Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

07-06-2017 , 05:30 PM
Yea Repubs are creepy
07-06-2017 , 05:31 PM
but im not looking for why they like her. im looking for whether or not they will approve of women in power or if that is something that is an absurd idea to them.
07-06-2017 , 05:32 PM
A woman in power who institutes anti-woman policies is not pro-woman. That's a classic trick of colonialism, for example putting a black person in charge of a black colony.
07-06-2017 , 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aflametotheground
there exists sexism for sure.

the question is how strong it is. for example sarah palin was highly popular 2010 among the gop.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is the best known and most positively rated of five possible contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Her 76% favorable rating among Republicans is higher than those for Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Bobby Jindal.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141341/pa...thers-gop.aspx
Sarah Palin personifies how the alt-right wants women to be, a pretty stay-at-home mom who takes the kids to soccer (hockey) practice and "knows her place." She just happens to be holding political office, but they are okay with that because she's not really for woman's empowerment, she doesn't act all smart, she's not argumentative, etc.
07-06-2017 , 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
No. Did you notice how Japan took over pretty much everything that touched the Pacific on the non-US side?

And then how after the war Stalin surrounded all sides with buffer states except the very east side which runs up against the US?
Come on dude this is just bad.
War plan red would have failed

Last edited by aoFrantic; 07-06-2017 at 05:45 PM.
07-06-2017 , 05:41 PM
#canthisbetrue


https://twitter.com/Independent/stat...84665308639233
07-06-2017 , 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aflametotheground
but im not looking for why they like her. im looking for whether or not they will approve of women in power or if that is something that is an absurd idea to them.
trump hates women, but he'll still marry several IF they're models who focus on their appearance and don't challenge him intellectually. how many lawyers or accountants has trump dated? i'm pretty sure his list is 100% empty-headed bimbos. sarah palin didn't connect with the republican base because she was a smart level-headed leader, she quit being governor to become an internet tv reality show celebrity, which was like, among the dumbest things anyone has ever done.
07-06-2017 , 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
A woman in power who institutes anti-woman policies is not pro-woman. That's a classic trick of colonialism, for example putting a black person in charge of a black colony.
the thing is that a majority of women in america supports abortion rights. but its not a overwhelming majority. im not sure what polls are the most trustworth but i have seen some among women 60-40 in favor. that means that not all women views it as a suppression of women to limit abortions.
07-06-2017 , 05:47 PM
The bar for this President is barely above a toddler.

"Look at that handshake with Merkel. Can't believe there were no problems."
"Oooh, he's about to accept the truth about Russia...wait...no. But he definitely got closer this time."
"He's working with European diplomats and hasn't pushed anybody out of the way yet."

America is so proud of our little boy!
07-06-2017 , 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Our House
The bar for this President is barely above a toddler.

"Look at that handshake with Merkel. Can't believe there were no problems."
"Oooh, he's about to accept the truth about Russia...wait...no. But he definitely got closer this time."
"He's working with European diplomats and hasn't pushed anybody out of the way yet."

America is so proud of our little boy!
this and no one is questioning what putin did to earn a bilateral talk with the potus. he hasn't retreated from ukraine which is why we stopped talking to him directly. hmmm i wonder what it is that we don't know publicly that putin did to earn this meeting.

i guess we're just going with it
07-06-2017 , 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
Come on. Jesus.

I mean separately. Japan would have almost certainly attacked in the late 30s/early 40s as they needed resources very badly.

Stalin would have taken Alaska if it belonged to Canada in the 1950s.

Either way, they don't need all of Canada.

Or maybe a victorious Germany gets there. But there's no way The Americas survive the 30s-50s without some superpower being part of it.
So now we add history fail to the geography fail? Because in case you didn't get the memo before Alaska was purchased by the USA it WAS Russian! So what, now we suppose for some bizarre reason that Canada purchased Alaska instead of the USA doing it when Canada at that time was so small it couldn't even administer the Yukon properly, never mind all of Alaska?

And on top of that, now we also presume that Stalin decides to take back Alaska by military force in the 1950s after just losing some 20-30m people in a war with Germany (which this alternate history assumes that he won) and then he still has the military capability to have an entire army cross the Siberian wilderness where there are no roads and no food, then hop the Bearing Strait, and then continue into Alaska into more literally pure wilderness with again no roads and no food, all in a region that is so hostile his troops would be able to move only for maybe two months in the spring and two months in the fall, and all to capture what, 600,000 square miles of wilderness and trees when he already controls 5 MILLION square miles of pretty much the exact same thing?

And by the way why would he even have to take it by force when he could probably BUY it for just a little more than he received for it in the first place, or are we also conveniently forgetting that the riches of Alaska weren't really fully understood until well into the 1960s which is long after Stalin died? Like the whole thing is laughable.
07-06-2017 , 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Namath12
I really love how his sycophants have embraced this

-Russia hacks under Obama's watch

-Obama sanctions Russia

-Trump claims "Obama did nothing" while trying to get sanctions lifted

-"I think it was Russia, probably other people in other countries though"
At this point it's fairly obvious that he won't say Russia hacked us cuz there is collusion evidence.
07-06-2017 , 06:27 PM
So George Will pronounces Putin "Pewtin" and Chris Mathews says Kisselack or similar butchery for Kislyak and they won't stop.
07-06-2017 , 06:29 PM
Sarah Palin is popular with Repubs because she supports the sexist status quo.
07-06-2017 , 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
I'm all for pulling US troops out of everywhere. Just think it should be done carefully. And let's not pretend the US wars were done in a vacume. Canada and other allies propped up those wars and added ligitmicy by joining the us. Which did not make the jobs of us anti war folks here easier.
Canada's role is like that of the USA's little brother. And sometimes your brother is in a nightclub or bar acting like an ass and you try and talk him down and caution him that he's out of line and that he needs to calm down before he gets clocked.

But he's still your brother, so when he does get clocked and the fists start flying you're still jumping on the other guy pretty much no matter what.
07-06-2017 , 06:55 PM
I’m not going to continue the silly argument because the US has clearly been a buffer to Canada forever. And yes the US has been involved in wars on their land of 1812 ldo. Maybe big city coastal elites don’t know but those of us in Texas do.
07-06-2017 , 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clovis8
There is simply no historical evidence to support any of this. Who would have attacked Canada in the absence of the US?
Who was in place of the US for one.
07-06-2017 , 07:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman
Who was in place of the US for one.
I have no idea what this sentence means.
07-06-2017 , 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatkid
So George Will pronounces Putin "Pewtin" and Chris Mathews says Kisselack or similar butchery for Kislyak and they won't stop.
I'm giving everyone a pass on bolded. I once heard how it is supposed to be pronounced in Russian and I doubt anyone on USA#1 news programs gets even close.
07-06-2017 , 07:14 PM
Wanna send Trump spinning in circles of insane frustration?

(Congressional Committees and Mueller)
"Due to Donald Trump's constant invoking of the former President regarding the issue of Russia and election interference, we have decided to interview Barack Obama as a witness."

WOULD BE TOTAL TRUMP TILLLLT!
07-06-2017 , 07:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman
Who was in place of the US for one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clovis8
I have no idea what this sentence means.
He's speculating that some other warlike nation would have been in the US's place had the USA not been there. To which the average world citizen would be like, how could any country be more warlike than the USA?

Regardless, it's not a trivial matter to cross the Detroit river or the St. Lawrence. That's why there even is a Canada in the first place, remember?
07-06-2017 , 07:34 PM
CNN just went on about how new reporting from the IC is saying Russia has stepped up its spying efforts SINCE THE ELECTION.

Ready for this?

They said that there has been a huge spike of 150 technically skilled Russians applying for positions in sensitive areas of intelligence over the last few months, and Homeland Security has been letting them in with little to no screening.

IC revenge for today's world bashing obviously, but WTF is going on with this country?? We can't take much more of this phony fake false fraud bull**** administration.
07-06-2017 , 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
Canada's role is like that of the USA's little brother. And sometimes your brother is in a nightclub or bar acting like an ass and you try and talk him down and caution him that he's out of line and that he needs to calm down before he gets clocked.

But he's still your brother, so when he does get clocked and the fists start flying you're still jumping on the other guy pretty much no matter what.
Yeah I know. I wish they all would not do that.
07-06-2017 , 07:39 PM
Now they're saying Trump has been tossing around the ideas of returning the Russian spy compounds and softening Russian sanctions at tomorrow's Putin meeting.

Also, not many adults will be there in the room. It's gonna be Trump & Tillerson vs Putin & Lavrov.
07-06-2017 , 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadBoyBenny
At least Germany, which is the only one I am familiar with, has much stronger protections for consumers (e.g. data privacy, right to be forgotten), for workers and unions (both collective bargaining laws and vacation \ family leave policies), and actually enforces antitrust laws (e.g. Microsoft and Google)
I should look this up some before posting, but I don't mean countries in the EU as much as the EU organization, like Belgium. And the trade deals, TTIP and general global market organs like the WTO and IMF. b Hasn't all of this been a force for neoliberalism and austerity in Europe and wherever these deals are made. I think Europe has a trade deal with Africa? Is a trade deal with Japan likely to guarantee or erode these protections?

Maybe that's not at odds with consumer protection but it seems to be with labor protection.

Last edited by microbet; 07-06-2017 at 07:55 PM.

      
m