bats an eye
Huntsman: "Regardless of what happens in that meeting between the two dictators, what we're seeing right now, this is history."
Oh, you know the one
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3HxASlNQ2JWf9TPUCz/giphy.gif)
this is all reminding me way to much Germany circa the 1930's.It shouldn't because it's a completely different situation. Germany went into that willingly because they were being crushed by actual problems and an agonizing economy and society (as the consequence of a war that they also caused, sure, but still). This should remind you of every other dictatorship that at first pretends to be a democracy, like some that pop up somewhere in the Middle East or in the middle of Africa or Latin America, or Russia (except less smart), which isn't that much better, but there's less risk that they'll start physically invade everyone around them for a long time, just shoot them down if they try to come in.
SCOTUS has ruled 5-4 in favor of Trump's 2017 travel ban, ruling it a constitutional invocation of presidential powers. (https://nypost.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-upholds-trumps-travel-ban/)
this is all reminding me way to much Germany circa the 1930's.It shouldn't because it's a completely different situation. Germany went into that willingly because they were being crushed by actual problems and an agonizing economy and society (as the consequence of a war that they also caused, sure, but still). This should remind you of every other dictatorship that at first pretends to be a democracy, like some that pop up somewhere in the Middle East or in the middle of Africa or Latin America, or Russia (except less smart), which isn't that much better, but there's less risk that they'll start physically invade everyone around them for a long time, just shoot them down if they try to come in.
But yeah, calling the current administration stormtroopers is close enough. And it's close enough to Nazis in general because apparently they're "good people".
What's the most mind-numbing is that a lot of Republican representatives on every level have completely stopped pretending to care about democracy. Some of them in Congress or whatever try to show up from time to time on TV saying "this time he's gone too far" on a regular basis but still without doing anything about it, they just let it roll and see if it can't work out for them as long as possible for some reason. That's the problem with people who keep going either "sure you won, but you still have to work with us and we'll scream if you don't !" or "we won, so you shut up now, we're not working with you, you're working with us !" no matter where things go.
American is walking down a very, very dark road (...)Y'see, it's funny. In my country, every time Trump does anything, all newspeople say, "he is stupid, he is going to destroy his countries' economy, he is going to make western civilization go nuclear', and yet, every action of his make his country grow. So what I understand from this is that the newspapers lie a lot, and that he is a great man. I wish my country had a politician like him, who would say, my country first, who would open up the markets, diminish taxes and redact deals that are not good to my country.
America is no longer a democracy.Yes, they are: They can control their own borders. The countries inside eurozone can't, and that's what I would call a dictatorship.
who would open up the markets, diminish taxes
To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
Great job last night at the White House by the U.S.
@SecretService
. They were not only totally professional, but very cool. I was inside, watched every move, and couldn’t have felt more safe. They let the “protesters” scream & rant as much as they wanted, but whenever someone....
....got too frisky or out of line, they would quickly come down on them, hard - didn’t know what hit them. The front line was replaced with fresh agents, like magic. Big crowd, professionally organized, but nobody came close to breaching the fence. If they had they would....
....have been greeted with the most vicious dogs, and most ominous weapons, I have ever seen. That’s when people would have been really badly hurt, at least. Many Secret Service agents just waiting for action. “We put the young ones on the front line, sir, they love it, and....
....good practice.” As you saw last night, they were very cool & very professional. Never let it get out of hand. Thank you! On the bad side, the D.C. Mayor,Stay safe out there everyone
@MurielBowser
, who is always looking for money & help, wouldn’t let the D.C. Police get involved. “Not their job.” Nice!
Dude that twitter account is a fake troll right. Like the word "real" in the name not tip you off?
Anyway twitter is batshit to be on right now. There are people literally making shit up to get attention and everyone is believing them with no evidence beyond "someone told me" no questions ask. They even go so far as to get random cops personal information so they can get the gullible people on twitter to harass them and their families. It's an absolute shitshow.
Dude that twitter account is a fake troll right. Like the word "real" in the name not tip you off?Its a verified account. And have you been living under a rock, dude? He's been using this account even before he became a president.
Police responsible brought to justice.The sad part is we all know how that goes. Currently, it seems all 4 officers involved are under federal investigation (even the one who was just standing and watching his buddy murder the guy). Best case scenario, they all get punished (actually punished, not just getting a big paycheck to leave). That's still not going to wash the entire slime of corruption that's everywhere, the countless murderers who don't give a shit because they're wearing a badge. What punishment are you getting if you're one of those mayors going on TV and literally blaming Floyd's death on the looters ?
but cant the action be done through social media alone
but cant the action be done through social media alone
It was done, for years. And it was met with silence.
Yet another senseless death made the people finally snap, and honestly the thing that surprised me most is the fact that this didn't happen long before. I'm not american, but if I were I would be in the streets with the protesters. With a mask and eye protectors.
it happened in california before during oj simpson trial. and it happened a couple years back too.
did they published the autopsy yet?
By the time the incredibly mishandled in america pandemic is over the election will be over too and all of this will be forgotten again by the time thats happened.
it happened in california before during oj simpson trial. and it happened a couple years back too.
did they published the autopsy yet?
I'm not saying it's enough. I'm saying it was inevitable.
and get the men responsible for his death.Which they did (https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/03/us/george-floyd-officers-charges/index.html).
it happened in california before during oj simpson trial. and it happened a couple years back too.
did they published the autopsy yet?
I'm not saying it's enough. I'm saying it was inevitable.
riots and protests are a joke anyway. you'd see a rival political group would swoop in provoke and use the people to gain leverage. i've seen this time and time again from different countries. same shit , if they truly wanted justice for the man they would've gotten into court and do a proper investigation. support his family , and get the men responsible for his death.