Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
What do you mean reciprocal tarrifs from other countries. They tarrifs our cars in Europe at 10% and we tarrifs theirs at 0% for example.
If Trump's tariffs were limited to your cherry picked examples you might have a point. They're not because Trump has no strategy. He's just declaring a trade war in the world. That's incredibly stupid, and every economist who is not on the Fox News payroll agrees.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
We should allow Chinese workers to put greedy American businesses out to pasture so we can get cheaper stuff through their sweat shops.Who cares if reciprocal tarrifs protect the American worker. American workers are lazy their jobs should be exported to Indians who will do it for $5 a day and not bitch.
And you guys claim we're the ones who are brainwashed.
Tariffs will raise prices for everyone. That means people will have less money in their pockets. That means businesses will have to lay off workers and investments in new businesses will slow. That is not protecting the American worker.
Bringing manufacturing back to the US sounds great, but doing it in the insane and unpredictable way Trump is doing it, coupled with the fact that he's a lame duck president defeats the entire purpose. Building new facilities here in the US is a large and long term investment, no one is going to want to commit to it until they feel confident all of this will stabilize. We are years away from that.
And all of this is before we get to the reciprocal tariffs other countries will place on us. Trump seems to think US businesses only sell to US customers. They don't. The new clientele US companies will gain will be little more than replacements for the international clientele US companies will lose. I work for a tourist attraction, we've already lost our entire Canadian client base and international visitors is down significantly since January. They've told us specifically this is because of Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
you were already debunked in that thread by several people
What a disingenuous crock of shit.
First of all, I pasted the wrong thread. Did you even click on it or were you just responding off of your fabricated memory?
This is the thread I meant to post. The first was in regards to the oral arguments. This is the ones post decision in the thread you started beginning with the post where I first chimed in.
Notice how no where in this thread did anyone engaging with me even attempt to explain how or why my interpretation of the ruling was wrong. Cristo attacked my position as "melodramatic" and you just quoted a snippet of the majority opinion without any regards to how the rest of what they said rendered it meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's hardly ironic. It's expected when the left loses a culture war so badly that the president will be obligated to remove the government soldiers of the losing side of that culture war.
Yeah, cause small government and freedom right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So when you say something as erroneous as "America got most of its land through force" or "America protects the sovereignty of all other nations"
I didn't argue either of those things.
Are you illiterate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
It only becomes an issue if they break orthodoxy and the public doesn't find out about it (which often happens).
So it... Often... Becomes an issue
You can't lose here; the better idea wins whatever the better idea is.
The idea exists regardless. You have yet to explain why we need Canada for this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I will just toss yet another silly argument over to chat GPT...
Because you have no argument of your own. As usual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I remember that ruling it said the president had immunity for official actions taken in good faith and then nobody in the public read the actual decisions, so you had the media telling everyone that Trump could literally start ordering hits on establishment Democrats and get away with it and other such nonsense that literally would not fall into this
Nonsense. I read the rulings thoroughly and argued them here, still waiting on someone to provide a substantive rebuttal to any of the points I made:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Wow, the democrats in this forum started to cry over Trump's trolling. That is hillarous, haha.
Are these crying democrats in the room with you right now?
Do you really believe Trump sounds like a dumb person?
He's the dumbest sounding person I've ever seen run for any kind of office, even worse than MTG. He had the vocabulary of a third grader, he cannot stay on track with a single deep thought, he says things that are completely meaningless the first time and then repeats them multiple times, and nearly everything he says it's completely detached from reality. It sounds hyperbolic, but I genuinely mean when I say that my 14 year old niece is probably more intelligent than he is. I certainly give him the edge when it comes to his marketing and ability to con gullible people, but that's the only genuine skill he has.
In this forum people think Trump is an evil skillful figure that wants to become a dictator, which is a tough task that demands a great deal of intelligence
It requires emotional intelligence of a specific type - the ability to seize on people's fear and ignorance, and the lack of any shame or virtuousness. Most people have to be strategic about it because they're smart enough to realize what move comes next and act accordingly, Trump just possesses these traits naturally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
An annexation is by definition done by force genius.I'll toss that silly argument to chat gpt.
"AI Overview
Annex territory, in a political context, means to incorporate a territory into the domain of a city, country, or state, usually by force or without permission."
The context we are talking about makes clear which usage of the term applies here, and it's just stupid to hold onto some fantasy notion that Canadians are anything but vehemently against joining the US.
Moreover, Canadians have made crystal clear that they have no interest in becoming a US state..When it finally gets framed as a choice for liberty and free speech, you will be surprised what people will choose.
Ah yes, that's all Trump needs to do here - frame it differently.
You are so unserious it's almost impressive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
While you guys get trolled in circles over dumb stuff like this, it leaves no room for you guys to talk about rebuilding your own party. Go ahead and keep getting trolled.
This isn't a political strategy meeting genius, it's a debate site. And on a debate site, real arguments are what matters, which is what you don't have. So go ahead and keep deflecting onto who's more popular politically, that doesn't mean jack when it comes to who's actually right on any given issue which is the only thing any good faith rational person would care about.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
What If Everything You Do Was Never Your Choice?
Then nothing changes.
I find the free will debate pointless. If we have it, then case closed. If we don't, then what we're talking about is something we wouldn't even be able to recognize being that we never had it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
He is trolling you and he won't even attempt it. No amendment can pass and this would require the courts to just reinterpret some stuff.
While I agree with this, the supreme court has shown us via the presidential immunity ruling that they have no problem setting aside logic and history to rule in Trump's favor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Trump is the type to make the unthinkable into an option, often an option to half the population
It is yet another example of Trump's game at work. He begins by "joking" about something very serious, and then once he's joked about it long enough it's no longer unthinkable, so he starts to take a more serious tone. It's the classic shifting of the Overton window. This is one of the few things Trump is really good at, he knows how to boil the frog that is America and it's always fascinating yet depressing to watch MAGA go down the rabbit hole with him.
Trump is exactly the type with the sort of gumption to do such a thing. Don't you agree?
It's not even disputable. Trump has demonstrated at nearly every opportunity that his only limits are those imposed on him. This is a man who does not recognize the concept of right vs wrong, only weakness vs strength. It was never a question over whether he would respect the constitutional limits, only whether they will hold.
To that point, I do believe they will, but think about what that says about him and more importantly about us. During the campaign I heard plenty of people justify their vote by saying the institutions will check him, in other words the constitution will hold despite him not because of him. That's absurd. The president is supposed to be the greatest protector of our constitutional republic, that's why the president gets so much attention despite holding only one third of the power in our government. Yet we elected a man whom many who voted for him acknowledge is trying to destroy it. That's like hiring a bank robber as the head security officer of your jewelry store.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
It’s pretty obvious that every major media outlet in America has some sort of slant, and to ignore it because most outlets are slanted in your favor is ludicrous.
That has nothing to do with my point. Of course every news outlet is slanted, but when nearly every outlet that actually employs journalists is slanted left, along with every fact checking organization, every major scientific organization, etc. etc. that should raise an eyebrow.
Again, there's two ways you can deal with this; you can accept that this is the case because they're more closely aligned with reality or you can claim it to be some sort of conspiratorial takeover by the left of all of society. The latter defies Occam's razor. So you can write it off as liberal smugness and disregard these facts, or you can engage in honest rational thought and attempt to construct a worldview where all of this makes sense.
At the heart of the issue, your response doesn’t seem to defend the fed giving money to media outlets… which is the ethical concern here. Like it or not, even our nation’s esteemed journalists have an incentive to report on their backers favorably… which is why government-backed media is frowned upon. It does in fact, lead to propaganda.
I didn't engage with this because that clearly wasn't what the OP was focused on. He focused instead on the fact that the journalists were all democrats, as if that in and if itself proves some kind of liberal bias, which I wouldn't even argue depending on how you're defining liberal. If support for a free press is a liberal value then of course it's true. Of course the party whose leader considers the free press the enemy of the American people will have a difficult time appealing to journalists.
But to your point, I don't take issue with what you're saying. What's ironic is that the only time it becomes an issue is when the administration decides to inject politics into an organization like this, which is exactly what Trump is doing. As long as he sees government funding as a tool to crush dissenting voices I fully support getting rid of funding for NPR because otherwise he'll just turn it into another extension of his propaganda apparatus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
It should be easy to solve even with congress; they argue 40 hours a week; they should be able to come up with policies. It should be a fulltime job; 40 hours of arguing a week.
Doesn't matter how long they argue, if their mind is made up that's it. How many times have you changed someone's mind here? Now imagine if that same person's job depended on them maintaining their position.
Annexing Canada has the potential to give America Medicare for all
That makes absolutely no sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, pretty sure only Americans think American military protects all democracies and not just the ones USA likes.
As usual, has nothing to do with the points I just made. One would think if you had an actual rebuttal you'd offer it.
And an annexation would be totally democratic if enough Canadians decide it would be nicer to live under liberty and free speech.
An annexation is by definition done by force genius.
Moreover, Canadians have made crystal clear that they have no interest in becoming a US state, you'd know this if you were paying any attention at all so it's yet another example of your childish need to troll.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As is often pointed out, reality has a liberal bias.So does corruption, fraud, waste, propaganda, and government cheese, apparently.
It's apparent when your education about the world came from X
The reality is that the Democrat party is at 26% approval right now.
Yeah, because most on the left don't think they're doing enough to combat the absurdity and atrocity that is the Trump administration.
The democrats just won a special election in a Trump +15 district, and Trump has now pulled Elise Stefanic from her US ambassadorship appointment because he realizes he may lose that seat to a democrat despite having won it by 26 points.
You can only ignore the reality of what Trump's victory meant, which is jack shit. The pendulum is already swinging back, and it's shaping up to be one hell of a swing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
it's a fact it was run by 100% Democrats.Do you like that fact?87 Democrats in editorial positions
As is often pointed out, reality has a liberal bias.
This is every bit as stupid as when you guys point to Trump's indictments as proof that there's some sort of bias working against Trump in the justice department. Perhaps you just have the causation backwards, maybe both parties are not the same when it comes to valuing the truth.
The undisputed leader of the republican party has spent the past decade calling the free press "the enemy of the American people", and you think we're supposed to be surprised to learn that journalists are overwhelmingly democrat? Again, your causation is backwards.
It's yet another extension of the same phenomenon we see playing out all throughout our society; whether we're talking about colleges and academia, journalism, science, the legal profession, etc. - pretty much every and any profession founded in education and the use of critical thinking, every one of these fields is dominated by the left. The obvious reason for this is because the left is far more in touch with and values these principals, but if you're on the right... well it must be some massive nationwide conspiracy.
The political right is fueled by delusional morons. That's the reality here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
or his utter lack of concern for global stability.Lol, china and Russia and North Korea are not gonna launch nukes over US annexation of what would be the equivilent population of California.
For the US to annex Canada would be a signal loud and clear to the rest of the world that the US will no longer stand up for the sovereignty of other nations around the globe, thereby emboldening other countries like China and Russia to take whatever they want.
Everyone knows this, sorry if you don't get it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Enough to enact the solution.Context: MA doing mask mandates in 2020. There may have been 90% consensus for it; but there are 90% agreement on a lot of issues that aren't law. I would assume that if you ask people, "Should a r@pist be allowed to sue their victim for child custody", then I would think virtually everyone would say, "No!". But it's the law in 20 states I think.
That's the point I was making at the outset. I said it's easy to solve problems when you're a dictator because you don't have the hurdles to jump through as you do when you are operating in a democratic system of checks and balances. It's not always ideal, but it's way better than an entire society being subject to whatever one man thinks at any given moment.
Trump saying we should annex Canada is not the same thing as him saying any election he loses is stolen.
Difficult to tell, but I think you were expressing this as a point of agreement. And I would agree mostly, but felt the need to reiterate just in case the point I made about the lie itself being far less important than what the lie says about the individual spreading it. Trump's annexation of Canada obsession is deeply concerning because it speaks to either his stupidity, or his utter lack of concern for global stability. Either way, that should be disqualifying by itself and would be disqualifying for any other politician. But for Trump it's just a Tuesday. The double standards are egregious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
one word. Propaganda.
Right wing code for: "facts I don't like"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Because I'm not interested in debating spankingThats kinda weird, but okay
Well I think it's weird that this is a topic you're particularly interested in.
To each his own I guess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I challenged you few days ago to debate in forum about spanking, yet no response.
Because I'm not interested in debating spanking.
One sentence can indeed refute, if it is obvious truth
That's exactly my point.
If I write 5k words establishing X, and you write one sentence arguing not X, you didn't refute my argument, all you did was restate your position at the outset. That's not debating in any rational sense.
What I understand is that forum debating consists of many posts, and wasting too much arguments to just one post is inferior. I could make 1000 of short posts on some topics, already prepared, just copy paste one by one, and person would never get the last word in forum on me unless they are prepared to spend weeks responding to thousands of posts.
The only thing that makes forum debating a problem is if the person you are engaging with is not serious. Formal debates subject you to a vote so both sides are incentivized to bring their best arguments, but they're not about understanding. In a debate you're talking to the voters, in a forum you're talking to each other, so it's just a question of what you're trying to accomplish.
I like formal debates and would engage in them more if I had the time commitment to make, I did almost 50 of them on DDO. But I'm not single anymore, I'm a husband and father now so I have other priorities. I'm just here whenever I have a moment to poke my head above the sand. I'm almost home as I write this so it's unlikely I'll respond to whatever you come back with till tomorrow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Greyparrot is one of the best debaters here in forum.
A very unserious comment clearly meant to troll. GP doesn't debate, he ignores 95% of what's written, focuses on that one sentence or two he has a response for, then offers his usual one line talking point straight out of Newsmax, in most cases having absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.
I have challenged you to a debate many times so you could show "your views" to me, but I didnt get response.
I don't have much interest in debating. I rarely post on weekends or evenings because once I'm home I have other things to do so like 90% of my posts are written on a train back or forth to work with no service or on a break while I'm at work. A real debate takes time to research and prepare arguments, I am not interested in that commitment right now.
Besides, my views are made clear here. What could you possibly want to get out of me that you don't think you can get here?
In forum, the debating is completely different from formal debates. He could write 5000 characters and still get disproved with one sentence.
One sentence only works to refute an argument to those who already disagree with the position. That's not "disproving" anything, all it's doing is rehearsing your biases. If you think that's a legitimate form debating in any forum then you don't understand the concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
You know that Gp has TSS (Trump's Smart Syndrome), don't you?
Eh, I only engage with him as a means of flushing out my own thoughts and views. I have no expectation he will ever come back with a response worth taking seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Neither is thinking every long stretch of words is gishing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If "normal" people were smarter perhaps they'd be able to come up with more than a meaningless one sentence response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
More educated doesn't mean you have a garbage diploma to check a DEI box.Find a realistic metric bro, like a standardized proficiency test. Can you actually read a book?
As usual, you cannot address anything I just argued so you come back with a bunch of irrelevant silliness.
DEI has nothing to do with this conversation. It's just another right wing buzzword you MAGA cultists love to inject into any conversation. Funny thing is you don't even understand the basic concept of what it is. DEI does not stand in opposition to merit, DEI is about advancing merit. But racist white people can't tell the difference. It helps black people, so it's bad.
It's also hilarious that you guys continue to pretend that you care about merit while supporting a president who found his defense secretary in Fox News weekends, and his deputy FBI director on a podcast, just to name a few. You don't care about merit.
Lastly, you continue to run away from your own topic. You started this thread with the self own implying that an educated populace would be bad for democrats, but instead of owning it you just pretend we're talking about something else.
Pathetic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I have no idea what you are asking me.
I haven't argued that the constitution is being protected. I argued that the point you are making is fundamentally flawed. Again, the constitution cannot enforce itself. At some point in the process, it is inevitable that the constitutionality of any act will ultimately come down to someone's say so. The only question is, who?
The best solution to this problem is to designate the most qualified and least compromised individual(s) as the final arbiter, that's why we created the judicial system. That's our answer. But you seem to disagree, so what's your solution?
As best as I can tell, your solution is to have "the people" decide. That makes no sense on any level. It is first of all a practical impossibility - you cannot hold an election style vote for every judicial decision. It is also deeply dangerous as it would render the law meaningless, held to whatever pubic sentiment is as the time of the vote. That's not a constitutional system, it's just mob rule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What are you talking about? This thread is literally titled The Constitution is Utterly Worthless, and your point is that it's worthless because it can be disregarded by a bad actor. I'm responding to that central point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Yes the journalist should report on this. I had a minor criticism that he didn't expose his presence and let them know he was listening in.
According to that journalist he paid no attention to the chat cause he thought it was fake. No way he was included on a chat with US cabinet officials planning a military strike. Then he saw the news that the US carried out the strike described in the chat. Hell of a way to find out what he was included in.
The layman thinks open source is less secure because anyone can look at the code. It feels intuitively correct. Anyone can literally look at flaws. However in real life particularly when it comes to an app as popular as signal then you have millions of pen testers able to find weaknesses and they are secured faster and more thoroughly.
Ok then. I have yet to hear any expert make that case but it's early so we'll see what gets revealed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
HAHAHAHA I needed a laugh this morning
Of course. That's what people do when they have no words to try and formulate an argument with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, you can point to high "graduation rates" in education and count the "diplomas"...But the real metric is proficiency, which, by my source, has failed despite graduating 70% of the population anyway and chalking up the "educated" box for political pandering. The education system's obsession with graduation quotas over actual competency has produced a generation with diplomas but no practical skills.
And there's the misdirection I was waiting for.
We're not debating whether higher education or practical skills is as better indicator of financial success. You started this thread based on the idea that if people were more educated they'd vote republican. I jumped in to explain that this is the opposite of the truth. Now you're arguing that education doesn't matter.
At some point you have to wonder why you need to keep changing the subject. If your views reflected reality wouldn't you be able to stick to them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
A Jewish journalist
Why is his ethnicity/religion relevant here? Just curious.
decided to leak classified details of a chat he was accidentally included in.
He removed any information from the thread that may have been classified before posting.
If I was in the chat I personally would have immediately informed them that they are sharing sensitive information with me but I guess Goldberg doesn't care or the leak was intentional just for funsies since nothing really incriminating was in the leaks.
Well first of all, he's a journalist. It's literally his job to report something like this.
Moreover, I would argue the public interest is far greater in making it known how these officials were recklessly handling classified material.
Or the leaks are fake which is also possible.
They've already acknowledged this did in fact occurr.
Anyway the chat took place on signal which is secure and I am sure that high level politicians like this have their phones remote wiped and locked down in the event the phones are lost or stolen so the only security slip was including a journalist in the chat but it's not that insecure since the guy probably doesn't want to lose access by leaking the. Chat prior to the operation mentioned.
Signal is secure relative to what it's intended for - an app anyone can download to protect their personal communications. It is not secure when held to the standards applicable for securing classified information.
The rush by the right to excuse this is pretty incredible. I recall hearing for years about how unfit Hillary Clinton was for using a private server and how she should have been in jail, yet the same people who made that charge are all the same people involved here. It's astonishing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I think this deserves a proper bump
Why? You ignored the central point everyone tried to make clear to you.
The constitution cannot enforce itself, that can only be done by human beings. So what human being(s) do you think should ultimately have the final say on matters of constitutionality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
This is purely because of inner city black schools. In fact every "alarming" education stat for America is because the country is increasingly becoming non-white.
Just gonna leave this here
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Anyone who knows anything about education and politics knows that higher education directly correlates with higher support for democratsA stronghold for Democrats in the Great Lakes region, Illinois has consistently favored the Democratic presidential candidate by...
This has nothing to do with anything I just said.
Indoctrination is not the republicans friend.Agreed.
You're supposed to put in brackets words that you edited from someone else's quote, otherwise people might think that you're just disingenuously misrepresenting their position cause you don't have an actual argument if your own.
I know it feels like indoctrination when you are too ignorant or too unintelligent to understand how the real world works, but it just ain't so. Sorry, there is no nation wide conspiracy of all those educated people trying to manipulate young minds into abiding by an ideology invented by George Soros.
You are better off wiping your ass with that propaganda
You may go back to getting your education on X now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
So far, all of these are largely unknowns. But assuming for the sake of argument that yes, Patel has the intent to knowingly and illegally target people who've done nothing wrong for political reasons, and the means to have this actually amount to something, then yes, this is bad. Politically motivated prosecutions are bad and have no rightful place in America.
It's great that you as someone who at least in my experience has been pro Trump and has presented as unmoved by most if not all of his acts thus far, can at least agree to this basic idea. But the degree to which you felt the need to expand on the reasons it might not be bad is still troubling and frankly infuriating.
Recall where this began; with you talking about the hypothetical abuses of power you believe democrats will engage in post Trump. The obvious premise being that these abuses are bad because the rule of law matters. I then challenged you to hold Trump to those the same standards and this is where you decided to land.
I get the caveat you offered; let's see what they actually do not just what they say, but certainly at this point it doesn't matter what they end up doing when it comes to recognizing that this is still really bad. You only need an ounce of critical thinking to recognize that a President who cares about the rule of law and intends to hold his administration to the highest standards on this principal (which we have come to expect from literally every president in or lifetimes before Trump) would never elevate someone to the top job in the FBI who publicly stated his intentions to weaponize the rule of law in this country. The fact that Kash Patel has no relevant qualifications for that job only make this that much more egregious.
That's a problem no matter what they actually do. "Campaign trash talk" is not an excuse.
Moreover, this administration is already demonstrating their contempt for the rule of law. They're already ignoring judge's orders arguing that federal judges don't have the authority to make them follow the law, they're already stripping away free speech rights from green card holders whose views they don't like, and they're already punishing law firms for legally representing Trump's legal advasaries. You probably don't see any of this because you don't seem to take any of their words seriously, but that is of course absurd. There is no other area in life where you would disregard someone's words in your attempts to understand their actions and intentions, especially if it were a politician you disagreed with. Apply that same standard to Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You guys really love to self own.
Anyone who knows anything about education and politics knows that higher education directly correlates with higher support for democrats. This isn't even just a "people with degrees" thing, the same correlation can be found with people who consume more news compared to people who don't follow the news.
There's a reason the republicans hate colleges and try to invalidate using student ID's to vote. Education is not the republicans friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is literal third world country shit that we all used to pretend could never happen here.Nah, crying over crony corporate privileges being revoked is a 1st world problem.
This has nothing to do with "lost privileges" nor does it have anything to do with the law firm in question. This is entirely about the flagrant abuse of power by an administration completely unbound by any sense of legality, ethics, morality, decency, or any concern at all for the status of the American experiment, and the ramifications that has for all of us.
For you to pretend this issue doesn't matter or is really about some "privilege lost" that we're all feeling bad about is grossly disingenuous, not to mention just plain stupid.
If Joe Biden or Kamala Harris were doing the exact same thing you wouldn't need me to explain this to you. It just goes to show how much of a partisan hack you are. Fortunately for myself I don't expect any better from you so it doesn't bother me, I'm just entertained seeing how incapable you are of defending this. It just further demonstrates that people like me are not the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Are you serious? You really don't pay attention to anything going on, do you?
Here he is putting everyone "on notice" that he will be going after Trump's political foes "whether it's criminally or civilly, we'll figure that out":
And here is his enemies list from his book "government gangsters" (yes, he published this):
- Michael Atkinson: former Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
- Lloyd Austin: U.S. Secretary of Defense.
- Brian Auten: FBI official who supervised the bureau's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election.
- James Baker: the former general counsel of the FBI and former deputy general counsel at Twitter.
- Bill Barr: attorney general under Trump.
- John Bolton: Trump's one-time national security adviser.
- Stephen Boyd: the former head of legislative affairs at the Justice Department.
- Joe Biden: President of the United States.
- John Brennan: former CIA director who served under President Barack Obama.
- John Carlin: former acting deputy attorney general and the former head of the national security division at the Justice Department.
- Eric Ciaramella: former Ukraine director of the National Security Council under Obama and former deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council.
- Pat Cipollone: former White House counsel under Trump.
- James Clapper: former director of national intelligence during the Obama administration.
- Hillary Clinton: former Secretary of State under Obama and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee.
- James Comey: former FBI director who was fired by Trump in 2017.
- Elizabeth Dibble: former deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in London.
- Mark Esper: Secretary of Defense under Trump.
- Alyssa Farah Griffin: former director of strategic communications under Trump and former Pentagon spokesperson.
- Evelyn Farkas: former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia during the Obama administration.
- Merrick Garland: U.S. attorney general.
- Stephanie Grisham: Trump's former press secretary and incoming First Lady Melania Trump's former chief of staff.
- Kamala Harris: Vice President of the United States and 2024 Democratic presidential nominee.
- Gina Haspel: former CIA director under Trump.
- Fiona Hill: former National Security Council official under Trump specializing in Russia and Ukraine. Hill was one of the officials who testified at Trump's first impeachment proceeding.
- Curtis Heide: FBI supervisory agent who was investigated for "not identifying exculpatory information as it pertained to one of the Crossfire Hurricane investigations," referring to the FBI's codename for the 2016 Russia inquiry.
- Eric Holder: attorney general during the Obama administration.
- Robert Her: Justice Department special counsel who investigated Joe Biden's handling of classified government documents.
- Cassidy Hutchinson: former aide to Trump's ex-chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who testified to Congress' January 6 select committee about Trump's actions related to the Capitol riot.
- Nina Jankowicz: former executive director of the Disinformation Governance Board during the Biden administration.
- Lois Lerner: former director of the Internal Revenue Service under Obama.
- Charles Kupperman: former deputy national security adviser during Trump's first term.
- Kenneth Mackenzie: former head of the United States Central Command and retired Marine Corps General.
- Andrew McCabe: former deputy FBI director during Trump's first term.
- Ryan McCarthy: former secretary of the Army under Trump.
- Mary McCord: the Justice Department's former acting assistant attorney general for national security during the Obama administration.
- Denis McDonough: former Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Obama's one-time chief of staff.
- Mark Milley: former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who called Trump "fascist" and said he was "the most dangerous person to this country."
- Lisa Monaco: deputy U.S. attorney general.
- Sally Moyer: former supervisory lawyer at the FBI.
- Robert Mueller: former FBI director and special counsel who investigated links between the Trump campaign and Russia-linked individuals.
- Bruce Ohr: former associate deputy attorney general who was heavily criticized by Trump and his allies over his contact with the former British spy Christopher Steele, who wrote the so-called Steele dossier..
- Nellie Ohr: Ohr's wife, a former CIA employee who later worked as an independent contractor for Fusion GPS, the firm that commissioned the Steele dossier.
- Lisa Page: former FBI lawyer who criticized Trump in text messages with FBI official Peter Strzok.
- Pat Philbin: former deputy White House counsel under Trump.
- John Podesta: senior adviser to Biden, Bill Clinton's former White House chief of staff, former counselor to Obama, and the chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign.
- Samantha Power: administrator of the United States Agency for International Development under Biden and former ambassador to the United Nations under Obama.
- Bill Priestap: former assistant director of the FBI's counterintelligence division.
- Susan Rice: former national security adviser to Obama.
- Rod Rosenstein: former deputy attorney general who appointed Mueller to oversee the Trump-Russia investigation.
- Peter Strzok: former deputy assistant director of the FBI's counterintelligence division who criticized Trump in private texts with Lisa Page.
- Jake Sullivan: Biden's national security adviser.
- Michael Sussmann: former Democratic lawyer who was charged with lying to the FBI; Sussmann was acquitted in 2022.
- Miles Taylor: former Department of Homeland Security official during the Trump administration who later wrote an anonymous opinion piece criticizing Trump. Taylor later admitted to writing the piece.
- Timothy Thibault: former assistant special agent at the FBI's field office in Washington, D.C.
- Andrew Weissmann: former DOJ official and former assistant U.S. attorney who served as Mueller's second-in-command during the Russia probe.
- Alexander Vindman: former Director for European Affairs on the National Security Council under Trump. Vindman testified against Trump during his first impeachment proceeding.
- Christopher Wray: director of the FBI.
- Sally Yates: former acting attorney general under Trump and former deputy attorney general under Obama. Trump fired Yates weeks into his first term after she refused to enforce his executive order instating an immigration ban on individuals coming from some Muslim-majority countries.
This looks like an opportunity for us to come together in bipartisan agreement - This is really, really bad... Right?
...
Right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Like today they were crying about how a crony law firm lost security clearance privileges. Pretty funny stuff.
So you think it's funny that a President of the United States is using state power to extort a private business into providing free services, and in the process sending an unmistakably clear message to any and every law firm in the country not to take up any legal case that this administration doesn't like.
Cause you know, free speech.
This is literal third world country shit that we all used to pretend could never happen here.
It's not like I needed you to suggest anything so explicit to understand that you're just a brazen partisan hack who couldn't care less about any of the principals you pretend matter, but it's still pretty shocking anyway just because of how absurd it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The only thing this video and post demonstrates is projection at work.
Saying something wrong and then issuing a correction the very next night is what having integrity looks like. Show me Trump getting a fact wrong and correcting it...
I thought so.
Then it shows Rachel Maddow talking about the vaccines being nearly 100% effective at stopping transmission. Ignorant Trump voters and vaccine conspiracy theorists find this damning because they are ignorant Trump voters and vaccine conspiracy theorists. If you knew anything about COVID and the vaccines you'd know that the first vaccines were nearly 100% effective and then the virus quickly mutated. Because that's what viruses do. The effectiveness quickly dropped but remained remarkably effective.
The last one was Joe Scarborough saying Biden was the sharpest he's ever been. True? No of course not. A lie? No genius, it's not even a fact statement. He was sharing his opinion about something we can all see and deduce with our own eyes.
I'm sure anyone could comb through MSNBC and find better examples, because every news network is going to get things wrong from time to time. That's not a reason to stop watching the news, and I hate to break it to you but your little right wing podcasts are no better. I'm sorry you don't have enough critical thinking abilities to understand that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Once he's out of office, Democrats will be scrutinizing the breakfasts he had in the morning to find some bullcrap pseudolegal reason for why his presidential actions were invalid. And if they can get some wingnut lefty judge to sign off on this, it just might stick.Gee, I wonder what this development will mean for rule of law in America. Only good things, surely.
So you value the rule of law? Curious then to hear your thoughts on Trump picking the guy who published and enemies hitlist and stated publicly that he would use the justice department to go after Trump's political enemies as his FBI director.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
So the same people who want to use the force of govt to mandate EV's on everyone are now burning EV's and EV charging infrastructure. Am I wrong?
You do know Tesla is not the only company that makes EV's right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Which is why the marxist left calls an elected president dictator while funding anarchy in the streets burning Teslas.
Is there any conspiracy theory against the left Trump makes up that you don't buy hook line and sinker?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Selecting Kamala destroyed their voter base. The Democrats won't be allowed to run anyone normal after that because shoehorning Kamala solidified the resolve of the radical purity testers to keep (relatively)normal people like Gavin and Slotkin from ever being able to save the party. And the radical purity testers won't allow the (relatively)normal voter base to return either.
You just sound like a whacked out conspiracy theorist. Who exactly are these "radical purity testers" that won't "allow" normal people to run? I think you're talking about... you know... voters. As in the people who are supposed to decide these things, says democracy.
Tell me again, who is in charge? AOC? It's not Schumer.
Who exactly is supposed to be?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you guys ran anyone other than Kamala, we would not be discussing the permanent dearth of your party
You go on at length about how Democratic policies destroyed their voter base and then argue that Kamala is singlehandedly responsible. You need to make up your mind.
Created: