Politics

[Jason]

The Republicans couldn't get rid of Bill Clinton, I doubt they will try to get rid of Donald Trump.

[Godson]

I'm seriously confused by this. I think drew is right though. Narcissism.

Of they literally don't know what to do, perhaps they won't do anything. Or, as I feel, the world will cease to exist.

[neanderthal]

I don't think he'll last 4 years in office...something will kick him out I feel

Pence will be worse. He has a gubernartorial record that's awful on gay rights

[Taimar]

Pence will be worse. He has a gubernartorial record that's awful on gay rights

I'm actually not sure I agree. Yes, he's got a terrible record on Gay Rights. But he's also a much more experienced and competent administrator and governor (relative to Trump, of course).

Also, A Pence Presidency does not carry the power of the cult of personality that surrounds Donald Trump and enables those around him.

Even Pence would be preferable.

[Freude am Fahren]

Tough call from my perspective. I think Trump would be worse for the way gays are treated in America by other civilians, because of like you say the cult of personality, but Pence might be worse for actual civil liberties and laws.

[MR2 Fan]

I'm actually not sure I agree. Yes, he's got a terrible record on Gay Rights. But he's also a much more experienced and competent administrator and governor (relative to Trump, of course).

Also, A Pence Presidency does not carry the power of the cult of personality that surrounds Donald Trump and enables those around him.

Even Pence would be preferable.

I think Pence knew what he did backfired horribly in his state, so maybe he won't be as crazy. I prefer people who actually have experience in office to those who have experience in reality shows

[drew]

Hopefully the electoral voters will think that way in a couple weeks too.

[21Kid]

Speaking during his visit to a Carrier plant in Indianapolis on Thursday, the president-elect thrice promised “a minimum” of 1,100 jobs would be saved. Employees learned on Monday, however, that the figure is closer to 730. Trump was apparently including in his estimate 350 research and development jobs that weren’t ever in danger of offshoring. Liar, lies... news at 10.

[Crazed_Insanity]

I really find it amazing that a lot of you who are neither gay nor woman who'd based a politician's leadership ability on gay or abortion rights. Okay, not that they are not important or totally irrelevant, but I just think such litmus tests are amazingly stupid. The entire nation just falls into this endless bickering contest based on these few issues? Once we have a guy who supports gay marriages who is pro-choice, we can be sure that we'll have world peace?

The most important issue above all else is the economy stupid! If you can create jobs and improve voters' lives, you'll get elected. Simple as that.

Here's an article from washington post... highlighting the difference between Virginia(Kaine) and Indiana's(Pence) economies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/05/mike-pences-economic-record-is-better-than-tim-kaines-thanks-to-timing/?utm_term=.5d7aa3e5b80b

Conclusion?

Political affiliation of the governers made little to no fucking difference if you compare each state to the national trend.

Here people are trying to kill each other over party lines..., but the bottomline is that it impacts overall economies very little.

I honestly think it really doesn't matter whether we have Trump or Hillary as president. Even if we elected Bernie, he probably won't be able to change things much. :|

So just chill. It will soon pass...

[MR2 Fan]

I honestly think it really doesn't matter whether we have Trump or Hillary as president. Even if we elected Bernie, he probably won't be able to change things much. :|

So just chill. It will soon pass...

If it wasn't for the massive possible changes in the Supreme Court, I'd agree with you. We could get more laws like Citizens United and they may roll back lots of progressive changes.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Those old geezers can die at any moment and then disturb the balance of the force in the universe. Chill.

[Freude am Fahren]

How about some of us care about the rights of other humans who are doing little other than trying to exist more than how much money we have? But continue calling us stupid.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Okay, if there are any hurt feelings, I do apologize for that. That wasn't my intention.

However, also want to clarify that I thought such 'litmus tests' are stupid(you may go back and reread my OP). Now, if you really believe such litmus tests are good indicators of great leadership, that is certainly your freedom..., just as I'm free to believe in Jesus. However, I won't automatically support Christian politicians no matter what. Last I check, Bernie Sanders' an atheist.

Lastly, I don't believe I personally coined the phrase "it's the economy stupid!"

Again, my apologies for being so politically incorrect.

We can certainly care for minority/women/gay rights, but are they really the key issues for ensuring a better future?

Any Tom, Dick and Stanley can profess to be a born again Christian in front of a Christian crowd. Just as any secular politician can profess to stand on a certain popular political position. Now, it's obvious Trump purposely stood on the 'wrong' side. Not arguing against that. However, perhaps he's really a racist or perhaps he figured out that's how he could win by playing with people's emotions...

Anyway, I refuse to believe that majority of Americans are still really as racist as most of you think after having a black president for 8 years. People were just frustrated by the 'economy' and Trump simply took advantage of that frustration to steal the white house. Unless if he's really really great, I'm sure his supporters will eventually become just like the Trump University students. Then hopefully the reformed democrats can finally take back not only the white house, but also the congress...

[mk]

Yesterday Trump called Taiwan.
Today China supported Russia.

[Crazed_Insanity]

But Putin supports Trump.
So Gina must also support Trump.

[Tom Servo]

So, notably, Michael Flynn Jr., son of the incoming defense secretary, tweeted *after* that guy ran into Comet doing his "self-investigation" in defense of the pizza-gate thing.


Until #Pizzagate proven to be false, it'll remain a story. The left seems to forget #PodestaEmails and the many "coincidences" tied to it.

In the meantime, apparently the transition team was applying for security clearance for Flynn, Jr. Jake Tapper kept badgering Pence to respond to why they were trying to get him security clearance, but Pence just kept dodging the question.

https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/806275626982404096

Kudos to Tapper for trying to get them to acknowledge that maybe giving security clearance to a conspiracy believing wingnut is not such a great thing.

[Crazed_Insanity]

I have security clearance, but that doesn't mean I have access to all of govts top secrets. Everything is still on a need to know basis. If you don't need to know, they won't let you know. It is also possible to be denied clearance for whatever reasons. I have colleagues who was approved for one program but denied by another with no reasons given.

Anyway, point is applying for clearance isn't that big of a deal..., except for the employer who's paying for the application process.
I'd imagine it's expensive because background investigations can take months!

So it might be a big waste of taxpayers' money trying the get this nut cleared. Still badgering about his clearance application is similar to badgering Hillary about her emails.

[Yw-slayer]

I really find it amazing that a lot of you who are neither gay nor woman who'd based a politician's leadership ability on gay or abortion rights. Okay, not that they are not important or totally irrelevant, but I just think such litmus tests are amazingly stupid.

Sometimes it's not just about the stance, but WHY people hold that stance. Those 2 matters can be indicative of many other things.


The entire nation just falls into this endless bickering contest based on these few issues? Once we have a guy who supports gay marriages who is pro-choice, we can be sure that we'll have world peace?

Of course you won't, because the other side will continue the endless bickering contest.

See, for example: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education-community/article/2051921/hong-kong-family-groups-give-roar-disapproval

[MR2 Fan]

I have security clearance


Oh shit

:p

[Crazed_Insanity]

Quite often, politicians and corporations hold these stances simply to win votes and popularity contests.

It's really sad to see mainstream Christians becoming the oppressive force whether it be slavery, women's rights, and gay rights. It's for sure the last thing Jesus would want his followers to do.

With that said, I really don't believe bickering can cure bickering.

Take abortion rights for example, no healthy souls are really so pro-life that he's willing to give up free-will... And nobody with a reasonable mind is really so pro-choice that he's willing to kill for it. It is stupid to pick a stance as if the other side is just absolutely wrong.

Our Wells Fargo bank took a stance for gays, but they have no issues fucking over their low level employees and customers in secret...

I totally disagree with the Christians in Taiwan protesting against gay marriage too, but a bank that supports gay marriage won't guarantee you that you have a great bank.

Anyway, point is whether if you're pro or against gay marriage, it has little to do with banking... Or whether a person would be a good leader or not.

[Yw-slayer]

Anyway, point is whether if you're pro or against gay marriage, it has little to do with banking... Or whether a person would be a good leader or not.

That's not how these "groups" see it.

[Freude am Fahren]

Take abortion rights for example, no healthy souls are really so pro-life that he's willing to give up free-will... And nobody with a reasonable mind is really so pro-choice that he's willing to kill for it. It is stupid to pick a stance as if the other side is just absolutely wrong.
In some cases it is. People who believe being gay will cause the Earth to literally erupt in fire are absolutely wrong. People who believe someone with a different color skin is automatically a lesser person are wrong. Like YW said, you need to look at WHY they believe the things they believe. But yes, most issues do have a lot of gray area. This is a surprising issue for you to bring up, considering how often you refuse to accept middle ground.


Anyway, point is whether if you're pro or against gay marriage, it has little to do with banking... Or whether a person would be a good leader or not.
I absolutely believe it does. If you see a certain type of person as less of a person because of this, you are not someone that should be in charge. Sure you may be great for the economy, but I don't care. Find someone who can do both.

[FaultyMario]

yup, current politics is the binarisation of multidimensional societies.

[Freude am Fahren]

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p526x296/15349651_10154071515521179_6060387276694471535_n.j pg?oh=006fba74e1ec81fa18fef9b10ea8807f&oe=58B9E6C6

[drew]

That's awesome with a capital fuckin A

[Crazed_Insanity]

In some cases it is. People who believe being gay will cause the Earth to literally erupt in fire are absolutely wrong. People who believe someone with a different color skin is automatically a lesser person are wrong. Like YW said, you need to look at WHY they believe the things they believe. But yes, most issues do have a lot of gray area. This is a surprising issue for you to bring up, considering how often you refuse to accept middle ground.
It's only surprising to you because you think of me as less of a person due to my religious belief. Point is that these issues have no absolute right or wrongs... and are often false dichotomies. God clearly is pro-life AND pro-choice, that's why He created a Tree of life and Tree of knowledge. Likewise, accepting Jesus is pro-eternal life, but one has to make a choice on that... not forced upon folks. There's really no middle ground for this... we can't really settle for half a life and half a choice. Life in this world just has consequences due to the various choices we make. I do believe most Christians do have good intentions and want people to make the right choices if you can see them that way..., rather than seeing Christians as hateful backwards nutty sub-humans. Sure, there are the Westboro Baptists, but I'm pretty sure those are not mainstream Christians. Anyway, good intentions aside, I do believe it's stupid for government to help "guide us" on making moral choices. If we live in a free country, then let us make our own choices. Absolutely no need to limit our choices. As for protecting marriage and unwillingness to alter the meaning of 'marriage'..., I do agree Christians ought to just lighten up. Jesus did say there'll be no marriages in heaven. Plus, people really ought to just protect their own marriages... makes sure your own is full of love and won't end in divorce.

Anyway, I don't believe God is an Oppressor and wish His follower to be oppressive. Believers can often misinterpret things, but in the end, I don't believe God would allow it to go on and on... and if you just refuse to believe in God, that's cool too. Bear in mind that slavery, women and gays being treated poorly is not something exclusive to Christian regions. It's a global thing spanning even before Christ's arrival. As our standard of living... as our 'economies' improve, all of these things will gradually become better and better. When most of humanity was worrying about their next meal, who has time to care about rights, right?


I absolutely believe it does. If you see a certain type of person as less of a person because of this, you are not someone that should be in charge. Sure you may be great for the economy, but I don't care. Find someone who can do both.
Again, you are also simply seeing a candidate as less of a person simply because of this litmus test.

Of course in an ideal situation, 2 well qualified candidates and one is totally against gay marriage, I would go with the pro-gay-marriage candidate.

However, in a more 'realistic' setting, let's say the well qualified candidate is not very friendly to gays, but the not-so-well-qualified candidate is very pro-gay-marriage..., what then? Would you still go with that less qualified candidate simply because he's friendlier to gays?

Now, in the MOST realistic setting, we often end up with both candidates with questionable characters and only left with these 'litmus tests' to go on.

I think this is most likely why political affiliation of the governors really didn't matter much to a states' economy.

Because we are just electing bunch of bozos into offices based on these litmus tests.

[Kchrpm]

Again, you are also simply seeing a candidate as less of a person simply because of this litmus test.
Difference is that it is a mental choice, not a characteristic you were born with or have no/little choice about.

Saying "I don't trust people from China" is incredibly different from saying "I don't trust people that don't trust people from China." People from China don't get to choose that they are from China, and they can't do anything to change the fact that they were born in China. People that don't trust people from China are making the choice to not trust them and to act accordingly every time it comes up.

Similarly, saying that you generally don't vote for Republican or Democratic candidates, because they make the choice to support/defund social programs, support/reject gay rights, support/reject the trickle-down economics theory, support/reject climate change, is making a judgment based on a decision that the candidate is repeatedly making and acting on. They aren't born into their Democratic party with no ability to change it or their viewpoints.

[Crazed_Insanity]

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p526x296/15349651_10154071515521179_6060387276694471535_n.j pg?oh=006fba74e1ec81fa18fef9b10ea8807f&oe=58B9E6C6

I'm directing this to Nick Spencer:

So true diplomacy is about being kissing up to China by openly ignoring Taiwan, but secretly selling Taiwan weapons?

Just as we all should all act politically correctly in front of people, but it's okay to secretly stab them in the back?

If China is really going to wage war against US because of a phone call or a tweet, then maybe it's time for WWIII.

Like I said, I side with Trump on this one.

[Tom Servo]

It's only surprising to you because you think of me as less of a person due to my religious belief.

Whoa, nice deflection. I'm pretty sure it's surprising because that's what you generally do. I was actually considering barging in here and claiming full credit for getting you to see something with a little nuance, feeling super proud of myself after browbeating you over it so many times.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the way you've traditionally argued things is why it was surprising, not because of any judgment of you as a person over your religious beliefs.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Difference is that it is a mental choice, not a characteristic you were born with or have no/little choice about.

Saying "I don't trust people from China" is incredibly different from saying "I don't trust people that don't trust people from China." People from China don't get to choose that they are from China, and they can't do anything to change the fact that they were born in China. People that don't trust people from China are making the choice to not trust them and to act accordingly every time it comes up.
I understand the difference, but what exactly is your point? Are you saying it's more acceptable to hate and deny the folks who are making 'wrong' choices? If that's what you're implying, then may I remind you that Christians are making the same wrong argument too because they think making the choice to abort a baby is wrong or marry into the same sex is wrong so they find is acceptable to deny those people the choice. This kind of thinking is what's getting people into the endless bicker mode. Anyway, if I missed your point, then nevermind.


Similarly, saying that you generally don't vote for Republican or Democratic candidates, because they make the choice to support/defund social programs, support/reject gay rights, support/reject the trickle-down economics theory, support/reject climate change, is making a judgment based on a decision that the candidate is repeatedly making and acting on. They aren't born into their Democratic party with no ability to change it or their viewpoints.
People switch parties all the time. Nowadays, even if Michael Jackson was born black can become white. Genders can also flip too. Trump also flip flops all the time.

I do agree integrity is super important for a political candidate..., that's why I thought Bernie Sander is for sure the best candidate... probably EVER!

Anyway, I just don't think we should discriminate against people whether it's race, gender, sex orientation or even folks who seemingly made 'wrong' choices. People's inability to agree to disagree on various life choices end up causing a lot of our unnecessary polarization I think.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Whoa, nice deflection. I'm pretty sure it's surprising because that's what you generally do. I was actually considering barging in here and claiming full credit for getting you to see something with a little nuance, feeling super proud of myself after browbeating you over it so many times.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the way you've traditionally argued things is why it was surprising, not because of any judgment of you as a person over your religious beliefs.

Okay, maybe I shouldn't blame this on Jesus, I think I do have this contrarian tendency..., in a Godly crowd, I like to play devil's advocate. In this liberal crowd, I often like to play the christian conservative to illustrate the issues on the other side. I know very well that I'm NOT well like by either side when I do this, but I just felt obligated to help the people who are adamant on one side to be able to see things better on the OTHER side... it also helps me to be able to learn more stuffs as you guys explains your side better.

I'm not here to win popularity contests. I like this place because I can learn from the minds of different folks... :p

[Tom Servo]

Then it seems a little disingenuous to claim that he said that because he's judging you on your religious beliefs. That's all I'm saying.

[Freude am Fahren]

Yeah, religion had nothing to do with it.

[Kchrpm]

I understand the difference, but what exactly is your point? Are you saying it's more acceptable to hate and deny the folks who are making 'wrong' choices?
I'm saying don't hate the person, disagree with the choice. Give them reasons to change their minds, the same reasons you used to make your choice. If their choice doesn't change, then make your choice to react accordingly. It's not about hate. It's about choice.


Nowadays, even if Michael Jackson was born black can become white.
No.


Genders can also flip too.
No.

I'm going to assume those were your attempts at humor, so I'm not going to point out the obvious major flaws in those statements.


Anyway, I just don't think we should discriminate against people...who seemingly made 'wrong' choices.
That's not how things work. If I "choose" to punch you in the face, should you not discriminate against me? You make a choice, you make an action, you live with the consequences. That's not discrimination. The choice of the reaction may be, as it may be based on other factors, but reacting to an action is not in itself discriminatory.

[Jason]

Why am I not surprised that Billi thinks race, gender, and sexuality are choices.

[Rikadyn]

Why am I not surprised that Billi thinks race, gender, and sexuality are choices.

What is because you've seen what he says.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Anyway, Servo and FaF, I think this board in general does not regard Christianity very highly, right? And these issues are very clearly divided by the so called Christian values...

I also do understand that my own "personality" can sometimes piss people off, it's not all about Christianity..., but surely you can't say it has nothing to do with Christianity.



That's not how things work. If I "choose" to punch you in the face, should you not discriminate against me? You make a choice, you make an action, you live with the consequences. That's not discrimination. The choice of the reaction may be, as it may be based on other factors, but reacting to an action is not in itself discriminatory.

Or if one chooses to become a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Republican or Democrat or conspiracy theorist..., there really shouldn't be anything for people to react to. That's my point.

However, these labels alone are often enough to generate allergic reactions for some folks due to past exposure... ;)

Now, if there's an action, which resulted in some sort of reaction, I can fully understand that isn't discriminatory.

I'm just saying we all should at least try to not 'react' to 'labels', but of course for some, this can't be helped. If you have a allergy to something, then you just need to stay away from it. No need to try to kill yourself by trying accept something you're allergic to... However, just because you are allergic to peanuts, it doesn't mean we should get rid of all peanuts in the world. Just have to learn to agree to disagree with peanuts and stay away.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Why am I not surprised that Billi thinks race, gender, and sexuality are choices.
I never said that. Again, I think you're not surprised because of Christianity or perhaps you just think Billi is a dumbass or what? Can you explain why you are not surprised when you misinterpret what I said? I'm really curious. No need to be politically correct. Give me the honest truth.

Now, I was talking about the controversial issues... such as pro-life or pro-choice... pro-gay marriage or against... these pro this and against this issues are based on people's choices. People need to respect people of 'other side' and agree to disagree. In reality, these issues are often false dichotomies. Once you pick a side, you risk becoming an extremist IMHO. Real world is all inclusive, not limited by our preconceived ideologies.

Back to my original point, there's no guarantee that a pro-gay-marriage candidate will become a great politician and vice versa. However, most liberals vote as if that is a true statement. Similarly Christians voters also make the same mistake as if all born again Christian candidates are Jesus Christ compared to the liberal satans. That kind of mentality is stupid IMHO. Sad part is that both sides are now playing this to the extreme and it's not letting up...

(So I'm calling both sides stupid, not targeting any individual group out... this is how I fail to win popularity contests, but anyway, that's just how I felt about this.)

[Kchrpm]

Or if one chooses to become a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Republican or Democrat or conspiracy theorist..., there really shouldn't be anything for people to react to. That's my point.
It's what one chooses to do as a Christian, Muslim, etc. that matters. You can be a Christian that accepts and even marries gay couples. You could be a Republican that fights and votes for abortion rights and social programs. You can be a conspiracy theorist that genuinely listens to and accepts facts brought to you by multiple major sources.

But if your reason for making a choice that affects other people is "I'm a Christian/Atheist/conspiracy theorist" and you can't provide any other justification than the texts that you choose to believe in that others don't, people are going to react to that.

If you actively support the ideas of an organization, that is a choice, and people can choose how they react to that.

This doesn't mean people aren't allowed to be what they want to be, and make the choices they want to make, but those choices don't happen in a vacuum. If a politician chooses to register as a Democrat or Republican, and then run for public office, they cannot expect for people to have zero opinion based on that choice. It shouldn't be an overwhelming and unstoppable reaction, but there will be some reaction.

[Kchrpm]

(So I'm calling both sides stupid, not targeting any individual group out... this is how I fail to win popularity contests, but anyway, that's just how I felt about this.)
You fail to win popularity contests because you fail to see the obvious, and then start never-ending arguments where you are presented with the obvious in multiple forms and refuse to accept it.

[Crazed_Insanity]

What obvious thing am I not accepting in this case?

[21Kid]

:popcorn:

[Kchrpm]

What obvious thing am I not accepting in this case?

1) The situation and demographics of your birth are related to but different than the choices you make

2) Choices you make that directly or indirectly effect other people are actions, no matter how big or small

3) Actions lead to reactions, hopefully of similar intensity

[Crazed_Insanity]

1) The situation and demographics of your birth are related to but different than the choices you make

2) Choices you make that directly or indirectly effect other people are actions, no matter how big or small

3) Actions lead to reactions, hopefully of similar intensity

I think you're making the same mistake as Jason. I do accept your 3 points, not refusing to accept them. Why do you think that I'm rejecting those 3 points?

My original point was that a pro-gay-marriage candidate may or may not be indicative of him becoming a good politician. I don't think we should vote for or write off somebody right a way with such a litmus test. I also don't think this can only be done by completely rejecting your 3 points.

[Kchrpm]

My original point was that a pro-gay-marriage candidate may or may not be indicative of him becoming a good politician.
This is true. But an anti-gay-marriage candidate that pledges to vote and support actions to invalidate gay marriages is more likely to vote and make decisions based on their personal religious beliefs. That is what people have been saying.

[Yw-slayer]

"Good politician"? Too easy lol

[Crazed_Insanity]

This is true. But an anti-gay-marriage candidate that pledges to vote and support actions to invalidate gay marriages is more likely to vote and make decisions based on their personal religious beliefs. That is what people have been saying.

You agree with my point by saying it's true. I also agree with your point.

In a worst case scenario that we have 2 lousy candidates, we might as well vote them in based on these litmus tests. My ultimate point is that this is sad.

[Kchrpm]

It is sad, but in the short term, if those are what your choices are, then those are your choices and you make them. You can try to do better in the future, but you have to handle the now right now.

[Tom Servo]

Anyway, Servo and FaF, I think this board in general does not regard Christianity very highly, right? And these issues are very clearly divided by the so called Christian values...

I also do understand that my own "personality" can sometimes piss people off, it's not all about Christianity..., but surely you can't say it has nothing to do with Christianity.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I don't have a particular disdain for Christianity, at least anymore so than any other religion. As long as you don't try to make me follow yours, I won't make you try to give up yours. Christianity helps a lot of people, like my wife for instance. It has its place, just like other major religions. Just ain't for me.

Of course, there's also the fact that you were getting the same reactions from people long before you found Christ, so pretty sure it has little-to-nothing to do with Christianity.

[Crazed_Insanity]

It is sad, but in the short term, if those are what your choices are, then those are your choices and you make them. You can try to do better in the future, but you have to handle the now right now.

I made a choice for Stein knowing that she won't win. I just don't want to play the lesser of 2 evil game... Again Neanderthal might be appalled that I would equate Hillary at trumps level, but Im pretty sure they're both no good for America. Anyway, I know I will have to chill for 4 years... I will only react against Trump if he actually does something. For now, I'm not going to worry about his cabinet or whatever choices..., mostly because it's out of my control.

Swervo, you may be right, but Christianity did alter my view of the world... So speaking just for myself, I'm pretty sure it has an affect for me at least.

One thought for you to ponder, your wife made that choice, why is it so important for you to make the opposing choice? What's the big deal?;)

[Tom Servo]

The head of the union at Carrier criticized Trump, saying he lied about how many jobs were staying here, etc etc.

The President Elect is now going on Twitter and using it to insult private citizens who criticize him.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/806660011904614408


Chuck Jones, who is President of United Steelworkers 1999, has done a terrible job representing workers. No wonder companies flee country!

[Godson]

I hope someone punches Trump in the fucking mouth like Odor did to Bautista.

Cause and effect that billi.

[The359]

I'm going to get angry if everyone just starts using the words Sad, Terrible, Great, and The Best for everything.

[Tom Servo]

Oh good, and now his idiot followers are apparently making death threats towards Chuck Jones.

[Yw-slayer]

The head of the union at Carrier criticized Trump, saying he lied about how many jobs were staying here, etc etc.

The President Elect is now going on Twitter and using it to insult private citizens who criticize him.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/806660011904614408

What do you expect from President-Elect Donald Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho Trump?

[Jason]

I'm going to get angry if everyone just starts using the words Sad, Terrible, Great, and The Best for everything.

That's basically what Reddit has turned into. :|

[Cam]

Reddit's the best. :assclown:

I never look at Reddit.

[Tom Servo]

That makes me sad, too. There are a lot of good communities on Reddit. The one for Los Angeles isn't bad, the ones for bicycling, bikecommuting, and bikela are all full of helpful and supportive people. It's how I keep tabs on Rocksmith and Rockband news, both of which have developers of their respective games very active in the subreddits. But, like everything else, most of it's full of shitheads. Just hope they don't bring down the rest of it, we've had an influx of people from the Trump subreddit pop up here and there in the Los Angeles one.

[21Kid]

My original point was that a pro-gay-marriage candidate may or may not be indicative of him becoming a good politician.This is true. But an anti-gay-marriage candidate that pledges to vote and support actions to invalidate gay marriages is more likely to vote and make decisions based on their personal religious beliefs. That is what people have been saying.Can we stop saying gay-marriage please?
There's nothing different about their marriage. They just want to get married like everyone else. They don't get a special license... or have a gay wedding, with gay cake, and gay rings. They just want to get married, not "gay" married.

[Freude am Fahren]

Well until they are allowed to completely, without all the crap they deal with now, for these discussions "gay marriage" = "A marriage between gay people". We know it's just a marriage, but in this country there is still a distinction, and that's the point of the discussion.

It's like saying you don't see race. It's nonsense as long as problems still exist.

[21Kid]

What is the distinction? They get a marriage license and get married. :? Just like everything else.


Not saying people don't see it... But, you don't say Asian people get Asian married. (I hope)

[21Kid]

Wow... Idiocracy is coming to fruition. :twitch:

Trump taps wrestling executive to lead Small Business Administration (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-taps-wrestling-executive-to-lead-small-business-administration/2016/12/07/3b53e72c-bcc7-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.f50099367e48)

[Cam]

Who's gonna be in the House'a Representin'?

[Kchrpm]

Not saying people don't see it... But, you don't say Asian people get Asian married. (I hope)
Because it's not up for a debate questioning it's legality. I don't say people get "gay married", I say they get married. But in a discussion of a specific type of marriage, yes, I will use a descriptor to specify. Mixed race marriage, mixed religion marriage, gay marriage, whatever. I could break it down as "a marriage between gay people" but it is effectively the same. If I thought it was offensive to say "gay marriage" instead of "marriage between gay people" I would use the latter exclusively, but I don't think it is.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Unnecessary political correctness. Taking offense of something that's not offensive and not meant to be offensive. However, if simple words like sad or great is enough to trigger anger, I can understand why gay might be inappropriate. ;) Out of consideration for him, in case others quote me, I'll specify as marriage of same sex couple for him.

[FaultyMario]

The head of the union at Carrier criticized Trump, saying he lied about how many jobs were staying here, etc etc.

The President Elect is now going on Twitter and using it to insult private citizens who criticize him.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/806660011904614408

“So I take it with a grain of salt and I don’t put a lot of faith in that, and I’m not concerned about it and I’m not getting anybody involved. I can deal with people that make stupid statements and move on.”

- Mr. Jones

[21Kid]

I didn't mean you Keith. :) I know what you meant.


I was referring to the person who voted against their right marry, that was quoted in your post.

I doubt he meant the same thing.

[21Kid]

“So I take it with a grain of salt and I don’t put a lot of faith in that, and I’m not concerned about it and I’m not getting anybody involved. I can deal with people that make stupid statements and move on.”

- Mr. Jones Heh, unlike our president-elect. :rolleyes:

[Crazed_Insanity]

I didn't mean you Keith. :) I know what you meant.


I was referring to the person who voted against their right marry, that was quoted in your post.

I doubt he meant the same thing.

Once again the same "Jason syndrome" happens.

If religion has nothing to do with it, then I must suck very bad at writing or some of you must be very bad with reading comprehension... or probably combination of a bit of everything.

Still, it's amazing how people can just make a snap wrong judgement of somebody else. Whether it's a white cop on black suspects, or Jason and 21kid on Billi.

Anyway, I don't really want to make everything about Billi, I really couldn't care less what some of you guys think, but the thing is that can you guys imagine what kind of misunderstandings you might have for other genuine conservatives? (I really don't consider myself as conservative) The 2 sides are just bickering about their imaginary political opposition without any attempt to try to truly understand what the other side is thinking at all. It's okay for people on your same side to say 'gay marriage', but people on the other side must say marriage of same sex couples otherwise it'd be super offensive. Likewise for the conservatives, bitching about Michelle Obama being too revealing, but it's perfectly fine for Mrs Trump to pose nude. WTF?

This is a sickness.

[Crazed_Insanity]

The head of the union at Carrier criticized Trump, saying he lied about how many jobs were staying here, etc etc.

The President Elect is now going on Twitter and using it to insult private citizens who criticize him.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/806660011904614408

Action reaction. When you mess with a bully who's elected class president at school, do you seriously expect him to all of a sudden play nice and not push back and tweet the shit out of you?

I think it's safe to say that Trump will throw everything that's considered 'presidential' out of the window.

In a way I do enjoy his political incorrectness... also the recent surge in the stock market. That's about it.

[Tom Servo]

I do expect the President of the United States not to, yes.

Also, the president directly going after a single citizen over dissent isn't adorable political correctness, it's the antithesis of America.

[Kchrpm]

Still, it's amazing how people can just make a snap wrong judgement of somebody else. Whether it's a white cop on black suspects, or Jason and 21kid on Billi.
White cop on black suspects = snap judgment based on others with similar skin color.
GTXF members on Billi = 15+ years of direct experience with Billi

See the difference?

[21Kid]

:lol: 15+ years of experiences says no... he doesn't see the difference.
Which I guess is self-evident seeing he made the original comment.

[Crazed_Insanity]

White cop on black suspects = snap judgment based on others with similar skin color.
GTXF members on Billi = 15+ years of direct experience with Billi

See the difference?

I do see the difference.

However, 15 years of experience is justification enough to verbally shoot and kill Billi without any regard to what exactly is being said? Even when it's very clear that the discussion at hand is being misunderstood? That really sounds right to you?

Anyway, I really don't want to be so 'narcissistic' here, we don't have to focus our discussion on Billi..., but let's focus on people of your opposing political views. Do you honestly try to understand the other side's views or just quickly brush them off as dumbasses?

Do you see this 'sickness'?

Or will you also justify your discrimination against political opposition by your lifetime experiences with them. They're dumbasses and they'll always be dumbasses. No need to figure them out. Their views are simply BS, hateful and nothing of value. The world would be a better place if they could just all disappear?

[Kchrpm]

Do you honestly try to understand the other side's views or just quickly brush them off as dumbasses?
It depends on the opposing view. Do they think human-affected climate change isn't really happening? Do they think LGBT people shouldn't be allowed to be legally married? Do they think their personal choice of religion should determine what laws are created to govern everyone? Do they think trickle down economics works? Do they think that black people don't actually have any struggles in society?

If they have a political view based on a belief that is incredibly selfish and/or factually wrong, then no, I'm not going to spend much time trying to understand them. Why? Because the arguments have been made multiple times. I have a pretty good idea what they're going to say, and why they're going to say it, and I know that the facts and reason I have at my disposal will not sway them just as the facts and reason they have on their side won't sway me.

On the other hand, if it's a fluid, complex topic with a lot of moving parts where the studies and history are still in process or not yet clear, I'll be more willing to listen to someone that has a different viewpoint than I do.

[Crazed_Insanity]

I do expect the President of the United States not to, yes.

Also, the president directly going after a single citizen over dissent isn't adorable political correctness, it's the antithesis of America.

Anyway, very few folks was expecting him to become president. Myself inclcuded. I think he's not only going to be anti-establishment, but also very anti-presidential in the future. Heck, maybe he will eventually be assimilated by the 'establishment', but I think we can be sure he'll probably be the least presidential prez EVER!

I do wish Twitter will soon go bankrupt because of Trump. He does use it way too often and inappropriately. But what can we do about it?

[21Kid]

and I know that the facts and reason I have at my disposal will not sway them just as the completely made-up bullshit they have on their side won't sway me.FTFY

[Crazed_Insanity]

On the other hand, if it's a fluid, complex topic with a lot of moving parts where the studies and history are still in process or not yet clear, I'll be more willing to listen to someone that has a different viewpoint than I do.

That's cool. That's why I do appreciate GTXFers like you and Swervo and some others..., because you guys are definitely more opened minded.

However, are you sure every liberal is like you?

Are you absolutely sure that this 'sickness' can only be caught by Conservatives?

I really think this 'sickness' will only make our polarization worse and worse. Until it is cured, when there's just no more empathy for the otherside, Civil War II is probably inevitable.

Hopefully we'll have better candidates in the future who can really unite our nation... not just this manipulative hateful Trump or Hillary who thinks at least a quarter of Americans are deplorables...

[Kchrpm]

However, are you sure every liberal is like you?
Of course not. And I don't think every Conservative is close-minded. There's nothing inherently close-minded in thinking that governments should be smaller, only step in when needed on major societal issues, etc. When they announce that they are against marriage equality, don't believe in the human affect on climate change, etc, that is when they show themselves to be more closed off and adherent to momentum and tradition than facts and reason.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Key element that Trump won was because he played on human emotions.

Our brains respond much better to emotions than facts and reasons.

IMHO, this is how the liberals lost its appeal... because it's way too focused on facts and reasons.

Not that there's anything wrong with facts and reasons, but our brains are just not 'evolved' to find the cold hard facts attractive. This is neuroscience, not bible talk. Emotions will trump reason most of the time!

Bill Clinton and Obama were able to connect to voters more emotionally, that's how they won. Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary are just too robotic and that's how they lost. We're not Vulcans. Human beings love to "feel" things.

Any attempts to try to sway the conservatives using only cold hard facts will also be a losing proposition. People have to learn to engage each other by connecting more on an emotional level... or at least we can't ignore opposition's emotional needs. Conservatives make the same mistake by using bible truth to block marriages of same sex couples while ignoring their emotional needs... anyway, in the end, human emotions will prevail. (Plus, I do believe they misinterpreted their bible truth...)

But 1st things 1st, at least try not to twist the words of your opposition.

[Kchrpm]

You're right, facts are not enough for most people, they need to be emotionally interested and invested. Democrats lost because they could not energize enough people to go out and vote for them, because of their choice for candidate and their message/marketing.

But that's a wholly different discussion than the animosity between the two parties. The emotional factor does less to get people to change sides and more to get them to decide to vote at all.

[Kchrpm]

Any attempts to try to sway the conservatives using only cold hard facts will also be a losing proposition.
That is what frustrates liberals. If it doesn't matter whether what you say is the truth or not, only that it's what they want to be told in the first place, then there is no way to change their mind. Period.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Of course there is a way, I'm telling you that liberals just need to add some 'emotional' element into the mix, not just presenting the facts. Just as liberals don't like conservative Christians to throw the bible truth at them. There's more to a religion than just a book. There's more to life than just facts!

Anyway, most conservatives will switch sides on same sex marriages when they have gay children or close gay friends for example. There is hope still..., however, 1st step is to stop this 'sickness' of writing your opposition off right away because of whatever preconceived ideas... we need not only facts and reasons, but also empathy for one another in order to come closer.

[Kchrpm]

Of course there is a way, I'm telling you that liberals just need to add some 'emotional' element into the mix, not just presenting the facts.
You act like politicians are the only ones talking about things, and that only non-emotional ones are out there talking about it.

How much creative content is out there emotionally expressing liberal beliefs? Hell, that's a huge part of the claim of conservatives, that the liberal media and liberal Hollywood is trying to push their agenda by putting gay people on TV, shows like Cosmos that passionately defend and explain scientific discoveries and issues, etc.

Are there people whose minds can be changed? Of course. But don't think just speaking emotionally is all it takes to change everyone's mind. Michelle and Barack Obama are great speakers, and plenty of people still refuse to believe anything they say.


Just as liberals don't like conservative Christians to throw the bible truth at them.
Those aren't facts. You can't compare someone that refuses to accept facts, tested and re-tested by multiple people in multiple ways, to someone that refuses to accept things that a predominantly fictional book says happened.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Speaking of Obama, he is nice, but he didn't quite lived up to my expectation of uniting the nation. Of course as Neanderthal said, there IS the worst congress ever..., but I also do detect a tone of disdain at the crazy conservatives from Obama too sometimes. That is not recipe for success at bridging the gap. I also don't quite understand why BLM movement can peak up during a time when a black prez is in charge?!?!? Were the racist assholes/cops just taking it out on the poor black folks because they couldn't get thru secret service protection or did Obama not do enough to help bridge THIS particular gap? Might be combination of both or something else?

Anyway, as for empathy, I'm not just talking about creating some sort of feel good presentation or movie or propaganda. Wells Fargo bank can do that! They can offer awesome looking venues for spectacular conventions. Claim that they are for gay rights... even after they're caught committing fraud, they publically apologized and claim that they will make things right..., but behind closed doors, they're still screwing consumers over legally. Customers cannot sue because the accounts they didn't open has fine prints saying you can't sue... faking that you genuinely cares is what's wrong with political correctness and I'm sure the conservatives can see thru that.

I'm not asking for some sort of PR stunt to sway minds, but personal engagement. Not just to bicker with your conservative friends, but to actually engage in respectful conversations. I know this is really tough to do with likes of Roofer... I know. ;) For a lot of folks here, they can't even stand reading Billi's post let alone engage in talks with him..., but that's is what needs to be done. I think right now, both sides simply believe that the other side is just wrong, end of discussion. Whenever we do open our mouths, it'll only be insults...

With regard to bible facts and facts, it's similar to same sex marriage and marriage. They are different yes, but they are also the same. You can vehemently deny bible facts just as they vehemently deny real facts. Not saying it's right, but point is facts alone are usually not very persuasive... especially when somebody has already made up his mind with preconceived ideas.

Anywho, let's get back to talking about Trump, good news and bad news or bad news good news depending on your position:

Trump is the least popular president-elect EVER!

Trump's approval rating has been improving.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/309319-trumps-popularity-spikes-but-lags-behind-past-presidents

[Kchrpm]

Of course as Neanderthal said, there IS the worst congress ever..., but I also do detect a tone of disdain at the crazy conservatives from Obama too sometimes.
Because they have been combative against him and all of his proposals. Rather than trying to come to agreements, they dig in their feet and say "no way, no how." They acted like they wanted him to fail to complete anything, so they could blame the failures on him, rather than pass anything he wanted to have go through and let it live on its own merit.


I also don't quite understand why BLM movement can peak up during a time when a black prez is in charge?!?!? Were the racist assholes/cops just taking it out on the poor black folks because they couldn't get thru secret service protection or did Obama not do enough to help bridge THIS particular gap? Might be combination of both or something else?
The things causing the Black Lives Matter movement have continually existed. They're just having a light shone on them. The bandwidth exists for these stories and trends to be found, researched, spread, studied and repeated. The ease of creating and spreading videos allows us to see and share video evidence of what took place, rather than just having the offending officer (and their compatriots) take on it

And BLM isn't just a matter of racist/asshole cops, it's about unchecked bias. You can't fully get rid of personal bias, but you can acknowledge it and work to fight against it. It's not a conscious "I can't wait until I can justifiably kill a black guy," it's a subconscious "this person is black, I better be on my toes," and the fact that whatever the cause, the result is too often that no guilt is found in the actions of the officer.

[Godson]

Prejudice, apprehension, and racism are different things.

You can be apprehensive about a group of people that surround you, but not be racist.

You can be prejudiced towards an ideology and it not be racist or based on apprehension. Hence, double blind studies in science.

You can be prejudiced and apprehensive based on racism though.

[Crazed_Insanity]

I think racism falls under prejudice, right? Racism is a form of prejudice, they are not complete different or unrelated.

Anyway, the difficult thing is that these things are not really controlled by the intellectual brain, but the automatic part of the brain that responds rapidly without conscious thoughts. So I'm more sympathetic for the cops because of this. Hopefully future training can help alleviate the problem... since human brains CAN be retrained. However, it's probably unreasonable to expect all cops to be able to perform flawlessly under the pressure of life and death situation.

When I wrote "racist assholes/cops", I meant / as a separator. Not implying all cops are racist assholes.

There were racist assholes too for sure... such as Zimmerman and the guy who shot up a black church in NC for example. If it were black folks shooting up a white kid or a white church, I wonder what would happen to the black suspect during the legal process?

Our legal system is also very biased and I think it'll be easier to fix our legal system because during legal proceedings, we should be able to rely more on our intellectual side of the brain more. If jurors are the problem, then maybe laws need to be changed so that we eliminate that problem... such that race of the suspect must be matched with the racial mix of the juror or something... Anyway, I think the legal part can be more easily measured and fixed systematically. As long as blacks are being sentenced longer than whites, something needs to be fix and BLM can get in the legal system's case! However, whenever a tragic police shooting happens, I just can't help asking both the suspects and the cops... WTF were you thinking? (They probably weren't thinking in the moment!) Sigh...

Anyway, back to politics... Since DNC cannot take over control of congress, now lost the WH too..., just look at the bright side, RNC now has nobody else to blame if they screw up. If DNC cannot win by doing a good job for the entire nation, then hopefully DNC can eventually take over when RNC screws up completely. Of course, there is also the possibility that Trump will actually succeed and make America great again! So stay optimistic, this is only a temporary set back! ;)

[Godson]

You completely ignored what I said and put your own spin on it. Ignoring basics of psychology, sociology, and the English language.

You are a special kind of idiot.

I'm done.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yes, the 1st sentence was a question solely for you, and you consider that a spin?

As for the rest, start from 'Anyway', they're my own opinions in response to my earlier discussion with Kchrpm.

I think this is clearly another case of the 'Jason Syndrome'. Maybe instead of 'Anyway', I should specify clearly that I was addressing Kchrpm. So sorry for the basic english error. :rolleyes: You guys really like to twist my words and then take things very personally for some reason... my english is really that bad? Bad enough for you guys to get the meanings I never intended or in some cases the opposing meaning? I must be very special. Hmm...

[Crazed_Insanity]

Michael Moore, one of the very few who accurately predicted a Trump win, made another interesting prediction recently...

That Trump just might quit the presidency all by himself! Too many briefings to read... have to be forced to live in a 200 year old fixer upper house in a primarily black neighborhood... let's see if he can be right again! :lol:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XsmJ3uvTTE

[Tom Servo]

Every terrifying thing Trump has done this week.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/every-terrifying-thing-that-donald-trump-has-done.html

[neanderthal]

You completely ignored what I said and put your own spin on it. Ignoring basics of psychology, sociology, and the English language.

You are a special kind of idiot.

I'm done.

I struggle to read what he's posted because my brain says "da fuq..." about two or three sentences in. I have to force myself to read each word, assess the meaning, put it in context with the rest of the sentence in the (usual) word salad, apply reason and logic, then witchcraft and spells, then in a bid of desperation, ambition and a dash of hope,... and on the other side I generally get a bowl of "ha ha, fuq you!" laced with despair. Then I want to drink.

And I don't even drink.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Can you guys elaborate a little more? Which part are you talking about? I don't drink or use drugs either...

First of all, do you guys all agree with Jason's assessment of my comments? Is 'Jason syndrome' real or it's just me the only one with some sort of mental sickness?


Why am I not surprised that Billi thinks race, gender, and sexuality are choices.

Do you guys really think I think race, gender and sexuality are choices based on what I wrote?

[Tom Servo]

Not trying to be a dick, but I rarely know what you actually think. I usually just think you latch onto something that someone else posts, say something like "Well, if you believe that black people killed by police were innocent, then you must believe that all white cops are Hitler", then you complain that people are persecuting you over religion when they point out the false equivalency, and then I remember to stop clicking on "View Post". I mainly see you as playing devil's advocate for no reason other than you enjoy doing so, so much so that the devil started saying, "Umm...he's not with me."

The one thing I think I've nailed down when it comes to you is that you think Clinton was just as bad as Trump, which is why the Stein vote was okay. The other part is that, like others, I've never actually heard you say *why*, other than "emails". Like, nothing about what was said in any emails, just that there were emails, and therefore Clinton was evil. If memory serves, Neanderthal finally gave up in exhaustion trying to get you to cite a specific example of something in an email that bothered you and you just responded with vague "she's establishment and therefore terrible" responses.

To sum up, I have no fucking idea if you believe that any of those are choices or things people are born with. I will say that his interpretation of what you said:


Anyway, I just don't think we should discriminate against people whether it's race, gender, sex orientation or even folks who seemingly made 'wrong' choices. People's inability to agree to disagree on various life choices end up causing a lot of our unnecessary polarization I think.

seems reasonable, if only because you basically contradicted yourself, so either interpretation is possible. Based on the first sentence alone, you separate race, gender, and orientation from choice. The second sentence appears to lump all of those together as "life choices". Then, rather than looking at what you wrote, you instead turned Jason into a scapegoat, that he's unfairly judging you and tried to then accuse others of applying the same judgement. Kinda like how you so far have blamed a forum-wide hatred of Christianity or your English or you being special as the reason why people so quickly become exasperated with you, all while claiming the title of devil's advocate as some sort of banner.

Devil's advocate is often useful, but not always. I would suggest that your use of it tends to just antagonize others rather than offer thoughtful discourse, if only because I don't think you go beyond the superficial when you do it. That's how I perceive it.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Hey, this is definitely not being a dick. I appreciate your thoughtful response...

[drew]

Brian, we're way overdue for some beer. WAY overdue.

[FaultyMario]

Beer? Norge only drinks the finest spirits!

[neanderthal]

Jesus Swervo, a whole fucking case.

Hopefully what you've said will bring some introspection, reflection and change from billi. But honestly i'm expecting a bowl of shit.

But the crunchy kind, not the smooth. As though that's any better...

[Crazed_Insanity]

Come up with a bowl of crunchy shit? What's that?!!! ;)

Anyway, I actually often do quite a bit of self reflection and changes over the years..., not just the system level or born again kind of change, but things such as Taimar convincing me that civil unions equal rights just not enough kind of change.

Anyway, I think in the future I just need to post less in controversial threads and make absolutely sure my words convey what I meant. I often times post too quickly and end up having to reedit typos and shit... Not a good idea when you guys have already formed some sort of prejudice against me.

[neanderthal]

There is no prejudice against you.
Just as there is none against Roofer.

People do what they do and say what they say, then act like we can't hold them accountable for that shit. Own your shit, crunchy or smooth.

[MR2 Fan]

ExxonMobil CEO is apparently getting nominated as Trump's Secretary of State, it just gets worse and worse.

[Jason]

Most importantly, the guy has pretty big ties to Russia from what I'm reading today.

I suspect we'll be getting very friendly with Russia over the next four years, for better or worse.

[drew]

I'm seeing it another way. Trump has vehemently denied any connection with Russia. Now it's become apparent (and read on Washington Post that Obama ordered an official investigation) there without almost certainty is. Whether him directly, or one of the ridiculous appointees.


The thing about Obama made me smile. Hey Trump, guess what, you're still not the boss yet, motherfucker, and the sitting boss is still the boss for another 40-odd days.

I thought the campaign was totally fucking unhinged. This interim between that and swear-in makes the campaign seem like an elevator fart.

[Tom Servo]

Not only does the guy have connections with Russia, but it sounds like there's a $300billion deal for Exxon with Russia that's been on hold due to sanctions by the US government. Pretty sure those sanctions are gettin' lifted!

Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman and now right-wing radio host, said just before the election that he would be out there with his "musket" on Nov. 9th if Trump didn't win, ready to take back America. After the election, he criticized the people protesting, telling them to deal with it. He tweeted this today in relation to the news of Russian tampering:



Republican silence will be tantamount to treason.

Call 4 an investigation. Foreign governments can't pick our President.


He's previously put out a bunch of tweets complaining about how many Goldman Sachs execs are showing up in the cabinet. Even the people saying they were going to show up with muskets are started to turn on him.

I know that there's republican control of the two houses, but I'm very curious to see if that actually translates into a blank check. I think it will in the first few months, but after that, I think he's going to find that there are at least a few republicans who are tired of his shit.

EDIT: Adding this.



So wait...the CIA says Russia messed with our election to help Trump win and Trump attacks...the CIA?

Not Russia? He goes after the CIA?

[drew]

It's beyond mind-boggling.

[FaultyMario]

Uk dudes and birds, what's the deal with labour? Is Corbyn really an inept or is it more or less the same as with Spain where the traditional left is so corrupt the new left taking over the course does it slowly while opportunist far righters fill in the void?

[Taimar]

Joe Walsh is a thoroughly unhinged nutbar, of course, so it pains me to agree with him.

There are those who would consider Republicans condoning Russian meddling in our elections tantamount to not only treason, but a coup. Apparently a group of Senators including Mitch McConnell were briefed on the CIA revelations prior to the election, and McConnell not only rebuffed the report, he said he'd paint any attempt by the Obama administration to make it public as partisan meddling in the election. He then trumpeted Comey's e-mail investigation claims as broadly as possible while doing nothing to stop or alert the public to the Russia situation.

Treason is a big word. It should not be used lightly. But that is perilously close to a very deep and scary rabbit hole.

At the very least, we are owed a thorough investigation PRIOR to the new administration taking office, even if that means that lawmakers must work every day until inauguration on it including the holidays.

[Crazed_Insanity]

I doubt that it is possible to have an impartial investigation. The whole thing is just so politicized now, regardless of which way the investigation turns out, the other side just won't believe it the result.

Federal govt really should've helped secured our computers better rather than asking an investigation so publically after the fact. Of course FBIs publicizing email investigation before the election was totally inappropriate too.

What a mess! Sigh...

[MR2 Fan]

Can you imagine if there was evidence of the Russians were influencing the election 20, 30, 40 years ago? It would be absolute madness...but now it seems like they're calling it "not a big deal"

Meanwhile, I haven't watched RT News (Russian Times?) coverage, I wonder how they're reporting this.

[neanderthal]

Republicans, ... tough on national security.

[Leon]

This is potentially the strangest thing I've heard about in real life.

[Godson]

I want to ask if this is real life. I want to ask to make sure I am not in some dysmal dream state. Not some crazy drug induced coma and I am imagining everything.



...then the reality of my physical pain cross checks me like a forward in hockey.

[Yw-slayer]

Uk dudes and birds, what's the deal with labour? Is Corbyn really an inept or is it more or less the same as with Spain where the traditional left is so corrupt the new left taking over the course does it slowly while opportunist far righters fill in the void?

He's just not capable of leading Labour into power, let alone running the country competently as a PM. Also, the people who put him in charge of Labour are pretty much Stalinist loonies.

Just because someone is competent as an activist does not mean he/she will be a competent leader.

[Tom Servo]

Trump said that he doesn't need daily intelligence briefings because "I'm, like, a smart person." I wonder if he understands that that's not what "intelligence" means in this case...

[Yw-slayer]

Hilarious.

[Freude am Fahren]

By the way, Trump on twitter two years ago (as posted just now by Brian on FB, thanks for that): "Fact--Obama does not read his intelligence briefings nor does he get briefed in person by the CIA or DOD. Too busy I guess!"

[21Kid]

Wow. Color me surprised.


McConnell says Congress will probe Russian election hack
WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that two Senate committees will investigate CIA allegations that Russia deployed hackers to disrupt the American presidential election to help President-elect Donald Trump and hurt Democrat Hillary Clinton.

He said the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee will conduct bipartisan reviews.Not sure how much I believe that last bit. But, at least it's something.

[Crazed_Insanity]

By the way, Trump on twitter two years ago (as posted just now by Brian on FB, thanks for that): "Fact--Obama does not read his intelligence briefings nor does he get briefed in person by the CIA or DOD. Too busy I guess!"

So perhaps now he's more understanding of President Obama... ;)

Anyway, I predict the RNC will probably split soon... just as they did during the primary election. If not, then I'm sure the RNC establishment and the Trump Admin will sort of check and balance each other a bit along the way... very interested to see how McConnell will be able to conduct bipartisan reviews... ;)

[21Kid]

Let's not forget that Drumpf was the one who asked Russia to hack HRC's emails in the first place. I was shocked that he didn't get in trouble for making the comment in the first place. But, now that it's actually happened... well, I guess we'll see.


“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

“This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent,” Hillary for America policy adviser Jake Sullivan said in a statement. "That’s not hyperbole, those are just the facts. This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue."

“I find those kinds of statements to be totally outrageous because you’ve got now a presidential candidate who is, in fact, asking the Russians to engage in American politics,” said former CIA Director Leon Panetta, a Clinton surrogate. “I just think that’s beyond the pale.”I seriously doubt anything will come of it.

:smh: What a joke our political system has become. These people should be held to the highest standard. But, they get away with anything/everything. :mad:

[novicius]

Yuuup. :|

But this is what almost 75% of Americans wanted, either by voting for Trump directly, voting 3rd party or not voting at all. #shrug

[21Kid]

Yeah, I keep coming back to that....




and crying. :(

[Jason]

I kinda hate how much time and attention is being wasted on all of this. Does anyone actually think the electoral college will go against the voters, or that there will be a new vote? No? Ok, that's what I thought.

[Phil_SS]

And the Electoral College in no way should vote differently. Trump won, people need to except it and move on to making sure he doesn't win a second term and concentrate on the midterm Senate Elections.

IMO, Trump will not seek a second term anyways. He has already shown he doesn't really want to be there.

[G'day Mate]

Do you think he's the kind of guy to relinquish that sort of power though?

[Taimar]

And the Electoral College in no way should vote differently. Trump won, people need to except it and move on to making sure he doesn't win a second term and concentrate on the midterm Senate Elections.

IMO, Trump will not seek a second term anyways. He has already shown he doesn't really want to be there.

The college can, and should, reject Trump - who fails on many levels to pass the tests the college was designed to evaluate. He is a dangerous, unstable, unskilled radical with an entourage of people around him who will do incalculable damage to our country and our world.

Probably, they'll do nothing.

[MR2 Fan]

The college can, and should, reject Trump - who fails on many levels to pass the tests the college was designed to evaluate. He is a dangerous, unstable, unskilled radical with an entourage of people around him who will do incalculable damage to our country and our world.

Probably, they'll do nothing.

Agreed. If there was ever a time for the Electoral College to reject the vast MINORITY of voters who were misled by Trump, this would be it. I don't recall another presidential elect in memory with so many downsides before he even takes office.

[Freude am Fahren]

I can't imagine the mess that would cause.

[21Kid]

Less than the mess Trump would cause during his 4 year term.

[balki]

I don't get politics, so maybe you folks can help:
Why wouldn't HRC take someone people know and don't hate like Bernie (or Gore) as a running mate?
Why wouldn't Trump take a swing state, less right-wing and less controversial guy like John Kasich as a running mate?
Is it just an ego/brown-nosing thing?

[Kchrpm]

Has anyone ever chosen one of the people they beat in the primaries as their running mate?

[MR2 Fan]

Has anyone ever chosen one of the people they beat in the primaries as their running mate?

Obama did ;)

[tigeraid]

http://deadspin.com/triple-h-donald-trump-is-unclear-on-whether-wrestling-1790037536


Back in 2007, WWE ran a storyline that culminated with CEO Vince McMahon being blown up in a limo. You don’t need me to tell you that McMahon is still alive and was not actually blown to pieces, because you aren’t a moron who thinks wrestling is real. Apparently, the same cannot be said for our future president.

Last night, a 2008 clip from the Opie and Anthony Show began recirculating. In the clip, WWE wrestler/McMahon son-in-law Triple H briefly mentions the limo-explosion storyline, and then reveals that Donald Trump—a longtime pro wrestling performer, mind you—called McMahon’s office to find out if he had really died after the explosion aired.

[Taimar]

Why wouldn't HRC take someone people know and don't hate like Bernie (or Gore) as a running mate?

Gore has been out of politics for a long time, and would not have accepted the VP nomination. Also, it would have invited too many comparisons with Bill Clinton's administration, something HRC wanted to distance herself from in several ways. She did not want to be a continuation of her Husband's achievements, and her husband was President at a time when the country's needs were somewhat different.

Sanders really shot himself in the foot by not conceding earlier. Realistically, it was over for Bernie by the end of April and if he had conceded the primary and helped Clinton after that, he might have been a great choice for VP, which would have brought most of his voters on board with HRC. Because Sanders would not let go even after it was apparent that there wasn't any way for him to get the nod, he effectively took himself out of consideration. Because he would not have been able to credibly pivot to the VP position.

HRC though, wouldn't have selected Sanders - because she is not all that liberal, really, and she has always played politics like a masterful centrist. Tim Kaine was much closer to what she wanted in terms of the shape of her administration. This was a huge tactical mistake on the part of HRC. Kaine did a good job as the VP nom, but he bought nobody on board who wasn't on board already with HRC - and in part, the VP choice is about bringing in a coalition of people who are not so hot on the main candidate.

Trump did this masterfully - he solidified the evangelical base by picking a guy they loved, Pence, and promising to let him have a ton of autonomy. If he had picked somebody from the business community or more like himself, say, Carly Fiorina, he would not have been able to lock in the evangelical base.



Why wouldn't Trump take a swing state, less right-wing and less controversial guy like John Kasich as a running mate?
Is it just an ego/brown-nosing thing?

For Trump the election was about playing specifically to the loudest, worst elements of right wing America. He bet that if he could rally all of them, it'd be enough to propel him over the finish line. In reality, it probably wouldn't have been if the other side had been fielding literally any other candidate. The two things that united the Trump coalition was their hatred of HRC and of ethnic and religious minorities.

A choice like Kasich would've reassured alot of responsible people, but it would not have had the same rabble-rousing effect for this base. Furthemore, the VP pick was, for groups other than evangelical christians, largely immaterial to Trump voters.

Trump thrives on a cult of personality that will one day pop - just like those of Nicolae Ceaucesceu, Benito Mussolini, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and lots of other dictatorial leaders whose followers view them in almost messianic terms. When that bubble bursts, watch out - because the real danger of Trump isn't the man himself, it is the forces he has unleashed that cannot now be put back in the bottle.

[SportWagon]

I searched but didn't find the following old article in this thread.

The headline has an extra element of humour in this forum...

Dr. Drew Examines the Possibility That Trump Has Gone Insane
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/dr-drew-analyzes-whether-trump-has-lost-his-mind

[Crazed_Insanity]

Fully agree with Taimar's observations/analysis of the situation. HRC really made a huge error by not consolidating her fractured base by picking the right vp. I know Sanders was probably out of the question, but she should've at least picked Warren. However, some said she just could't handle a vp shining brighter than her? Or perhaps she was just so confident that she can beat a mad man regardless of her vp?

Anyway...


the real danger of Trump isn't the man himself, it is the forces he has unleashed that cannot now be put back in the bottle.

Indeed. This is now a global trend. Trump didn't start this. Maybe Putin is the one mastermining all these events around the globe?
https://medium.com/@theonlytoby/history-tells-us-what-will-happen-next-with-brexit-trump-a3fefd154714#.er4nv6de7

However, regardless who is the real mastermind behind these things, something fundamentally is wrong with our societies. With our increased polarization, it's just so easy to start these chain reactions and see it go out of control.

Still, the silverlining is that humanity is resilient though..., we always managed to re-emerge out of dark times like this better than ever. I just hope that my daughter won't be stuck in this period of darkness for too long... sigh...

[MR2 Fan]

I vote to make Cognitive Dissonance the #1 Disease affecting the U.S. right now

[21Kid]

Coincidentally the Politics II thread just got updated.

[Tom Servo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzhMBayUUAA-xFt.jpg:large

[novicius]

:lol: :smh:

[Freude am Fahren]

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but let's look at Trumps appointments so far... Someone with an agriculture background (that campaigned to eliminate the DOE) in charge of the DOE, a neurosurgeon in charge of housing, a rich mom who hate public schools in charge of all public schools, and a climate change denier in charge of the EPA. Then you have a Secretary of State that is an Oil tycoon with a business and friendly relationship with Russia/Putin.

I'm kinda convinced he's been put in place by Putin to dismantle the country.

[novicius]

Nah. GOP Dream Team, that's all.

The funny part is how the Tea Partiers will react once they're done slapping each other on the back. :lol:

[neanderthal]

Let's not forget that Drumpf was the one who asked Russia to hack HRC's emails in the first place. I was shocked that he didn't get in trouble for making the comment in the first place. But, now that it's actually happened... well, I guess we'll see.

I seriously doubt anything will come of it.

:smh: What a joke our political system has become. These people should be held to the highest standard. But, they get away with anything/everything. :mad:

I think a large part of the responsibility also falls on the news outlets and journalists who didn't hold his feet to the fire. The amount of sheer drivel they repeated ad nauseum without checking, verifying, challenging, clarifying is disgusting.

It's all part of the hurry to get the scoop, the next headline, the next story, before anyone else. The rise of "fake news" is partly the responsibility of the mainstream media, who failed to do their jobs.
But, we, the consumers, the twitter generation, who want our news in 160 character bits and bobs, are also partly to blame.

[Godson]

Shared a video on FB with Denzel Washington mentioning that. We as consumers need to hold the news articles accountable for these stories.

The one conservative paper I have stayed somewhat current on is 'The Hill.' mainly because they will post a story because they feel it is necessary, even if it does go against the current "right/left wing" ad nauseum.

[Tom Servo]

Yeah, The Hill isn't bad. A friend posted this little infographic, seemed about right to me. 'Cept I'd probably shunt the Occupy Democrats stuff into the drivel column.

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15420908_10154239596206733_78735819909664064_n.jpg ?oh=0221609266ad44aeacff7220e5835ed0&oe=58B42F40

[21Kid]

Fox news meets high standards? :erm:

[Godson]

I'd agree with that graphic

[FaultyMario]

Sincerely, where would Democracy Now! and theyoungturks go?

[G'day Mate]

The Young Turks are annoyingly liberal, even from my perspective

What I want to know is how many extra screens do I have to add to my computer in order to see how far right Conservapedia lies

[The359]

Yeah, The Hill isn't bad. A friend posted this little infographic, seemed about right to me. 'Cept I'd probably shunt the Occupy Democrats stuff into the drivel column.

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15420908_10154239596206733_78735819909664064_n.jpg ?oh=0221609266ad44aeacff7220e5835ed0&oe=58B42F40

The problem is a large amount of the population would completely disagree with this chart.

[Freude am Fahren]

Based on all the comments I've seen from the various postings of this graphic on facebook, you're right.

Thing with Fox News mainly, but also MSNBC and somewhat CNN, is that they have news and then they have the pundit/opinion crap. When they're doing actual news, especially non-political news, they're pretty good usually.

[Tom Servo]

And I think all of those generally at least do some basic fact checking before they report on things, or will post corrections when they get it wrong. As is, while I'm aware of Fox News' bias towards conservatives, I'm unaware of Fox News running around reporting that there are tunnels between pizza restaurants where Hillary Clinton runs a child sex slave ring.

[FaultyMario]

Yeah, that was kind of my point. Particularly the young turks, they don't do much news it's basically opinion and reporting on news outlets.

Last week tonight is an odd example, taking away it's clearly liberal commentary, they're pretty good at reporting facts (that were left off by the original piece).

[Tom Servo]

Patriotic Correctness.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/07/the-right-has-its-own-version-of-political-correctness-its-just-as-stifling/?utm_term=.7758eace0860

[Tom Servo]

Yeah, that was kind of my point. Particularly the young turks, they don't do much news it's basically opinion and reporting on news outlets.

Last week tonight is an odd example, taking away it's clearly liberal commentary, they're pretty good at reporting facts (that were left off by the original piece).

Oh yeah, wasn't replying to you. There was some incredulity at how well Fox News did in there, but overall I still consider them to be a hell of a lot better than Breitbart. They've got some particularly idiotic pundits/opinion shows, but the actual news reporting is generally at least accurate.

[Jason]

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but let's look at Trumps appointments so far... Someone with an agriculture background (that campaigned to eliminate the DOE) in charge of the DOE, a neurosurgeon in charge of housing, a rich mom who hate public schools in charge of all public schools, and a climate change denier in charge of the EPA. Then you have a Secretary of State that is an Oil tycoon with a business and friendly relationship with Russia/Putin.

I'm kinda convinced he's been put in place by Putin to dismantle the country.

Considering the GOP mantra is that 'government is evil and worthless', its not surprising that they'd put people in charge that'd dismantle these systems. Then the GOP can turn around and say 'hey, see how bad these systems are? we were right all along!'

[Jason]

Fox news meets high standards? :erm:

Fox News, the news agency isn't too bad. It's their 'Op-Ed' folks who are full of crazy.

[FaultyMario]

Oh yeah, wasn't replying to you.

Whoa whoa whoa, wait there buddy! I wasn't talking to you either.

But, I, in fact, agree with what you say.

[novicius]

Patriotic Correctness.
I was wondering if there was going to be a new term for American Nationalist/Nazi speech, thanks for the link.

[Tom Servo]

Stupid lack of delete.

[Rikadyn]

I wish I could attach a PDF. I just wrote a paper on the rise of nationalism in europe for my senior capstone class...

[novicius]

Some sort of reconciliation of the Left & the Right is the only way America truly becomes great again. #rhetorical

[Crazed_Insanity]

How would you reconcile with our president-elect? #rhetorical 2

[Godson]

You can't reconcile with a proverbial fuckstain that is about as useful as one.

[Tom Servo]

According to NPR, Infowars has suddenly pulled down any 'pizzagate' content. Push a conspiracy theory until someone walks into a pizza joint with a gun, then pretend you didn't do so afterwards. Quality.

[Rikadyn]

.45 says "go away" in every language #nocontext

[Jason]

Some sort of reconciliation of the Left & the Right is the only way America truly becomes great again. #rhetorical

We only come together when we are attacked by an outside threat.

[MR2 Fan]

“From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.” - Abraham Lincoln

[neanderthal]

Considering the GOP mantra is that 'government is evil and worthless', its not surprising that they'd put people in charge that'd dismantle these systems. Then the GOP can turn around and say 'hey, see how bad these systems are? we were right all along!'

I used to say, when I was on facebook, that their mantra is decry, defund, destroy, right?

[Rikadyn]

We only come together when we are attacked by an outside threat.

Thing is the fascists already believe we're under attack by outside threat, they call it illegal immigration and terrorism

[Crazed_Insanity]

We certainly came together and beat the WMD out of Iraq! Tortured them in Cuba... And smoked Bin Laden and dumped his body in the middle of the ocean!

But I rather we not come together that way.

[neanderthal]

I have this train of thought running through my subconscious.
The Tea Party and the "alt right" are both strains of a trojan horse that the GOP uses to divert our eyes from what it is doing. The alt right is obviously the newest adaptation.

The GOP won't out and out distance itself from them, but will welcome them into their camp, at psuedo arms length. Outrage will be directed at the alt right. Journalists and news media will holler about the association. The GOP will play up their "good old boy, aw shucks, we're just family first christians" image and the media will lap it up. And target their fury and news inches at the alt right.

Meanwhile, the GOP will continue to try and cut voting rights, impose voting restrictions, cut welfare, abortion, education, social security, etc etc etc.

[novicius]

We only come together when we are attacked by an outside threat.
Agree -- and it's a bad sign that when we've been cyberattacked by Putin we're still at each others' throats. :(

[FaultyMario]

Stop seeing the other side as evil, mo. They are a political institution, and entities are neither good or evil. Individuals on the other hand...

It's very difficult to have people on your side and try to change things if you say the Republicans are "a basket of deplorables", however if you can say that a specific member of the party leadership is eroding American values people will get interested.

[novicius]

Yep the "deplorables" comment -- while hilarious :lol: -- is extremely divisive. Hillary Clinton shouldn't have given into her frustration and said that.

[Tom Servo]

What bugs me about that is that there is a huge basket of those assholes. She wasn't wrong. I see it all day long on Twitter. They'll go on the attack against any journalist who writes an article that's not fawning over Trump, and god help them if they're Jewish. Then they get things like pictures of holocaust victims saying "get in the oven, kike." I've seen this, and it's so common that it's not even surprising anymore. That's who she was referring to, and they are out there.

That's why it bugs me that some people I know run around carrying the "deplorable" flag now, like because they're Trump supporters they were in that bucket. I want to go to them and ask if they're proud to identify with the kind of people who gloat that Trump is going to put them into death camps.

[21Kid]

We only come together when we are attacked by an outside threat."We" as a nation, sure.

Although, I'd counter that (mostly) Democrats want to work together and improve everything for everyone.

It seems to me that R voters see that as giving stuff away to undeserving freeloaders.
So they do everything the can to stop progress, and make the freeloaders pay their fair share.

(Pretty much Obama's entire 8 years in office)

[Rikadyn]

2107http://gtxforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=2107&d=1481821107

[Godson]

And Rik with the finisher

[drew]

Yep. Somehow, (not really, it's called being a dumbfuck") socialism is confused with fascism.

Fuck this county is dumb.

[novicius]

What bugs me about that is that there is a huge basket of those assholes. She wasn't wrong. I see it all day long on Twitter. They'll go on the attack against any journalist who writes an article that's not fawning over Trump, and god help them if they're Jewish. Then they get things like pictures of holocaust victims saying "get in the oven, kike." I've seen this, and it's so common that it's not even surprising anymore. That's who she was referring to, and they are out there.

That's why it bugs me that some people I know run around carrying the "deplorable" flag now, like because they're Trump supporters they were in that bucket. I want to go to them and ask if they're proud to identify with the kind of people who gloat that Trump is going to put them into death camps.
Truth. :up: :up:

Nonetheless it's not a unifying statement. But then Hillary's entire campaign was centered around "I'm not Trump!!" vs focusing (and staying solely about) the issues.

[FaultyMario]

But it should have been better for her campaign if HRC had pointed at trump as the cause for the "basket of assholes" coming out like they have.

[novicius]

Actual Trump voters were less than 25% of the total eligible vote as we all know.

Since she couldn't muster a larger turnout, sticking to lambasting Trump was obviously a losing tactic by her team and it did nothing to excite people, regardless of what may have happened to the Electoral Colleges.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Truth. :up: :up:

Nonetheless it's not a unifying statement. But then Hillary's entire campaign was centered around "I'm not Trump!!" vs focusing (and staying solely about) the issues.

Yep. A true statement doesn't make it very unifying. I was kinda surprised that she threw political correctness out the window. Why is it that we need to be politically correct with various races, gender, sexual orientation, religious group or even 'behave diplomatically' to nations with little regard for human rights, but it's okay to openly insult certain segments of Americans as deplorable? Another strategic error on her part, but at least she apologized for that.

Then again, maybe she shouldn't have apologized, but just clarify what she meant by deplorables... No reasonable Trump supporters would continue to side with Neo-Nazis and the KKK...

Like I said before, had the US economy been better, surely status quo would've been good enough issue for her to win. Unfortunately our economy just isn't that healthy and status quo just wasn't enough.

[Rikadyn]

Yep. Somehow, (not really, it's called being a dumbfuck") socialism is confused with fascism.

Fuck this county is dumb.

I wouldn't necessarily call it being a dumbfuck. The "communist" states we have had are fascist in nature. However this is because they use the populist ideaology of socialism to gain support from the people to put them into power, then the revolutions stop. Thus we end up with a single party in control of the entire system, which quickly abandons the idea of people being in control themselves(this should sound too familiar right now). Ultimately I don't believe that we should have ever considered these states communist or socialist as they still operated on the ideas of capitalism (ComIntern notoriously towards the end of the spanish civil war turned on the Republicans because Franco was seen as more useful to the soviet). It just ended up being State-capitalism vs "democratic"-capitalism of the west.

[drew]

What you just said, was dumbfuck, in several more words. :)

People are stupid.

[G'day Mate]

https://scontent.fmel2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15380547_1271580759547320_5157559906518753713_n.jp g?oh=3f0f675fe5cbb3557e05fd3897f14971&oe=58F3436D

[thesameguy]

http://www.theonion.com/slideshow/top-quotes-2016-54901#9

[neanderthal]

Stop seeing the other side as evil, mo. They are a political institution, and entities are neither good or evil. Individuals on the other hand...

It's very difficult to have people on your side and try to change things if you say the Republicans are "a basket of deplorables", however if you can say that a specific member of the party leadership is eroding American values people will get interested.

My problem with them is they, literally, do evil things. And I therefore have NO PROBLEM with calling them out as such.

Cutting education, food stamps, social security, disability, public services, healthcare, and even public funding to Planned Parenthood, etc affects the most vulnerable in our societies. Oh, and the other, more pernicious cuts, on tax rates for the wealthy. Only evil fucking assholes would do that.

Let's not get into the entire mess of bathroom bills and other anti LGQBT stuff.

Fucking arseholes.

False patriots too, based on this election tampering from Russia and their absolute silence. Putin is suddenly their best friend, but one year ago he was our worst enemy.

[21Kid]

He's got a point...

[Crazed_Insanity]

I think we all can see Neanderthals point, but can he also see Mario's point?

A sweeping attack on all Americans can cause us to band together. A sweeping attack on all conservatives can also cause them to band together... Even with kkk or the neonazis. Not a wise thing to do. Surely this world is not that black and white. Not all Muslims are terrorists and I'm sure not all republicans are evil. Once your brush such broad stroke, tension will only become higher for both sides.

[Rikadyn]

What you just said, was dumbfuck, in several more words. :)

People are stupid.

more apathetic and lazy than stupid(or perhaps we should say ignorant but not stupid). But that is because the mono-culture we have come to know has eroded the desire for knowledge and replaced it with a desire for ephemera. 120ish years of anti-socialism propaganda is effective. I doubt many have thought beyond what they learn in social studies and world history classes in high school. That being said, diving into actual political theory, especially classical theory isn't the funnest thing to dig into.

[MR2 Fan]

more apathetic and lazy than stupid(or perhaps we should say ignorant but not stupid). But that is because the mono-culture we have come to know has eroded the desire for knowledge and replaced it with a desire for ephemera. 120ish years of anti-socialism propaganda is effective. I doubt many have thought beyond what they learn in social studies and world history classes in high school. That being said, diving into actual political theory, especially classical theory isn't the funnest thing to dig into.

Added to that is the constant distractions from being able to focus on real news and events...just like how most Americans just buy the cheapest things instead of researching quality items, they also go for the "cheapest" news....fast, often inaccurate, with loads of spin either blatant or subtle. To get attention in this crazed world full of distractions you have to be loud and divisive...the middle ground doesn't win shouting matches.

[neanderthal]

I think we all can see Neanderthals point, but can he also see Mario's point?

A sweeping attack on all Americans can cause us to band together. A sweeping attack on all conservatives can also cause them to band together... Even with kkk or the neonazis. Not a wise thing to do. Surely this world is not that black and white. Not all Muslims are terrorists and I'm sure not all republicans are evil. Once your brush such broad stroke, tension will only become higher for both sides.

There is a push to rename the racists the "alt right." I think we have to label all the alt right as racists, and let the weasels scurry from that title and the racists own it. I have no problems calling a spade a spade. I'm tired of accommodating the feelings of people who's speech and actions are harming me and mine. When my sister is telling me how she had to tell my nephews to not worry about Trumps ascent and the taunts and harassment they have experienced since his election, I get angry just thinking about it.

Probably not a conversation you and yours are having though.

[Rikadyn]

i hate the term "alt-right" it normalizes their position, call them what they are fascists and neo-nazis

[novicius]

The 'alt-right' splinters as supporters and critics agree it was white supremacy all along. (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-alt-right-analysis-20161121-story.html)


“The alt-right is and has always been the same thing as it is right now – a white identity movement,” Andrew Anglin wrote at the Daily Stormer, a popular neo-Nazi site. “Looks like we finally have this term for ourselves. Finally.”

The shift came after a meeting of white nationalists inside the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington on Nov. 19, where members threw Nazi salutes and shouted, “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”

The man they were saluting was the white nationalist who coined the term “alternative right,” Richard Spencer, who had just given an anti-Semitic speech in which he quoted Nazi propaganda and called the United States a “white country.”

One white nationalist called it “the Heil Heard Around the World.” Coverage of the Nazi salutes went viral, and public reaction was severe.

::

Trump himself disavowed the alt-right in a meeting with New York Times journalists, telling them, “It’s not a group I want to energize, and if they are energized I want to look into it and find out why.”

::

Paul Joseph Watson, an editor for the conspiracy-minded site InfoWars, said in July that he was “in the alt-right,” but then denied it last week, going on to argue that two different factions of the group had emerged.

“One is more accurately described as the New Right. These people like to wear MAGA [Make America Great Again] hats, create memes & have fun,” Watson wrote on Facebook, criticizing mainstream media for focusing on Trump’s racist supporters. “They include whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, gays and everyone else. These are the people who helped Trump win the election.

“The other faction likes to fester in dark corners of sub-reddits” — a reference to branches of the social-media site Reddit — “and obsess about Jews, racial superiority and Adolf Hitler. This is a tiny fringe minority. They had no impact on the election.”

Some white nationalists themselves have a term for the split: the alt-right versus the “alt-lite.”

::

Bannon and Breitbart staffers have distanced themselves from the alt-right label, which Bannon defined in a postelection interview with the Wall Street Journal as “younger people who are anti-globalists, very nationalist, terribly anti-establishment.”

Bannon said alt-right supporters had “some racial and anti-Semitic overtones” that he said he disagreed with, and that Breitbart News provides “an outlet for 10 or 12 or 15 lines of thought,” of which the alt-right is “a tiny part.”
Go back to the shadows, racists! :lol: #makebackpedallinggreatagain

[Crazed_Insanity]

Neanderthal, I don't think mario, Billi, and even Donald trumps defending alt-right.

Had Hillary explained clearly who truly are the deplorables, maybe she could've fractured the conservatives...

Your emotional response is totally valid. However, things have happened to trigger emotional responses on the other side too and in order to work things out, there has to be some sort of mutual understanding.

[21Kid]

:? I'm confused as to why the current govt is being so nonchalant about the possibility that our election was rigged. The electoral college is set to vote in 3 days!!! (over the weekend) Shouldn't there be a matter of urgency that our election was tampered with before the next president is (officially) selected???

They shouldn't have let him settle the fraud case. This seems to big of a matter to just let him get away with it, without admitting guilt. (When everyone knows that is what really happened)

I guess there's no law about handing out cabinet positions to wealthy people who donated to your campaign, or family members. Probably because we never needed to make that clear to anyone before. It is a given to everyone else.

Not to mention that there's hardly been any mention of the sexual assault allegations since the election.

:smh:

[tigeraid]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/2016/12/16/05b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?postshare=3251481916464891&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.127e2c385f30



FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. have backed a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the presidency, according to U.S. officials.

Comey’s support for the CIA’s conclusion suggests that the leaders of the three agencies are in agreement on Russian intentions, contrary to suggestions by some lawmakers that the FBI disagreed with the CIA.

“Earlier this week, I met separately with (Director) FBI James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” CIA Director John Brennan said in a message to the agency’s workforce, according to U.S. officials who have seen the message.

[Obama says ‘we will’ retaliate against Russia for election hacking]

“The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing the thorough review of this issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led by the DNI,” Brennan’s message read.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Anyway, I think it's clear Russia did something. Comey himself also did something to hurt Hillary. Point is this something cannot be undone.

Now the question is that should this bipartisan effort be focused on removing Trump or preventing future meddling? I think Obama made it clear it about the later, but Trumps denying this probably because of former.

Even if trump continues to deny this as climate change, I'm sure the intel agencies can still take it upon themselves to prevent future attacks, right? And it's not as if the president is so above the law that trump can just hand top secret info to Putin and others in the govt can do nothing about?

Anyway, enough about Trump for now, can some of you guys shed some light for me on Syria? WTF is going on there and is there really anything we can do? We probably should not even supply the rebels with weapons, right! Direct military involvement will probably end like Iraq..., so best way is probably just not get involved? Other than humanitarian aid...

[Rikadyn]

I think, that while Comey's actions were terrible in the narrative, that he wanted to just get ahead of the leaks that had sprung up in support of trump. I would not be surprised that the leaks (especially those to Guilliani) pissed him off more than whatever Hillary did.

[tigeraid]

Anyway, enough about Trump for now, can some of you guys shed some light for me on Syria? WTF is going on there and is there really anything we can do? We probably should not even supply the rebels with weapons, right! Direct military involvement will probably end like Iraq..., so best way is probably just not get involved? Other than humanitarian aid...


At the risk of over-simplification, Bashar Al-Assad is a madman responsible for upteen thousands of his own citizen's deaths and basically runs an oppressive regime that is backed by Vladimir Putin, as well as Iran and Hezbollah. He's a piece of shit, and the premiere reason for the refugee crisis.

There are dozens of armies, splinter groups, resistance cells and rebel alliances going on all over the place, all complicated and messy, many along religious lines but plenty that aren't. America backs the main resistance group, along with France and the UK. They've trained and armed them, costing a few billion since 2012 or so.

What muddies the waters is that groups of the same resistance have splintered off and have declared it an Islamist holy war, instead of a simple, moderate "kill the oppressors." And now they receive financial backing from Sunni states like Saudi Arabia and Turkey.... and ISIS factions, as well as al Queda in the area ALSO may or may not be receiving that same backing. So basically, America's allies are supporting America's great enemies, who are fighting (sort of) on the same side as the resistance that America is supporting.

So it makes the whole situation a giant mess for America--they want to fight ISIS, which may or may not piss off Saudi Arabia, where you get all your oil. They want to fight al-Assad, but that pisses Putin off, who the boiled sweet potato you call a President is in love with. So they're in there now fighting the oppressive regime AND wanting to fight the resistance forces that are "too extreme," while supporting the resistance force that's moderate and "just" wants to overthrow the government.

And I'm SURE I'm leaving out a dozen or so other little internal conflicts and factions that hate each other and al-Assad. It's a giant shit-storm of a civil war.

EDIT: as far as "what to do" my answer is the same as the last fourteen dirty proxy wars America has waged since entering Vietnam--leave now, never go back. But that won't happen.

[21Kid]

This was from last year... But, pretty much the same, I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgi9tz3IZWQ

[Crazed_Insanity]

EDIT: as far as "what to do" my answer is the same as the last fourteen dirty proxy wars America has waged since entering Vietnam--leave now, never go back. But that won't happen.

America has her fairshare of supporting vicious dictators and rebel terrorists. It's amazing that our government doesn't learn from any of the past lessons.

When America has her own civil war, hopefully there won't be any foreign interference causing that war to be prolonged excessively.

Anyway, just feeling really bad for the Syrians, but WTF can we do? And don't think our govt is helping the matter.

So the conflict over there dying down probably because we're transitioning from Obama to Putin loving Trump, right? Not sure what's right or wrong, but hopefully the civil war will end soon.

[The359]

I think the reason the administration isn't doing anything to hold up the electoral college is that there may be evidence but not conclusive proof of what Russia did, or how much damage they actually did. For all we know, Trump may have won even without Russian influence.

[FaultyMario]

Re: alt-right and it's media coverage.

Something Carlo wrote on the star wars thread made me think that a movie needs to be made for this generation in the vein of "Idri i Smodri". It has to be clear that bottom-feeder troops under any oppressive regime have never been super neat and organized like how Nazi officers have been always portrayed in films.

[MR2 Fan]

random thoughts.

Apparently John Kasich just banned abortions after 20 weeks....I'm totally ok with this, other than times where it's a medical issue or other issue...I mean that's 5 whole months.


In other news, it's interesting how we're considering the rest of the GOP relatively normal compared to Trump now...it's like they all begin to start looking like mammals again (except for Ted Cruz)

[Rikadyn]

random thoughts.

Apparently John Kasich just banned abortions after 20 weeks....I'm totally ok with this, other than times where it's a medical issue or other issue...I mean that's 5 whole months.


In other news, it's interesting how we're considering the rest of the GOP relatively normal compared to Trump now...it's like they all begin to start looking like mammals again (except for Ted Cruz)

I don't believe the bill Kasich signed had those exceptions though, but yea like 80% or something of abortions are before the 20 month mark

[neanderthal]

I think we all can see Neanderthals point, but can he also see Mario's point?

A sweeping attack on all Americans can cause us to band together. A sweeping attack on all conservatives can also cause them to band together... Even with kkk or the neonazis. Not a wise thing to do. Surely this world is not that black and white. Not all Muslims are terrorists and I'm sure not all republicans are evil. Once your brush such broad stroke, tension will only become higher for both sides.

Are you paying attention to what's going on in North Carolina?
Republican governor McRory lost to Democrat Governor elect Cooper, and now the GOP is carefully going about writing bills to limit the governors power, restricting the number of people he can appoint, restricting the number of people who respond directly to him, declaring that the chair of the election committee is going to be "rotated airly so both parties have the chairmanship," with the Republicans having the even numbered (those are election years) years of course, etc etc etc.

These are not nice people. Trump won the state, but they rejected the Republican incumbent governor and selected a liberal judge for their court. And look how they've responded.

[Jason]

I don't believe the bill Kasich signed had those exceptions though, but yea like 80% or something of abortions are before the 20 month mark

I'd hope abortions happen before 20 months :lol:

[Freude am Fahren]

Talk about 'elephant in the room'

[Godson]

When the fuck is the right going to pull their heads out of their asses?

[drew]

They like the weather there. That's how the deny climate change.

[novicius]

:lol:

[Godson]

They like the weather there. That's how the deny climate change.

Wow. That is good.

[Rikadyn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Rj4mMMSYI

[novicius]

Now Trump & Co. are just waiting for a "communist" to set a fire somewhere in order to invoke Article 48 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_48_(Weimar_Constitution)#Nazi_use). :lol:

[novicius]

Also prepare for an Article V Convention where the GOP gets to fiddle with the Constitution without having to go through Congress.


A convention of the states is one of two ways the U.S. Constitution can be amended. As laid out in Article V of the Constitution, two-thirds of the country's state legislatures can call for a convention to amend the Constitution. Any amendments passed in such a convention would then have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states to take effect.
The GOP will garner public support for this by calling for term limits on Congress and campaigning for a "Balance the Budget" amendment.

Republicans have not said what other amendments they may add/remove.

[Rikadyn]

http://rare.us/story/trumps-pick-to-head-the-cia-wants-the-government-to-spy-on-virtually-everything-we-do/


Mike Pompeo wants to execute Edward Snowden and firmly re-establish mass surveillance as the law of the land in a way that goes even further.


In an op-ed at the Wall Street Journal in January, Pompeo wrote (emphasis added), “Congress should pass a law re-establishing collection of all metadata, and combining it with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database.”

“Combining” of all one’s metadata could be even more dangerous than what the government has already done (if it’s not doing this secretly already). Coordinating individuals’ metadata into government databases means virtually anything we do—what we read, where we shop, who our doctor is, who we chat with online, who we call on the phone, who we date—becomes government info.

Pompeo added in his Wall Street Journal op-ed that, all “Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed.”

[Crazed_Insanity]

While I fully disagree with re-establishing mass surveillance, I do respect Mike Pompeo's candidness. This way, Congress(American people) can properly assess whether if he's the right guy for the job... or if he is confirmed, then we can just expect to lose our privacy rights...

This is still better than Bush and Obama administrations because they chose to doing it behind our backs in secret. At least now we all know upfront and we don't need somebody like Snowden to tell us about this... and maybe this West Point grad thinks that this drastic step is absolutely necessary in order to fight this war on terror? I fullly disagree with him, but I respect this opened and honest way more than being screwed in the back.

Hopefully someday we'll have an admin with integrity and transparency, but would also strongly oppose to mass surveillance... sigh...

[tigeraid]

There's been lots of grumbling about Trump's administrative picks related to science, but Lawrence Krauss puts it nicely into perspective. For ME, this is where Trump affects potential long-term domestic policy. THESE are the truly scary long-term ramifications. Has there ever been a modern administration this anti-science? I don't think Bush's was.

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/donald-trumps-war-on-science


The first sign of Trump’s intention to spread lies about empirical reality, “1984”-style, was, of course, the appointment of Steve Bannon, the former executive chairman of the Breitbart News Network, as Trump’s “senior counselor and strategist.” This year, Breitbart hosted stories with titles such as “1001 Reasons Why Global Warming Is So Totally Over in 2016,” despite the fact that 2016 is now overwhelmingly on track to be the hottest year on record, beating 2015, which beat 2014, which beat 2013. Such stories do more than spread disinformation. Their purpose is the creation of an alternative reality—one in which scientific evidence is a sham—so that hyperbole and fearmongering can divide and conquer the public.



Bannon isn’t the only propagandist in the new Administration: Myron Ebell, who heads the transition team at the Environmental Protection Agency, is another. In the aughts, as a director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, he worked to kill a cap-and-trade bill proposed by Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman; in 2012, when the conservative American Enterprise Institute held a meeting about the economics of a possible carbon tax, he asked donors to defund it. It’s possible, of course, to oppose cap-and-trade or carbon taxes in good faith—and yet, in recent years, Ebell’s work has come to center on lies about science and scientists. Today, as the leader of the Cooler Heads Coalition, an anti-climate-science group, Ebell denies the veracity and methodology of science itself. He dismisses complex computer models that have been developed by hundreds of researchers by saying that they “don’t even pass the laugh test.” If Ebell’s methods seem similar to those used by the tobacco industry to deny the adverse health effects of smoking in the nineteen-nineties, that’s because he worked as a lobbyist for the tobacco industry.



Trump’s likely choice for Secretary of the Interior is another climate denier, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a congresswoman from Washington State. McMorris Rodgers has made false statements about the scientific consensus on human-induced climate change; if confirmed, she would be able to further distort public perceptions on this issue by controlling how the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Park Service communicate to the public about climate change. McMorris Rodgers is a long-standing opponent of regulations on emission of greenhouse gases and an ardent advocate for the exploitation of public lands for fossil-fuel production.



Educators have various concerns about Betsy DeVos, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education—they object to her efforts to shield charter schools from government regulation, for example—but one issue stands above the rest: DeVos is a fundamentalist Christian with a long history of opposition to science. If her faith shapes her policies—and there is evidence that it will—she could shape science education decisively for the worse, by systematically depriving young people, in an era where biotechnology will play a key economic and health role worldwide, of a proper understanding of the very basis of modern biology: evolution.

Along with her husband, DeVos is an active member of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, a small Protestant denomination with the stated belief that “all scientific theories be subject to Scripture.” According to the church’s official statement on science, “Humanity is created in the image of God; all theorizing that minimizes this fact and all theories of evolution that deny the creative activity of God are rejected.” DeVos attended Calvin College, which is owned and operated by the Christian Reformed Church. She majored in business administration and political science. (She does not have a degree in education.)

:smh:

[Crazed_Insanity]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Rj4mMMSYI

Interesting video. So Rikadyn, are you an anarchist?

Video has some truths in it, but I just can't fully agree with it. Using one of the the video's analogy, river as power and dams as authority... I just don't believe dams are all bad without any benefits..., even mother nature grants beavers authority to build dams, right? ;) So I do think proper amount of authority can be good, main issue is that often times too much power can easily corrupt human authorities. However, prior to becoming corrupted, an institution could still do a lot of good for people...

[Yw-slayer]

“Combining” of all one’s metadata could be even more dangerous than what the government has already done (if it’s not doing this secretly already). Coordinating individuals’ metadata into government databases means virtually anything we do—what we read, where we shop, who our doctor is, who we chat with online, who we call on the phone, who we date—becomes government info.


Watch the ensuing hilarity when your enemies get into the database.

[FaultyMario]

So, after his White Establishment rant, does Bill O'Reilly get the Ministry of Re-Education appointment?

[drew]

Fuck Bill O'Reilly. Seriously.

[21Kid]

Trump Winery Looking to Add Foreign Workers (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-winery-add-foreign-workers/story?id=44345340)

In total, Trump-owned companies have asked the department "to hire at least 263 foreign guest workers since he launched his presidential campaign,"

Can only :lol: at this point. He's always done this. What makes people think he was honest about helping American workers?

[Tom Servo]

I goofed. Draining the swamp is in, @realDonaldTrump is going to do it, and the alligators should be worried. #DTS

Does Newt not realize he's one of the alligators? Fucker's been in the politics in-crowd for decades.

[21Kid]

Doesn't matter... Bow down to the Donald and you're in his circle.

Nothing matters to him besides $$$ and branding.

[novicius]

Well that and nuclear superiority with the Russians over the rest of the world.

[FaultyMario]

Answer to Tom's...


It's not Gingrich you should be asking about, but the audiences.

And judging by the KGB psy-op that went on a couple of months ago the answer should be clear.

[Cam]

Kid21 4 prez.

[21Kid]

:lol: I think it would be interesting to run an anonymous campaign.

Don't even give them your name. Just candidate #24601. And lay out your platform. Let the people decide based on that alone. Not your skin color, sex, religion, party affiliation. Just what you stand for.

[Crazed_Insanity]

A candidate must also have some sort of emotional appeal. You can't win without it no matter how great your platform looks. Al Gore's lost to Bush was really mind boggling to me, but his failure to emotionally connect to voters was how he lost to somebody like W.

[Leon]

I find it a bit scary that the USA is apparently keen on "dynasties" of people they vote for.

Although during the last election, I'd rather have seen the vote based on name recognition won, rather than the vote based on looking like a cheetoh with a squirrel on its head. But that's another discussion.

[Yw-slayer]

Don't even give them your name. Just candidate #24601.

Then when asked your name, you can reply: "My NAME is JEAN VAL-JEAN!!!"

That would be awesome.

[21Kid]

THE EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP MAY ALREADY BE HERE
We don’t need to wait to see Trump’s conflicts of interest in action. The ethical violations that will soon be illegal are already taking place.

The Embassy of Kuwait allegedly canceled a contract it had signed with the Four Seasons for an event it usually holds at the Georgetown hotel after it received pressure from the Trump Organization to move it to the aforementioned Trump International Hotel, just a few blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House. And their solution... (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest-impeach)

“It’s a very real problem,” Gingrich said in an NPR interview on Monday. “I don’t think this is something minor. I think certainly in an age that people are convinced that government corruption is widespread both in the U.S. and around the world, you can’t just shrug and walk off from it.” His solution, though, is perhaps the very definition of government corruption. He advised that should the president-elect run up against issues with ethics laws, he should just change those laws in order to suit him, using his presidential pardon powers to absolve a multitude of potential sins.

[neanderthal]

And you'll find all the conservatives suspiciously quiet about the antics of their president elect AND their party in defending his actions...

[Yw-slayer]

Hilarious.

[21Kid]

It amazes me how quiet the Democrats in power are on Trumps possible wrong-doings. Republicans were screaming about non-issues... which caused major problems for HRC. And now that he's actually doing (possibly illegal) things that are a serious problem, they are mostly silent.

Are they going to wait until he actually starts a war before speaking up? :|

[MR2 Fan]

It amazes me how quiet the Democrats in power are on Trumps possible wrong-doings. Republicans were screaming about non-issues... which caused major problems for HRC. And now that he's actually doing (possibly illegal) things that are a serious problem, they are mostly silent.

Are they going to wait until he actually starts a war before speaking up? :|

Well "In power" is a bit misleading...they don't really have a lot of power, because 1. They won't have control of either part of Congress 2. They're chicken-shit anyway

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yeah, they're probably afraid of getting tweeted on by Trump!

[21Kid]

Sorry, I meant "in office".

[21Kid]

Obama designates two national monuments, outrages Republicans (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/29/obama-names-utah-nevada-monuments-despite-opposition.html)
:erm: Who do these people work for? [/rhetoric]

Oh, nevermind... they answered it themselves.
In Utah, state Republican leaders claimed the designation there would add another layer of federal control, and close the area to new energy development.

[Godson]

Having been to one of the mentioned places, this makes me very happy.

[neanderthal]

Well "In power" is a bit misleading...they don't really have a lot of power, because 1. They won't have control of either part of Congress 2. They're chicken-shit anyway

Also, the press will regurgitate anything by Trump without fact checking it. Anything by Trump will garner retweets page views etc, whereas cold hard news won't.

The media is very culpable in Trumps ascent.

[MR2 Fan]

Also, the press will regurgitate anything by Trump without fact checking it. Anything by Trump will garner retweets page views etc, whereas cold hard news won't.

The media is very culpable in Trumps ascent.

Right, because the media somehow seemed to assume that people would understand that Trump has no idea what he's doing, but the public were too stupid to know that.

[drew]

Buckle up fuckers, it's going to be a long/bumpy ride [train wreck]

[Jason]

Well "In power" is a bit misleading...they don't really have a lot of power, because 1. They won't have control of either part of Congress 2. They're chicken-shit anyway

POTUS - Republican
Senate - Republican
House - Republican
SCOTUS - Soon to be Conservative leaning
State Governors - Republican
State Legislatures - Republican

Republicans have practically full control in this country at the moment, a couple states and cities are immune, but otherwise yeah, Democrats/liberals have little to no power on the bigger scale. All we can do is bitch about things, and hope for the best.

[MR2 Fan]

POTUS - Republican
Senate - Republican
House - Republican
SCOTUS - Soon to be Conservative leaning
State Governors - Republican
State Legislatures - Republican

Republicans have practically full control in this country at the moment, a couple states and cities are immune, but otherwise yeah, Democrats/liberals have little to no power on the bigger scale. All we can do is bitch about things, and hope for the best.

It is really amazing how that has happened as well, as demographically the opposite should be true.

[Jason]

Our system is set up to favor the will of the rural voter, combined with a concerted re-districting effort. The GOP knows how to get what it wants, gotta hand it to them.

I've effectively given up on voting at this point.