Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Wolfblade wrote: Trump will go down in history as the worst, and most corrupt (in more ways than one) president ever, and will be a dark stain in American history.
I don't know, Andrew "genocide is great" Jackson might dispute that claim to the title.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Wolfblade wrote: Trump will go down in history as the worst, and most corrupt (in more ways than one) president ever, and will be an darkorange stain in American history.
Wording was a bit off there. Just a small tweak needed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/17 09:13:27
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
KTG17 wrote: What? Lol man you need to travel around the country some. Most Americans don’t even know he is out of the country let alone what he said during his trip.
So embracing political ignorance is key to supporting him?
Pacific wrote: I am absolutely lost for words. I can't quite believe what we have seen with the Helsinki summit and am struggling to process it.
If you had told the leaders of the Soviet Union in the second half of the twentieth century that, fast-forward 50 years, you would have a President of the United States so obviously compromised in terms of his desires and directives and beholden to Russia, they would not have believed you. And Roosevelt and Reagan must be spinning in their graves, to say that you trust the leader of your rival and enemy power more than your own intelligence agencies.. I still can't believe those words were spoken.
I am struggling to think of a darker moment in the history of any US President, it makes Nixon bugging a hotel room look like it's worthy of a 2 inches on the 6th page of the paper by comparison.
Neither would the Soviets have believed you if you had told them that 50 years from now, the KGB would have taken over their country and reduced the almighty Communist Party to a marginal opposition party. But with how extremely manipulative and controlling they are, neither Putin's rise to power nor Trump's comments are that surprising. It takes a very strong mind to resist someone like Putin, and Trump just does not have a strong mind at all. Trump was cleverly manipulated to say those things.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I can't think of anything else the GOP could do to damage their long term prospects beyond what they already have done and are doing. There is no path forward in which they perform well politically in the 2020s. They have a base of delusional loyalists... and that's it. They have/are alienating every demographic that's trending towards increased political representation. They have hitched themselves to wagons that the majority of citizens and the majority of the first world is against them on (global warming, guns, abortion, foreign policy in general). They have no political values beyond partisan politics (I reiterate here that we live in an age where a Republican is by definition -not- a conservative).
Yeah - whole situation exactly reminds me the Gorbachov-Yeltsin time.
While west praise Gorbachov for liberty-blah-blah in Russia he deemed as traitor by the most of the people.
But when we thought Russia hit the bottom - came Yeltsin.
Omega-soul wrote: Yeah - whole situation exactly reminds me the Gorbachov-Yeltsin time.
While west praise Gorbachov for liberty-blah-blah in Russia he deemed as traitor by the most of the people.
But when we thought Russia hit the bottom - came Yeltsin.
Gorbachov got a bit of an undeserved bad rep in Russia, he did what he could from a bad situation. Yeltsin, on the other hand...
Omega-soul wrote: Yeah - whole situation exactly reminds me the Gorbachov-Yeltsin time.
While west praise Gorbachov for liberty-blah-blah in Russia he deemed as traitor by the most of the people.
But when we thought Russia hit the bottom - came Yeltsin.
Gorbachov got a bit of an undeserved bad rep in Russia, he did what he could from a bad situation. Yeltsin, on the other hand...
Take comfort America. Trump isn't nearly as bad as Yeltsin was.
I am not embarrassed. No matter what this guy does we're still the best country in the world.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
*Wipes tears away*
HEHEheheh....hehehe....he
*Regains breath*
How do you figure that?
Countries that put men on the moon please raise their hands. Mmm no Denmark I see.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pacific wrote: I am absolutely lost for words. I can't quite believe what we have seen with the Helsinki summit and am struggling to process it.
If you had told the leaders of the Soviet Union in the second half of the twentieth century that, fast-forward 50 years, you would have a President of the United States so obviously compromised in terms of his desires and directives and beholden to Russia, they would not have believed you. And Roosevelt and Reagan must be spinning in their graves, to say that you trust the leader of your rival and enemy power more than your own intelligence agencies.. I still can't believe those words were spoken.
I am struggling to think of a darker moment in the history of any US President, it makes Nixon bugging a hotel room look like it's worthy of a 2 inches on the 6th page of the paper by comparison.
Johnson - Vietnam.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/17 14:13:51
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Omega-soul wrote: Yeah - whole situation exactly reminds me the Gorbachov-Yeltsin time.
While west praise Gorbachov for liberty-blah-blah in Russia he deemed as traitor by the most of the people.
But when we thought Russia hit the bottom - came Yeltsin.
Gorbachov got a bit of an undeserved bad rep in Russia, he did what he could from a bad situation. Yeltsin, on the other hand...
As do Trump - he makes money for US - GDP goes up.
If we really dig into this - problem was not in the Gorbachev's betrayal of USSR - he was the result of failing system.
And that what Trump is for US - he is just a natural result of previous (post USSR) policy - all the lies, hypocrisy and incompetences made this situation real.
But the most shocking influence of Russia is not Putin - it's the left-social ideology that surprisingly crawled into west society.
It's quite funny how table turns this time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/17 14:28:28
But the most shocking influence of Russia is not Putin - it's the left-social ideology that surprisingly crawled into west society.
It's quite funny how table turns this time.
Are you kidding ? The western societies are far more tilted to the right today than they were, and most mainstream "left" parties have vanished from the political scene...
Now, there's one point I have to agree with, Trump is the symptom, not the cause.
Omega-soul wrote: Yeah - whole situation exactly reminds me the Gorbachov-Yeltsin time.
While west praise Gorbachov for liberty-blah-blah in Russia he deemed as traitor by the most of the people.
But when we thought Russia hit the bottom - came Yeltsin.
Gorbachov got a bit of an undeserved bad rep in Russia, he did what he could from a bad situation. Yeltsin, on the other hand...
Take comfort America. Trump isn't nearly as bad as Yeltsin was.
skyth wrote: Sounds alot like the no true Scottsman falacy.
No True Scotsman is about making a generalization and then changing the definition of that generalization in order to disclude counter-examples that challenge it.
If anything, you're looking for association fallacy, in so far that Musketeer is suggesting the Republican party has sold its soul to partisan fighting so too has every self-described Republican; but this is the internet, where people wield hyperbole like a baby wields a gun.
Actually I think there's a very real possibility the whole party will split apart along reactionary and 'liberal' conservative lines in the future, but I've been saying that'll happen 'any day now' since the tea party and it still hasn't happened, so what do I know.
But the most shocking influence of Russia is not Putin - it's the left-social ideology that surprisingly crawled into west society.
It's quite funny how table turns this time.
Are you kidding ? The western societies are far more tilted to the right today than they were, and most mainstream "left" parties have vanished from the political scene...
Now, there's one point I have to agree with, Trump is the symptom, not the cause.
I mean not truth-communist parties - Bernie in US, Corbyn in UK etc.
This people have a wide supporting groups, not to mention all the media.
But that's what the crisis is - society is shattered and polarised so any decision is a bad desicion for significant amount of people.
Just look at the votes all over the west - it's the choice between evil and lesser evil.
But that's what the crisis is - society is shattered and polarised so any decision is a bad desicion for significant amount of people.
Just look at the votes all over the west - it's the choice between evil and lesser evil.
Nope. "Left" parties have considerably less influence now than they used to have 30 years ago, and even "centrist" are solidly right-wing. I used to comment that the French socialist party under Mr Hollande was the main "liberal right" party of the political scene. ("Liberal" as in "economically right wing", as it is known outside the US).
It's worth noting that the Russian influence in western politics has been focused on supporting far-right parties, like the national front in France.
I think like a lot of people I've struggled to get my head around, let alone explain the dynamic of what is actually going on in the modern US right wing. Not so much because it is complicated, more because it is really far from how the rest of us live and operate It's actually quite far from how most conservatives operate, when they're dealing with something other than politics.
But a couple of things happened recently that I think have given it some real clarity. The first was the Sacha Baron Cohen thing, and yeah I know the guy is basically a dishonest troll. But those Republicans he got to say that ridiculous stuff about arming preschoolers all said it. And thing is, when they defended themselves for having said it, they gave a real insight. Joe Walsh, for instance, defended himself by saying he knew the policy was absurd, but he went along with it because he thought it was being argued for by a right wing ally, who was treating him very well. That's his defense - that he said stuff he knew was absurd because it seemed to be the position of his team.
The second part is, of course, Trump's submission to Putin in Helsinki. Most people are commenting on how much this moment shows that, for whether it's because of money, pee tape, boy crush, we don't know, Trump is clearly doing what Putin wants of him. But at this point it's actually scary that's news to anyone, because that's been obvious since Trump pushed so hard to end sanctions in January 2017. What I saw was the flow of the story, how Putin decides the story, then Trump repeats it. Putin says there was no interference, then Trump repeats it, then Republicans in congress, then conservative media and then finally the base.
Noting the closed information bubble is nothing new, but I think what's been missed is how simple it actually is. I've seen charts showing media organisation bias picking out non-uniform patterns in US conservative media, I've seen insane charts showing congressional voting scores and whatever. All of which over explains the very simple dynamic actually at play.
US conservative media operates on a simple hierarchy, based on basic tribal loyalty. You don't challenge statements from those above you in the chain. What this produces is a human centipede of lies, with each person down the chain eating up the lie from the person above, and then passing it further down the chain.
Years of trying to figure out what all of this is, and it's actually so simple. Each person in the Republican human centipede is simply receiving the lies and passing them on. There is nothing more complicated to it than that.
If they did influence anything... how would you go about proving it?
You've completely missed my point. Which is something you do very often, on purpose, as a ploy to avoid accepting a logical conclusion that hurts your political team.
To explain this one clearly, not so much for you but anyone else who might be reading, it is facile junk to claim that the FBI or anyone else must prove some specific individual or x million individuals were influenced by the Russian operation in order for there to be a crime established. This is like saying there is proof that men went to the bank with guns, subdued the guard, broke open the safe, then fled in a running gun battle with police, but we don't know if they did anything wrong because we don't know how much money was in the bank before they broke in. They committed dozens of crimes just in the act.
When the Russians hacked the DNC servers, that was a crime. WHen they distributed that info for personal and political gain, that's a crime. When shifted money in to the US to fund their social media ops, and used false labels to conceal those money transfers, it was a crime.
Don't pretend you don't understand this.
You cannot seriously compare the two as the Benghazi investigations was stonewalled at every step of the way. Or you can simply say that the “ wheel of Justice moves slowly”.
That's a pathetic lie. The senate Benghazi review concluded in January 2014. The original house review ended in August 2014. That didn't suit Republican politics, so Republicans created more investigations, which wrapped up having no material differences to the original investigations, but were dragged out until December 2016, making sure Republicans were able to keep making allegations throughout the presidential election.
But you pretend that it was the Democrats who chose to make it last until after Clinton's election campaign. Because you are fundamentally dishonest.
Witch is fething laughable... copies of what? The image of the server? The data files after the DNC/Cloudstrike scrubbed the server?
Fantastical trash. There was no 'the server', and if you actually work in IT you'd know how stupid that line is. There was 140 servers, most of them cloud based. And the DNC was running a presidential campaign, the idea they would take apart all their hardware, including hardware on some third party site in Bangladesh or wherever is plainly bonkers. So they took images, exactly as you get in all cases like this, and they kept working while Crowdstrike got to work.
Thing is, though, the important point here is that the argument you're spamming from Trump/Posobiec/whoever there is gak in two ways. The first is the technical details you got wrong. The second is the absolute triviality of the matter. It's a minor note to a minor part in which all parties reached a happy conclusion. But because you and the rest of team treason need something to distract from the actual fething story, you write reams of bs about the FBI origially wanting hardware that it wasn't practical to get, then being happy with the images they received instead.
Collusion itself isn’t a crime...we’ve been over this.
And I've explained to you, many times, that that is a stupid and entirely false argument. Collusion is a descriptor for a collection of crimes which all have a single purpose. It isn't practical to list the wide range of crimes probably and in some cases almost certainly committed in the act of collusing with Russia, so instead collusion is used. It is like if it was described that the FBI was targeting Gotti for running a mafia operation, and some bright spark said 'running a mafia operation isn't a crime in itself'.
It's stupid nonsense, and you humiliated yourself the first time you tried to argue it, and now I've explained that so many times and you still make that argument, I kind of have to wonder if you kind of like being made to look silly.
Body language? Wtf seb?
I can tell you did watch it...
You claim you watched it, but you claim you're unaware of the Republican claiming he knew body language because he was a dentist. It is impossible for both of those claims to be true. There is no way you could have actually watched the testimony and missed the part where a senator claimed he knew body language because he was a dentist.
So you were lying there whembly. And I know, oh look I caught whembly in a lie, not really much of an achievement, but still, you got to point it out every time, because if we just shrug when these guys continue telling lie after lie, how does it ever get better?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I can't think of anything else the GOP could do to damage their long term prospects beyond what they already have done and are doing. There is no path forward in which they perform well politically in the 2020s. They have a base of delusional loyalists... and that's it. They have/are alienating every demographic that's trending towards increased political representation. They have hitched themselves to wagons that the majority of citizens and the majority of the first world is against them on (global warming, guns, abortion, foreign policy in general). They have no political values beyond partisan politics (I reiterate here that we live in an age where a Republican is by definition -not- a conservative) and even the positions they supposedly support are not at all popular without tremendous deception/the base's willing delusion. They are setting themselves up to be on the wrong side of the 2020 census. They are justifiably associated with racism, sexism, and countless social issues which go against what the majority of people want. They are strongly tied to the wealthy who are themselves heading for a social reckoning come the imminent economic downturn. Their image among millenials has been poisoned so badly it may never recover and when the next recession hits the same will happen with the next generation.
Even if they did an about-face right now it would be too little, too late. They have dug themselves the deepest political hole imaginable and Trump is the Balrog.
What? Lol man you need to travel around the country some. Most Americans don’t even know he is out of the country let alone what he said during his trip.
I would say many...most might be pushing it.
But I agree that the above is wishful thinking from one side of the political spectrum, and I don't even like Trump. That supposedly dead party controls Congress and the WH, the majority of governorships, and has installed a conservative majority in the SCOTUS. That seems pretty healthy to me even if their leader is a fool.
If Trump becomes a problem that threatens to drag down the rest of the GOP, they'll dump him and pivot. We just haven't reached that point yet.
I stated the 2020s to underline that I feel this is a long-term trend. It is a significant misinterpretation to see my post as a comment that the party is currently dead.
Since 2020 is 18 months away, it didn’t seem like a terribly long-term projection.
Besides, any snapshot of what the GOP and voters are today doesn’t necessarily reflect what they will be 10 years from now.
Millennials will become more fiscally conservative as they enter higher earnings years and begin to acquire property and accumulate assets. It happened to the Boomers and Gen X, and will happen again.
Political parties are also constantly evolving. Trump - empowered by a more rural, blue collar base - has changed the party for now. But he’s an old man, a singular personality, and someone who may have some serious legal issues soon. Let’s not forget that this supposedly extremist party ran moderates in the previous two presidential races.
But I'm going to expand on what he said with regard to the GOP.
It's important to note that American, and British Conservatives, are nothing of the sort. They are Conservative in name only.
I have despised every Conservative government I've ever had the misfortune of living under in the UK, but when I look at the GOP of the past, I can respect they fact that at least they were Conservatives. Fiscal responsibility, respect for institutions etc etc
The modern GOP is none of that. A hollowed out shell that seeks power for its own sake. And for the record, the Democrats are just as bad and ideologically devoid.
We haven't had American or British Conservatives since Thatcher and Reagan.
And then we come to Donald Trump. As I've said before, Trump only believes in Trump. He ran on a GOP ticket, but it's not a stretch of the imagination to have Trump on a Democrat ticket or even a Communist ticket if he thought he could win on that. He was a Democrat at one stage.
And the proof of the pudding is how hollowed out and ideologically devoid the GOP is. They had their approved candidates in 2016, and then this political vacuum came along and picked them off one by one in the primaries.
Trump and the GOP has always been a marriage of convenience and nothing more. Both stand for nothing. And both believe in nothing except power for its own sake.
When Trump stops being useful to the GOP, they will drop him.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
sebster wrote: I think like a lot of people I've struggled to get my head around, let alone explain the dynamic of what is actually going on in the modern US right wing. Not so much because it is complicated, more because it is really far from how the rest of us live and operate It's actually quite far from how most conservatives operate, when they're dealing with something other than politics.
But a couple of things happened recently that I think have given it some real clarity. The first was the Sacha Baron Cohen thing, and yeah I know the guy is basically a dishonest troll. But those Republicans he got to say that ridiculous stuff about arming preschoolers all said it. And thing is, when they defended themselves for having said it, they gave a real insight. Joe Walsh, for instance, defended himself by saying he knew the policy was absurd, but he went along with it because he thought it was being argued for by a right wing ally, who was treating him very well. That's his defense - that he said stuff he knew was absurd because it seemed to be the position of his team.
The second part is, of course, Trump's submission to Putin in Helsinki. Most people are commenting on how much this moment shows that, for whether it's because of money, pee tape, boy crush, we don't know, Trump is clearly doing what Putin wants of him. But at this point it's actually scary that's news to anyone, because that's been obvious since Trump pushed so hard to end sanctions in January 2017. What I saw was the flow of the story, how Putin decides the story, then Trump repeats it. Putin says there was no interference, then Trump repeats it, then Republicans in congress, then conservative media and then finally the base.
Noting the closed information bubble is nothing new, but I think what's been missed is how simple it actually is. I've seen charts showing media organisation bias picking out non-uniform patterns in US conservative media, I've seen insane charts showing congressional voting scores and whatever. All of which over explains the very simple dynamic actually at play.
US conservative media operates on a simple hierarchy, based on basic tribal loyalty. You don't challenge statements from those above you in the chain. What this produces is a human centipede of lies, with each person down the chain eating up the lie from the person above, and then passing it further down the chain.
Years of trying to figure out what all of this is, and it's actually so simple. Each person in the Republican human centipede is simply receiving the lies and passing them on. There is nothing more complicated to it than that.
If they did influence anything... how would you go about proving it?
You've completely missed my point. Which is something you do very often, on purpose, as a ploy to avoid accepting a logical conclusion that hurts your political team.
No. I'm trying hard not to get snooker'ed in the daily hysteria that we've seen day-in/day-out by folks who simply can't believe how badly the democrats lost. I mean, JUST TODAY there were posts/tweets about the russian spy in the oval office!
To explain this one clearly, not so much for you but anyone else who might be reading, it is facile junk to claim that the FBI or anyone else must prove some specific individual or x million individuals were influenced by the Russian operation in order for there to be a crime established. This is like saying there is proof that men went to the bank with guns, subdued the guard, broke open the safe, then fled in a running gun battle with police, but we don't know if they did anything wrong because we don't know how much money was in the bank before they broke in. They committed dozens of crimes just in the act.
When the Russians hacked the DNC servers, that was a crime. WHen they distributed that info for personal and political gain, that's a crime. When shifted money in to the US to fund their social media ops, and used false labels to conceal those money transfers, it was a crime.
Don't pretend you don't understand this.
No, I understand that. My point was to rhetorically ask "how do you prove this" so that you can use the corroborating evidence to prosecute/sanction the perp.
You cannot seriously compare the two as the Benghazi investigations was stonewalled at every step of the way. Or you can simply say that the “ wheel of Justice moves slowly”.
That's a pathetic lie. The senate Benghazi review concluded in January 2014. The original house review ended in August 2014. That didn't suit Republican politics, so Republicans created more investigations, which wrapped up having no material differences to the original investigations, but were dragged out until December 2016, making sure Republicans were able to keep making allegations throughout the presidential election.
But you pretend that it was the Democrats who chose to make it last until after Clinton's election campaign. Because you are fundamentally dishonest.
No, you're fundamentally dishonest being that you've always defend The Dear Precious...and yet, it's *me* that's playing team sport? Please, pick up a mirror sometimes...even I've surmised in the past that I was bitten by the Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS). But, hey... I've said all that needed to be said on this subject, so unless you'd want to rehash the arguments and see Ouze post his whembly batcall memes....
Witch is fething laughable... copies of what? The image of the server? The data files after the DNC/Cloudstrike scrubbed the server?
Fantastical trash. There was no 'the server', and if you actually work in IT you'd know how stupid that line is. There was 140 servers, most of them cloud based. And the DNC was running a presidential campaign, the idea they would take apart all their hardware, including hardware on some third party site in Bangladesh or wherever is plainly bonkers. So they took images, exactly as you get in all cases like this, and they kept working while Crowdstrike got to work.
Thing is, though, the important point here is that the argument you're spamming from Trump/Posobiec/whoever there is gak in two ways. The first is the technical details you got wrong. The second is the absolute triviality of the matter. It's a minor note to a minor part in which all parties reached a happy conclusion. But because you and the rest of team treason need something to distract from the actual fething story, you write reams of bs about the FBI origially wanting hardware that it wasn't practical to get, then being happy with the images they received instead.
1) Dude... 'the server" means exactly that. Being "cloud based" is meaningless as "cloud computing" resides on...guess what? Servers. And what's on these servers? Hard Drives *or* likely storage-area network cards. And what's on these Hard drives (connected SAN cards)? Data. You're purposely being pedantic to deflect. Stop it.
2) Who the feth is Posobiec?
3) "team treason"? huh...
4) It isn't clear if the FBI received the original images (or even the raw data files). The most explicit thing I've found is that the FBI received a report from Cloudstrike's investigation and the FBI forensically looked upstream. *I* don’t know exactly what CrowdStrike handed over (the press did ask the company, but so far they've declined to comment), but that data can range anywhere from full disk images to an edited digest of suspicious files and logged connections. I'm suspicious that we don't publicly know what they did as I don't believe it ought to be kept secret and If CrowdStrike did image the server, you'd think the FBI would review it themselves to confirm that firm's findings...
Collusion itself isn’t a crime...we’ve been over this.
And I've explained to you, many times, that that is a stupid and entirely false argument. Collusion is a descriptor for a collection of crimes which all have a single purpose. It isn't practical to list the wide range of crimes probably and in some cases almost certainly committed in the act of collusing with Russia, so instead collusion is used. It is like if it was described that the FBI was targeting Gotti for running a mafia operation, and some bright spark said 'running a mafia operation isn't a crime in itself'.
It's stupid nonsense, and you humiliated yourself the first time you tried to argue it, and now I've explained that so many times and you still make that argument, I kind of have to wonder if you kind of like being made to look silly.
Right...
We'll all waiting anxiously for the specific crimes that Trump colluded with Russia.
Can't wait homie... you?
Boy... I sure hope you ain't hold'n your breath... we might be here for awhile...
Body language? Wtf seb?
I can tell you did watch it...
You claim you watched it, but you claim you're unaware of the Republican claiming he knew body language because he was a dentist. It is impossible for both of those claims to be true. There is no way you could have actually watched the testimony and missed the part where a senator claimed he knew body language because he was a dentist.
Huh? That was a House of Representative committee hearing. If a representative (not a senator) said that, then yes I missed that.
So you were lying there whembly. And I know, oh look I caught whembly in a lie, not really much of an achievement, but still, you got to point it out every time, because if we just shrug when these guys continue telling lie after lie, how does it ever get better?
I was not lying sebster. Please, dial down your animus because it's not a good look for you.
skyth wrote: Reagan was in no way fiscally conservative. Balooning the defense budget and putting it on the credit card is not fiscally conservative.
The deficit was big enough to take care of itself.
On a serious note can anybody imagine Reagan rolling over for a Russian president? Neither can I.
Reagan might have been a lot of things, but he would never have rolled up the white flag like what Trump did the other day.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The modern GOP is none of that. A hollowed out shell that seeks power for its own sake. And for the record, the Democrats are just as bad and ideologically devoid.
Ah, the good ol' BOTH SIDES fallacy. Are you senile?
We haven't had American or British Conservatives since Thatcher and Reagan.
Those two were as 'conservative' as Trump is. "Business good, union bad, sell public assets for pennies on the dollar" and "slash taxes, balloon deficit, economy magic will fix the rest" Is that 'true' conservatism?
When Trump stops being useful to the GOP, they will drop him.
This is probably true.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
But I'm going to expand on what he said with regard to the GOP.
It's important to note that American, and British Conservatives, are nothing of the sort. They are Conservative in name only.
I have despised every Conservative government I've ever had the misfortune of living under in the UK, but when I look at the GOP of the past, I can respect they fact that at least they were Conservatives. Fiscal responsibility, respect for institutions etc etc
The modern GOP is none of that. A hollowed out shell that seeks power for its own sake. And for the record, the Democrats are just as bad and ideologically devoid.
We haven't had American or British Conservatives since Thatcher and Reagan.
And then we come to Donald Trump. As I've said before, Trump only believes in Trump. He ran on a GOP ticket, but it's not a stretch of the imagination to have Trump on a Democrat ticket or even a Communist ticket if he thought he could win on that. He was a Democrat at one stage.
And the proof of the pudding is how hollowed out and ideologically devoid the GOP is. They had their approved candidates in 2016, and then this political vacuum came along and picked them off one by one in the primaries.
Trump and the GOP has always been a marriage of convenience and nothing more. Both stand for nothing. And both believe in nothing except power for its own sake.
When Trump stops being useful to the GOP, they will drop him.
The conservative movement in the states is not all of the GOP party.
The GOP party is an amalgamation of fractured interests, where many group does espouses "conservative" agendas...but, rarely enacts them.
Just as the Democrat party isn't a full-on leftist kooks... they're left of center (in US perspective) with extremely loud liberal/leftist tendencies.
Trump and the GOP will "use each other" for as long as it works.
If Democrats overtake Congress in the fall... I can see Trump dropping the GOP to "work with" Democrats to get some of his agenda passed.
Unless he gets impeached/removed... then, they'd have to deal with President Pence.
"Trump getting asked a question by arrested Russian nationalist and @NRA lifetime member Maria Butina. She posed as a reporter at the July 2015 FreedomFest to ask then-candidate Trump if he would continue the U.S. policy of sanctions against Russia if elected."
. what are the odds eh ?
I also liked the ones where she is attending the 2017 National Prayer Breakfast.
..still recalling all the noise and bluster over things like Obams meeting/knowing Bill Ayers and similar I'm sure that we'll see a genuine and heartfelt surge of something or other as we now know that significant elements of the Rep. party were hanging around with actual foreign spies.
..any minute now..
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
"Trump getting asked a question by arrested Russian nationalist and @NRA lifetime member Maria Butina. She posed as a reporter at the July 2015 FreedomFest to ask then-candidate Trump if he would continue the U.S. policy of sanctions against Russia if elected."
. what are the odds eh ?
I also liked the ones where she is attending the 2017 National Prayer Breakfast.
..still recalling all the noise and bluster over things like Obams meeting/knowing Bill Ayers and similar I'm sure that we'll see a genuine and heartfelt surge of something or other as we now know that significant elements of the Rep. party were hanging around with actual foreign spies.
..any minute now..
...wait, are you seriously comparing Obama knowingly launched his political career in a known terrorist's living room, to a spy from Russia joining the NRA?
I mean, on the one hand, Obama *knew* who Bill Ayers is and what he did...
How would the NRA know this chick was a spy???
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/17 17:18:18
Those two were as 'conservative' as Trump is. "Business good, union bad, sell public assets for pennies on the dollar" and "slash taxes, balloon deficit, economy magic will fix the rest" Is that 'true' conservatism?.
Prreetty much, yes. Or if you're gonna pull out the old canard of "safeguarding traditional values", well, those generally consist of hating gays and wanting black people to stay somewhere in the 1830s. There is no friendly, wonderful "true conservatism".
