US Politics Thread 2016-2020 [Archive] - Page 5

Rockin Robbins

02-01-17, 01:06 PM

At this pace by which Trump raises civil and institutional, now even economic resistance and enemies to his policies and himself, he cannot hold out 4 years. I cannot see how this could be.

He tries to win the match by 1. Pe4, 2. Qh5, 3. Qxf7+. He does not even care to play 3. Bc4 first. That's not it. Really, this way means no way.

Think of the goals of his policies what you want - the way he tries to enforce them is stupid, simply stupid. Maximum damage and winning as many enemies as possible in as shortest time as possible seem to be his priorities.

This is one of the finest textbook illustrations of pathological narcissism I have ever seen or heard of. It borders or oversteps the line to psychopathy/sociopathy - the absence of any own ability to realise that there are others different from oneself and with an inner life of their own.

What I say is: I think he is psychologically totally defunct, and ill.

One mjst seriously put into question if Britain is well-advised to put its post-Brexit-bets on such an untrustworthy "ally". I tell you, he gives #### for "special relations". This is not Ronnie and Maggie riding together into the sunset. Trump first - even if that would mean the sinking of Britain below waterlevel.
You are believing the left's replacement of all real Trump positions with those of some cartoon supervillian. Trump is not that stupid. Watch and learn. If he succeeds the left is out of power for the next 50 years, hung by their own straw man attacks and naked racism posing as "caring."

Rockin Robbins

02-01-17, 01:08 PM

Trump has just fired his Attorney General for defying him, and calls her a "traitor".

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html?_r=0

Have the heads of the various departments to obey him despite better knowledge, or if instructed to violate the constitution.. i mean can he really rule with decrees, without consulting anyone? :hmmm:

The newspapers here are full of all kinds of alleged violations against the US constitution, however those are european papers.. Nigel Farage of course supports the US president firing all staff.. i wonder.. ah whatever (*grabs popcorn*)
Again a straw man attack. He has not fired "his" AG, he fired the acting AG who would only serve until Trumps choice is approved. If truth is on your side you need not lie. Lying is evidence of the knowing bankruptsy of an untenable position.

Skybird

02-01-17, 02:27 PM

You are believing the left's replacement of all real Trump positions with those of some cartoon supervillian. Trump is not that stupid. Watch and learn. If he succeeds the left is out of power for the next 50 years, hung by their own straw man attacks and naked racism posing as "caring."

Try to http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/0c/Fo4_sentrybot_cooldown.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/640?cb=20151122020319 a bit.

You talk to a man who likes Atlas Shrugged. That I like it does not mean, however, that every Trump automatically is a John Galt. And I cannot avoid to also watch him with an ex-psychologist's eyes. And seen with these eyes, his behaviour and his basic social attitude is revealing.

MaDef

02-01-17, 02:46 PM

You talk to a man who likes Atlas Shrugged. That I like it does not mean, however, that every Trump automatically is a John Galt. And I cannot avoid to also watch him with an ex-psychologist's eyes. And seen with these eyes, his behaviour and his basic social attitude is revealing.
Care to elaborate?

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 03:21 PM

It's a public relations disaster alright, but that's exactly what this presidency was designed to be from the onset. So, you know, that's how it's going to be...and PM May is probably going to realise that she's hitched her wagon to a toxic personality...but, well, Brexit is gonna Brexit and we need the cash so Erdo, Trump, it doesn't matter who we need to suck up to, we'll do it for the dollar dollar. :03:

Speaking of which, I'm just going to leave The Donald's African American History Month Address here.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/trump-remarks-black-history-month/

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. These are a lot of my friends, but you have been so helpful. And we did well. The election, it came out really well. Next time we'll triple it up or quadruple it, right? We want to get over 51, right? At least 51. Well, this is Black History Month, so this is our little breakfast, our little get-together. Hi, Lynne, how are you?

MS. PATTON: Hi, how are you?

THE PRESIDENT: Nice to see you. And just a few notes. During this month, we honor the tremendous history of the African Americans throughout our country -- throughout the world, if you really think about it, right? And their story is one of unimaginable sacrifice, hard work and faith in America. I've gotten a real glimpse -- during the campaign, I'd go around with Ben to a lot of different places that I wasn't so familiar with. They're incredible people. And I want to thank Ben Carson, who's going to be heading up HUD. It's a big job, and it's a job that's not only housing, it's mind and spirit, right, Ben? And you understand that. Nobody is going to be better than Ben.
Last month, we celebrated the life of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., whose incredible example is unique in American history. You read all about Dr. Martin Luther King a week ago when somebody said I took the statue out of my office, and it turned out that that was fake news. (Laughter.) It was fake news. The statue is cherished. It's one of the favorite things in the -- and we have some good ones. We have Lincoln and we have Jefferson and we have Dr. Martin Luther King, and we have -- but they said the statue, the bust of Dr. Martin Luther King was taken out of the office. And it was never even touched. So I think it was a disgrace, but that's the way the press is. Very unfortunate.
I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things. Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who's done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice -- Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and millions more black Americans who made America what it is today. Big impact.I am proud to honor this heritage, and we'll be honoring it more and more. The folks at the table in almost all cases have been great friends and supporters. And Darrell -- I met Darrell when he was defending me on television. (Laughter.) And the people that were on the other side of the argument didn't have a chance, right? And Paris has done an amazing job in a very hostile CNN community. (Laughter.) He's all by himself -- seven people and Paris. So I'll take Paris over the seven. (Laughter.) But I don't watch CNN so I don't get to see you as much as I want to. (Laughter.) I don't like watching fake news.

PARTICIPANT: None of us watch it either anymore.

THE PRESIDENT: But Fox has treated me very nice -- wherever Fox is, thank you.
We're going to need better schools, and we need them soon. We need more jobs, we need better wages -- a lot better wages. We're going to work very hard on the inner city. Ben is going to be doing that big league. It's one of his big things that we're going to be looking at.
We need safer communities, and we're going to do that with law enforcement. We're going to make it safe. We're going to make it much better than it is right now. Right now it's terrible, and I saw you talking about it the other night, Paris, on something else that was really -- you did a fantastic job the other night on a very unrelated show. I'm ready to do my part -- it's the only time I can see him. I'm ready to do my part, and I will say this: We're going to work together. This is a great group. This is a group that's been so special to me. You really helped me a lot. If you remember, I wasn't going to do well with the African American community, and after they heard me speaking and talking about the inner city and lots of other things, we ended up getting -- I won't go into details, but we ended up getting substantially more than other candidates who had run in the past years. And now, we're going to take that to new levels.I want to thank my television star over here. (Laughter.) Omarosa is actually a very nice person. Nobody knows that, but -- (laughter) -- I don't want to destroy her reputation. She is a very good person and she's been helpful right from the beginning of the campaign. And I appreciate it. I really do. Very special.

Very inspiring.

Catfish

02-01-17, 03:27 PM

Takeda you're back! :up:

And this above is really .. nice. Wait and see..
(Or is this a satire, with "God emperor Donaldus Magnus"? But i guess not.)

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 03:32 PM

Takeda you're back! :up:

And this above is really nice.
Or is this a satire, with "God emperor Donaldus Magnus"?

I'll pop in from time to time to read what those in the Trump bubble have to say.

While I gave the sarcastic header, the text is a word-for-word transcript of the president's African American History Month address. I wish that it was satire. Yes, he spent that time railing against CNN, talking about re-election and it is not entirely certain whether or not he thinks that Frederick Douglass is still alive.

Nippelspanner

02-01-17, 03:50 PM

That "speech" reads like a parody from some comedian trying to impersonate trump.

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 03:53 PM

That "speech" reads like a parody from some comedian trying to impersonate trump.

Right? I wish I could say that it was a Alec Baldwin skit. Nope, that's the real thing.

MaDef

02-01-17, 04:17 PM

That "speech" reads like a parody from some comedian trying to impersonate trump. I beg to differ, reads more like the opening remarks at a company's annual sales conference.

Rockstar

02-01-17, 04:25 PM

Yes, MaDef explained it:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2462247&postcount=950
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2462254&postcount=954

She was already on the list, and would have been exchanged soon. But calling her a traitor is maybe a bit inappropriate. It also seems the constitution is subject to.. interpretation :hmmm:

Publically calling her a traitor IMO was just as inappropriate as Yates telling the public she is going to outright defy the Presidents orders. It was her job as the A.G. to advise the President as to the best course of action to lawfully carry out his policy.

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 04:27 PM

Calling her a traitor IMO just as inappropriate as Yates publically telling her boss she ain't gonna do it. It was her job to advise the President as to the best course of action to lawfully carry out his policy, not to outright publically defy his orders.

On the contrary I find Yates' actions to be heroic; an act of civil disobedience against an executive order of both questionable legality and blatant violation of the spirit of what this nation claims to stand for.

Nippelspanner

02-01-17, 04:29 PM

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 04:37 PM

It is also remarkable how trump is able to (ab)use every event to quickly make it all about him again. Considering the touchy topic, it is even more disgusting.

"hey, hey! Next time more votes, ok? What? Negros? Oh right uh awesome people and all that. The best people! And I must know because I am the greatest. Ok thanks folks gotta go, remember to vote republican in 4 years!"

Even more, Trump is wildly unpopular. His approval ratings are historically low. The streets are clogged with protesters opposing his policies and actions. Over half the voting public didn't want him there at all. This isn't like running a business where you get to say "my way or the highway". You need some sort of unity, and the onus for this is always on the president. Here today was yet another opportunity to try and win some people over. Instead, he makes some confusing token remarks and then uses it as a platform to attack his enemies.

Obama had humility and dignity. He understood when to capture the stage and be the boss, and he knew when to hold the hell back. Trump however.. It's all about him, because he is the center of the universe... -.-Obama was a statesman, and exactly the sort of person you want as the face of a nation. I think Obama was great. Reagan was also a real statesman, even though I despised him. Clinton and both Bushes, even Dubbya, knew how to be presidential. Trump has no idea. This is not an intelligent man, nor is he an inspiring one. And those are two qualities that a statesman must have. We're not running a business, but a nation-state.

August

02-01-17, 04:40 PM

This is all just yet more Democrat hysterics over what will eventually be shown to a completely legal and appropriate action that has been used in the past by Presidents from both parties.

I do hope they keep up with these daily temper tantrums so when they loose even more seats in 2018 they will be too far gone to ever recover.

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 04:41 PM

Nippelspanner

02-01-17, 04:51 PM

You keep telling yourself that.

Oh he will.
Trump could nuke Russia tight now, August would write it up as "liberal hysteria".
Because when you have no argument, all you can do is to rely on the usual derogatory buzzwords you heard others say. To admit that something might not be quite right? Never, that would mean these damn liberals (who are a borg-like collective, you know), would have had a point. This must not happen, let's just cover eyes 'n ears and call it a day.
And the best part? No matter how much trump will screw up, his drones will simply blame Obama, because that was so very convenient for 8 years - why stop now?

Platapus

02-01-17, 04:59 PM

I think it is quite likely that the Democrats will gain control over at least one of the houses. My guess is the Senate.

Historically mid tour elections don't favour the incumbents when the same party controls the Executive and both houses. Obama found out about that the hard way.

A lot of citizens are distrustful when the same party (even their own) holds all three. The problem the trump will face is the same as the problem Obama faced - -a very fickle and impatient citizenry.

The GOP owns the government at this point. There is nothing standing in their way. Their responsibility. The GOP won't have anyone to blame.. Just like the Democrats had no one to blame the first congressional term of Obama.

The public knows this and expects a tangible benefit in about 18 months. If the public does not get what they want, they will turn on the Congress like a rabid dog.

Not having anyone else to blame is a politician's nightmare.

Of course, there is nothing to prevent the Democrats from poisoning their image.....which they seem to be eager to do.

In my opinion, the Republicans did not win the last election, the Democrats lost it (by putting up probably the only candidate possible that could lose to a buffoon like Trump). The Republicans may not win the mid-terms but the Democrats can certainly lose them if they don't pull their heads out of their butt and start thinking strategically.

Is there truly a lack of mature adults in politics these days????

Or is the movie Idiocracy becoming a documentary?

Which party will be the first to adopt "we have electrolytes" as their party slogan?

I predict that this country, and perhaps the world will suffer a critical shortage of "Facepalms".

Oberon

02-01-17, 05:11 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHN3IJ_j8A

MaDef

02-01-17, 05:25 PM

On the contrary I find Yates' actions to be heroic; an act of civil disobedience against an executive order of both questionable legality and blatant violation of the spirit of what this nation claims to stand for. it's not legally questionable (if it were there would be injunctions coming out of the woodwork), however there is a rumor going around that the Bar Association maybe looking into ethics violations over this incident, and she may be sanctioned. Which will be a moot point as she is now the flavor of the month for the protest wing of the democrats (not sure what to call them without being derogatory).

Oberon

02-01-17, 05:29 PM

The Coffee Party? :hmmm:

Rockstar

02-01-17, 05:41 PM

On the contrary I find Yates' actions to be heroic; an act of civil disobedience against an executive order of both questionable legality and blatant violation of the spirit of what this nation claims to stand for.

Had she resigned her position and went out to protest that would be civil disobedience and you wouldnt have heard a peep from me about it. But in our system of government it is the Attorney Generals job to enforce the Presidents policy until the Supreme Court says otherwise. She abused her position and let her power go to her head, she had absolutley no authority whatsoever to take it upon herself to use her position in an act in defiance of the President. It was a totally unprecedented abuse of power and contrary to good order and discipline. Traitor fits.

Skybird

02-01-17, 06:34 PM

Care to elaborate?
I already did. Repeatedly. Yesterday, and in past two weeks or so. Must not repeat myself once again.

----

Intermezzo, of some kind, since there was some recent disagreement in this thread whether the EU's fall compares to the fall of Rome or not. Just stumbled over this article - IN GERMAN - where the author compares to the fall of the Roman republic and the raise of the empire, the era when Augustus took rule.

http://www.huffingtonpost.de/2017/02/01/david-engels-buergerkrieg_n_14546506.html?utm_hp_ref=germany

The author is professor for Roman history at the niversity in Brussel, and has even written a whole book about this theme:

https://www.amazon.de/Auf-dem-Weg-ins-Imperium/dp/3944305450

Maybe this becomes my next buy.

He presents statistical and sociological comparison as evidence to illustrate that many key variables of Rome-pre-Augustus und the EU today do compare scaringly and to a terrifying degree, and that the likely result will be a state of civil war in Europe from which an empirial/authoritarian/dictatorian order will emerge. The lack of militarization of European politics makes it unlikely that "civil war" must be understood to have a conventional military meaning, but that states and governments will lose grip and control, regions and areas of cities and whole local areas will fall to militant and violant gangs or ethnic/religious gangs organised in more powerful supergangs, and that law and order will fall to anarchy, and the national-states' structures and institutional rule will desintegrate. As a result of this phase, which may last for one to two generations, he expects that European people will throw themselves into the arms of any messiah promising to bring back law and order, and social security of any kind, at the cost of destroying individual freedoms and humanistic guarantees. Like Augustus did when he took control over Rome. In both cases, the result was the chance from republican to empirial state orders.

The parallels are stunning.

In the interview he gets asked whether he is a pessimist. He replies as father of two little children he must be afraid of his scenario, but it would be stupid to deny the facts and to distort the reality unfolding year after year according to his predictions. It is what it is. Like it or not, but you get no other world and no other reality than the one that is there.

And last, an interesting detail he highlighted in the interview. Asked whether Europe is put in danger due to the openess of its migration policy and the free mass movement, he differentiates between migration and a European failure of defining its own terms and conditions for this, the absence of consent on what kind of identity Europe should agree on as its historic heritage, and demanding the foreigners to adapt to. It compares to what I often critizise: that the EU tries to supress or even destroy cultural identies of European sub-regions in a bid to enforce an understanding of "all Europeans beeing equal and one and the same". - This realization should not be difficult, he says, since an Italian, a French and a German may see many differences between them, but if they would together travel to China, they immediately would realise what historic heritage and identity they nevertheless share and that makes them descendents of European culture and history - the contrast to the totally different culture of China would illustrate it drastically. Pragmatically he says: "Occidental identity is what two thousand years of occidental culture and history have led to."

And this is what sets us apart from other cultures and places, in good and in bad.

End of the Roman intermezzo. :)

u crank

02-01-17, 06:42 PM

"hey, hey! Next time more votes, ok? What? Negros? Oh right uh awesome people and all that. The best people! And I must know because I am the greatest. Ok thanks folks gotta go, remember to vote republican in 4 years!"

Glad he didn't say something about clinging to guns and religion or suggest that they're deplorable. Now that would have been a funny. :O:

Oberon

02-01-17, 07:04 PM

they're deplorable.

Honestly, for the Richard Spencer types, I think deplorable is a pretty soft term. So, a third are deplorables, not half.

http://www.demographicspro.com/insights/trump-supporters-follow-white-nationalists-on-twitter

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 07:04 PM

The Coffee Party? :hmmm:

Sounds perfect. Behold our symbol.

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2015/greatideas/blog/151123/starbucks-600x450.jpg

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 07:13 PM

Honestly, for the Richard Spencer types, I think deplorable is a pretty soft term. So, a third are deplorables, not half.

http://www.demographicspro.com/insights/trump-supporters-follow-white-nationalists-on-twitter

I would put the figures much higher. There is a latent racism at work here in American politics that has been unleashed by the demagoguery Trump used to propel himself into office.

Regarding earlier comments (not yours) regarding the supposed slur "alt right", it should be pointed out that the term was coined by Richard Spencer himself, as the term "white supremacy" wasn't drawing in the crowds he desired. The term was later doubled down by White House adviser and shadow president Steve Bannon, who described the media outlet he managed, Breitbart, as "the platform of the alt right". Personally, I am fine with doing away with the term and just going back to calling them white supremacists.

August

02-01-17, 07:38 PM

Had she resigned her position and went out to protest that would be civil disobedience and you wouldnt have heard a peep from me about it. But in our system of government it is the Attorney Generals job to enforce the Presidents policy until the Supreme Court says otherwise. She abused her position and let her power go to her head, she had absolutley no authority whatsoever to take it upon herself to use her position in an act in defiance of the President. It was a totally unprecedented abuse of power and contrary to good order and discipline. Traitor fits.

I don't know if I could justify the traitor epithet but she definitely was completely derelict in her duty and is guilty of abusing her position for partisan purposes. But what can you expect from a left over Obama era official? I doubt there is a single one of them that could be trusted not to spy and sabotage as much as they can. They're the interns who stole the W keys from White House computers all grown up now and in positions to cause real damage.

All of them should have been bounced out of Washington on day one. I understand that because Trump is an outsider he doesn't have access to the political machinery that replaces one crop of bureaucrats with another with efficiency but he'll get through it while the public will be treated to these examples of how petty and malicious the Democrats can be.

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 07:40 PM

August

02-01-17, 07:46 PM

Your command of chronology leaves much to be desired.

What a helpful little bee you are. Insert the word "like" after "They're". Feel better now?

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 07:54 PM

What a helpful little bee you are. Insert the word "like" after "They're". Feel better now?

Don't go getting all snippy now. That you made a ridiculous and easily disprovable assertion is no fault of my own. Or do we call those "alternate facts" around here?

Rockstar

02-01-17, 07:54 PM

I don't know if I could justify the traitor epithet but she definitely was completely derelict in her duty and is guilty of abusing her position for partisan purposes. But what can you expect from a left over Obama era official? I doubt there is a single one of them that could be trusted not to spy and sabotage as much as they can. They're the interns who stole the W keys from White House computers all grown up now and in positions to cause real damage.

All of them should have been bounced out of Washington on day one. I understand that because Trump is an outsider he doesn't have access to the political machinery that replaces one crop of bureaucrats with another with efficiency but he'll get through it while the public will be treated to these examples of how petty and malicious the Democrats can be.

Allow me to clarify, traitor fits 'better' than patriotic civil disobedience and heroine of the people. There are in my opinion levels of severity to being a traitor which by definition is simply a person who betrays. In this case she betrayed her position as Attorney General and our system of government. What she did was unprecedented and inexcusable she had absolutley no right or authority to take matters into her own hands while in office as Attorney General of the United States. We have a system in place, checks and balances if you will, that does not allow one man or in this case one woman to rule this country.

Think of it as 'the sailors disgrace' but you do your damned duty to the best of your ability until relieved or resign. Afterwhich you can protest and write all the books about it you want.

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 07:56 PM

Allow me to clarify, traitor fits 'better' than patriotic civil disobedience and heroine of the people. Traitor is a person who betrays, and in this case she betrayed her position as Attorney General and our system of government. What she did was unprecedented there is a system in place checks and balances if you will that will not allow one man or in this case woman to rule this country.

Someone should tell that to Steve Bannon.

u crank

02-01-17, 08:06 PM

Someone should tell that to Steve Bannon.

In regards to Rockstar's post that makes no sense. Can you explain?

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 08:08 PM

In regards to Rockstar's post that makes no sense. Can you explain?

White House adviser Steve Bannon's role in the administration is viewed by many as, shall we say, excessive. The following op-ed encapsulates the view that, frankly, I cannot be bothered to explain to you at this time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/president-bannon.html

August

02-01-17, 08:20 PM

Don't go getting all snippy now. That you made a ridiculous and easily disprovable assertion is no fault of my own. Or do we call those "alternate facts" around here?

Snippy? You're the one being hypercritical here not me. The fact is young adults in the early 90's would be in their 40's today, which is prime bureaucrat age and i'm sure that at least one Dem official has "Bill Clinton Intern" on their resume.

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 08:21 PM

Snippy? You're the one being hypercritical here not me. The fact is young adults in the early 90's would be in their 40's today, which is prime bureaucrat age and i'm sure that at least one Dem official has "Bill Clinton Intern" on their resume.

Okay. Sorry for stepping on your alternative facts. The Obama staffers obviously removed all of the W's from the White House computers in January of 2001. So shall it be written.

u crank

02-01-17, 08:25 PM

White House adviser Steve Bannon's role in the administration is viewed by many as, shall we say, excessive. The following op-ed encapsulates the view that, frankly, I cannot be bothered to explain to you at this time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/president-bannon.html

An opinion piece in the NY Times. OK, I get it. :03:

Presidents are entitled to pick their advisers.

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 08:31 PM

An opinion piece in the NY Times. OK, I get it. :03:

As I mentioned, it is indeed an op-ed, and it was posted to act as a summary of the argument that I had no desire to type out longhand. What is undeniable is that the individual in question is amassing an enormous amount of power within the administration, even above traditional cabinet appointments like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Some people think that this is a wonderful and glorious thing. Others do not. My remarks were in reference to the unchecked powers mentioned by Rockstar in his post.

But, I suspect that you already knew this and thought that you were going to score some cheap interweb points on me. We are evidently not well acquainted, but now I don't think you'll try such cheap tactics again.

August

02-01-17, 08:33 PM

Okay. Sorry for stepping on your alternative facts. The Obama staffers obviously removed all of the W's from the White House computers in January of 2001. So shall it be written.

:har:

u crank

02-01-17, 08:53 PM

As I mentioned, it is indeed an op-ed,.

My reference was pointed towards the NY Times and not to the fact that it was an opinion piece. Sorry if you misunderstood that.
But, I suspect that you already knew this and thought that you were going to score some cheap interweb points on me. We are evidently not well acquainted, but now I don't think you'll try such cheap tactics again.

Indeed we are not well acquainted. I'm not one for "cheap interweb points".

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 08:56 PM

My reference was pointed towards the NY Times and not to the fact that it was an opinion piece. Sorry if you misunderstood that.

My mistake. I sometimes forget just how deep inside the Trump bubble SubSim is. I'll try to limit my references to Fox News, Rasmussen Polls, Breitbart and occasionally InfoWars in the future.

Indeed we are not well acquainted. I'm not one for "cheap interweb points".If you say so. We'll see.

u crank

02-01-17, 09:13 PM

My mistake. I sometimes forget just how deep inside the Trump bubble SubSim is. I'll try to limit my references to Fox News, Rasmussen Polls, Breitbart and occasionally InfoWars in the future.

Now that is actually funny because I don't have cable TV and I have never visited any of those sites. I have though read the NY Times. Great unbiased news and opinion wouldn't you say? I find it so.

As for the Trump bubble...be careful who you put in it.

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 09:17 PM

Now that is actually funny because I don't have cable TV and I have never visited any of those sites. I have though read the NY Times. Great unbiased news and opinion wouldn't you say? I find it so.

Kind of a moot point when the link is to an op-ed that is acknowledged as an op-ed, no? "This is not news, it is opinion". "Yes, it is an op-ed". Let's not play these sorts of silly games.

As for the Trump bubble...be careful who you put in it.

I can revise my assessment of you should events warrant. As of now I am comfortable with it.

u crank

02-01-17, 09:26 PM

Kind of a moot point when the link is to an op-ed that is acknowledged as an op-ed, no? "This is not news, it is opinion". "Yes, it is an op-ed". Let's not play these sorts of silly games.

Op-ed or not there is nothing silly about it. Are you going to claim that the NY Times is not a left leaning news source? If you are then that discussion is over. Sorry I brought it up.

I can revise my assessment of you should events warrant. As of now I am comfortable with it.

Thanks. Man that is arrogant.

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 09:30 PM

Op-ed or not there is nothing silly about it. Are you going to claim that the NY Times is not a left leaning news source? If you are then that discussion is over. Sorry I brought it up.

Ridiculous. The link is presented as a summary of the anti-Bannon argument. Whether the publication is biased in one direction or another is immaterial to the reason for presentation. Your agreement or disagreement with the article is similarly irrelevant.

Thanks. Man that is arrogant.

I am not here to win your personal approval, just as I assume that you are not here to win my respect. We should probably keep our short discourse to the matters of topic.

u crank

02-01-17, 09:48 PM

Whether the publication is biased in one direction or another is immaterial to the reason for presentation.

Oh sir I disagree. Who's in the bubble now?

I am not here to win your personal approval, just as I assume that you are not here to win my respect. We should probably keep our short discourse to the matters of topic.

Yea ok.

I'll pop in from time to time to read what those in the Trump bubble have to say.

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 09:55 PM

Oh sir I disagree. Who's in the bubble now?

You are free to disagree, but in this case your argument is without merit. Steve Bannon has amassed considerable power in the administration. That consolidation is highly irregular. Those are facts. What one thinks about it is where opinion comes into play. You asked me what my remarks were in reference to. I gave you a summary of an opinion piece as I did not feel like typing it out myself. Your attack is now that the opinion piece is biased.

While your opinions are no doubt clear and objective facts, I can assure you that everyone else, myself included, holds opinions that are highly subjective. This is the nature of opinion. Except for yours of course. And so, saying that an opinion is biased is entirely irrelevant; even more so when the rationale for inclusion is your question as to what I meant by my remark.

Rockstar

02-01-17, 10:21 PM

https://theamericanreligion.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/anderson-cooper-surprised-shake-head.gif

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 10:25 PM

http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/John-Stewart-WTF.gif

Onkel Neal

02-01-17, 10:38 PM

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 10:40 PM

You need to stop that.

Stop what? Acknowledgement that the climate on this forum is overtly hostile to those outside of a very particular political mindset? You're the owner, I don't need to remind you that you can cast me permanently into the internet void with a simple click. I won't be trying to get back in. You know that. But what I posted is the truth, and I stand by it.

Onkel Neal

02-01-17, 10:44 PM

Excuse me, there is no hostility towards members regardless of their political affiliation as long as it is inside the rules. It's very sad that you try to claim otherwise. What you posted is your own viewpoint, nothing more.

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 10:45 PM

Onkel Neal

02-01-17, 10:48 PM

The tone of this thread has been anti-Trump, pro-Trump and amused indifference as far as I can tell.

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 10:50 PM

The tone of this thread has been anti-Trump, pro-Trump and amused indifference as far as I can tell.

By my estimation it seems to be a 71-page rant about "globalists" and "snowflakes" capped by incredulously-faced gif memes. I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Buddahaid

02-01-17, 11:00 PM

Everyone gets a stump subject to the rules. I see no bias, just who's come to dinner.

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 11:05 PM

Everyone gets a stump subject to the rules. I see no bias, just who's come to dinner.

Well, I still don't agree with you but there isn't really anything productive that can come from me being here. I'll ask Mr. Stevens to delete this account permanently. I won't have the ability to give into temptation and you all won't have to read my remarks.

Nippelspanner

02-01-17, 11:31 PM

Takeda Shingen

02-01-17, 11:39 PM

Tak,
the reason why Subsim seems biased towards trump is simple: Most political sane people left over the years or simply learned that trying to roll rocks uphill is rather futile and stay silent.
I just get dragged back in again and again as well, only to see how futile it is trying to have a debate with people who don't want a debate, let alone find out the truth in the process of a debate, but just want to be right.

As I said, futile. But no need to leave for good, really. Dowly would be very sad I think. :D

Dowly is a cool guy. So are you. I am totally with you on the getting drug back in. I didn't read this forum for two years. It wasn't even on my radar. I moderate another forum, my interest is in that community, etc. But with all the crazy stuff that has happened politically I keep coming back here to fight old fights with old enemies. The sad thing is that I don't even care about them or why I fought with them. It is all compulsion.

I don't want that. We all know the cycle of post-refresh-refresh-refresh-read-post. We all know how it chews up your whole day. We all know how you become embittered and yet enthralled by it. I haven't felt that since I left SubSim. I feel it today and I don't like it. I don't like how it makes me feel and I don't like how I act when I feel that way. So I want the cycle to end.

To that end I asked Neal to delete the account. I asked him here too, so that there is no rumor that "Neal banned Tak". He didn't. I asked him to do this.

I'm still on Steam. Vita, Mortis, Careo is the user handle. Thrillho on BattleNet. I'll friend you back.

Nippelspanner

02-02-17, 12:01 AM

I don't want that. We all know the cycle of post-refresh-refresh-refresh-read-post. We all know how it chews up your whole day. We all know how you become embittered and yet enthralled by it. I haven't felt that since I left SubSim. I feel it today and I don't like it. I don't like how it makes me feel and I don't like how I act when I feel that way. So I want the cycle to end.

Damn, that sounds familiar...
I got brigged a while ago because I was a little... Too honest... Towards a beloved and cherished long time member and actually wanted to stay out if it all for good as well. Very calm times. I came back for the dangerous waters section, got nosy for gt, bit my own tongue for a while... Then felt someone had to counter the ignorance and stupidity... Now I find myself in what you've just described and can only say you're doing the right thing, it makes sense.

Also, let's create a support group! :D

Méo

02-02-17, 01:10 AM

Catfish

02-02-17, 03:03 AM

Dowly

02-02-17, 03:10 AM

Speaking of which, I'm just going to leave The Donald's African American History Month Address here.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/trump-remarks-black-history-month/
TL;DR: "Enough about you, let's talk about me." :doh:

Commander Wallace

02-02-17, 03:40 AM

The tone is hostile, but what happens here does absolutely not compare to other forums, where "snowflake" is even the most friendly term used there, with direct threats to shoot "libtards" at the other side of the spectrum. Someone here also tried to start a witchhunt, but it was the only time afaik.

Imho this is a direct result of Trump; those who stayed under the radar during Obama's socialist dictatorship, are now having a blast. And why should they hold back and act diplomatically, if the new boss does not.

I sometimes log in to other forums just to see what people write there – just to remind me that civilized behaviour and "normal" conduct is not a given anymore, nor is my opinion special or self-evident at all.

Trump sure polarizes, but you have to see that the US population is almost evenly split. And some are obviously pleased about what he does. That a majority defends him, should not be a surprise in an - after all - military forum.

I miss Betonov's posts. There are a lot who left in anger.

There may be some who support trump but we'll see how long that lasts. I think most people were confronted with 2 candidates that they deeply disliked and chose the one the felt they could live with. Trump had dealings and talks with Australia yesterday. Australia has been a valued and staunch ally but by all accounts, Trump steamrolled over him. Trump told Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull how popular he is and how he wowed crowds at his inauguration. Trump's ego trip is going to take everyone on a roller coaster ride sure to make even his staunch supporters retch.

I think in the long run, Trump's lack of decorum and understanding of the International community is going to hurt him if it hasn't already.

Oberon

02-02-17, 06:10 AM

So, war with China and war with Iran, how about it? Should be a barrel of laughs, right? Take peoples minds off the economy, get a nice boom in fallout shelters. It's good stuff.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/steve-bannon-donald-trump-war-south-china-sea-no-doubt?CMP=share_btn_fb

Skybird

02-02-17, 06:14 AM

Smart guys try to make these two going to war against each other. We could second-hand sell them Trident for that.

Oberon

02-02-17, 06:32 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIAhOBJlR0M

Catfish

02-02-17, 06:34 AM

Next in: Theresa May makes 100 bn pounds weapons deal with China. The economy has never been so bright like after Brexit.
I do not see a weapon deal with China to be of less brisance, than the one with Turkey.

On the other hand... the US debt to China is $1.0493 trillion, as of November 2016. »Ho(n)ni soit qui mal y pense« :03:

Oberon

02-02-17, 06:39 AM

Well, China already has a big stake in our nuclear industry so arms can't be far behind...although I imagine they already have blueprints of all our weapons and can build them quicker and cheaper than we can anyway! :haha:

Castout

02-02-17, 06:53 AM

My January 11th, 2017 Facebook post.

Global demand has been waning for years. Beijing, in turn, relies on a credit binge to keep production going and its citizens employed. However, this is unsustainable and the associated economic risks have given rise to capital outflow. The ongoing capital flight from China has depreciated the Yuan to worrying level and debt has been ballooning out of control as China's state enterprises borrow money to pay for credit and finance production against the backdrop of a declining global demand. China's massive foreign exchange reserves, however, have eased the pressure on Yuan but China's forex reserves are depleting fast and have gone below the 3-trillion psychological level. When, instead of if China's economic crisis rears its ugly head, capital is expected to flee Asian markets. Countries which rely on China heavily for trade will be severely hit and have their currency depreciated not unlike the 1998 crisis level and perhaps even worse. Global demand has been weak due to the shrinking middle-class in the US and Europe while China is not yet a market economy. The only easy way out for China and the West to solve their economic conundrum is by stoking ultra-nationalistic sentiment of their citizens and instigate a war as war is simply a forced redistribution of influence (political capital and the ability to set and change rules), power (the might to enforce rules and challenge them by force both economically and militarily), and capital (wealth of a nation seen as leverage to political, economic, and military powers of a nation). We may see a big war erupting in Asia in the next 2-5 years as both sides, China and the West, are predisposed to resort to war to assuage their economic malaise. Even more so for China as prolonged deep economic malaise is destabilizing for Beijing. To buy time, a war would make a much-needed distraction and garner political support. A big war may also the one thing that could win Trump's second term in office. This is no joke.

I share Moore's opinion that Trump may not finish his first term. He may either quit or forced to quit. The only thing that would ensure his 2nd term in the office is a big war with China.

Nippelspanner

02-02-17, 07:23 AM

We may see a big war erupting in Asia in the next 2-5 years as both sides, China and the West, are predisposed to resort to war to assuage their economic malaise.

No. China is far from being able to go to town. What do they want to do? Pray their handful of subs blow up next to a us carrier? And a diesel boat won't win a modern naval war either.

Let's talk again 10 years from now.

Dowly

02-02-17, 07:30 AM

And a diesel boat won't win a modern naval war either.Actually, I saw a documentary called Down Periscope! once in which they tested this, and the diesel boat was able to sneak past a modern sub (and I think a bunch of surface vessels) unnoticed. :yep:

Onkel Neal

02-02-17, 07:32 AM

the reason why Subsim seems biased towards trump is simple: Most political sane people left over the years or simply learned that trying to roll rocks uphill is rather futile and stay silent.
I just get dragged back in again and again as well, only to see how futile it is trying to have a debate with people who don't want a debate, let alone find out the truth in the process of a debate, but just want to be right.

So, if everyone agreed with you, they would be politically sane? I see, I never knew opinion worked that way.

I'll say it again and leave it at this: Subsim is not biased to "Trump". Why would it be? Would someone please go through this thread and count the pro/anti posters,please?

There is no moderating direction that punishes people who find Trump distasteful, wrong, or dangerous. Same with anyone who feels Trump is the second coming of Christ. It appears to me the biggest complaining is coming from people who cannot get everyone else to endorse their worldview. And people are moderated when they cannot argue or discuss without losing their cool and making threats or violent personal attacks.

Castout

02-02-17, 07:36 AM

No. China is far from being able to go to town. What do they want to do? Pray their handful of subs blow up next to a us carrier? And a diesel boat won't win a modern naval war either.

Let's talk again 10 years from now.

By 2020 their navy will be much stronger than it is now.

In politics, countries often don't go to war only when they have overwhelming capacity to win it.

True that if war erupts now China has no way of winning a war at sea. But in 2019/2020 and beyond the temptation plus the added domestic instability brought upon by a sputtering economy and the non-existence of any way for the Chinese people to change their government could push Beijing to start a war. Most probably in East China Sea or pertaining to Taiwan.

Jimbuna

02-02-17, 07:39 AM

Castout

02-02-17, 07:48 AM

Actually, I saw a documentary called Down Periscope! once in which they tested this, and the diesel boat was able to sneak past a modern sub (and I think a bunch of surface vessels) unnoticed. :yep:

A diesel boat is a dangerous foe. Australian Collins class sub successfully sank its practice target past American ASW vessels in a relatively recent wargame.

An Indian Kilo class sub reportedly successfully 'sank' U.S. 688i Sub in a wargame in 2015...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqFVOL7mLd4

Nippelspanner

02-02-17, 08:03 AM

So, if everyone agreed with you, they would be politically sane? I see, I never knew opinion worked that way.
Not what I said at all. But I do say whoever still supports trump is definitely not politically sane, yes. Would you disagree? Trump is a complete disaster, the whole world shares this opinion. The whole world except a certain type of Republicans who have the political understanding of a 10 year old, who only understand the language of a bully.

I'll say it again and leave it at this: Subsim is not biased to "Trump". Why would it be? Would someone please go through this thread and count the pro/anti posters,please?

Did you actually read my post?
Because we share the same opinion here.

Nippelspanner

02-02-17, 08:06 AM

By 2020 their navy will be much stronger than it is now.

In politics, countries often don't go to war only when they have overwhelming capacity to win it.

True that if war erupts now China has no way of winning a war at sea. But in 2019/2020 and beyond the temptation plus the added domestic instability brought upon by a sputtering economy and the non-existence of any way for the Chinese people to change their government could push Beijing to start a war. Most probably in East China Sea or pertaining to Taiwan.

What kind of sorcery will happen in the coming 3 years that will grant China a war-capable navy?

August

02-02-17, 08:35 AM

Not what I said at all. But I do say whoever still supports trump is definitely not politically sane, yes. Would you disagree? Trump is a complete disaster, the whole world shares this opinion. The whole world except a certain type of Republicans who have the political understanding of a 10 year old, who only understand the language of a bully.

The whole world, really? Have you taken a poll or something?

You know for a guy who claims to be here just for the debates your use of insulting language pretty much removes all chance of it ever happening. You must realize that. It's that same arrogance and intolerance which turned a lot of people off from the Democrats and contributed to their defeat in the election.

President Trump is fulfilling his campaign promises. They're what got him elected (that and a loathsome Democrat candidate) if you want to disparage the 62 million people who put him into office then go ahead but it's not going to help your argument. I suspect however an friendly debate is not what you or Takeda really come here for.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 08:36 AM

Okay. Sorry for stepping on your alternative facts. The Obama staffers obviously removed all of the W's from the White House computers in January of 2001. So shall it be written.

That was the Clinton staff I believe. But I see what you did there.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 08:39 AM

White House adviser Steve Bannon's role in the administration is viewed by many as, shall we say, excessive. The following op-ed encapsulates the view that, frankly, I cannot be bothered to explain to you at this time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/president-bannon.html

Bannon is out there. I agree. He is kind of scary really.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 08:41 AM

August

02-02-17, 08:43 AM

That was the Clinton staff I believe.

He knows what I was referring to but he deliberately chose to distort it. Because you know that's how you generate a healthy debate in Liberal Land.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 08:44 AM

Stop what? Acknowledgement that the climate on this forum is overtly hostile to those outside of a very particular political mindset? You're the owner, I don't need to remind you that you can cast me permanently into the internet void with a simple click. I won't be trying to get back in. You know that. But what I posted is the truth, and I stand by it.

Hostile is a bit harsh don't you think? As I read your posts in this thread each appears to become increasingly hostile. :hmmm:

The only hostility I see is with YUBBA who is in the Trump bubble.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 08:46 AM

He knows what I was referring to but he deliberately chose to distort it. Because you know that's how you generate a healthy debate in Liberal Land.

Yes, I had seen what he had done there. :)

Nippelspanner

02-02-17, 08:51 AM

The whole world, really? Have you taken a poll or something?

You know for a guy who claims to be here just for the debates your use of insulting language pretty much removes all chance of it ever happening. You must realize that. It's that same arrogance and intolerance which turned a lot of people off from the Democrats and contributed to their defeat in the election.

President Trump is fulfilling his campaign promises. They're what got him elected (that and a loathsome Democrat candidate) if you want to disparage the 62 million people who put him into office then go ahead but it's not going to help your argument. I suspect however an friendly debate is not what you or Takeda really come here for.

Nice try, still moot. I so hate it when people deliberately take things extra-literally just to reach for the tiniest sort of argument.

And you're in no position to talk about ignorance, you're so blinded by your own you can't see straight. Again, it was YOU who demanded "foreigners" to "stay out of us topics", YOU who thinks calling people regular infantry is an insult (just a leg). It is YOU who generalize not only political parties or movements, but even whole countries and it I'd YOU who believes it is a good idea to vote a pathological lying narcist with the attitude of a school yard bully into office.

Don't lecture ANYONE on ignorance.

And since you don't understand it.
It is no matter of opinion anymore. Me pointing out how batpoop crazy trump is, is hardly a weird liberals fantasy when, yes, """the whole world""" (just to be sure this time) is in agreement about this nutcase of a person! It also had nothing to do with arrogance to warn about dangerous people. Jesus did you even try?

President Trump is fulfilling his campaign promises. They're what got him elected
Yes. So did Hitler.

Oberon

02-02-17, 08:55 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0

Onkel Neal

02-02-17, 08:56 AM

And Roosevelt

Dowly

02-02-17, 09:00 AM

Bannon is out there. I agree. He is kind of scary really.Yup.

http://i.imgur.com/r4rb4Tl.jpg

Oberon

02-02-17, 09:15 AM

"We Trumps have our legacy to consider!"

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 09:20 AM

Yup.

Tak has a good point. This guy climbs right into a cabinet position like it was meant to be. We all understand Bannon is whacked but if one is attempting not to look whacked and in a position like Bannon, one should at least shave and put on a damn tie. He is slob.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 09:23 AM

Nice try, still moot. I so hate it when people deliberately take things extra-literally just to reach for the tiniest sort of argument.

And you're in no position to talk about ignorance, you're so blinded by your own you can't see straight. Again, it was YOU who demanded "foreigners" to "stay out of us topics", YOU who thinks calling people regular infantry is an insult (just a leg). It is YOU who generalize not only political parties or movements, but even whole countries and it I'd YOU who believes it is a good idea to vote a pathological lying narcist with the attitude of a school yard bully into office.

Don't lecture ANYONE on ignorance.

And since you don't understand it.
It is no matter of opinion anymore. Me pointing out how batpoop crazy trump is, is hardly a weird liberals fantasy when, yes, """the whole world""" (just to be sure this time) is in agreement about this nutcase of a person! It also had nothing to do with arrogance to warn about dangerous people. Jesus did you even try?

Yes. So did Hitler.

I think comparing Trump to Hilter has played itself out. I liken it to the FEMA death camps Obama was setting up. Get a grip.

Dowly

02-02-17, 09:32 AM

"Trump threatens UC Berkeley with funds cut after Breitbart editor's speech is canceled following riot"

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/01/uc-berkeley-on-lockdown-amid-protest-over-milo-yiannopoulos.html

:yeah:

Nippelspanner

02-02-17, 09:55 AM

I think comparing Trump to Hilter has played itself out. I liken it to the FEMA death camps Obama was setting up. Get a grip.

You misunderstood my point, but I can see why.
My point wasn't to say trump is as worse as Hitler (of course not), it is the striking similarities when it comes to the naivety and mindset of both their voters.
Both promised the grass will be greener and both, at first, did work to fulfill their promises. That's not the problem. The problem are the people unable to see behind the "everything will be great again, I must know, sieg heil!" kind of promises and attitude.

Yes, all politicians lie, all politicians are selfish and very most would do whatever it takes to succeed. But not every politician is automatically a danger to world peace and economical stability combined with the diplomatic skills of a hooligan, despite being all of the above.

Trump, most likely - and judged by his verbal diarrhea, lies, hate speech and constant personal attacks towards other politicians like calling them ugly or making remarks about their primary reproductional organs or other things as well as his complete inability to even fake humility at least, let alone be diplomatic - is!

Oberon

02-02-17, 10:00 AM

Fascism Forever! :yeah:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/02/03/3CBEDB4000000578-4182852-image-a-47_1486007799077.jpg

:yeah:

http://www.metro.us/news/holocaust-museum-s-warning-signs-of-fascism-poster-shared-thousands-of-times-by-trump-protesters/zsJqaE---bbVCOi9J5D85U/fascism%202%20web.png

Bilge_Rat

02-02-17, 10:07 AM

So, if everyone agreed with you, they would be politically sane? I see, I never knew opinion worked that way.

I'll say it again and leave it at this: Subsim is not biased to "Trump". Why would it be? Would someone please go through this thread and count the pro/anti posters,please?

There is no moderating direction that punishes people who find Trump distasteful, wrong, or dangerous. Same with anyone who feels Trump is the second coming of Christ. It appears to me the biggest complaining is coming from people who cannot get everyone else to endorse their worldview. And people are moderated when they cannot argue or discuss without losing their cool and making threats or violent personal attacks.

just to add to what Onkel Neal said, this is one of the better, well moderated U.S. politics thread on the internet. That is the main reason why I keep coming back. :up:

Yes, it can be a circus at times. but on many other forums, you get insulted and shouted down as soon as you post a contrary position.

If you come in with good arguments and solid facts, you can usually get your point across.

OTOH, if you expect everyone to agree with your politics and think you can slide by just by insulting the other side, then yes, you are in for a rude awakening! :ping:

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 10:15 AM

You misunderstood my point, but I can see why.
My point wasn't to say trump is as worse as Hitler (of course not), it is the striking similarities when it comes to the naivety and mindset of both their voters.
Both promised the grass will be greener and both, at first, did work to fulfill their promises. That's not the problem. The problem are the people unable to see behind the "everything will be great again, I must know, sieg heil!" kind of promises and attitude.

Yes, all politicians lie, all politicians are selfish and very most would do whatever it takes to succeed. But not every politician is automatically a danger to world peace and economical stability combined with the diplomatic skills of a hooligan, despite being all of the above.

Trump, most likely - and judged by his verbal diarrhea, lies, hate speech and constant personal attacks towards other politicians like calling them ugly or making remarks about their primary reproductional organs or other things as well as his complete inability to even fake humility at least, let alone be diplomatic - is!

Concerning the naivety and mindset of Trump voters, I believe you are overstepping. What are you basing your assumption on? The many I know who voted for Trump are anything but naive. The seig heil attitude was not different than the Hope/Change sieg heil and Obama will pay my mortgage attitude. Pay my mortgage? Naive certainly. Throw in the militant Black Panthers to boot.

I'm sorry you think Trump is a automatic danger to the entire world. Some hard choices need to be made for the US. The last 8 years was apology tours and bowing. In short, stagnant and non-committal. One man's opinion(me).

But it seems Trump has struck a chord with you because of his lack of tact, hate speech, etc. I agree. He says and does some of the most outlandish things. But what has Trump really done that past politicians have not done in one form or another? I get it, you don't like how Trump handles people. Political correctness and Trump are never used in the same sentence until now. However, all of that aside Trump still won the electoral college and the White House. It would seem people are more than willing to overlook and are completely fed up with where this country is going. Hillary was a very poor choice. They buried Saunder who would have probably won without issue. The Dems blew it.

Rockstar

02-02-17, 10:22 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0

or without a firing a shot watch as China's economy tanks then let 1.38 billion angry people with no jobs do what the U.S. Navy cant do.

MaDef

02-02-17, 10:22 AM

The Coffee Party? :hmmm: I think the "Henny Penny's" would be a more apt moniker.:up:

Bilge_Rat

02-02-17, 10:23 AM

My point wasn't to say trump is as worse as Hitler (of course not), it is the striking similarities when it comes to the naivety and mindset of both their voters.

That sounds very much like classic liberal arrogance, very tolerant of everyone else, but only if they agree with your viewpoint.

It is like the attitude towards Caitlin Jenner, she was a darling of the liberal/LGBT wing until they found out she suported Trump, now she is persona non grata.

First, you would have to be naive to think Clinton would have brought about paradise, as many of her supporter seemed to think.

Trump was not my first choice, I doubt he was for many conservatives, but he was certainly better than the alternative.

The basic mindset of many democrats is still to think that they lost the election because Trump voters were a bunch of "deplorables", when the reality is they ran a flawed campaign, led by a flawed candidate.

Oberon

02-02-17, 10:24 AM

They buried Saunder who would have probably won without issue.

Bernie?
Mr 'Socialist'?
Win...in America?

lol nope

Oberon

02-02-17, 10:26 AM

or without a firing a shot watch China's economy tank its own people rise up and its government implode.

If you think that the people of the US would take a war, economic or otherwise, with China sitting down then...well... :har:
So that would be two governments imploding.

Mutually Assured Implosion. :yep:

Catfish

02-02-17, 10:34 AM

Maybe Mrs Clinton was arrogant, I did not see a big difference to other presidents, when they spoke of their political enemies.
No doubt the campaign was probably awkward (was Trump's so good, in comparison?), or unprofessional, or dumb.
But then the (a)social media were never as strong as they are now. And every soapbox hero can claim what he wants, he who shouts loudest, wins.

Regarding lying everyone should by now be aware that Trump lied when he accused Clinton of everything bad under the sun. And that there is no evidence, from Benghazi to wherever, that she did something wrong.
http://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/06/28/comprehensive-guide-benghazi-myths-and-facts/211240
Remember the court's decisions after all those accusations?

OK she is a democrat and Obama was, so she is the devil. Or at least not much liked her, or not enough. Arrogant. And everyone wanted something/someone else, ok. But was she really the worse alternative?

Trump has cracked more porcelain than anyone before him and already in ten days, bing tired of the political class this is of course funnyfor a lot of people, almost like watching and hearing Nigel F. How does this qualify for a statesman?

Nippelspanner

02-02-17, 10:36 AM

Concerning the naivety and mindset of Trump voters, I believe you are overstepping. What are you basing your assumption on? The many I know who voted for Trump are anything but naive. The seig heil attitude was not different than the Hope/Change sieg heil and Obama will pay my mortgage attitude. Pay my mortgage? Naive certainly. Throw in the militant Black Panthers to boot.

I'm sorry you think Trump is a automatic danger to the entire world. Some hard choices need to be made for the US. The last 8 years was apology tours and bowing. In short, stagnant and non-committal. One man's opinion(me).

But it seems Trump has struck a chord with you because of his lack of tact, hate speech, etc. I agree. He says and does some of the most outlandish things. But what has Trump really done that past politicians have not done in one form or another? I get it, you don't like how Trump handles people. Political correctness and Trump are never used in the same sentence until now. However, all of that aside Trump still won the electoral college and the White House. It would seem people are more than willing to overlook and are completely fed up with where this country is going. Hillary was a very poor choice. They buried Saunder who would have probably won without issue. The Dems blew it.

Yes you observed that right.
I don't even care about trump, he is but a worthless oxygen thief to me and I am convinced this planet would be a better one without him, or his kind.

I care more about those who indeed not only accept this behavior, but even support it, acknowledge it by even raising him to power, instead of remembering why integrity, dignity and respect is of utmost value and importance for the office of the POTUS. No, they rather listened to right wing propaganda, luring them the easy way creating an enemy that shouldn't be one ("the Democrats "). I find it appalling and spineless. If I would vote a person like trump to power, I would feel ashamed for the rest if my life, because while I carefully mind not dropping an f bomb or be a "good Christian", I still betrayed all these values I claimed to hold dear and voted a scumbag into this office that once was so... Kinda holy.

/Rant

And yes, the Democrats completely defeated themselves, no doubt here. Hillary was the worst choice they could have made...

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 10:40 AM

Maybe Mrs Clinton was arrogant, I did not see a big difference to other presidents, when they spoke of their political enemies.
No doubt the campaign was probably awkward (was Trump's so good, in comparison?), or unprofessional, or dumb.
But then the (a)social media were never as strong as they are now. And every soapbox hero can claim what he wants, he who shouts loudest, wins.

Regarding lying everyone should by now be aware that Trump lied when he accused Clinton of everything bad under the sun. And that there is no evidence, from Benghazi to wherever, that she did something wrong.
http://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/06/28/comprehensive-guide-benghazi-myths-and-facts/211240
Remember the court's decisions after all those accusations?

OK she is a democrat and Obama was, so she is the devil. Or at least not much liked her, or not enough. Arrogant. And everyone wanted something/someone else, ok. But was she really the worse alternative? To Trump? :hmmm:

For the votes that counted(electoral) would indicated yes, Hillary was the worse alternative.

Bilge_Rat

02-02-17, 10:42 AM

OK she is a democrat and Obama was, so she is the devil. Or at least not much liked here, or not enough. And everyne wanted something/someone else, ok. But was she really the worse alternative? To Trump? :hmmm:

the reality is that both parties ran flawed candidates.

If the GoP had run Jeb Bush, Christie or even Rand Paul, all of which were on my short list, we would not be having this discussion.

If the Democrats had picked a better candidate, instead of just crowning Clinton, they could have beaten Trump. Many good candidates just sat out the race, like Biden, Cuomo (NY Gov), Franken, Warren.

who knows, maybe Bernie could have won.

However, that is all monday morning quarter backing, the reality is Trump is POTUS for at least the next 4 years.

Nippelspanner

02-02-17, 10:46 AM

That sounds very much like classic liberal arrogance, very tolerant of everyone else, but only if they agree with your viewpoint.

It is like the attitude towards Caitlin Jenner, she was a darling of the liberal/LGBT wing until they found out she suported Trump, now she is persona non grata.

First, you would have to be naive to think Clinton would have brought about paradise, as many of her supporter seemed to think.

Trump was not my first choice, I doubt he was for many conservatives, but he was certainly better than the alternative.

The basic mindset of many democrats is still to think that they lost the election because Trump voters were a bunch of "deplorables", when the reality is they ran a flawed campaign, led by a flawed candidate.

I am not a liberal. Weird, what does that say about your judgement?

And I never said Clinton would have brought paradise,but that's just typical. Tell you what: just because I'm against A doesn't mean I want B. Let that sink in.

And about the "certainly better choice"... Do I need to explain it?

Regarding what Democrats, or whoever, think, I don't know, nor do I care, I sure know that I do indeed see trump voters, many of them, as somewhat deplorable when we speak politics, it depends though. There are those who got fooled out of laziness, and then there are those who accept exactly what trump is, more so, support it. And THAT'S indeed a point where the word deplorable fits like a glove - in my opinion.
Why, that I explained in the posts above. I do not expect you or anyone to share this pov of course.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 10:50 AM

Yes you observed that right.
I don't even care about trump, he is but a worthless oxygen thief to me and I am convinced this planet would be a better one without him, or his kind.

I care more about those who indeed not only accept this behavior, but even support it, acknowledge it by even raising him to power, instead of remembering why integrity, dignity and respect is of utmost value and importance for the office of the POTUS. No, they rather listened to right wing propaganda, luring them the easy way creating an enemy that shouldn't be one ("the Democrats "). I find it appalling and spineless. If I would vote a person like trump to power, I would feel ashamed for the rest if my life, because while I carefully mind not dropping an f bomb or be a "good Christian", I still betrayed all these values I claimed to hold dear and voted a scumbag into this office that once was so... Kinda holy.

/Rant

And yes, the Democrats completely defeated themselves, no doubt here. Hillary was the worst choice they could have made...

It's ok to dislike a President. I have had my fair share. Just wonder what is "his kind".

Concerning propaganda, the Dems were not in short supply of that either. In fact, the news media was and still is stacked against Trump. Throw in the Hollywood elite as well. But Trump still won. Speaks volumes.

I can assure you the Trump supporters I know do not see Dems as the "enemy". That is conjecture on your part appearing to be driven by the media propaganda you speak of.

Now that we have stated our opinions let's turn the topic back to US politics and not what a douche bag Trump and his monkeys are. That has been established just about daily.

Onkel Neal

02-02-17, 11:05 AM

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 11:05 AM

Regarding what Republicans, or whoever, think, I don't know, nor do I care, I sure know that I do indeed see Hillary voters, many of them, as somewhat lazy when we speak politics, it depends though. There are those who got fooled out of stupidity, and then there are those who accept exactly what Hillary is, more so, support it. And THAT'S indeed a point where the word lazy fits like a glove - in my opinion.
Why, that I explained in the posts above. I do not expect you or anyone to share this pov of course.

If the shoe is on the other foot. :hmmm: Made some changes above.

Nippelspanner

02-02-17, 11:05 AM

I can assure you the Trump supporters I know do not see Dems as the "enemy". That is conjecture on your part appearing to be driven by the media propaganda you speak of.

Now that we have stated our opinions let's turn the topic back to US politics and not what a douche bag Trump and his monkeys are. That has been established just about daily.

And I can assure you, that I do not browse CNN or whatever mainstream media, nor do I "educate" myself on social media portals, nor do I build dance-circles of love where I meet with others who just say what I want to hear to feel like a part of something.

My opinions are to a good degree influenced by this board as well and by what I see some here write down.

And Trump being a despicable scumbag IS the topic, because that's the reason why your country right now is quite torn apart. Do you believe, or rather guesstimate, that Hillary would have created such severely negative responses world wide?
And if not: really just because of CNN and the evil liberal media?

I don't think so.
Trump is the problem, so we're right on topic.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 11:07 AM

The big question, is rioting the proper way to oppose something?

Sure, if there is no legal recourse for rioting as we have seen for the past years.

Nippelspanner

02-02-17, 11:12 AM

Sure, if there is no legal recourse for rioting as we have seen for the past years.

Really, you think rioting is ok?

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 11:13 AM

And I can assure you, that I do not browse CNN or whatever mainstream media, nor do I "educate" myself on social media portals, nor do I build dance-circles of love where I meet with others who just say what I want to hear to feel like a part of something.

My opinions are to a good degree influenced by this board as well and by what I see some here write down.

And Trump being a despicable scumbag IS the topic, because that's the reason why your country right now is quite torn apart. Do you believe, or rather guesstimate, that Hillary would have created such severely negative responses world wide?
And if not: really just because of CNN and the evil liberal media?

I don't think so.
Trump is the problem, so we're right on topic.

Please return to US politics. Hillary is finished in the political arena. She lost. Time to move on.

We have established Trump is a sphincter with associated hemorrhoids. Time to move on from that as well.

Let talk crack headed policy coming from the Oval Orifice!

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 11:15 AM

Really, you think rioting is ok?

I was being facetious. There is no legal recourse for rioting so it is done at will and seen as ok. It is seen as the "proper" way at present. Start banging heads and prosecuting then all will see it is not 'proper".

Catfish

02-02-17, 11:20 AM

^^ (two above) :haha: @AVGWarhawk Hehe, ok.

And also thanks to Bilge Rat, for a calm and good explanation :up:

Nippelspanner

02-02-17, 11:24 AM

Please return to US politics. Hillary is finished in the political arena. She lost. Time to move on.

We have established Trump is a sphincter with associated hemorrhoids. Time to move on from that as well.

Let talk crack headed policy coming from the Oval Orifice!

That kinda disappoints me, but at least it's no surprise. Yes, Hillary is done for, which is great news, but that had -nothing- to do with what I just asked. And you know it.
But it's alright, no answer required anymore.

Again though, Trump being a hemhorroid-covered sphincter is the problem, so right on topic? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 11:28 AM

That kinda disappoints me, but at least it's no surprise. Yes, Hillary is done for, which is great news, but that had -nothing- to do with what I just asked. And you know it.
But it's alright, no answer required anymore.

Again though, Trump being a hemhorroid-covered sphincter is the problem, so right on topic? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

What did you ask? I missed it. I will certainly answer. However, move on from Hillary. The world has seen and heard enough.

And no, brow beating Trump is not on topic.

Nippelspanner

02-02-17, 11:28 AM

I was being facetious. There is no legal recourse for rioting so it is done at will and seen as ok. It is seen as the "proper" way at present. Start banging heads and prosecuting then all will see it is not 'proper".

I know how you meant it, I was being cynical because Neals question was completely unqualified in the first place.
Why ask such a thing?
What answer is to be expected here?

All it does is provoke certain people here to pop out of their cave and mumble something about "dem' liberals!" - because a few stupid kids represent everyone who isn't on their side. Thumbs up.

Commander Wallace

02-02-17, 11:32 AM

Sailor Steve

02-02-17, 11:32 AM

And Trump being a despicable scumbag IS the topic...
Not necessarily. While I agree that Trump is not what I would describe as "desirable", what his presidency will look like has yet to be seen. I don't hold with the people who ardently defend him, nor with those who are heaping hate on him, but most of the vitriol is based on what people are certain he will do. I'm hoping it won't be as bad as some are sure it will, while I'm also worried that it might.

...because that's the reason why your country right now is quite torn apart. Not so. I have to agree with our right-leaning members on this one. The sole reason our country is being torn apart right now is the hate (not anger, which implies a reason, but simple hate) the other side has for him. The left hated Bush before the 2000 election, and they hated him before we went into Iraq. Those outcomes only gave them the reason they were already looking for. Likewise the obvious disdain the Right has for Hillary. While there are reasons to dislike them both, I don't see the venom from either side as warranted.

Do you believe, or rather guesstimate, that Hillary would have created such severely negative responses world wide? No, but not for the reasons you project. While people can vilify the Right in this country (and much of it is deserved), I don't believe the Right would have made the huge deal out of it that the Left is. I'm not talking about the Powers That Be in this case, but what I've seen from the common people. As I've said before, I've unfriended several people on FaceBook because of their continuing habit of reposting hate pictures, sometimes five or six times every day. One of them was from the Right, but by-and-large those people keep it to a reasonable level. The Left, not so much.

And If not: really just because of CNN and the evil liberal media? No. It's because people are so wrapped up in what they believe is absolute truth that they don't care about the real problems, just their need to hate whatever they disagree with.

Trump is the problem, so we're right on topic.Actually, you are the problem. Not you personally, but everybody on both sides of this question who see it as an absolute, and aren't willing to discuss what can actually be done. It's always easier to say "I'm right, and you're stupid" than it is to say "Well, I could be wrong. Let's talk about it." As long as so many on both sides have this attitude, the problems will continue.

Oberon

02-02-17, 12:01 PM

the hate (not anger, which implies a reason, but simple hate) the other side has for him.

In this instance Steve, that hate is mostly born from fear, fear that this unstable individual with skin the thickness of a micron will do something unbelievably stupid and bring things crashing down. More so they're scared of some of the people that he has around him, that he has elevated to vital positions and seems to be driven by, people like Steve Bannon, who express viewpoints that should make people extremely worried.
They're also scared about how many of the tick-boxes on that poster from the Holocaust Museum (http://www.metro.us/news/holocaust-museum-s-warning-signs-of-fascism-poster-shared-thousands-of-times-by-trump-protesters/zsJqaE---bbVCOi9J5D85U/fascism%202%20web.png) that present day America is able to tick, and that, unimpeded, the current administration is going to seek to tick more of them.

Nippelspanner

02-02-17, 12:04 PM

Not necessarily. While I agree that Trump is not what I would describe as "desirable", what his presidency will look like has yet to be seen. I don't hold with the people who ardently defend him, nor with those who are heaping hate on him, but most of the vitriol is based on what people are certain he will do. I'm hoping it won't be as bad as some are sure it will, while I'm also worried that it might.Steve, I am judging him due to what he did already, which to me is more than enough for a very final judgement, not what I imagine he might do - that would be rather baseless.

Not so. I have to agree with our right-leaning members on this one. The sole reason our country is being torn apart right now is the hate (not anger, which implies a reason, but simple hate) the other side has for him. The left hated Bush before the 2000 election, and they hated him before we went into Iraq. Those outcomes only gave them the reason they were already looking for. Likewise the obvious disdain the Right has for Hillary. While there are reasons to dislike them both, I don't see the venom from either side as warranted.
Wait a second, you just put it as if anyone who really hates him doesn't have a good reason. How so? Again, me? He gave me all the reasons to make up my opinion.
Yes, there are bandwagon haters on both sides who just preach to the choir, but in trumps case I easily see why many speak of actual hate and do see the venom as warranted, as you put it.

No, but not for the reasons you project. While people can vilify the Right in this country (and much of it is deserved), I don't believe the Right would have made the huge deal out of it that the Left is. I'm not talking about the Powers That Be in this case, but what I've seen from the common people. As I've said before, I've unfriended several people on FaceBook because of their continuing habit of reposting hate pictures, sometimes five or six times every day. One of them was from the Right, but by-and-large those people keep it to a reasonable level. The Left, not so much.
I think you're right that the right would not have made such a big deal out if it if November would have been different, you know why? Because it would have been baseless compared to trump.
Trump is a whole new level of ugly, that's why people are so extremely ob edge. I don't share your opinion that it's all just "haters gonna hate".

No. It's because people are so wrapped up in what they believe is absolute truth that they don't care about the real problems, just their need to hate whatever they disagree with.
"people"? So again everyone with a strong anti trump opinion like me, do I understand you right? While I see your core message and agree, I do not think that it's just "hate for the reason of hate" or whatever. For me, these strong feelings are very easy to understand in trumps case.

Actually, you are the problem. Not you personally, but everybody on both sides of this question who see it as an absolute, and aren't willing to discuss what can actually be done. It's always easier to say "I'm right, and you're stupid" than it is to say "Well, I could be wrong. Let's talk about it." As long as so many on both sides have this attitude, the problems will continue.
Ok honestly. What is left to discuss?
I said, don't do it. "Do not make this mistake and vote trump, and here is why."
Now we have trump but I am expected to deliver a solution because I'm against him?
Sorry, no. And it has nothing to do with me being right and whoever else is stupid, I do not hold such extreme views usually, however, in a clear case like trump - I do not see why I wouldn't be allowed to.

Maybe I misunderstood what you said, if so, sorry. I'm really tired and after talking trump for hours, my head feels like a mushy melon. I wanted to call it a day hours ago, yet didn't want to leave you unanswered.

Mr Quatro

02-02-17, 12:24 PM

Sure, if there is no legal recourse for rioting as we have seen for the past years.

There is legal recourse after the FBI finds out who orchestrated this riot, which I would refer to call national terrorism.

Clue to organized and not just some dorm hotheads is in this statement ‘150 masked agitators’: http://www.bing.com/search?q=150+masked+men+berkeley+riots&FORM=AWRE

Aimed at the head of the class President Trump ... sure the dude is anti-women that they ran off, but the way they did it to get national attention. This I do not trust ... someone with a lot of money is using their funds in a very dangerous way. If this keeps up ... they will catch him or her :yep:

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 12:34 PM

There is legal recourse after the FBI finds out who orchestrated this riot, which I would refer to call national terrorism.

If...the FBI finds out. They don't bother looking. Again, there is no recourse for rioting thus it keeps rearing it ugly head.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 12:38 PM

In this instance Steve, that hate is mostly born from fear, fear that this unstable individual with skin the thickness of a micron will do something unbelievably stupid and bring things crashing down. More so they're scared of some of the people that he has around him, that he has elevated to vital positions and seems to be driven by, people like Steve Bannon, who express viewpoints that should make people extremely worried.
They're also scared about how many of the tick-boxes on that poster from the Holocaust Museum (http://www.metro.us/news/holocaust-museum-s-warning-signs-of-fascism-poster-shared-thousands-of-times-by-trump-protesters/zsJqaE---bbVCOi9J5D85U/fascism%202%20web.png) that present day America is able to tick, and that, unimpeded, the current administration is going to seek to tick more of them.

The fear, IMO, is unfounded. Everyone in the government has a viewpoint. Even good old Robert Byrd(KKK Member) who Hillary considered a mentor. I can not understand why some think none of this happened before Trump? Lies, deception, sex, scandals, extremists in Congress/cabinet positions, stopping immigration for a month or so. It has all happened before Trump.

The real fear IMO is the rioting that is out of control(thus called a riot). Peoples lives, business, neighborhoods and homes are at risk over someone wanting to burn everything to the ground in the name of "what is right."

Mr Quatro

02-02-17, 12:42 PM

Let me add....everyone is entitled to their opinions and viewpoints. Moderation only comes into play when a clearly identifiable breach of the rules (fully explained and linked to up at the top of the page for everyone to read should they feel the need) takes place.

The most common examples being name calling and the exchange of insults.

This is as good a place as any to test my theory about Takeda Shingen ... He calls us men here at subsim Trumpies, but we just discuss the news and our views.

So I finally figured out where Tak's anger and bullying us is coming from ... :D

Simple :hmmm: Takeda Shingen is oriental and as everyone knows their left brain is different than our left brain.

Is that an insult or the truth? :yep:

https://www.verywell.com/left-brain-vs-right-brain-2795005
Left Brain vs Right Brain Dominance: The Surprising Truth
Understanding the Myth of Left Brain and Right Brain Dominance

August

02-02-17, 12:51 PM

Remember the court's decisions after all those accusations?

Hold on now Catfish.

Not sure what you mean by court decision as there has not been any in this case. Do you perhaps mean Congressional hearings?

In any case Media Matters being a progressive (read biased toward the Democrats) organization you had an administration that was not interested in finding Clinton either guilty or negligent of anything.

The thing is if she's not guilty of breaking the law (and I kinda agree with that) then she was definitely negligent, perhaps even criminally so, because there is no excuse for such a glaring lack of security in an obviously hostile and tumultuous situation like that and it ought to have been something that she was personally monitoring if not overseeing directly. Instead her attitude throughout this whole scandal was that such mundane details like the safety of her diplomats was not worth the attention of her exalted self and worse she has shown little or no remorse for it.

Then there is the fact that she had her husband meet secretly with Obamas Attorney General just a couple of days before Coomey made his report to Congress. That tells me that, as we say in Rhode Island, the fix was in.

OK she is a democrat and Obama was, so she is the devil. Or at least not much liked her, or not enough. Arrogant. And everyone wanted something/someone else, ok. But was she really the worse alternative?

Whatever you may think of Trump he isn't for sale like Clinton was. The collapse of her foundation after her influence taken away is proof of that.

Trump has cracked more porcelain than anyone before him and already in ten days, being tired of the political class this is of course funny for a lot of people, almost like watching and hearing Nigel F. How does this qualify for a statesman?

Well that's what we elected him to do. We have a political class in this country that has gotten far to big for their britches and Trump is, as Michael Moore said, a giant middle finger to them from the public they would rule. Just remember that the media being in the pocket of the Democrats will attempt to make a mountain out of the smallest molehill so Trump is never going to get a fair shake from them.

Bilge_Rat

02-02-17, 01:11 PM

In this instance Steve, that hate is mostly born from fear, fear that this unstable individual

ok, I will bite, what has he done since being elected that you find is "unstable".

people like Steve Bannon, who express viewpoints that should make people extremely worried.

ok, I will bite again. What exactly has Steve Bannon said that has you worried.

Here I am talking about his word, not other people's words that the media is trying to attribute to him.

They're also scared about how many of the tick-boxes on that poster from the Holocaust Museum (http://www.metro.us/news/holocaust-museum-s-warning-signs-of-fascism-poster-shared-thousands-of-times-by-trump-protesters/zsJqaE---bbVCOi9J5D85U/fascism%202%20web.png) that present day America is able to tick, and that, unimpeded, the current administration is going to seek to tick more of them.

which tick boxes exactly has the current admin ticked?

If you want a debate, bring along some real facts.

Sailor Steve

02-02-17, 01:16 PM

MaDef

02-02-17, 01:18 PM

Sure, if there is no legal recourse for rioting as we have seen for the past years.The problem with rioting, is that instead of being a last resort option, it's looking like it's becoming a "first club out of the bag" move.

Now for all of you having the trots over Trump being President, GOOD, that was my intention when I voted for him.

The status quo isn't good enough anymore, The Democrats & Republicans are nothing more than the flip side of the same coin, President Trump is beholden to no one but Himself and the American citizen for getting into office (and maybe Putin, but that's unconfirmed ;)). So far it looks like he's setting his administration up to be run like a business rather than a political focus group.
Whether he's successful or not remains to be seen. As for me, I plan on giving him a little bit of time before I start being overly critical every turn of phrase or mannerism, I'm more interested in results.

Same holds true for our foreign policy, we have too many irons in the fire, the worlds a different place from 40-50 years ago, treaties and agreements haven't kept up with events. We let other countries opinions and agenda's drive our policies. we need to dial back our global footprint and let those countries in the immediate region deal with their neighbors. especially when it comes to internal squabbles. I'm not advocating complete isolationism, I'm just tired of the U.S. being used as the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 01:25 PM

QUOTE=MaDef;2462902]The problem with rioting, is that instead of being a last resort option, it's looking like it's becoming a "first club out of the bag" move.

Bingo. Rioting is becoming par for the course.

Now for all of you having the trots over Trump being President, GOOD, that was my intention when I voted for him.

Haha...no beating around the bush.

The status quo isn't good enough anymore, The Democrats & Republicans are nothing more than the flip side of the same coin, President Trump is beholden to no one but Himself and the American citizen for getting into office (and maybe Putin, but that's unconfirmed ;)). So far it looks like he's setting his administration up to be run like a business rather than a political focus group.

I agree. I always viewed government as a business and wondered why it was run by lawyers. Not business in the sense of making goods. But in the sense of providing services that tax payers fund. How is a lawyer going to understand balancing the books?

Whether he's successful or not remains to be seen. As for me, I plan on giving him a little bit of time before I start being overly critical every turn of phrase or mannerism, I'm more interested in results.

Trump is result oriented. We may not like some of the results but none the less let's see how it goes.

Same holds true for our foreign policy, we have too many irons in the fire, the worlds a different place from 40-50 years ago, treaties and agreements haven't kept up with events. We let other countries opinions and agenda's drive our policies. we need to dial back our global footprint and let those countries in the immediate region deal with their neighbors. especially when it comes to internal squabbles. I'm not advocating complete isolationism, I'm just tired of the U.S. being used as the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
I agree with what you have said here. World police. If we saw the actual $ figure the USAID spends yearly our heads would spin.

yubba

02-02-17, 01:36 PM

The price of freedom is always high,, and so is the lust for power,, Soros spend Billions only to get a hat that says,, Make America Great Again.. ,, I for one just want to be left alone ,, to pursue my interests without answering to some control freak that can't run his own life,, 2626 counties voted for Trump to Hillary's 487 ,, I call that a landslide., and most of those Trump counties feed you,, so watch what hand you bite..

Onkel Neal

02-02-17, 01:47 PM

Do you believe, or rather guesstimate, that Hillary would have created such severely negative responses world wide? .

No, because conservatives have enough class that they don't react to adversity with riots and meltdowns,

Takeda Shingen

02-02-17, 01:48 PM

This is as good a place as any to test my theory about Takeda Shingen ... He calls us men here at subsim Trumpies, but we just discuss the news and our views.

So I finally figured out where Tak's anger and bullying us is coming from ... :D

Simple :hmmm: Takeda Shingen is oriental and as everyone knows their left brain is different than our left brain.

Is that an insult or the truth? :yep:

https://www.verywell.com/left-brain-vs-right-brain-2795005
Left Brain vs Right Brain Dominance: The Surprising Truth
Understanding the Myth of Left Brain and Right Brain Dominance

Is this the sort of eugenics they teach at Prager University? And oriental? The 1870's called, they want their term back.

Look, I'll help you out. I a white guy, straight. So, the whole "inferior Chinaman" line isn't going to work. I am, however, a left-leaning (gasp), college professor (scream) that is married to a Jew (faints). The appropriate line of slurs is therefore a global, elitist, race traitor. I'm sure that Prager University has all kinds of suplemental material that will help you come up with all kinds of creative insults.

I look forward to reading them! :subsim:

Takeda Shingen

02-02-17, 01:51 PM

No, because conservatives have enough class that they don't react to adversity with riots and meltdowns,

Yeah, they just rant about forming militias and run off to the woods with their guns to fight the New World Order. Get off the high horse.

Onkel Neal

02-02-17, 01:52 PM

Yeah, they just rant about forming militias and run off to the woods with their guns to fight the New World Order. Get off the high horse.

Haven't seen enough of that to take it seriously, sorry.

Takeda Shingen

02-02-17, 01:53 PM

Haven't seen enough of that to take it seriously, sorry.

I have. Too much of it. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I was at the protests the day after inauguration. I'm sure that makes me a disgusting sack of garbage.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 01:53 PM

Oberon

02-02-17, 01:53 PM

ok, I will bite, what has he done since being elected that you find is "unstable".

His entire behaviour, hitting out on twitter at random individuals and organisations just because they have annoyed him. Threatening the University of Berkeley with with-holding federal funds, even though the university was resisting calls to ban its controversial visitor and set up security to cover him. He's an ego-centric narcissist, and unable to take criticism...and that's a bad thing to be as president.

ok, I will bite again. What exactly has Steve Bannon said that has you worried.

Here I am talking about his word, not other people's words that the media is trying to attribute to him.

Well, I've not spoken to Steve Bannon face to face so I'm going to have to use some form of media, aren't I? :O: But anyone who compares himself to Dick Cheney, Darth Vader and Satan isn't exactly on the level, is he? And the vitriol that comes out of Breitbart isn't exactly to be taken lightly, is it?

which tick boxes exactly has the current admin ticked?

Powerful and continuing nationalism
A trademark of the American right, often intermixed with 'patriotism'.
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/08/07/whats-the-secret-to-donald-trumps-appeal-nationalism/

Disdain for human rights
Enhanced Interrogation

Identification of enemies as a common cause
Muslims, Mexicans, Immigrants - You pick.

Supremacy of the Military
Another trademark of the American right, Trump wants to make the military bigger, make it better, it's not good enough, the 'nuclear' is not good enough.

Rampant Sexism
Do I really need to give examples?

Controlled Mass Media
Not yet.

Obsession with National Security
The recent 'ban' (which is and isn't a ban depending on how the government is feeling on the day), the wall.

Religion and Government intertwined
Not yet, although when they get around to Roe vs Wade this will probably start happening.

Corporate Power protected
Well, durr

Labor Power suppressed
Not yet, but we'll see...he might actually surprise us with this one.

Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
And the feeling is mutual

Obsession with crime and punishment
'The Trump Administration will be a Law and Order administration'
'If Chicago doesn’t fix the horrible “carnage” going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds"

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
I could put examples here but people will just say "Oh, well that's not illegal", but it wouldn't be wrong to say that his family are doing very well out of his new job.

Fraudulent Elections
Well, that depends on who you ask too.

If you want a debate, bring along some real facts.

Did I ask for a debate? I was replying to Steve, after all, not you.

Takeda Shingen

02-02-17, 01:56 PM

Straight? How does professing sexual orientation help in this conversation?

Help in deflecting the race-based insults? Simple. I have demonstrated that I am exactly like him in every way but opinion. So it is not a case of "well, you're X demographic".

Did you not read the post to which I replied?

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 01:56 PM

His entire behaviour, hitting out on twitter at random individuals and organisations just because they have annoyed him. Threatening the University of Berkeley with with-holding federal funds, even though the university was resisting calls to ban its controversial visitor and set up security to cover him. He's an ego-centric narcissist, and unable to take criticism...and that's a bad thing to be as president.

Well, I've not spoken to Steve Bannon face to face so I'm going to have to use some form of media, aren't I? :O: But anyone who compares himself to Dick Cheney, Darth Vader and Satan isn't exactly on the level, is he? And the vitriol that comes out of Breitbart isn't exactly to be taken lightly, is it?

Powerful and continuing nationalism
A trademark of the American right, often intermixed with 'patriotism'.
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/08/07/whats-the-secret-to-donald-trumps-appeal-nationalism/

Disdain for human rights
Enhanced Interrogation

Identification of enemies as a common cause
Muslims, Mexicans, Immigrants - You pick.

Supremacy of the Military
Another trademark of the American right, Trump wants to make the military bigger, make it better, it's not good enough, the 'nuclear' is not good enough.

Rampant Sexism
Do I really need to give examples?

Controlled Mass Media
Not yet.

Obsession with National Security
The recent 'ban' (which is and isn't a ban depending on how the government is feeling on the day), the wall.

Religion and Government intertwined
Not yet, although when they get around to Roe vs Wade this will probably start happening.

Corporate Power protected
Well, durr

Labor Power suppressed
Not yet, but we'll see...he might actually surprise us with this one.

Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
And the feeling is mutual

Obsession with crime and punishment
'The Trump Administration will be a Law and Order administration'
'If Chicago doesn’t fix the horrible “carnage” going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds"

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
I could put examples here but people will just say "Oh, well that's not illegal", but it wouldn't be wrong to say that his family are doing very well out of his new job.

Fraudulent Elections
Well, that depends on who you ask too.

Did I ask for a debate? I was replying to Steve, after all, not you.

None of this is new, sir.

Oberon

02-02-17, 01:56 PM

None of this is new, sir.

I know, and no-one seems to be particularly bothered by it.

Takeda Shingen

02-02-17, 01:58 PM

I know, and no-one seems to be particularly bothered by it.

They won't be. If you're waiting for such a thing you're going to have to wait until the next non-Republican administration. Then they will be up in arms.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 02:01 PM

Help in deflecting the race-based insults? Simple. I have demonstrated that I am exactly like him in every way but opinion. So it is not a case of "well, you're X demographic".

Did you not read the post to which I replied?

Sexuality and race baiting? I do not see the correlation. But yes, citing left brain/right brain is a Chinese something or other. I did not read any further. Just jibberish to me. Useless post honestly.

To be frank, the baiting/labeling happens on all sides. Homophobic white supremist, gun totting, gun hugger, bible thumping deplorable. But they are all straight. On it goes.

Takeda Shingen

02-02-17, 02:04 PM

Sexuality and race baiting? I do not see the correlation. But yes, citing left brain/right brain is a Chinese something or other. I did not read any further. Just jibberish to me. Useless post honestly.

To be frank, the baiting/labeling happens on all sides. Homophobic white supremist, gun totting, gun hugger, bible thumping deplorable. But they are all straight. On it goes.

You're being deliberately obtuse here. The esteemed member in question said "he thinks Y becasue he's an X". I replied "no, I'm just like you". I then even went to help the esteemed member in question by providing helpful tips for more accurate future slurs.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 02:05 PM

I know, and no-one seems to be particularly bothered by it.

Because we have seen it ALL before. The world goes on. The sun comes up. We watch riots on TV. Rioting have gone on for decades. Clinton/Obama both talked up immigration problems. Blocked immigrations for a short period of time. The world went on. We have seen crazy on the oval office. Sexual affairs. Watergate. Iran Contra Affair. Executive orders for whatever they feel like. On it goes.

Nothing new.

Oberon

02-02-17, 02:05 PM

They won't be. If you're waiting for such a thing you're going to have to wait until the next non-Republican administration. Then they will be up in arms.

What is perhaps a bit concerning is the fact that the entire society of America seems slanted heavily to the right. Obviously there is a growing socialist movement but even Bernie Sanders is further right than many other socialist movements globally and he was vitrioled as a communist by his opponents.
It seems that anything even remotely left wing is seen as being akin to the anti-christ by many, and it's been this way for a very long time.
Now, I can understand how this feeling began, there was a very strong anti-communist movement in Europe in the aftermath of the Russian revolution, but after WWII that movement faded away slowly, except in the US where it went into overdrive with the likes of McCarthy.
I don't understand it if I'm honest.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 02:07 PM

You're being deliberately obtuse here. The esteemed member in question said "he thinks Y becasue he's an X". I replied "no, I'm just like you". I then even went to help the esteemed member in question by providing helpful tips for more accurate future slurs.

Not at all. I do not see how sexual orientation plays into this particular conversation.

Let's get back to politics since we know you like chicks. :subsim:

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 02:09 PM

What is perhaps a bit concerning is the fact that the entire society of America seems slanted heavily to the right.
I don't understand it if I'm honest.

Silent majority sir. Always been there. Silent. Did not happen overnight. So how is it concerning? Did the world end over the past 100 years from these silent folks?

Oberon

02-02-17, 02:11 PM

Because we have seen it ALL before. The world goes on. The sun comes up. We watch riots on TV. Rioting have gone on for decades. Clinton/Obama both talked up immigration problems. Blocked immigrations for a short period of time. The world went on. We have seen crazy on the oval office. Sexual affairs. Watergate. Iran Contra Affair. Executive orders for whatever they feel like. On it goes.

Nothing new.

No...the mood is different now, nastier, on both sides. I think that all of the times you've seen it all before have been leading up to a clash of ideologies in America, between the left and the right who have been growing further apart, and now it's war. No more middle ground, no more bi-partisanship, but all out war. It's not just government, it's society, and it seems to be heading towards a violent clash. Both sides will claim that the other started it, but to be honest, it really doesn't matter who starts it, not any more.

Takeda Shingen

02-02-17, 02:14 PM

What is perhaps a bit concerning is the fact that the entire society of America seems slanted heavily to the right. Obviously there is a growing socialist movement but even Bernie Sanders is further right than many other socialist movements globally and he was vitrioled as a communist by his opponents.
It seems that anything even remotely left wing is seen as being akin to the anti-christ by many, and it's been this way for a very long time.
Now, I can understand how this feeling began, there was a very strong anti-communist movement in Europe in the aftermath of the Russian revolution, but after WWII that movement faded away slowly, except in the US where it went into overdrive with the likes of McCarthy.
I don't understand it if I'm honest.

It isn't slanted right. The government at this time is. The American populace has remained fairly constant. Simplifying things, it is roughly 20 extreme right, 20 percent extreme left and the remaining 60 percent somewhere in the middle. Here you see mostly right-leaning individuals, but it really isn't an accurate sampling of America, as the SubSim demographic is almost entirely older, white and male.

Over the last few decades those on the extreme right have been muted. Society has disregarded them and moved without their consent. Trump's ascension to power has given those people a voice. It is like taking the lid off the pressure cooker. They're a lot louder than there were before. This is agitating those on the left, resulting in this back and forth. That conflict is pulling people from the middle to either side.

The end result is that Americans are generally not happy with each other. We've had hate crimes in our community, and I can never remember that happening. They've even been directed at my own family, which is why we're leaving. But in any case while the government is pursuing a right-wing agenda, the people are not a homogeneous political block. I don't think that this is the dawn of a century worth of isolationist policy from the US. A lot of people are already tired of the Trump administration.

Takeda Shingen

02-02-17, 02:17 PM

Not at all. I do not see how sexual orientation plays into this particular conversation.

Let's get back to politics since we know you like chicks. :subsim:

Yes, yes, I am the scum of the Earth and should be executed. Maybe if Bannon gets his way. Maybe.

Oberon

02-02-17, 02:18 PM

Silent majority sir. Always been there. Silent. Did not happen overnight. So how is it concerning? Did the world end over the past 100 years from these silent folks?

The world might not have, but millions of people did. With a silent nod that 'yes, those people are different, so it doesn't matter what happens to them', or 'Well, at least it isn't me'.
When a society gets to the point when it is willing to accept prejudice against people because of their race, gender, age, sexuality or religious choices, then it is the first step on a path that leads to camps and ovens.
As the popular saying goes "It didn't start with gas chambers, it started with politicians dividing the people with 'us vs them'. It started with intolerance and hate speech, and when people stopped caring, became desensitized and turned a blind eye."

We're better than that, aren't we?

Aren't we?

Takeda Shingen

02-02-17, 02:19 PM

Onkel Neal

02-02-17, 02:20 PM

No, protesting is fine. But the protests in the news are full of profane extremists who engage in criminal activities.

Plus, it's hard to get decent service at Subway when they are so understaffed.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 02:21 PM

No, protesting is fine. But the protests in the news are full of profane extremists who engage in criminal activities.

Plus, it's hard to get decent service at Subway when they are so understaffed.

And Starbucks.

Sailor Steve

02-02-17, 02:21 PM

Steve, I am judging him due to what he did already, which to me is more than enough for a very final judgement, not what I imagine he might do - that would be rather baseless.
Your judgment is based on what you are certain he's going to do, based on what he has said he will do. What exactly has he done so far? He's done a couple of things that people are already arguing about, which is fine. But if you already hated him before he took office, then you hate is indeed based on what you think he's going to do, because at that time he hadn't done anything.

[Wait a second, you just put it as if anyone who really hates him doesn't have a good reason. How so? Again, me? He gave me all the reasons to make up my opinion.[/quote]
If you go by the simplest dictionary definition, i.e. strong dislike, disgust, loathing, then I could be accused of hate. That said, to me "hate" involves a deeper emotional attachment: virulent dislike, believing the subject has no values at all, and must be eliminated at all costs. That may not be how you feel, but that's the way it looks to this outsider. I don't like Trump, and didn't want him for my president, but I didn't want Hillary either, and nobody offered what I thought was a reasonable alternative. People hate Trump "because he's a monster". Hillary? "She's a crook of the worst sort". Bernie Sanders? "He's a communist." Yes, you do have good reasons to dislike Trump, and to not trust him. But hate? That's a very strong word. To my mind there is never a reason to hate.

Yes, there are bandwagon haters on both sides who just preach to the choir, but in trumps case I easily see why many speak of actual hate and do see the venom as warranted, as you put it.
I think that anyone who shows that kind of vitriol is, as you put it, a "bandwagon hater". The people I see, hear and read who hate Trump would do son no matter what he says or does.It's the same on the other side, no matter who is in power. Trump is evil? Well, Obama was more so. Don't like Obama? Well, look at how bad Bush was. You've seen it here. Don't like Trump. You're a flaming Liberal. Don't like Obama? You're a Right-Wing reactionary. Believe everyone should have access to health care? Your a socialist. Believe you shouldn't have to pay for someone else's health care? You don't care about anyone but yourself. Even if it's true, just shouting out hate does no good at all. It would be a lot better if people figured out that the Other Side actually has reasons for feeling the way they do, and might have something to offer. "I'm right and you're stupid" never helps. Never.

I think you're right that the right would not have made such a big deal out if it if November would have been different, you know why? Because it would have been baseless compared to trump.
Trump is a whole new level of ugly, that's why people are so extremely ob edge. I don't share your opinion that it's all just "haters gonna hate".
As I said, there is plenty of reason to dislike and distrust the man. On the other hand, hate blinds the hater to everything else but his hate. While I do think you make some valid points, how can I (or you, for that matter) be sure that you are using reason at all? What can actually be done? I say this to the other side too. Their support of Trump is guided by their hatred for Hillary. Whatever Trump does, nothing could be as bad as what she would have done. Are they also right? Is one side's hate somehow "better" than the other's? I don't see it.

"people"? So again everyone with a strong anti trump opinion like me, do I understand you right?
No. Having a strong opinion for or against anyone or anything is understandable. The problem arises when the opinion becomes "fact". One of my defining moments was when I realized that I don't know anything. That got me thinking that nobody else does either. Being absolutely certain of something closes your mind to any thought that you might be wrong and reinforces your opinions, often falsely.

While I see your core message and agree, I do not think that it's just "hate for the reason of hate" or whatever. For me, these strong feelings are very easy to understand in trumps case.
If it's dislike, I agree. If it's hate, then it's relying on emotion and not reason. The telltale sign is in the way it's expressed. Discussing differing opinions is how things get resolved, or at least understood. Dismissing differing opinions because yours is the one that's right is closing the door to any kind of real understanding. I see far more of the latter than the former, especially among the "hate" that's going around right now. There is no discussion there, and no reason, only hate.

Ok honestly. What is left to discuss?
Lots of things, not that anything discussed here will change the world.

I said, don't do it. "Do not make this mistake and vote trump, and here is why."
And I didn't. The people who did think that his winning is a good thing. Are they wrong? Maybe. Are they crazy? Maybe. Are they right? Again, maybe, and that's the problem as I see it. Unless you have absolute proof that you are right, then your opinion is no better than mine or anybody else's. If it turns out you're right then we'll do something about it, if there's time (of course there's always the danger that there won't be, but we've lived with that my whole life). If you're wrong, and he does some good things, will you be able to admit it? If they're wrong, will they? Some will, and some won't, and we have both of those represented here at SubSim.

Now we have trump but I am expected to deliver a solution because I'm against him?
Not at all. I don't expect that anyone here has any real solutions, and even if they did, who would listen to this tiny corner of the universe? I just find it more useful to discuss the possibilities than to declare that I'm right and you're an idiot for disagreeing with me.

Sorry, no. And it has nothing to do with me being right and whoever else is stupid, I do not hold such extreme views usually, however, in a clear case like trump - I do not see why I wouldn't be allowed to.
And you should be allowed to. It's not the opinion so much as the expression of it. Those on the opposite side believe just as strongly that they are right, and how do you know for a fact that they aren't? That goes for them too. The biggest problem I see is people who are convinced they are right, no matter what the subject. Rather than get together and explore the possibilities it always seems easier to dismiss those who disagree as being wrong, and ridiculing them for believing something so obviously stupid.

But what if they're right after all?

Oberon

02-02-17, 02:22 PM

It isn't slanted right. The government at this time is. The American populace has remained fairly constant. Simplifying things, it is roughly 20 extreme right, 20 percent extreme left and the remaining 60 percent somewhere in the middle. Here you see mostly right-leaning individuals, but it really isn't an accurate sampling of America, as the SubSim demographic is almost entirely older, white and male.

Over the last few decades those on the extreme right have been muted. Society has disregarded them and moved without their consent. Trump's ascension to power has given those people a voice. It is like taking the lid off the pressure cooker. They're a lot louder than there were before. This is agitating those on the left, resulting in this back and forth. That conflict is pulling people from the middle to either side.

The end result is that Americans are generally not happy with each other. We've had hate crimes in our community, and I can never remember that happening. They've even been directed at my own family, which is why we're leaving. But in any case while the government is pursuing a right-wing agenda, the people are not a homogeneous political block. I don't think that this is the dawn of a century worth of isolationist policy from the US. A lot of people are already tired of the Trump administration.

I guess that's true, I keep basing my view on America based upon this forum and that's pretty wrong. To be fair though it's not just the current US administration that's let that pressure cooker go, it's happening everywhere, and I don't know where you're moving to but I hope that it's better than where you are...but I don't know where it isn't happening. France, the Netherlands, Poland, the UK, Germany, Hungary, Austria, the far-right are on the rise everywhere, feeding off each others victories and current crisis's in order to achieve their populist goals.
I don't like where this is all going.

Oberon

02-02-17, 02:24 PM

No, protesting is fine. But the protests in the news are full of profane extremists who engage in criminal activities.

What about the ones that aren't in the news? Don't you think there might be some correlation between violent protests and media coverage?

Plus, it's hard to get decent service at Subway when they are so understaffed.Meaning?

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 02:29 PM

The world might not have, but millions of people did. With a silent nod that 'yes, those people are different, so it doesn't matter what happens to them', or 'Well, at least it isn't me'.
When a society gets to the point when it is willing to accept prejudice against people because of their race, gender, age, sexuality or religious choices, then it is the first step on a path that leads to camps and ovens.
As the popular saying goes "It didn't start with gas chambers, it started with politicians dividing the people with 'us vs them'. It started with intolerance and hate speech, and when people stopped caring, became desensitized and turned a blind eye."

We're better than that, aren't we?

Aren't we?

Can you cite anything(paper/website) that states these people(silent majority) do not care and are hate filled? Please don't take me to some goose stepping website with skin heads. These are not those people who are the silent majority. Although Hillary/Dems/CNN would have you believe so. Deplorables all of them.

You have simply classed everyone who is the silent majority into nothing but a hate filled class of people.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 02:31 PM

Yes, yes, I am the scum of the Earth and should be executed. Maybe if Bannon gets his way. Maybe.

Are good old Senator Byrd got his way back in his day. :doh:

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 02:33 PM

It isn't slanted right. The government at this time is. The American populace has remained fairly constant. Simplifying things, it is roughly 20 extreme right, 20 percent extreme left and the remaining 60 percent somewhere in the middle. Here you see mostly right-leaning individuals, but it really isn't an accurate sampling of America, as the SubSim demographic is almost entirely older, white and male.

Over the last few decades those on the extreme right have been muted. Society has disregarded them and moved without their consent. Trump's ascension to power has given those people a voice. It is like taking the lid off the pressure cooker. They're a lot louder than there were before. This is agitating those on the left, resulting in this back and forth. That conflict is pulling people from the middle to either side.

The end result is that Americans are generally not happy with each other. We've had hate crimes in our community, and I can never remember that happening. They've even been directed at my own family, which is why we're leaving. But in any case while the government is pursuing a right-wing agenda, the people are not a homogeneous political block. I don't think that this is the dawn of a century worth of isolationist policy from the US. A lot of people are already tired of the Trump administration.

I agree with all but the last sentence. Unless you have some hard evidence of people tired of Trump already one can not just throw that out there.

Oberon

02-02-17, 02:34 PM

Can you cite anything(paper/website) that states these people(silent majority) do not care and are hate filled? Please don't take me to some goose stepping website with skin heads. These are not those people who are the silent majority. Although Hillary/Dems/CNN would have you believe so. Deplorables all of them.

You have simply classed everyone who is the silent majority into nothing but a hate filled class of people.

Well, who are the silent majority? Are these silent majority in agreement with the divisive tactics of the Trump campaign? Do they feel that it is fine to grab a woman 'by her pussy'? Or did they buy into the old adage of 'Making X Great Again' which every populist leader has used a version of because it's an easy sell.
Or was it purely a vote against 'Emails' Clinton? Because if so it comes across as cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Oberon

02-02-17, 02:37 PM

hard evidence of people tired of Trump already one can not just throw that out there.

http://www.areyousorryyet.com/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/12/secret-donald-trump-supporters-change-vote-election

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx

Takeda Shingen

02-02-17, 02:38 PM

I guess that's true, I keep basing my view on America based upon this forum and that's pretty wrong. To be fair though it's not just the current US administration that's let that pressure cooker go, it's happening everywhere, and I don't know where you're moving to but I hope that it's better than where you are...but I don't know where it isn't happening. France, the Netherlands, Poland, the UK, Germany, Hungary, Austria, the far-right are on the rise everywhere, feeding off each others victories and current crisis's in order to achieve their populist goals.
I don't like where this is all going.

Yes, you're right in all accounts. It's nuts out there right now. It has effected us personally. Long story inbound.

There is a relatively small group of Cambodian immigrants (refugees) that build a Buddhist temple a few years back. About a week after the election it is vandalized with all kinds of white supremacist graffiti and MAGA signs. So my wife, kids and myself go and do the neighborly and decent thing and help the monks clean things up. A few hours into the cleaning and a bunch of men show up and start hurling racial epithets at those of us cleaning. While very shocked, we didn't think anything of it at the time other than "wow what an awful bunch of people".

A few days later I am heading out to work. I put my garage door down to see an enormous yellow star with the word "soon". How did these people know where we live? Moreover, how did they know that my wife is Jewish? She doesn't even practice. We reported it to local law enforcement, and they shrugged it off saying that they'd, and this is a direct quote, "maybe mention something about it to the FBI". Really? Maybe mention it?

Fast forward to mid December. An envelope comes in the mail. Photos of my daughters leaving school. That was it. If people want their agenda so bad that they are willing to threaten our children then we are not going to stand and fight. While we went to the protests in DC, we have been also pursuing immigration.

The process has been easier for us than it will be for others. My wife, as you know, is a surgeon so having hospitals fight over you is a great way to push through the process. The suburbs of Perth will be our new home. We're now in the stage of closing up our affairs here, which is a lengthy and complicated process. She'll be heading over at the end of April and my daughters and I will join her after the school year ends.

I never thought that I would be a refugee fleeing the United States. It saddens me to leave my family's home, but we'll be ringing in 2018 in a new land with new hope. And, to circle back to your point, we chose Australia because so much of the far right that is rising is centered in Europe and North America. Australia will not be perfect or free from people like that, but the literal other side of the world seemed as good a place as any to try and start anew.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 02:40 PM

Well, who are the silent majority? Are these silent majority in agreement with the divisive tactics of the Trump campaign? Do they feel that it is fine to grab a woman 'by her pussy'? Or did they buy into the old adage of 'Making X Great Again' which every populist leader has used a version of because it's an easy sell.
Or was it purely a vote against 'Emails' Clinton? Because if so it comes across as cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Oh for Heaven sake. Are people OK with Clinton getting a BJ in the oval office. Are they ok with the long list of women who were sexually molested by Clinton. Will I guess so as he stayed in the limelight long after his presidency. The holier than though cramp is getting old.

Stop chiming in on Trump. The White House already had a sexual deviant. Nothing new. Widely accepted. Again...nothing new.

Takeda Shingen

02-02-17, 02:40 PM

I agree with all but the last sentence. Unless you have some hard evidence of people tired of Trump already one can not just throw that out there.

Turn on your television. Hit up the internet. Read even this very thread.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 02:43 PM

http://www.areyousorryyet.com/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/12/secret-donald-trump-supporters-change-vote-election

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx

The Guardian is the absolute worst. I'm not bothering with that link. Approval rating from gallop? Was Obama enjoying great ratings the entire 8 years? Disapproval does not indicate they are tired of Trump. The better question for gallop to ask is. "Are you tired of Trump? "

Takeda Shingen

02-02-17, 02:44 PM

The Guardian is the absolute worst. I'm not bothering with that link. Approval rating from gallop? Was Obama enjoying great ratings the entire 8 years? Disapproval does not indicate they are tired of Trump. The better question for gallop to ask is. "Are you tired of Trump? "

There isn't going to be any point in discussing anything with you if you're going to dismiss any evidence contrary to your point.

Bilge_Rat

02-02-17, 02:44 PM

http://www.areyousorryyet.com/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/12/secret-donald-trump-supporters-change-vote-election

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx

I will take your politically slanted polls and substitute these instead:

Job approval:

currently at 53%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history

support for trump's travel ban

The Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 49 percent of Americans agreed with the order and 41 percent disagreed. Some 53 percent of Democrats said they "strongly disagree" with Trump's action while 51 percent of Republicans said they "strongly agree."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-poll-exclusive-idUSKBN15F2MG

its easy to cherry pick polls to support your PoV.

Oberon

02-02-17, 02:46 PM

And there it is, exactly what I knew would be said in response.

So there we have it. A reality for everyone.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 02:49 PM

There isn't going to be any point in discussing anything with you if you're going to dismiss any evidence contrary to your point.

Approval ratings do not equate to people tired of Trump. And as I stated, The Guardian is crap.

Takeda Shingen

02-02-17, 02:50 PM

And there it is, exactly what I knew would be said in response.

So there we have it. A reality for everyone.

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

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 02:52 PM

And there it is, exactly what I knew would be said in response.

So there we have it. A reality for everyone.

And there we have what?

Oberon

02-02-17, 02:58 PM

A reality for everyone.

Perhaps we should put on the first post of this thread a list of acceptable news outlets and polling organisations. :hmmm:

Bilge_Rat

02-02-17, 03:10 PM

A reality for everyone.

Perhaps we should put on the first post of this thread a list of acceptable news outlets and polling organisations. :hmmm:

That is not the issue. The issue is that you want everyone to condemn Trump after just one week in office, not based on what he is doing but what he may do.

According most objective and/or conservative polls, pretty much all Trump voters are sticking with him so far. I saw on CBS saturday morning that his approval rating was 83% among Republicans and 7 % among Democrats.

Who knows, I may eventually turn against Trump, but it will be based on what he actually does in office, not based on some "unfounded fear" of what he might do.

No need to rush, he will be in office for the next 4 years at the very least, although he has already signaled that he will be running for re-election, so it could very well be 8 years.

p.s. - I did not support Obama in the 2008, but after he was elected, i did argue on this forum that he should be given a chance to govern. Actually, I recall that we did have several threads in 2009-2010 where some posters wanted Obama to be impeached immediately, so maybe things have not changed that much. :D

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 03:10 PM

A reality for everyone.

Perhaps we should put on the first post of this thread a list of acceptable news outlets and polling organisations. :hmmm:

I'm down with that!

mapuc

02-02-17, 03:21 PM

I must say, it have been a very interesting read the last few days.

I don't know how to explain my thoughts about Trump and those who put their vote on Trump (I have absolutely nothing against them, if you should wonder)

There's a reason why Trump became so famous or better so strong.

An anti-trump can always point his or her finger at a pro-trump person and call that person awful things BUT, if this those person(s) keep on doing this and not solve the problems USA may have, which made Trump so famous or strong, this or those person could very well face a Candidate that is worse than Trump in the future.

It's like a disease where the doctor only treat the pain but not the disease itself. (I do NOT see Trump or other as a disease, I just want to give a-forgot the word)

Markus

Takeda Shingen

02-02-17, 03:21 PM

I'm down with that!

Probably shorter and easier if we just list the acceptable outlets. I resubmit the list of Fox News, Rasmussen Polls, Breitbart and occasionally InfoWars.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 03:26 PM

Probably shorter and easier if we just list the acceptable outlets. I resubmit the list of Fox News, Rasmussen Polls, Breitbart and occasionally InfoWars.

Agreed. With exception of those you listed. They all suck. Especially Breitbart. Inforwars swallows.

I know you were being facetious.

What do you think of OAN (One American News)?

Takeda Shingen

02-02-17, 03:28 PM

Agreed. With exception of those you listed. They all suck. Especially Breitbart. Inforwars swallows.

I know you were being facetious.

What do you think of OAN (One American News)?

Never heard of it. I suspect it is a pro-Trump site since you're recommending it. Put it on the list, I am sure it's great.

Bilge_Rat

02-02-17, 03:29 PM

Blast from the past!!!!

post from 2010! what is the old saying, the more things change, the more they stay the same:

GR, actually I wanted McCain to win, but the american voters chose Obama and for better or worse, he is the president until jan. 20, 2013.

My point is more that impeachment should be reserved for outright iilegal conduct against the Constitution, conduct like Nixon's in 1972.

It's not healthy for a democracy to try to destroy its duly elected leaders just because you don't agree with their policies. Voters will get their chance to express their judgement in 2012.

Just remember that whatever Republicans pull against Obama, democrats wil be sure to do to the next Republican president.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1482840&postcount=14

p.s. _ I see many of the usual suspects are still around almost 7 years later...no doubt heavier and with less hair.:ping:

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 03:30 PM

eddie

02-02-17, 03:31 PM

Well the call to Malcolm Turnbull of Australia went to hell in a hand basket real quick! I guess Trump thinks he can bully anyone, got to be so proud of our fearless leader,lol

"It should have been one of the most congenial calls for the new commander in chief — a conversation with the leader of Australia, one of America’s staunchest allies, at the end of a triumphant week.
Instead, President Trump blasted Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over a refugee agreement and boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win, according to senior U.S. officials briefed on the Saturday exchange. Then, 25 minutes into what was expected to be an hour-long call, Trump abruptly ended it.
At one point, Trump informed Turnbull that he had spoken with four other world leaders that day — including Russian President Vladimir Putin — and that “this was the worst call by far.”
Trump’s behavior suggests that he is capable of subjecting world leaders, including close allies, to a version of the vitriol he frequently employs against political adversaries and news organizations in speeches and on Twitter (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump).
“This is the worst deal ever,” Trump fumed as Turnbull attempted to confirm that the United States would honor its pledge to take in 1,250 refugees (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/australian-pm-says-not-sure-how-many-refugees-us-will-accept/2017/01/31/28378f14-e836-11e6-903d-9b11ed7d8d2a_story.html?utm_term=.35c804d87aba) from an Australian detention center.
Trump, who one day earlier had signed an executive order temporarily barring the admission of refugees, complained that he was “going to get killed” politically and accused Australia of seeking to export the “next Boston bombers.”
Trump returned to the topic late Wednesday night, writing in a message on Twitter: “Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!”
U.S. officials said that Trump has behaved similarly in conversations with leaders of other countries, including Mexico. But his treatment of Turnbull was particularly striking because of the tight bond between the United States and Australia — countries that share intelligence, support one another diplomatically and have fought together in wars including in Iraq and Afghanistan."

:haha::haha:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/no-%e2%80%98g%e2%80%99day-mate%e2%80%99-on-call-with-australian-prime-minister-trump-badgers-and-brags/ar-AAmwmJc?li=BBnb7Kz

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 03:32 PM

Never heard of it. I suspect it is a pro-Trump site since you're recommending it. Put it on the list, I am sure it's great.

No not really. I watch a bit on TV. It is not opinion news. From my experience the state it like it is and move on. There is no commentary.

Take a look. Let me know what you think:

http://www.oann.com

Takeda Shingen

02-02-17, 03:33 PM

Well the call to Harold Brown of Australia went to hell in a hand basket real quick! I guess Trump thinks he can bully anyone, got to be so proud of our fearless leader,lol

"It should have been one of the most congenial calls for the new commander in chief — a conversation with the leader of Australia, one of America’s staunchest allies, at the end of a triumphant week.
Instead, President Trump blasted Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over a refugee agreement and boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win, according to senior U.S. officials briefed on the Saturday exchange. Then, 25 minutes into what was expected to be an hour-long call, Trump abruptly ended it.
At one point, Trump informed Turnbull that he had spoken with four other world leaders that day — including Russian President Vladimir Putin — and that “this was the worst call by far.”
Trump’s behavior suggests that he is capable of subjecting world leaders, including close allies, to a version of the vitriol he frequently employs against political adversaries and news organizations in speeches and on Twitter (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump).
“This is the worst deal ever,” Trump fumed as Turnbull attempted to confirm that the United States would honor its pledge to take in 1,250 refugees (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/australian-pm-says-not-sure-how-many-refugees-us-will-accept/2017/01/31/28378f14-e836-11e6-903d-9b11ed7d8d2a_story.html?utm_term=.35c804d87aba) from an Australian detention center.
Trump, who one day earlier had signed an executive order temporarily barring the admission of refugees, complained that he was “going to get killed” politically and accused Australia of seeking to export the “next Boston bombers.”
Trump returned to the topic late Wednesday night, writing in a message on Twitter: “Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!”
U.S. officials said that Trump has behaved similarly in conversations with leaders of other countries, including Mexico. But his treatment of Turnbull was particularly striking because of the tight bond between the United States and Australia — countries that share intelligence, support one another diplomatically and have fought together in wars including in Iraq and Afghanistan."

:haha::haha:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/no-%e2%80%98g%e2%80%99day-mate%e2%80%99-on-call-with-australian-prime-minister-trump-badgers-and-brags/ar-AAmwmJc?li=BBnb7Kz

Man am I glad our immigration paperwork went through before Trump called. :har:

AVGWarhawk

02-02-17, 03:35 PM

Man am I glad our immigration paperwork went through before Trump called. :har:

:har:

Oberon

02-02-17, 03:57 PM

Man am I glad our immigration paperwork went through before Trump called. :har:

Aussie land? Nice, remember to pack a shedload of sunscreen though, I hear it's already Nevada down there. :dead:

August

02-02-17, 04:20 PM

Interesting article. Might give our foreign friends a little insight without seeing it through the distorting lenses of the dem media.

Trump Is Doing Exactly What He Said He Would Do
http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/02/trump-exactly-said/

Just about two weeks into his presidency, Donald Trump has already surprised Democrats and Republicans alike by doing one simple thing: Following through on his campaign promises. It is enraging Democrats and shocking Republicans. The only group not surprised? The “silent majority” who voted for him.By issuing several executive orders (EOs), including the one temporarily keeping refugees from specific countries from entering the United States, and now nominating Neil Gorsuch, who appears to be an intellectual twin to the late “originalist” Justice Antonin Scalia, to the Supreme Court, some conservatives are already considering this presidency a victory.

During much of the last year, conservative Twitter argued often about the concept of being #NeverTrump (hashtag and all). Many conservatives like myself were not keen on supporting Trump given his authoritarian and populist statements, but did hope he might nominate a more conservative justice, or thought he was more likely to do so than Hillary Clinton was.
Many participated in or observed dozens of debates along these lines. I was often and adamantly told by self-professed Never Trumpers that “Vote Trump because SCOTUS” was a terrible reason to support Trump. They claimed it was too one-note, or that SCOTUS is not of that much consequence, or that even if Trump nominated a conservative justice, anything else he might do could harm the republic more.
Without Scalia the Supreme Court has experienced some gridlock due to numbers and ideological makeup. Our way of life is often affected in big and small ways by the decisions the Supreme Court makes. (If you don’t think so, consider Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, or King v. Burwell.) Granted, Twitter is certainly not representative of the American political landscape at large, but even outside Twitter we saw a significant amount of heated political debate on whether to support Trump because of the very thing he did Tuesday night. To wit:

MaDef

02-02-17, 05:17 PM

Bilge_Rat

02-02-17, 05:27 PM

So far I'm with Trump on this. Tell me what does the U.S. get in return for taking 1250 "refugees" off the hands of the Australians.?

I have to admit, I have been wondering the same thing. As I understand it, these are refugees who tried to get to Australia illegally and which Australia stuck in offshore detention camps for years.

Why doesn't Australia admit them?

It looks like the Australian Govt is looking for a politically convenient way to resolve their illegal immigration problem.

Méo

02-02-17, 06:04 PM

the reason why Subsim seems biased towards trump is simple: Most political sane people left over the years or simply learned that trying to roll rocks uphill is rather futile and stay silent.
I just get dragged back in again and again as well, only to see how futile it is trying to have a debate with people who don't want a debate, let alone find out the truth in the process of a debate, but just want to be right.

So, if everyone agreed with you, they would be politically sane? I see, I never knew opinion worked that way.

Probably misunderstood that, but from my point of view what I thought is that it's quite futile to try to debate with people with a closed mind.

This thread is not about arithmetics... it's about a much more complex and less tangible subject.

Therefore it always amaze me how some people with no experience in the field and with only a small part of information of the whole problem manage to find the perfect (and simple) solution to real complex situations (ex: foreign policy, and many more).

Futhermore, they don't even seem to be aware of the possibility that their opinion could be based on incomplete or biased information.

And this is indepedent of any political views.

Just my two cents...;)

Castout

02-02-17, 06:44 PM

What kind of sorcery will happen in the coming 3 years that will grant China a war-capable navy?

That sorcery is called facts...

http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/pla-daily-commentary/2016-07/22/content_7169666.htm

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-the-us-navy-could-be-big-trouble-china-plans-351-ships-16101

http://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-navy-may-outnumber-us-navy-by-2020-2016-5?IR=T&r=US&IR=T

Ship-to-ship the Chinese vessels may not yet be on par with their American counterparts but given another 5-6 years past 2020 then...ship-to-ship parity may be achieved.

But 2020 should give the American Navy a long pause before deciding to go to war with China at sea. This may encourage more aggressive maneuvering on the part of China though. Taiwan comes to mind.

If China was doing well Taiwan would not be in danger of an invasion but China is in a deep economic malaise that's not likely to be resolved by 2020.

Oberon

02-02-17, 06:59 PM

Wonder how Putin will react when the time comes for the US to bomb Iran...I mean, Iran is an arms market, but then again it could be that he'll get Ukraine and Syria in return for looking the other way in Iran. :hmmm:

Oberon

02-02-17, 07:06 PM

Mr Quatro

02-02-17, 09:16 PM

Is this the sort of eugenics they teach at Prager University? And oriental? The 1870's called, they want their term back.

Look, I'll help you out. I a white guy, straight. So, the whole "inferior Chinaman" line isn't going to work. I am, however, a left-leaning (gasp), college professor (scream) that is married to a Jew (faints). The appropriate line of slurs is therefore a global, elitist, race traitor. I'm sure that Prager University has all kinds of suplemental material that will help you come up with all kinds of creative insults.

I look forward to reading them! :subsim:

The bible says not to judge people by their outward appearance, but I do it without thinking and then repent.
I'm sorry I judged you by your name as being different than we are due to they really do have problems thinking the same as we do.

Discerning is learning and judging is trudging

Carry on with your left brain thoughts about Trump and I will watch and wait for his success to prove you wrong.

Tell me what names can we legally call you?

Pro this pro that or anti this and anti that?

I just prefer to be called for supper myself :yep:

Nippelspanner

02-02-17, 10:36 PM

Your judgment is based on what you are certain he's going to do, based on what he has said he will do.
Ok seriously this crosses some line for me where I do not see a reason to continue.

I just explicitly said that what he did already is enough for me to form a strong opinion about him and be genuinely convinced that he is a terrible person.
I do not need you, or anyone, telling me "no you actually feel this/that and your opinion is unjustified".
That's not only disrespectful and patronizing, it is defeating the purpose of exchanging opinions altogether.

Sailor Steve

02-02-17, 10:42 PM

Ok seriously this crosses some line for me where I do not see a reason to continue.

I just explicitly said that what he did already is enough for me to form a strong opinion about him and be genuinely convinced that he is a terrible person.
I do not need you, or anyone, telling me "no you actually feel this/that and your opinion is unjustified".
That's not only disrespectful and patronizing, it is defeating the purpose of exchanging opinions altogether.
Didn't come out exactly the way I meant it. So tell me, exactly what has he done so far?

Nippelspanner

02-02-17, 10:59 PM

Didn't come out exactly the way I meant it. So tell me, exactly what has he done so far?

Did you follow what he said during the elections, and since he is in office?
If this isn't enough to know he should not be president I don't know what is.
For me, it has been enough long before November.

em2nought

02-02-17, 11:04 PM

Wonder how Putin will react when the time comes for the US to bomb Iran...I mean, Iran is an arms market, :hmmm:

Easy peasy, just let "we the people" buy anything Iran can buy. :up: Something like a BMP with a plow on the front end for trips to the city. lol

August

02-02-17, 11:12 PM

yubba

02-02-17, 11:12 PM

Didn't come out exactly the way I meant it. So tell me, exactly what has he done so far?

Well, in your opinion he has done nothing,, then why are they rioting,,, God forbid someone gets killed,, I'm surprised that it hasn't happened yet,, if it does will you denounce the violence,, as I see it, if that does happen,, the left will be everything I said it was after all these years,, now wouldn't that be a pip ???
I don't recall us Tea Baggers,, rioting,, destroying private property,, or beating up people after 2 elections of Obama,, as much as you wanted us to ,, too claim the moral high ground

yubba

02-02-17, 11:15 PM

Easy peasy, just let "we the people" buy anything Iran can buy. lol
What Clocks ????

Sailor Steve

02-02-17, 11:36 PM

Did you follow what he said during the elections, and since he is in office?
If this isn't enough to know he should not be president I don't know what is.
For me, it has been enough long before November.
Wait wait wait. Back up a little bit. In your last post you took offense because I said, and I quote:
Your judgment is based on what you are certain he's going to do, based on what he has said he will do.

You got angry and said:
I just explicitly said that what he did already is enough for me to form a strong opinion about him and be genuinely convinced that he is a terrible person.

So I ask what he did, and you reply that it's what he said before the election and since he's been in office. That's not me telling you what you said, it's what you actually said. Oh, and I never said your opinion is unjustified, or that you feel something you don't. What I said was that your hatred, but your own admission, is based on what he said, not on what he did. That's okay too, but you insist that it's what he did.

So I ask again, what has he actually done that's got you so worked up?

Sailor Steve

02-02-17, 11:47 PM

Well, in your opinion he has done nothing,, then why are they rioting,,,
And now I have proof that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Did you even read the other comments related to my post? You are still laboring under the misapprehension that I'm a Liberal.

God forbid someone gets killed,, I'm surprised that it hasn't happened yet,, if it does will you denounce the violence,, I've already denounced the violence. I think the people who are rioting are idiots. Did you not also read where I said I don't like Trump, but I also don't like Hillary? Did you not read my recent statement that I didn't vote for either of them?

as I see it, if that does happen,, the left will be everything I said it was after all these years,, now wouldn't that be a pip ??? Have you not read any of my recent posts? Do you always just assume that if someone says one thing you disagree with they therefore belong to the Other Side? I agree with you about the Left. I also agree with them about the Right. Both sides have their extremes, and both sides have people who are reasonable. Being locked firmly into one side or the other is the biggest problem this country has. Unless you can discuss the issues for themselves and try to reach some kind of compromise, you are part of the problem.

I don't recall us Tea Baggers,, rioting,, destroying private property,, or beating up people after 2 elections of Obama,, as much as you wanted us to ,, too claim the moral high groundAgain you accuse me of belonging to the side you don't like, without bothering to listen to what I actually say. I'm not any of the things you claim, but you are either unwilling or unable to see that.

Talk to me again when you've learned what "discussion" means.

Nippelspanner

02-02-17, 11:51 PM

Wait wait wait. Back up a little bit. In your last post you took offense because I said, and I quote:

You got angry and said:

So I ask what he did, and you reply that it's what he said before the election and since he's been in office. That's not me telling you what you said, it's what you actually said. Oh, and I never said your opinion is unjustified, or that you feel something you don't. What I said was that your hatred, but your own admission, is based on what he said, not on what he did. That's okay too, but you insist that it's what he did.

So I ask again, what has he actually done that's got you so worked up?

Why is it so difficult?

I took offense because instead of accepting that for some people what he IS is already enough to build an opinion, irrelevant to what he did or will do in the coming years, you simply claimed to know what I base my opinion on - despite me having said that clearly already. What's the point of this?

And what do you want to hear, what do you mean "What had he done?" isn't what he said and did over the last year enough already? Does there really need to be more even?
Where's the line when one's allowed to judge him in your opinion?

eddie

02-03-17, 12:33 AM

Aussie land? Nice, remember to pack a shedload of sunscreen though, I hear it's already Nevada down there. :dead:

Oberon, if Trump goes on a tangent again about the crowds at his inauguration, we'll show him this picture,lol

https://s19.postimg.org/s74bjra2r/16114568_1249506228490864_8206382088211292386_n.jp g (https://postimg.org/image/9esgg6dof/)image hoster (https://postimage.org/)

Sailor Steve

02-03-17, 01:15 AM

Why is it so difficult?

I took offense because instead of accepting that for some people what he IS is already enough to build an opinion, irrelevant to what he did or will do in the coming years, you simply claimed to know what I base my opinion on - despite me having said that clearly already. What's the point of this?
I don't claim to know what you base your opinion on. You said he's done things that warrant the hatred he's received. When I ask what he's done you say it's not what he's done, it's what he said. That's fine, but what he said isn't necessarily what he's going to do. Politicians say things all the time, and end up doing far different things. So he hasn't done anything yet, but you hate him already.

And what do you want to hear, what do you mean "What had he done?" isn't what he said and did over the last year enough already? Does there really need to be more even?
I would think so. Judging someone before he's done anything, is known as pre-judging, aka prejudice.

Where's the line when one's allowed to judge him in your opinion?
There is no "allowed". Everybody gets to think and say what they want. I just question the concept of hating someone for what he's done when he hasn't actually done anything yet.

No, I don't like him either. My only argument was that "hate" is an awfully strong concept. He's not my first choice as President, or even my fourth. But hate? That needs a real reason.

Nippelspanner

02-03-17, 01:38 AM

Oberon

02-03-17, 02:35 AM

I dunno, how did they do in the 80 odd years they were able to buy them before Obama took away their constitutional rights by imperial edict?

Seriously though, there's no problem with giving someone with severe mental illnesses access to firearms? This doesn't strike anyone as being a bad idea? You don't think that they might shoot themselves or someone around them?

EDIT: Oh, and how about that Bowling Green massacre then? Gun violence must be so bad over there that they didn't even bother reporting it!

Dowly

02-03-17, 03:15 AM

http://i.imgur.com/BNfRoTp.gif

Oberon

02-03-17, 04:33 AM

Still credit where it is due, thank you to the conservatives who joined with liberals to oppose HR621. :up:

vienna

02-03-17, 05:12 AM

Just catching up; been off for a couple of days; spirit willing, body weak and all that...

Actually, I saw a documentary called Down Periscope! once in which they tested this, and the diesel boat was able to sneak past a modern sub (and I think a bunch of surface vessels) unnoticed. :yep:

Fact is stranger than fiction:

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

Really, you think rioting is ok?

Seems like its been an American tradition since the beginning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_Colonial_Nort h_America

I'm sure the Crown thought the demonstrators and rioters in those times were disloyal rabble and don't get them started on the biased media, you know, like that Thomas Paine fellow:

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

Odd how a lot of those radical, liberal rabble rousers went on to form the government we hold so dearly and, in the many, many years since are seen as national heroes and touchstones of US democracy. When is a revolution ever legal? When you win...

No, because conservatives have enough class that they don't react to adversity with riots and meltdowns,

Ahem...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_k0iORUZg

Oh for Heaven sake. Are people OK with Clinton getting a BJ in the oval office. Are they ok with the long list of women who were sexually molested by Clinton. Will I guess so as he stayed in the limelight long after his presidency. The holier than though cramp is getting old.

Stop chiming in on Trump. The White House already had a sexual deviant. Nothing new. Widely accepted. Again...nothing new.

My god, I must have been away a long time! When did the Clintons get back into the Oval Office? I thought that Trump fellow was in charge, is he not? Shouldn't we be more concerned with what he is doing and leave the actions of people not sitting in the Big Chair, which we cannot go back and change, out of the argument of what we now face. It doesn't matter what they did or didn't say or do; that is the past and, unless there are repercussions that are best left to the workings of the law, they have extremely little to no bearing on what the present occupant of the White House is doing and the conduct of his administration. It seems the only time the questionable or illegal actions of those in the past is brought up is mainly as an attempt to justify the questionable or illegal actions of the current administration. Given the main selling point for Trump's election was he was going to reform the government, you know, drain the swamp, there should be a better defense of his administration than 'Well, the other guys did it too!'; is the best to be said of the current situation(s) is just to justify the continuation of malfeasance?...

So far I'm with Trump on this. Tell me what does the U.S. get in return for taking 1250 "refugees" off the hands of the Australians.?

Not much, unless this counts:

Congressional Research Service -- Australia: Background and U.S. Relations 12/14/2015

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33010.pdf

Trump's handling of the Acting-AG situation shows how politically dense he really is; instead of firing her in a knee-jerk reaction, he should have just let her be and waited the day or so for his own choice to be confirmed; the confirmation would have pretty much easily gone through, there would have been far less of an uproar and he wouldn't have handed his opponent yet another club with which to beat him; of course, such actions would have required maturity, considered thought and a grasp of political strategy, so I guess the outcome was to have been expected...

As time goes on, I can't help but marvel at the similarities between Trump's approach to handling the duties, obligations and limitations of the Presidency and the approach of another whom he may soon join in the history books:

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

<O>

MaDef

02-03-17, 08:16 AM

Oh, and repealing the regulation to prevent people with severe mental illnesses from buying firearms...no way that can backfire, eh? :hmmm:

https://bearingarms.com/beth-b/2017/02/02/congress-rolls-back-stringent-background-checks-for-citizens-on-social-security-disability/

I'll field this one, it was a "bad law", for a couple of reasons.

1. It was a knee jerk law in response to the Sandy Hook School shooting. (The shooter did not legally own a gun, He broke into his mother's gun safe and took her guns).

2. In this country gun ownership is a right, and can only be rescinded through due process that usually means the person has been convicted of a crime or is on parole or as a condition of probation (this one is usually temporary).

3. In this country you cannot take someones rights away for something they might do, you can only do that for something they have done.

Oberon

02-03-17, 08:19 AM

I'll field this one, it was a "bad law", for a couple of reasons.

1. It was a knee jerk law in response to the Sandy Hook School shooting. (The shooter did not legally own a gun, He broke into his mother's gun safe and took her guns).

2. In this country gun ownership is a right, and can only be rescinded through due process that usually means the person has been convicted of a crime or is on parole or as a condition of probation (this one is usually temporary).

3. In this country you cannot take someones rights away for something they might do, you can only do that for something they have done.

I figured as much, just seems a bit of a shame for those who may well die that you can only take away the firearms after the rampage, by which time they're probably dead anyway. I mean, are people under the same conditions legal to drive a car or fly an aircraft? :hmmm:

MaDef

02-03-17, 08:21 AM

EDIT: Oh, and how about that Bowling Green massacre then? Gun violence must be so bad over there that they didn't even bother reporting it! I call BS on that story, only place that happened was in someones imagination.

Oberon

02-03-17, 08:23 AM

As time goes on, I can't help but marvel at the similarities between Trump's approach to handling the duties, obligations and limitations of the Presidency and the approach of another whom he may soon join in the history books:

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

<O>

Funny you should say that:

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

:03:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t8hpEKb4gk

Catfish

02-03-17, 08:23 AM

[...]
3. In this country you cannot take someones rights away for something they might do, you can only do that for something they have done.

What about millions of muslims who never thought or think of terrorism. or Mexicans, for that matter :hmmm:

Oberon

02-03-17, 08:26 AM

I call BS on that story, only place that happened was in someones imagination.

Everyone is calling BS on that story...except Kellyanne Conway, of course:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzCc71WomFw

Onkel Neal

02-03-17, 08:26 AM

Foriegners don't have the same rights as American citizens.

MaDef

02-03-17, 08:29 AM

I figured as much, just seems a bit of a shame for those who may well die that you can only take away the firearms after the rampage, by which time they're probably dead anyway. I mean, are people under the same conditions legal to drive a car or fly an aircraft? :hmmm:

while owning/operating a car/truck isn't a right covered under the constitution,
you don't need a license to own or operate the vehicle as long as it's on private property. (personal experience growing up)

MaDef

02-03-17, 08:52 AM

What about millions of muslims who never thought or think of terrorism. or Mexicans, for that matter :hmmm: as far as I know, they have all the same rights if (big if here) they are naturalized citizens

If they hold a green card (meaning they are legal alien residents) they have most of the rights a citizen has. Although they cannot vote, they cannot remain outside the U.S. for an unlimited amount of time, they need to advise immigration services of change of addresses when they move, they cannot commit crimes, espionage, or terrorism, if they don't follow those rules they can lose the right to live here.

In my opinion, If they are here illegally they should be afforded the rights under the 5th amendment and given an expedited trip back to their country of Origin.

I don't have a problem with this, I have a problem with my government not following the rules that they themselves wrote. (also known as enforcement)

Oberon

02-03-17, 08:56 AM

while owning/operating a car/truck isn't a right covered under the constitution,
you don't need a license to own or operate the vehicle as long as it's on private property. (personal experience growing up)

Yeah, I think the same laws apply here which is useful out in the countryside.
Eh, I understand the whole right based under the constitution, and that's something that's not likely to change, well...not soon anyway.
I wonder if there will ever be an answer to it, still...that's a topic for another thread I guess, which we've already covered extensively.
Still...on the up side, American hospitals have done huge things for the development of treatment of bullet wounds, so that's a positive I guess.

Jimbuna

02-03-17, 09:00 AM

Still...on the up side, American hospitals have done huge things for the development of treatment of bullet wounds, so that's a positive I guess.

Much like those in Belfast during the troubles.

MaDef

02-03-17, 09:18 AM

Yeah, I think the same laws apply here which is useful out in the countryside.
Eh, I understand the whole right based under the constitution, and that's something that's not likely to change, well...not soon anyway.
I wonder if there will ever be an answer to it, still...that's a topic for another thread I guess, which we've already covered extensively.
Still...on the up side, American hospitals have done huge things for the development of treatment of bullet wounds, so that's a positive I guess.One thing to keep in mind, is the impact is a bit overblown, of the 2.5 million deaths we have a year, about 1.2% are firearm related, and of those most are accidents or suicides. It's not the wild wild west anymore, no matter what the movies would have you believe.

Oberon

02-03-17, 09:25 AM

One thing to keep in mind, is the impact is a bit overblown, of the 2.5 million deaths we have a year, about 1.2% are firearm related, and of those most are accidents or suicides. It's not the wild wild west anymore, no matter what the movies would have you believe.

Are you saying Will Smith lied to me? :o

Next you'll be telling me that Kenneth Branagh never had a giant steam-powered metal spider! :nope:

The mass shootings are a problem though, and considering the impact size compared with terrorism, it does seem a bit off to do so much against terrorists, but so little against mass shootings. I mean, I know it's an easier target, but when you compare the amount of Americans killed by either cause...

MaDef

02-03-17, 09:47 AM

Are you saying Will Smith lied to me? :o

Next you'll be telling me that Kenneth Branagh never had a giant steam-powered metal spider! :nope:

The mass shootings are a problem though, and considering the impact size compared with terrorism, it does seem a bit off to do so much against terrorists, but so little against mass shootings. I mean, I know it's an easier target, but when you compare the amount of Americans killed by either cause...
most are committed by mentally ill people who shouldn't be unsupervised, but it's not been politically correct to use sanitariums or asylums since the 60's and having someone declared incompetent so they can be committed involuntarily is very difficult.

MaDef

02-03-17, 09:55 AM

time to get back on topic, what did Trump do today that's going to get every one's panties in a bunch?:D

Bilge_Rat

02-03-17, 10:01 AM

EDIT: Oh, and how about that Bowling Green massacre then? Gun violence must be so bad over there that they didn't even bother reporting it!

is that like the anti-Trumpers who are convinced he is a Russian agent?

AVGWarhawk

02-03-17, 10:03 AM

Foriegners don't have the same rights as American citizens.

Many lose sight of that.

Bilge_Rat

02-03-17, 10:03 AM

time to get back on topic, what did Trump do today that's going to get every one's panties in a bunch?:D

still be President..:O:

AVGWarhawk

02-03-17, 10:07 AM

time to get back on topic, what did Trump do today that's going to get every one's panties in a bunch?:D

Trump used 3 lumps of sugar in his coffee instead of 2.

It's early yet. Give it time.

Sailor Steve

02-03-17, 10:28 AM

Steve, one last time: He DID do enough already. Saying terrible things, from making false claims purposely, insulting other politicians due to their physical appearance, insulting EVERY SINGLE POW, making the wildest and most absurd racial slurs or talking about his daughter as if he wants to bed her - that is DOING something in my book and I'm sorry you, and others, don't give a damn and give this worthless scum a pass because "muh let's see!".
Okay, I can understand that.

My whole point was and is him, his personality. People like that must not hold any sort of power as they betray everything our modern civilization should be. By accepting catastrophes like him, we commit an act of treason, we betray ourselves and we mark us hypocrites of the worst kind.
I understand that too. As I said, I'm no fan, but he is in office now, and while I can see plenty of reason for concern, and fully support everybody's right to say what they think, I just don't get the visible hate - the rioting, the destruction, and everything else people are doing. The "wait and see" attitude comes from the fact that at this point nothing can be done. If he breaks the rules then Congress can take action. Until then we're stuck with him.

Nippelspanner

02-03-17, 10:40 AM

I totally get the hate, obviously.
I do not understand the stupid rioting either and it makes me angry and sad, cause it's only making things worse.

But I do not own all the problems on the world and just now decided not to give a damn anymore. Riots, trump, global killers approaching earth, even more Kardashians... Fine, so be it.

You reap what you sow.

Sailor Steve

02-03-17, 10:49 AM

That's true. Because circumstances prevent me from having anything to do with people in office, I'm more concerned with the people who oppose or support those people at my level. It's a constant running theme in politics that it's always the other guy's fault. If my President succeeds it's in spite of what "they" try to do to him. If he fails it's because "they" kept him from doing his job. While some of that is true it always seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The President doesn't get to make the laws or appropriate the money. Bill Clinton and the Democrats claim credit for "balancing the budget", while Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich gets no mention at all in their version of the story. I'm not supporting Gingrich by any means, just pointing out the problems that have always existed in politics. Nobody wants to own up to anything.

Dowly

02-03-17, 10:59 AM

http://i.imgur.com/7Rid44J.jpg

:haha::haha:

yubba

02-03-17, 11:12 AM

http://i.imgur.com/7Rid44J.jpg

:haha::haha:

Obviously photo shopped,, taken in the Obama years,,, and that's what it will look like when the left plays this hand,,, and the caption should read,, ''well son,, socialism does work we are equally poor at least Queen Hillary didn't see prison time'' http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-02-02-leftists-declare-war-start-killing-people-obama-official-military-coup-against-trump.html

Dowly

02-03-17, 11:21 AM

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/992/407/776.jpg

Bilge_Rat

02-03-17, 11:32 AM

slow news day so far, so let's deal with this.

Trump's handling of the Acting-AG situation shows how politically dense he really is; instead of firing her in a knee-jerk reaction, he should have just let her be and waited the day or so for his own choice to be confirmed; the confirmation would have pretty much easily gone through, there would have been far less of an uproar and he wouldn't have handed his opponent yet another club with which to beat him; of course, such actions would have required maturity, considered thought and a grasp of political strategy, so I guess the outcome was to have been expected...

I don't agree. (surprise, surprise :ping:).

Better to fire her right away, before most are even aware of the story. First, it plays to his base, but more importantly it becomes a one day story.

If he had left her in place, you would have endless stories about democrats and journalists discussing what she should do. She might have continued issuing statements, giving interviews, etc. You would then have stories on the other side about would should be done about her. It then becomes a multi-day story.

As time goes on, I can't help but marvel at the similarities between Trump's approach to handling the duties, obligations and limitations of the Presidency and the approach of another whom he may soon join in the history books:

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

<O>

Again I don't agree. There is no similarity.

Nixon's order to fire the special prosecutor was on the face of it illegal and Richardson had no choice but to refuse.

This is a totally different issue, the immigration ban is legal, both on a Constitutional and statutory basis (whether it is a smart play is another issue). Yates stand was purely political and had no basis in law.

p.s. - Trump is becoming boring, what no daily scandal?!? I protest!! what are we supposed to argue about? :wah:

Takeda Shingen

02-03-17, 11:38 AM

p.s. - Trump is becoming boring, what no daily scandal?!? I protest!! what are we supposed to argue about? :wah:

President Bannon must be under the weather.

AVGWarhawk

02-03-17, 11:39 AM

Bilge_Rat

02-03-17, 11:54 AM

ok, I have a topic, headline on the Washington Post:

Former Norwegian prime minister detained at Dulles Airport for an hour. He visited Iran in 2014.

As Kjell Magne Bondevik was preparing for his visit to the United States for this week’s National Prayer Breakfast, he had reason to believe the trip would be seamless. After all, he is the former prime minister of Norway — a U.S. ally in NATO — and has traveled to and from the U.S. on numerous occasions.

His office contacted the U.S. Embassy in Oslo, and was told his passport and a separate electronic travel authorization would be enough for entry into the country.

But after flying into Dulles International Airport on Tuesday afternoon, he was detained and questioned for about an hour, all because of a passport stamp. His passport — which clearly stated he is the former prime minister of Norway — indicated he had taken a 2014 trip to Iran, where Bondevik said he had attended a human rights conference.

“I was surprised, and I was provoked,” he told WJLA ABC7. “What will the reputation of the U.S. be if this happens not only to me, but also to other international leaders?”

although not mentioned, the tone and leading paragraphs lead you to believe this is all because of Trump's recent travel ban, until, buried deep in the article, you get to this:

Bondevik said his detention was prompted not by President Trump’s recent executive order, but by a policy instated under President Barack Obama, which calls for extra restrictions on some citizens from 38 countries — including Norway — that fall under the United States’ Visa Waiver Program. Under the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, nationals from these 38 countries who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011, are not permitted to travel under the Visa Waiver Program.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/03/former-norwegian-prime-minister-detained-at-dulles-airport-for-an-hour-he-visited-iran-in-2014/?hpid=hp_hp-morning-mix_mm-dulles%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.9530fa5f332b

yup, slow news day.