If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

Trump supporters seem to have vanished from this thread, but I'm never one to just present one viewpoint. Some are quite convinced that Trump is indeed playing 4th Dimensional Chess, and about to destroy the enemies of America and the free world. Here a Canadian QAnon weighs in.




Please enjoy the whole thread. The cult of The Donald is alive and well.

Trump supporters seem to have vanished from this thread, but I'm never one to just present one viewpoint. Some are quite convinced that Trump is indeed playing 4th Dimensional Chess, and about to destroy the enemies of America and the free world. Here a Canadian QAnon weighs in.




Please enjoy the whole thread. The cult of The Donald is alive and well.

First Lauren Southern, then Faith Goldy, now Lady Q. :oops:
I'm wondering whether their is an insidious brain parasite infecting some of our young Canadian women.

Dopehat thinks Individual-1's snubbing of Christian rites at the Bush funeral was a statement of principle and nobody else buys it:

It can be pretty amusing to go back in time and read some of the things that were written about Trump in the wake of the last election. I've never understood how anyone thought this guy was going to accomplish something positive, but these days the thoughts of his hopeful supporters are looking extra ridiculous.

From February 2017:

clarence wrote:To me the larger battles are:
A. SJW entryism into both Academia, the media, and public policy (Obama's office of Civil Rights, and to an extent his Justice Department)
B. The untrustworthiness of the New York Times, Washington Post, and other mainstream media outlets when it comes to just about anything nowadays, but THIS President in particular
C. The Deep State and the War within that I desperately want Trump's team to win
D. Globalism vs Nationalism.

Yes, Trump is a liar, but he's FIGHTING liars, so that makes a difference to me.
I don't think Trump is a crook. Wouldn't you just love to have real evidence of that and not just innuendo?

Where to begin?

Turns out Trump really was serious about fighting the "deep state". And by "deep state" I mean federal law enforcement, the rule of law, and our democratic institutions more broadly. It looks like Trump will probably loose that fight, in part because it doesn't seem like most Americans want our own version of Vladimir Putin. Thank goodness for that.

Trump also gave the fight against globalism a good try. So far I think he's done a good job of pissing off most of the other NATO countries, and he's sabotaged our own industries by pissing off our trading partners. Let it never be said that Trump isn't good at pissing people off. But "globalism" hasn't gone anywhere, and the trade wars haven't accomplished anything. I think its kind of prescient that clarence implied that Trump was a nationalist, since Trump has now explicitly described himself as such. Kudos to Trump for giving that word a negative connotation again.

True to clarence's words Trump has also been fighting the media. Given that even the New York Post is now running negative press about Trump, I'm not sure that fight is working out either. Seems like Fox News and talk radio are still sticking with Trump, so there is that.

I'm still waiting for the glorious victory over the SJWs that I was promised. As far as I can tell the main thing Trump had accomplished on that front is to present himself as a much bigger problem. Nothing makes antifa look more sympathetic than an event like Charlottesville. I might have expected an artist like Al Jorgensen (an acolyte of William Burroughs) to be a libertarian leaning free speech absolutist who would be suspicious of Antifa, but Ministry's latest album has a song lionizing them instead. Unsurprisingly, the left has united against Trump, and they are stronger now than they were 2 years ago. In the mean time, commentators who used to destroy SJWs, like Sargon of Akkad, have turned into pathetic Trump propagandists. These people have lost any credibility for holding the intellectual high ground relative to the SJWs in my opinion. I also find it hard to find any common cause with them, because I view preserving the democratic institutions in my country and fighting political corruption to be more significant issues than the excesses of the SJWs. If we get through this mess with a functioning democracy, we'll have an energized SJW movement who will use the excesses of Trump as a cudgel against their enemies.

And finally...

Wouldn't you just love some real evidence that Trump is a criminal? Well, if the firing of Comey didn't look like obstruction, and the Steele dossier didn't convince you (both contemporaneous with the post) then you have plenty to chose from now.

Are you loving it, clarence?

Old_Ones wrote:

Are you loving it, clarence?

I'm guessing he's not tired of winning and still doesn't believe the Russians did any hacking or tried to fuck with the election like the lame stream media would like you to think. :drool:

Sunder wrote: ↑ It's becoming increasingly likely that 2020 is just gone for the Republicans. Dems would have to run Hillary Clinton again with a campaign slogan of "Fuck You Dumbasses, I Told Ya So!" to even have a shot at losing. The only thing Trump is still any good for is judicial appointments, and Pence would be good enough for the remaining two years if they could hang onto him. The only tricky part is wondering how much bitter-enders will damage mainstream Republicans in their primaries.

Or to put it another way, I wouldn't be surprised if the party leadership is floating the idea of superdelegates.

I've actually heard talk that Hillary might run again. I hope she doesn't, but I don't know if she can help herself. If she runs, hopefully the rest of the party can stop the aging feminist Hillary cultists from giving her the nomination.

Sorry for posting so much, but it's so damn funny. Many of us predicted this shitshow would turn into a dumpster fire. Now that it's here, Trumpettes seem to either plug their ears and pretend it's not happening, or start muttering about the "Deep State" and its ever-resplendent horrors.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑

Sorry for posting so much, but it's so damn funny. Many of us predicted this shitshow would turn into a dumpster fire. Now that it's here, Trumpettes seem to either plug their ears and pretend it's not happening, or start muttering about the "Deep State" and its ever-resplendent horrors.

It's only going to get worse. We are getting little pearls of information from the various cases and investigations against "individual 1", but none of them have actually gone off yet. Most of what we know now is just enough to conclude that these investigations are looking into real criminal conduct and have evidence that trump was directly involved. Just wait until Mueller finally blows his load, and the white house is covered in detailed criminal allegations, complete with dates, times and other specifics.

Speaking of Sargon, here's what he's been up to lately:



:lol:

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... ssion=true

One for Steersman, tho no good will it do...

??? Maybe you need to dig a little deeper.

For one thing, I don't think you quite get "lesser-of-two-evils" principle. Or that I've never said he walks on water - much less plays fourth dimensional chess; I've said repeatedly that he's a bit of a loose cannon at best, and that he may well turn out to be a cure worse than the disease. Or maybe you think there wasn't, and still isn't, a whole pile of mephitic rot in the Clinton camp and in the DNC?


No doubt there are some "problematic" aspects to Trump, but it's also rather clear - or it should be to any who don't refuse to face facts - that Trump has at least precipitated some necessary changes in the direction of the political pendulum, and in a number of areas. For examples:

Progressives against due process
The backlash against Betsy DeVos’s proposed Title IX reforms is troubling. ...

And, relative to the "Global Compact on Migration" that demented globalists have been peddling for some time, but on which Trump may well have started an avalanche which should bury the fucken thing:



And you think that #Brexit isn't part and parcel of that rejection, or at least serious questioning of globalism? And that Trump didn't have a hand in precipitating?

As for your "Trump hotel worker" article, as FTP pointed out, that WAS his hotel, not him personally. And that that woman, and many other "undocumented" workers face that "abuse and ridicule in the workplace" is a consequence of illegal workers, and of "unethical" companies or employees thereof taking advantage of those workers. Maybe if the wall was there and there were fewer illegal workers then there would be more legal ones with decent work-place protections? One would think the Democrats would be capable of appreciating some cause and effect - though that seems moot. Looks like they're more interested in trying to bust Trump's chops than to solve much larger and more sticky problems; never seen so many people & parties so quick to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

As I say, I expect that Trump was, AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION, most definitely, the lesser of two weevils. That he MAY turn out to be a cure worse than the disease might well be something that could be laid at the doorsteps of Democrats who refuse to face the many problems Trump is actually addressing, defining, or highlighting, even if imperfectly. You - and others in this thread - might actually try reading an old post by Douglas Murray:

The left is to blame for the creation of Donald Trump

Made long ago in ancient times (May 2018) but still relevant.

Steersman wrote: ↑

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... ssion=true

One for Steersman, tho no good will it do...

??? Maybe you need to dig a little deeper.

For one thing, I don't think you quite get "lesser-of-two-evils" principle. Or that I've never said he walks on water - much less plays fourth dimensional chess; I've said repeatedly that he's a bit of a loose cannon at best, and that he may well turn out to be a cure worse than the disease. Or maybe you think there wasn't, and still isn't, a whole pile of mephitic rot in the Clinton camp and in the DNC?

The Clintons have survived multiple years of every investigation that the Republicans could dream up to throw at them, plus the FBI investigation of the email debacle. They've been cleared of everything save for the stuff that Bill was impeached for, and the FBI brought no indictments. So yes, the same people who are investigating Trump investigated the Clintons and found nothing too important. There is no giant pile of rot in the "Clinton camp and in the DNC" outside of the 3rd rate imaginations of fabulists like Jerome Corsi. All the sound and fury about Clinton's supposed corruption is a pathetic attempt at a false equivalency, and you are a dupe. Trump is a crook and Clinton is a relatively average politician. There is no equivalency.

No doubt there are some "problematic" aspects to Trump, but it's also rather clear - or it should be to any who don't refuse to face facts - that Trump has at least precipitated some necessary changes in the direction of the political pendulum, and in a number of areas. For examples:

Progressives against due process
The backlash against Betsy DeVos’s proposed Title IX reforms is troubling. ...

And, relative to the "Global Compact on Migration" that demented globalists have been peddling for some time, but on which Trump may well have started an avalanche which should bury the fucken thing:

I have no idea what you mean by any of this gibberish, nor do I have any interest in trying to figure it out. Betsy DeVos is the same clown who said we need guns in schools to fight grizzly bears, so I'm not going to engage with any changes she proposed to anything. She's an unqualified imbecile just like Trump, and a waste of time.

And you think that #Brexit isn't part and parcel of that rejection, or at least serious questioning of globalism? And that Trump didn't have a hand in precipitating?

Not only do I not give Trump credit for brexit, I don't see that it is necessarily a good thing. So far it seems like it has caused a giant headache for the UK government, and produced no notable benefits for the UK. People who live across the pond can feel free to correct me if I'm missing something. And the EU and "globalism" are still going strong in the wake of brexit, with or without the UK's participation.

As I say, I expect that Trump was, AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION, most definitely, the lesser of two weevils[sic].

He most certainly was not. He was a forseeable disaster from the start, and certain people refused to see that because they bought into anti-immigration hysteria and Russian propaganda about the Clintons. He's been stupid, illiterate and suspicious from the very beginning. He's a cure for nothing, and a disease in his own right.

Trump is the case of measles that your five year old dies from because you bought into Jenny McCarthy's bullshit about vaccines causing autism.

Steersman wrote: ↑

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... ssion=true

One for Steersman, tho no good will it do...

??? Maybe you need to dig a little deeper.

For one thing, I don't think you quite get "lesser-of-two-evils" principle. Or that I've never said he walks on water - much less plays fourth dimensional chess; I've said repeatedly that he's a bit of a loose cannon at best, and that he may well turn out to be a cure worse than the disease. Or maybe you think there wasn't, and still isn't, a whole pile of mephitic rot in the Clinton camp and in the DNC?


Clinton_RussiaHackedOurLock.jpg


ClintonIslamMuslims.jpg


No doubt there are some "problematic" aspects to Trump, but it's also rather clear - or it should be to any who don't refuse to face facts - that Trump has at least precipitated some necessary changes in the direction of the political pendulum, and in a number of areas. For examples:

Progressives against due process
The backlash against Betsy DeVos’s proposed Title IX reforms is troubling. ...

And, relative to the "Global Compact on Migration" that demented globalists have been peddling for some time, but on which Trump may well have started an avalanche which should bury the fucken thing:



And you think that #Brexit isn't part and parcel of that rejection, or at least serious questioning of globalism? And that Trump didn't have a hand in precipitating?

As for your "Trump hotel worker" article, as FTP pointed out, that WAS his hotel, not him personally. And that that woman, and many other "undocumented" workers face that "abuse and ridicule in the workplace" is a consequence of illegal workers, and of "unethical" companies or employees thereof taking advantage of those workers. Maybe if the wall was there and there were fewer illegal workers then there would be more legal ones with decent work-place protections? One would think the Democrats would be capable of appreciating some cause and effect - though that seems moot. Looks like they're more interested in trying to bust Trump's chops than to solve much larger and more sticky problems; never seen so many people & parties so quick to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

As I say, I expect that Trump was, AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION, most definitely, the lesser of two weevils. That he MAY turn out to be a cure worse than the disease might well be something that could be laid at the doorsteps of Democrats who refuse to face the many problems Trump is actually addressing, defining, or highlighting, even if imperfectly. You - and others in this thread - might actually try reading an old post by Douglas Murray:

The left is to blame for the creation of Donald Trump

The article was about Trump hiring illegals and his hypocrisy. Why do you never read any articles posted? If I had cared, you would have hurt my feelings.

That said, seriously WTF do you think Hillary Clinton would have done?

Also, Steersman, the "lesser of two weevils" comes from the series by Patrick O'Brian, and while a very clever quip in context, rapidly loses its flair outside of that rarified atmosphere. Let alone surviving repeated usage. Please tell me you've at least read the books, and gods forbid didn't just watch the movie...?

Old_ones wrote: ↑

Sunder wrote: ↑ It's becoming increasingly likely that 2020 is just gone for the Republicans. Dems would have to run Hillary Clinton again with a campaign slogan of "Fuck You Dumbasses, I Told Ya So!" to even have a shot at losing. The only thing Trump is still any good for is judicial appointments, and Pence would be good enough for the remaining two years if they could hang onto him. The only tricky part is wondering how much bitter-enders will damage mainstream Republicans in their primaries.

Or to put it another way, I wouldn't be surprised if the party leadership is floating the idea of superdelegates.

I've actually heard talk that Hillary might run again. I hope she doesn't, but I don't know if she can help herself. If she runs, hopefully the rest of the party can stop the aging feminist Hillary cultists from giving her the nomination.

I don't think that she will win the nomination if she runs. I don't think that the Dems will nominate a man in 2020, not in the age of #MeToo, but I don't think that it will be Clinton. Joe Biden is touted by many as a favorite, but I can't see him having much appeal with the Democratic electorate if he will have to run against women. He might eve be #MeToo'ed to some extent.

I don't see Bernie Sanders running again. All the other male possible candidates are too low profile or too milquetoast, except maybe Cory Brooker. There will likely be many female nominees (Warren, Harris, perhaps Klobuchar and/or Gillibrand), and this might split the Democratic women vote, but the "future is female" wave is too powerful for most male nominees to overcome. My favorite candidate would probably be Warren, but I think that the most likely to win the nomination is Harris.

Kamala Harris is a SJW favorite AND a darling of the Democratic donors, and as a bonus she's not as daft as Kristen Gillibrand and is good at triangulating and trying to appeal to all sides. I could see her running as the Obama 2.0, with a splash of SJW rhetoric every now and then but without going overboard.

Old_ones wrote: ↑ Speaking of Sargon, here's what he's been up to lately:



:lol:

"muh inaccurate polls" "muh shy conservative vote" "muh SJW idiocy" And he takes SNL jokes seriously. :bjarte:

Some fine "rationalism" and "skepticism" at work here!

I'm against SJW moronic ideas as much as everyone else here, but it's clear that they're NOT the only political force in the world, and that there is a genuine leftist movement about healthcare rights, worker's rights, against the failures of the neoliberal/neoconservative model, and for a "New/Green New Deal" in response to this. The "populist right" has even appropriated some of their issues, at least in Europe, while they're also busy setting up their own white/"western" identity politics.

The parties that have suffered the most electorally have been the ones who have been in favor ONLY of a status quo, and it's mostly center-right or centrist parties.

The SocJus is piggybacking on the general lack of satisfaction with the system, and their ideas are simplistic and dumb (just like those of the alt-right, incidentally). But by focusing only on the "culture wars" people like Sargon are losing sight of the bigger and more permanent issues. The SocJus feeding frenzy or the alt-right conspiracy theories might fall out of fashion sooner or later, but the economic and social issues which have led to political changes will stay here.

And in all honesty it won't be the alt-right that will benefit from this IN THE LONG RUN. The right-wing populist parties are unlikely to implement any viable solutions to socio-economic issues. They're mostly virtue-signalling about "independence" and "the fight against globalism", as we're seeing with the clusterfuck of Brexit. They will get into power if their political rivals simply preach for the status quo, but when they'll also fail to do anything substantial their star will fade.

I thought that Sargon himself understood this when he was blathering about the "reformation of the left" and discussing this with Kyle Kuliniski/the Justice Democrats. Instead he's gone down the grifter/right-wing pundit route, whining and whining about how the Left is Evil and Irredeemably SocJus.

The "culture war" is a morass of stupidity, a big distraction, an online and offline fight over basically nothing of value ("muh identity"). The real, deep, socio-economic issue at the heart of the failures of the neoliberal/neoconservative model are here to stay.

The destruction of welfare, the erosion of worker's rights, the fading of the middle class and the growth of an uber-rich high-tech elite, the loss of jobs, the erosion of civil rights and the rise of surveillance and authoritarian measures, the growth of gene manipulation those are concrete issues that will outlast the passing outrage of blue-haired tumblrinas with 89890806 genders or the scaremongering about "white genocide".

Hell, the most important piece of news this year has been the birth of babies with an edited genetic makeup in China. That's a technological advancement which is fraught with ethical, political and economic ramification, but you wouldn't know it if you listen to the media and especially the "alternative" media obsessing over movies, video games, and other identitarian battles.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑

Steersman wrote: ↑

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... ssion=true

One for Steersman, tho no good will it do...

??? Maybe you need to dig a little deeper.

<snip>

As I say, I expect that Trump was, AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION, most definitely, the lesser of two weevils. That he MAY turn out to be a cure worse than the disease might well be something that could be laid at the doorsteps of Democrats who refuse to face the many problems Trump is actually addressing, defining, or highlighting, even if imperfectly. You - and others in this thread - might actually try reading an old post by Douglas Murray:

The left is to blame for the creation of Donald Trump

The article was about Trump hiring illegals and his hypocrisy. Why do you never read any articles posted? If I had cared, you would have hurt my feelings.

That said, seriously WTF do you think Hillary Clinton would have done?

You seriously think that he personally hired that woman? That he actually knew that his employees were harassing her?

And I haven't the foggiest idea why you think, apparently, that what Hillary Clinton may or may not have done in similar circumstances has any fucking relevance at all.

You might actually try thinking that you have your thumbs - if not entire arm, up to the goddam elbow - on the scales.

Interesting data from the Pew research center about what mattered to voters before the 2018 midterms:

Health care and the economy are among the top voting issues. About three-quarters of registered voters cite health care (75%) and the economy (74%) as very important issues to their vote this year, but there are partisan divisions. Nearly nine-in-ten Democratic candidate supporters (88%) say health care is very important, compared with six-in-ten Republican supporters. On the economy, 85% of Republican voters cite this as a very important issue for their vote, compared with 66% of Democratic voters.

Also interesting:

Voter enthusiasm is at its highest level during any midterm in more than 20 years. Two-thirds of Democratic voters (67%) and 59% of Republican voters say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting than in past congressional elections.

Democrats in particular are much more enthusiastic than at similar points in previous midterms. Four years ago, just 36% of Democratic voters said they were more enthusiastic about voting than usual. Among Republicans, there has been less change (52% then, 59% today).

Turnout in this year’s U.S. House primaries rose sharply, especially on the Democratic side. Nearly a fifth (19.6%) of registered voters – about 37 million – cast ballots in House primary elections, a sizable increase from 13.7% (23.7 million) in 2014. While turnout rates rose this year in both Democratic and Republican House primaries, the increase was greater on the Democratic side – up 4.6 percentage points versus a 1.2-point increase on the Republican side. Turnout rates were also substantially higher in this year’s Senate and gubernatorial primaries than in 2014.

An impassioned, neutral observer could deduce, from these stats, that the Democrats: 1) aren't ONLY motivated by SocJus crazes, but by deeper issues and 2) they were getting much more motivated to go out and vote.

I expect a wannabe political pundit to take those stats into account, or to at least look for them, when making predictions. Instead Sargon focused on comedy shows, clickbait articles, and his idea that "polls don't matter". :bjarte:

Old_ones wrote: ↑

Steersman wrote: ↑

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... ssion=true

One for Steersman, tho no good will it do...

??? Maybe you need to dig a little deeper.

For one thing, I don't think you quite get "lesser-of-two-evils" principle. Or that I've never said he walks on water - much less plays fourth dimensional chess; I've said repeatedly that he's a bit of a loose cannon at best, and that he may well turn out to be a cure worse than the disease. Or maybe you think there wasn't, and still isn't, a whole pile of mephitic rot in the Clinton camp and in the DNC?

The Clintons have survived multiple years of every investigation that the Republicans could dream up to throw at them, plus the FBI investigation of the email debacle. They've been cleared of everything save for the stuff that Bill was impeached for, and the FBI brought no indictments. So yes, the same people who are investigating Trump investigated the Clintons and found nothing too important. There is no giant pile of rot in the "Clinton camp and in the DNC" outside of the 3rd rate imaginations of fabulists like Jerome Corsi. All the sound and fury about Clinton's supposed corruption is a pathetic attempt at a false equivalency, and you are a dupe. Trump is a crook and Clinton is a relatively average politician. There is no equivalency.

LoL. And I suppose you think that Judicial Watch is just chopped liver, and that "U.S. District Court Judge Lamberth" is clearly in cahoots with Trump?



Rather moot how dirty her hands - and those of the DNC - are. But smoke, fire:



Maybe you too have your thumbs - up to the fucking elbow - on the scales too?

Old_ones wrote: ↑

No doubt there are some "problematic" aspects to Trump, but it's also rather clear - or it should be to any who don't refuse to face facts - that Trump has at least precipitated some necessary changes in the direction of the political pendulum, and in a number of areas. For examples:

Progressives against due process
The backlash against Betsy DeVos’s proposed Title IX reforms is troubling. ...

And, relative to the "Global Compact on Migration" that demented globalists have been peddling for some time, but on which Trump may well have started an avalanche which should bury the fucken thing:

Code: Select all

https://twitter.com/SteersMann/status/1071950850967298048

I have no idea what you mean by any of this gibberish, nor do I have any interest in trying to figure it out. Betsy DeVos is the same clown who said we need guns in schools to fight grizzly bears, so I'm not going to engage with any changes she proposed to anything. She's an unqualified imbecile just like Trump, and a waste of time.

Jesus H. Christ. In a side car.

That she MAY have been off the wall on "grizzly bears and guns and schools" somehow refutes the argument that GUYS in colleges & universities accused of sexual assault shouldn't be deprived of their rights to be thought innocent until PROVEN guilty? You may want to try reading some stuff from Jerry Coyne who's generally supportive of DeVos while being no friend of Trump:

There are two reasons why folks are opposed to Betsy DeVos's revised Title IX regulations for adjudicating sexual assault and harassment in colleges. The first is because the changes are proposed by a member of the Trump administration, and a particularly hated one. The second is that the general thrust of the changes protect the rights of the accused person more strongly and strengthen due process.

While the regulations aren't perfect, I see them as a substantial improvement over the Obama-era regulation, especially the standards of guilt based on "preponderance of the evidence" (>50% likelihood of guilt) rather than "clear and convincing" evidence (roughly > 75% chance of guilt) or the court standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". At present, if the finder of fact who collects the evidence—who is, unbelievably, also the judge and jury—finds the accuser even just a tiny bit more credible than the accused, it's curtains for the latter: explusion and probably the ruining of one's life. Sadly, even under DeVos's changes colleges are still allowed the option of choosing "preponderance" of evidence above some more stringent standard, and I'm sure most will opt to keep the looser standards.

Expected better of you than to be engaging in "my tribe, right or rong".

Old_ones wrote: ↑

And you think that #Brexit isn't part and parcel of that rejection, or at least serious questioning of globalism? And that Trump didn't have a hand in precipitating?

Not only do I not give Trump credit for brexit, I don't see that it is necessarily a good thing. So far it seems like it has caused a giant headache for the UK government, and produced no notable benefits for the UK. People who live across the pond can feel free to correct me if I'm missing something. And the EU and "globalism" are still going strong in the wake of brexit, with or without the UK's participation.

Well bully for you. What makes you think your OPINION holds a scintilla of water? No doubt globalism has its merits and values. But it rather clearly has some rather serious flaws, possibly fatal ones; you may wish to read this article by Jonathan Haidt: When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism

You might also reflect on that tweet of Jonathan Kay - editor at Quillette - and the CBC article linked therein:

Old_ones wrote: ↑

As I say, I expect that Trump was, AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION, most definitely, the lesser of two weevils[sic].

He most certainly was not. He was a forseeable disaster from the start, and certain people refused to see that because they bought into anti-immigration hysteria and Russian propaganda about the Clintons. He's been stupid, illiterate and suspicious from the very beginning. He's a cure for nothing, and a disease in his own right.

Trump is the case of measles that your five year old dies from because you bought into Jenny McCarthy's bullshit about vaccines causing autism.

"Anti-immigration hysteria". What unmitigated horse shit.

You seriously think that all of the many countries - and/or (eg Canada) not-insignificant fractions within them - rejecting the UN Global Compact on Migration are just starting at shadows?

NY Times: Merkel, to Survive, Agrees to Border Camps for Migrants
The Atlantic: The Staggering Scale of Germany’s Refugee Project
Etc. Etc., fucking etc. Import third-world people - who generally come from "cultures" (*cough Islam *cough) which more or less repudiate democracy and the Enlightenment and our conception of human rights, then face third world problems.

Steersman wrote: ↑

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑

Steersman wrote: ↑

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... ssion=true

One for Steersman, tho no good will it do...

??? Maybe you need to dig a little deeper.

<snip>

As I say, I expect that Trump was, AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION, most definitely, the lesser of two weevils. That he MAY turn out to be a cure worse than the disease might well be something that could be laid at the doorsteps of Democrats who refuse to face the many problems Trump is actually addressing, defining, or highlighting, even if imperfectly. You - and others in this thread - might actually try reading an old post by Douglas Murray:

The left is to blame for the creation of Donald Trump

The article was about Trump hiring illegals and his hypocrisy. Why do you never read any articles posted? If I had cared, you would have hurt my feelings.

That said, seriously WTF do you think Hillary Clinton would have done?

You seriously think that he personally hired that woman? That he actually knew that his employees were harassing her?

And I haven't the foggiest idea why you think, apparently, that what Hillary Clinton may or may not have done in similar circumstances has any fucking relevance at all.

You might actually try thinking that you have your thumbs - if not entire arm, up to the goddam elbow - on the scales.

Your utter failure to understand is both amusing and annoying. Suffice to say, by any reasonable standard, he is guilty of hypocrisy. Further, if you think he isn't aware that his organization has hired illegals, you either have your arm, ass and other parts on the scale, or you're somewhat dense. Perhaps both.

DeVos got one thing right, rolling back uneven protections for men in Title IX cases. She got most everything else entirely wrong. While I appreciate the fact that Title IX is semi-fixed (most schools are fighting it or not implementing the protections, and ultimately it may be decided in courtrooms) in other respects DeVos is an unmitigated disaster. I will give her credit, but she is also a religious nutbar that is doing some serious harm to the Dept of Education.

Not once, but twice. Ladies and gentlemen, the fuckin' prez. Smocking smart.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑

Conspiracies upon conspiracies upon conspiracies :twatson:

Electronic and electromagnetic warfare plans basically jam radar and radio signals. Aliens and reptilians are getting their radar jammed? Also, how
unusual to see 8 planes at a time likely participating in exercises near one of the largest air bases in the world. :o
We must be in the end times!

Oh, it's all true. As Bigfoot battles lizard people for the soul of America, the End of Times is surely upon us. QAnon stuff is pretty heady, they see things we mere mortals just can't see. They seem to think Hillary and Obama may already be in Gitmo. I have to wonder if some of our former conspiracy-minded pitters are participating.

Will Bigfoot prevail or does the reptilian have the advantage? The internet has the answer to every question.

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑

Code: Select all

https://mobile.twitter.com/alt_channel/status/1071962378160492544

Conspiracies upon conspiracies upon conspiracies :twatson:

ICYMI: From Trolling To Fleecing: Co-Creator Of ‘Q’ Hoax Explains Its Scary Evolution

As H.L. Mencken once said, "No one in this world, so far as I know ... has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." Clearly a "really smart person" ... Although some have suggested that the failure of the XFL - the Extreme Football League - disproved that assertion.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ DeVos got one thing right, rolling back uneven protections for men in Title IX cases. She got most everything else entirely wrong. While I appreciate the fact that Title IX is semi-fixed (most schools are fighting it or not implementing the protections, and ultimately it may be decided in courtrooms) in other respects DeVos is an unmitigated disaster. I will give her credit, but she is also a religious nutbar that is doing some serious harm to the Dept of Education.

Hallelujah - hope for you at least.

But are you conceding that, at least relative to Title IX, Trump was clearly the lesser of two evils? Or you still think that sacrificing those rights on the altar of Clinton's ambitions - and venality - was a price worth paying?

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑

Steersman wrote: ↑
<snip>

You seriously think that he personally hired that woman? That he actually knew that his employees were harassing her?

And I haven't the foggiest idea why you think, apparently, that what Hillary Clinton may or may not have done in similar circumstances has any fucking relevance at all.

You might actually try thinking that you have your thumbs - if not entire arm, up to the goddam elbow - on the scales.

Your utter failure to understand is both amusing and annoying. Suffice to say, by any reasonable my entirely subjective, inconsistent, arbitrary, unevidenced, and idiosyncratic standard, he is guilty of hypocrisy.

LoL. FTFY. You might at least try reading the Quillette post on The Tyranny of the Subjective

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Further, if you think he isn't aware that his organization has hired illegals, you either have your arm, ass and other parts on the scale, or you're somewhat dense. Perhaps both.

And your evidence for the claim that he was aware of that is what? Something you've pulled out of your nether regions?

Proove that he didn't know! :P

Steersman wrote: ↑

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ DeVos got one thing right, rolling back uneven protections for men in Title IX cases. She got most everything else entirely wrong. While I appreciate the fact that Title IX is semi-fixed (most schools are fighting it or not implementing the protections, and ultimately it may be decided in courtrooms) in other respects DeVos is an unmitigated disaster. I will give her credit, but she is also a religious nutbar that is doing some serious harm to the Dept of Education.

Hallelujah - hope for you at least.

But are you conceding that, at least relative to Title IX, Trump was clearly the lesser of two evils? Or you still think that sacrificing those rights on the altar of Clinton's ambitions - and venality - was a price worth paying?

Dear gods, no. Title IX "Letter to colleagues" was bad, was misapplied and an abomination, but it affected relatively few people. It was a gross abuse of justice, but what is happening now will affect hundreds of thousands-protections from predatory for-profit schools stripped, teacher hiring and retention, thousands of little details. DeVos is a nightmare, a religious bigot who has little touch with reality. I give her (or her handlers) credit where it's due, but in the end, most of these abuses will be solved by the court system. There is little evidence the Title IX reforms have had a substantive impact on "colleges behaving badly."

What puzzles me is what you think Hillary Clinton would have done (other than Title IX) that would have made her a worse president. Perhaps kissing Saudi ads like Trump does? Bombing Syria like Trump did? Stupid trade wars that endanger the economy? Undermining the rule of law? Defying the emoluments clause? Committing several felonies by paying off women right before the election?

Steersman wrote: ↑

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑

Steersman wrote: ↑
<snip>

You seriously think that he personally hired that woman? That he actually knew that his employees were harassing her?

And I haven't the foggiest idea why you think, apparently, that what Hillary Clinton may or may not have done in similar circumstances has any fucking relevance at all.

You might actually try thinking that you have your thumbs - if not entire arm, up to the goddam elbow - on the scales.

Your utter failure to understand is both amusing and annoying. Suffice to say, by any reasonable my entirely subjective, inconsistent, arbitrary, unevidenced, and idiosyncratic standard, he is guilty of hypocrisy.

LoL. FTFY. You might at least try reading the Quillette post on The Tyranny of the Subjective

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Further, if you think he isn't aware that his organization has hired illegals, you either have your arm, ass and other parts on the scale, or you're somewhat dense. Perhaps both.

And your evidence for the claim that he was aware of that is what? Something you've pulled out of your nether regions?

I don't know why I bother; you seem congenitally unable to engage, but instead insist on simply rehashing your tired points. But let's try one last time.

Trump is a liar. He has cheated on all his wives. He paid porn stars and Playboy Bunnies illegal money to cover it up. He tried to hide that. He has a history of hiring illegals to save money, which, other than himself, is the only thing he cares about. He has a yuge history of being a narcissistic weasel. Those of us that were aware of it watched in awe and dismay as he sold a bunch of suckers(you among them) on his successor to Trump University. Trump is in serious trouble, trouble he will not be able to pardon himself out of. There is a real chance he could land in prison.

You can, like Fox News, try and put a smiley face on it. But the truth of the matter is that he runs the presidency like he runs his business, which isn't a good thing. He thinks like a mob boss, not like a leader of men.

But if you keep with the insults, I will respond in kind. Keep that in mind.

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Proove that he didn't know! :P

CFB is the one making the claim; he's the one with the responsibility to put the evidence for it on the table, not me to refute it.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑

Steersman wrote: ↑

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ DeVos got one thing right, rolling back uneven protections for men in Title IX cases. She got most everything else entirely wrong. While I appreciate the fact that Title IX is semi-fixed (most schools are fighting it or not implementing the protections, and ultimately it may be decided in courtrooms) in other respects DeVos is an unmitigated disaster. I will give her credit, but she is also a religious nutbar that is doing some serious harm to the Dept of Education.

Hallelujah - hope for you at least.

But are you conceding that, at least relative to Title IX, Trump was clearly the lesser of two evils? Or you still think that sacrificing those rights on the altar of Clinton's ambitions - and venality - was a price worth paying?

Dear gods, no. Title IX "Letter to colleagues" was bad, was misapplied and an abomination, but it affected relatively few people. It was a gross abuse of justice, but what is happening now will affect hundreds of thousands-protections from predatory for-profit schools stripped, teacher hiring and retention, thousands of little details. DeVos is a nightmare, a religious bigot who has little touch with reality. I give her (or her handlers) credit where it's due, but in the end, most of these abuses will be solved by the court system. There is little evidence the Title IX reforms have had a substantive impact on "colleges behaving badly."

Havent' read anything at all about the supposed problematic aspects of DeVos' changes - you have a link or two handy?

But, again, the point isn't how she's fucking up - supposedly - but that, AT THE TIME OF THE LAST ELECTION, there was no indication at all that the Democrats were willing to walk back from that position. Or, somewhat related to that, to reconsider the problematic nature of transactivist dogma.

All of which is what, maybe arguably, made Trump the lesser of two weevils. I still don't think you really understand at all that principle or why I harp on it.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑What puzzles me is what you think Hillary Clinton would have done (other than Title IX) that would have made her a worse president. Perhaps kissing Saudi [ass] like Trump does? Bombing Syria like Trump did? Stupid trade wars that endanger the economy? Undermining the rule of law? Defying the emoluments clause? Committing several felonies by paying off women right before the election?

You might want to review this tweet and linked article that was posted recently in the main thread.



Sure the fuck am not arguing that Trump is perfect - which you don't quite seem to get either, or refuse to accept. I'm sure not particularly impressed by his handling of the Khashoggi affair, and he sure looks far too willing to turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia's human rights abuses, all largely to further, apparently, the best interests of the "military-industrial complex".

But that is still some distance and quite an improvement from Clinton's reluctance to call out Islamic terrorism, from Obama having turned Syria into a quagmire for the same reason, from their pandering to the theocratic thugs in Tehran, and from their reluctance to recognize Israel's right to exist.

He's hardly perfect, but I expect - some 63 million Americans apparently expected - that Obama Mk II would have been substantially worse. The jury is still out of course, but so far it's looking to have been a solid bet.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑

Steersman wrote: ↑ <snip>

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Further, if you think he isn't aware that his organization has hired illegals, you either have your arm, ass and other parts on the scale, or you're somewhat dense. Perhaps both.

And your evidence for the claim that he was aware of that is what? Something you've pulled out of your nether regions?

I don't know why I bother; you seem congenitally unable to engage, but instead insist on simply rehashing your tired points. But let's try one last time.

You keep repeared your "tired points" so you might consider it's not surprising that I respond with my standard counter-arguments. Which you dismiss as "tired points" without actually addressing them.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Trump is a liar. He has cheated on all his wives. He paid porn stars and Playboy Bunnies illegal money to cover it up. He tried to hide that. He has a history of hiring illegals to save money, which, other than himself, is the only thing he cares about. He has a yuge history of being a narcissistic weasel. Those of us that were aware of it watched in awe and dismay as he sold a bunch of suckers(you among them) on his successor to Trump University. Trump is in serious trouble, trouble he will not be able to pardon himself out of. There is a real chance he could land in prison.

So - in some ways - he's a dickhead. Still hardly constitutes proof that he was actually aware "that his organization has hired illegals".

And you think JFK and Bill Clinton didn't cheat on their wives? And I still don't quite see how paying money to cover it up constitutes a crime in itself.

Kind of think you're suffering from the sad, but all too common, "Trump Derangement Syndrome" ...

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑You can, like Fox News, try and put a smiley face on it. But the truth of the matter is that he runs the presidency like he runs his business, which isn't a good thing. He thinks like a mob boss, not like a leader of men.

See "lesser of two evils principle" ...

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑But if you keep with the insults, I will respond in kind. Keep that in mind.

And your "you're somewhat dense" isn't an insult? Ooookaaay ...

Roger Stone thinks Pence tried to get Ayers installed as Chief of Staff in an attempted coup. There is no evidence for this at all.

Gonna be a lot of laughs if the Trump dead-enders wind up taking their frustrations out on Pence of all people.

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/nyre ... ement.html

That may well increase the probability that he knew "his organization has hired illegals". But it's hardly a "smocking gun" - expect those are rather two different kettles of fish.

Not that that probably means much to those in the pitchforks and torches mob out for blood, and facts be damned ....

Steersman wrote: ↑

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/nyre ... ement.html

That may well increase the probability that he knew "his organization has hired illegals". But it's hardly a "smocking gun" - expect those are rather two different kettles of fish.

Not that that probably means much to those in the pitchforks and torches mob out for blood, and facts be damned ....

Steersman, before I engage with you any more, would you please show wherein you've ever changed your mind based on new data?

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑

Steersman wrote: ↑

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/nyre ... ement.html

That may well increase the probability that he knew "his organization has hired illegals". But it's hardly a "smocking gun" - expect those are rather two different kettles of fish.

Not that that probably means much to those in the pitchforks and torches mob out for blood, and facts be damned ....

Steersman, before I engage with you any more, would you please show wherein you've ever changed your mind based on new data?

LoL. You might search the Pit on me as the author and for the phrase "mea culpa" - as I've mentioned before.

But you also argued - more like an ipse dixit but who's quibbling ... - something similar in the same thread:



I had linked to a fairly "spirited" debate I was having with Anjuli, also in the same thread, though there weren't any comments in it at that time, and Post Millennial have subsequently deleted them. But another Archive fortunately still has them - you may wish to take a close look at them for something which may discredit your claim, if not knock it into a cocked hat:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180529043 ... e-wiggins/

As for a somewhat more thorny aspect of your question - "changed your mind based on new data", if people only or frequently just adduce "new data" that isn't particularly relevant or supportive of their position then you might consider it not unexpected that I just "reiterate" or re-formulate my own position. Why would I change my mind if the data put on the table isn't at all relevant or doesn't in any way support the claim?

Ran across another cogent observation of, I think, E.O. Wilson the other day who said something to the effect that we are drowning in information while dying of thirst for want of wisdom. No shortage of facts, but it is rather remarkably easy to connect them in a myriad of ways, many of which simply hold no water whatsoever. Why I linked to Finne's excellent Tyranny of the Subjective the other day - which I rather doubt you bothered to read, but which I again urge you to make some effort to do.



For bonus points, and an even broader if more philosophical perspective on the issue, you might also take a gander at my related Medium post, Horns of a Dilemma: Tyrannies of the Subjective and Objective Narratives

Steersman wrote: ↑

Old_ones wrote:
The Clintons have survived multiple years of every investigation that the Republicans could dream up to throw at them, plus the FBI investigation of the email debacle. They've been cleared of everything save for the stuff that Bill was impeached for, and the FBI brought no indictments. So yes, the same people who are investigating Trump investigated the Clintons and found nothing too important. There is no giant pile of rot in the "Clinton camp and in the DNC" outside of the 3rd rate imaginations of fabulists like Jerome Corsi. All the sound and fury about Clinton's supposed corruption is a pathetic attempt at a false equivalency, and you are a dupe. Trump is a crook and Clinton is a relatively average politician. There is no equivalency.

LoL. And I suppose you think that Judicial Watch is just chopped liver, and that "U.S. District Court Judge Lamberth" is clearly in cahoots with Trump?

JudicialWatch/status/1070815788003667970

Rather moot how dirty her hands - and those of the DNC - are. But smoke, fire:

winmatt53/status/1071822324792549376

Maybe you too have your thumbs - up to the fucking elbow - on the scales too?

I think a lawsuit against Clinton by some self-styled watchdog is entirely uninteresting, and in a different fucking universe from Trump being implicated for federal felonies in the guilty plea of a former associate. I also think the difference between Trump and Clinton shows up in the number of guilty verdicts that have come from each campaign. If you are having a hard time with the math, let me give you a hint: the Clinton campaign didn't have any. Your false equivalencies aren't "chopped liver" because liver is nutritious and has substance. They are sad impotent bullshit pretending to be significant.

I've never heard of Judicial Watch, so I decided to look it up on wikipedia:

Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group[1] and self-styled watchdog group[2][3] that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate claimed misconduct by government officials.

Founded in 1994, JW has primarily targeted Democrats, in particular the Clinton administration, the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton, although it has sued Republicans as well including the administration of George W. Bush. It has also filed lawsuits against government climate scientists; Judicial Watch has described climate science as "fraud science". The group has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, which have been picked up by right-wing news outlets. The vast majority of its lawsuits have been dismissed.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this is the kind of organization you would take seriously.

steersman wrote:

Old_ones wrote: ↑

No doubt there are some "problematic" aspects to Trump, but it's also rather clear - or it should be to any who don't refuse to face facts - that Trump has at least precipitated some necessary changes in the direction of the political pendulum, and in a number of areas. For examples:

Progressives against due process
The backlash against Betsy DeVos’s proposed Title IX reforms is troubling. ...

And, relative to the "Global Compact on Migration" that demented globalists have been peddling for some time, but on which Trump may well have started an avalanche which should bury the fucken thing:

Code: Select all

https://twitter.com/SteersMann/status/1071950850967298048

I have no idea what you mean by any of this gibberish, nor do I have any interest in trying to figure it out. Betsy DeVos is the same clown who said we need guns in schools to fight grizzly bears, so I'm not going to engage with any changes she proposed to anything. She's an unqualified imbecile just like Trump, and a waste of time.

Jesus H. Christ. In a side car.

That she MAY have been off the wall on "grizzly bears and guns and schools" somehow refutes the argument that GUYS in colleges & universities accused of sexual assault shouldn't be deprived of their rights to be thought innocent until PROVEN guilty? You may want to try reading some stuff from Jerry Coyne who's generally supportive of DeVos while being no friend of Trump:

There are two reasons why folks are opposed to Betsy DeVos's revised Title IX regulations for adjudicating sexual assault and harassment in colleges. The first is because the changes are proposed by a member of the Trump administration, and a particularly hated one. The second is that the general thrust of the changes protect the rights of the accused person more strongly and strengthen due process.

While the regulations aren't perfect, I see them as a substantial improvement over the Obama-era regulation, especially the standards of guilt based on "preponderance of the evidence" (>50% likelihood of guilt) rather than "clear and convincing" evidence (roughly > 75% chance of guilt) or the court standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". At present, if the finder of fact who collects the evidence—who is, unbelievably, also the judge and jury—finds the accuser even just a tiny bit more credible than the accused, it's curtains for the latter: explusion and probably the ruining of one's life. Sadly, even under DeVos's changes colleges are still allowed the option of choosing "preponderance" of evidence above some more stringent standard, and I'm sure most will opt to keep the looser standards.

Expected better of you than to be engaging in "my tribe, right or rong".

I'll allow that those specific changes aren't unreasonable. It works out to be a moot point anyway though, because DeVos doesn't have any credibility, and hasn't actually sold anyone on the necessity of these changes. They'll be rolled back by the next ed secretary, along with the rest of the shit DeVos has done.

steersman wrote:

Old_ones wrote: ↑

And you think that #Brexit isn't part and parcel of that rejection, or at least serious questioning of globalism? And that Trump didn't have a hand in precipitating?

Not only do I not give Trump credit for brexit, I don't see that it is necessarily a good thing. So far it seems like it has caused a giant headache for the UK government, and produced no notable benefits for the UK. People who live across the pond can feel free to correct me if I'm missing something. And the EU and "globalism" are still going strong in the wake of brexit, with or without the UK's participation.

Well bully for you. What makes you think your OPINION holds a scintilla of water?

Is that you Nerd of Redhead?

I'll rephrase. It's been 2 years since the brexit vote, and it's still not clear that the UK will even go through with it. It is clear that it's taken lots of governmental time and energy, and that it's forcing the UK to renegotiate trade deals that may not be as favorable as the ones it gets through the EU. What has the UK gained from brexit? Nothing yet. It hasn't actually gone into effect. It follows that brexit has been costly for the UK, but reaped no benefits yet, so you'll have to forgive me for finding the value proposition of the measure underwhelming.

steersman wrote:No doubt globalism has its merits and values. But it rather clearly has some rather serious flaws, possibly fatal ones; you may wish to read this article by Jonathan Haidt: When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism

You might also reflect on that tweet of Jonathan Kay - editor at Quillette - and the CBC article linked therein:

SteersMann/status/1071950850967298048

I don't "reflect on tweets", because I don't have a non-standard compliment of chromosomes.

steersman wrote:

Old_ones wrote: ↑

As I say, I expect that Trump was, AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION, most definitely, the lesser of two weevils[sic].

He most certainly was not. He was a forseeable disaster from the start, and certain people refused to see that because they bought into anti-immigration hysteria and Russian propaganda about the Clintons. He's been stupid, illiterate and suspicious from the very beginning. He's a cure for nothing, and a disease in his own right.

Trump is the case of measles that your five year old dies from because you bought into Jenny McCarthy's bullshit about vaccines causing autism.

"Anti-immigration hysteria". What unmitigated horse shit.

You seriously think that all of the many countries - and/or (eg Canada) not-insignificant fractions within them - rejecting the UN Global Compact on Migration are just starting at shadows?

NY Times: Merkel, to Survive, Agrees to Border Camps for Migrants
The Atlantic: The Staggering Scale of Germany’s Refugee Project
Etc. Etc., fucking etc. Import third-world people - who generally come from "cultures" (*cough Islam *cough) which more or less repudiate democracy and the Enlightenment and our conception of human rights, then face third world problems.

I'm just going to note that Donald Trump was not elected by Canadians. We don't have "open borders" or a "migrant crisis" here in the US. I don't really want to spend a lot of time speculating about how much the difference in Canada's immigration policies accounts for the totally non-obsessive, non-hysterical way in which you write 1000s of posts fulminating about how brown people are destroying the Enlightenment. I'm sure that is most of the difference in our opinions. :roll:

I'm just going to note that nobody thinks Jihadists are pouring through the Mexican border, so your preoccupations aren't really relevant to the rallying cry of "build the wall" or a significant fraction of the rhetoric deployed by the Trump campaign.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... r-as-being
Sarah Huckabee Sanders wants people to remember her as honest and transparent. :lol: :lol:

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... r-as-being
Sarah Huckabee Sanders wants people to remember her as honest and transparent. :lol: :lol:

I think Sanders is a real talent. Her role is the media spokesperson for one of the wackiest guys to ever live. She keeps plowing through even when things are hard to integrate. I honestly have a lot of respect for her.

John D wrote: ↑

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... r-as-being
Sarah Huckabee Sanders wants people to remember her as honest and transparent. :lol: :lol:

I think Sanders is a real talent. Her role is the media spokesperson for one of the wackiest guys to ever live. She keeps plowing through even when things are hard to integrate. I honestly have a lot of respect for her.

She does have a very difficult job. I would love it if she decided to just level it one day-"Yeah, my boss fucked a porn star and made illegal campaign contributions to cover it up. You think anybody's gonna hold him to account? Fat fucking chance. Next question. "

Et tu, Fox?

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑

Code: Select all

https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/1073086628372119552

Et tu, Fox?

From the same thread:



Linked article is by one:

Hans von Spakovsky
@HvonSpakovsky
Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative.

Who seems fairly credible. But it also seems kind of moot whether the money was Republican funds - which would seem rather unlikely - or not. But don't think the "fat lady" has sung quite yet; you might want to put the champagne back on ice ... ;-)

A while back Chuck Schumer, who can't start the day without capitulating to Republicans seven or eight times, offered Trump $25 billion for his wall in exchange for a DACA solution, something that Dems are probably going to get anyway. Because Trump is not actually a master negotiator but has simply been taught to say no to the first offer regardless of how generous it is and demand more, he's now begging Dems for 1/5th of that amount, which he won't get.

It's kind of amazing. Dems sent their worst negotiator, prepared to give away the shirt off his fucking back, and Trump was so much worse Schumer came away smelling like roses.

Sunder wrote: ↑ A while back Chuck Schumer, who can't start the day without capitulating to Republicans seven or eight times, offered Trump $25 billion for his wall in exchange for a DACA solution, something that Dems are probably going to get anyway. Because Trump is not actually a master negotiator but has simply been taught to say no to the first offer regardless of how generous it is and demand more, he's now begging Dems for 1/5th of that amount, which he won't get.

It's kind of amazing. Dems sent their worst negotiator, prepared to give away the shirt off his fucking back, and Trump was so much worse Schumer came away smelling like roses.

On a cursory scan of the articles on the issue, it doesn't look quite that simple; looks like it was a bit of a seriously poisoned chalice; from FiveThirtyEight, hardly a particularly partisan rag - I assume:

Why Trump Isn’t Taking Democrats’ Offer For A Wall

....
So far, Trump has opted for no wall and no amnesty. And I think he is making a logical and perhaps even smart political decision. ....

Steersman wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 12, 2018 11:05 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑

Code: Select all

https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/1073086628372119552

Et tu, Fox?

From the same thread:



Linked article is by one:

Hans von Spakovsky
@HvonSpakovsky
Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative.

Who seems fairly credible. But it also seems kind of moot whether the money was Republican funds - which would seem rather unlikely - or not. But don't think the "fat lady" has sung quite yet; you might want to put the champagne back on ice ... ;-)

The fat lady is warming up.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white- ... nt-n947296

Schiff looking eager in that Twitter pic, isn't he?

Trump kissing Saudi ass.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑

Trump kissing Saudi ass.

It's a shame that it took Trump to reveal to the American public the extent of Saudi and/or Qatari influence in US politics. But at least it's finally happening. Perhaps Trump's egregious violation of norms and ethics has the silver lining of making Americans less naive.

Draining the swamp. Some suckers actually believed him.