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.

10-01-2017 , 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
This is why Trump is President.
Yes, there is a sizeable portion of the voting population that holds deplorable views. The fact that you either can't recognize or don't care why these views are evil, i.e., that you can't see or don't care about the real harms that this policy positions cause in our society, is neither the problem or the fault of the people pointing out your views are evil. It's your ****ing problem that your policy concerns exhibit narcissism, sociopathy, and aauthoritarianism.
10-01-2017 , 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Namath12
Openly undermining your own State Department is a bold move
Trump is trying to start a war because the other two wars are not enough. Actually he's trying to provoke NK into war. That's even worse, because he'll likely not need to ask anyone for permission.

This issue will take the collective will of everyone to resist that which will become death for millions.
10-01-2017 , 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
Literally if you do not hold Liberal beliefs you are Evil.

And sure I can take it, but others rebel.

And now Donald Trump is President.
Don't kid yourself, you clearly can't take it, snowflake. You voted for Trump and you support him and the Republican platform. And no you sit here lying about who has agency in their vote for that ****.
10-01-2017 , 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
So what's your plan patron?

Mass murder of Trump voters?

Monsters supporting evil. Equating them to people supporting slavery.

It's just so laughable that you cannot fathom people have different political beliefs.
I think if we build 3000-5000 Rural Re-education camps we can tackle several issues at once.

Building the camps would be a significant infrastructure project. Add to that the people employed to manage and run the re-education camps and we are talking jobs jobs jobs.

In these camps those “learning” would be presented with intense 18-24 month curriculums that would be modified based on behavior and aptitude. At the end of one of these courses each participant would be graded and assessed. If they have improved significantly they will be able to be reintroduced to society. If they are still plagued with horrible ideals and desires and an unwillingness to take important issues seriously they will be sent through another 18-24 month course. This process will continue as long as necessary.

This is really a win-win-win and because it was created to combat Donald Trump it would actual deliver on promises he never did, building infrastructure and creating jobs. There are some additional factors to these camps. Students will have to participate in an asset reallocation process. This will take assets of value and redistribute them to enlightened citizens who are providing a positive benefit to society. If and when they graduate from the re-education camp they will be provided with a leg-up kit which will provide them the basics to relaunch their newly educated and enlightened life.
10-01-2017 , 12:37 PM


they just keep coming
10-01-2017 , 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
Oxford
Use fewer if you’re referring to people or things in the plural (e.g. houses, newspapers, dogs, students, children).

Use less when you’re referring to something that can’t be counted or doesn’t have a plural (e.g. money, air, time, music, rain).

Writer's Digest
“Fewer” emphasizes number and modifies plural nouns, as in a smaller number of persons or individual items.

“Less” focuses on matters of degree, bulk or quantity. It often modifies collective nouns, mass nouns and nouns denoting an abstract whole.

Grammarly
Luckily, the conundrum of less vs. fewer has a solution that is simple to remember. It involves deducing whether fewer or less will be working with a countable or uncountable noun in your intended sentence.

That people regularly misuse a rule does not mean such rule doesn't exist. For your part, Flynn, doing an online search, you had to have scrolled past and intentionally ignored the plethora of results against your position to find an obscure academic article suggesting otherwise, unless this is a pet peeve of yours, and you keep this outlier analysis handy for just such an occasion!

Also, just ftr, I was the one being criticized for using "fewer" to begin with - so my nittery is purely defensive here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn
No, you have it backwards. That people regularly pretend there's a rule, doesn't mean there is one. I've given you the history of the general style recommendation, which is all it's ever been. Can take a horse to water, can't make it drink.

You were criticised for using a godawful, dysphonious construction of a sort people only ever use because they mistakenly believe there's a rule that they must. Saying "fewer than two weeks" amounts to an assertion of the "rule", it's that hideously unnatural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
I'm confused - is it a rule or isn't it? If not, what's wrong with using "fewer" there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
And lol ianaww, I wasn't starting another general argument about less v fewer. I was pointing out that youre misusing the rule. Even among devotees of the rule, there's exceptions carved out for time, money, distance and weight. I weigh less than 200 pounds, not fewer. 100 dollars is not fewer than 200 dollars, it is less. Etc etc. See for example: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/edu...s-versus-fewer

I realise that it's a pretty shoddy prescriptive rule when even advocates have to carve out huge exceptions for no reason other than that using the prescriptive rule sounds dismally wrong, but that's what happens when you take a rule some guy just made up one day and try to shoehorn it into the language as actually employed.
omg stfu
10-01-2017 , 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Money2Burn
Don't kid yourself, you clearly can't take it, snowflake. You voted for Trump and you support him and the Republican platform. And no you sit here lying about who has agency in their vote for that ****.
But here's the rub...

You are talking to a pro-choice, pro-DREAMER, pro-marriage equality, prior Obama-voter.

And you are triggering me. For sure. I admit that. With the Liberal virtue signaling.

You all will never get your European style social democracy if you can't find common ground with me. Because Bubba from Alabama sure as hell isn't gonna be able to take your Liberal condensending tone.

So whatever, have an American ran by the right for another generation because you purge all allies. Whatever.
10-01-2017 , 12:53 PM
you are not an ally, i cant believe you're stupid/dishonest enough to even assert that

**** you
10-01-2017 , 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
But here's the rub...

You are talking to a pro-choice...
hmm

Quote:
I support abortion up to term. With no restrictions. But the truthfully the issue doesn't really effect me. So I don't care per se.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=3863

Quote:
It's the honest truth. I'm married. I'm an adult. If we need to have an abortion I have the money to fly wherever in the country where it is legal.

It's simply not a voting issue for me.

I am aware that abortion is a voting issue for many people (for some, the sole issue). But it's not a voting issue for me.

There are numerous policies that people may have an opinion on but it's just not a voting issue for them.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=3873


Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
prior Obama-voter.
lol. Liar.
10-01-2017 , 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn
You were criticised for using a godawful, dysphonious construction of a sort people only ever use because they mistakenly believe there's a rule that they must. Saying "fewer than two weeks" amounts to an assertion of the "rule", it's that hideously unnatural.
It's incorrect because 'in less than two weeks' just means 'in less time than two weeks.' It doesn't mean 'in one week, i.e. a number of weeks less than two.' No exact unitary counting of weeks is involved. Ten days, after all, is 'less than two weeks.' But it's more than one week. 'Fewer' just doesn't apply and is unidiomatic in that instance anyway.
10-01-2017 , 12:55 PM
He’s gonna rage vote for lame **** cuz your a meanie.
10-01-2017 , 12:56 PM
if trump’s approval rating was above 50% we might need awval
10-01-2017 , 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
The point of my rants last night was that "words have meaning".

Matty doesn't need to sensationalize PR discussion with "hundreds of thousands" dead.

As always the response is, "awval is terrible." and "He'd let 300,000 Americans die for $82 in tax cuts". It's not even funny.

Trump will have to answer for the PR/FEMA response. But it's more than just a disaster response. Large amount of Puerto Rican's will permanently leave the island. Furthering their "brain drain". The island will need large Congressional disaster aid to fix their infrastructure. Hopefully the Congress rises to the occasion.
As usual, you don't get it.

55% of the people are without water right now. That is close to 2 million Americans. With the heat index, it is over 100 degrees every day. I live in Florida and I went 4 days without power during Irma. It is pure ****ing misery with the heat and humidity.

I said if something isn't done, by this time next week, there could be hundreds of thousands dead.

WTF do you think will happen if 2 million people don't get water in the next week?

Seriously, are this stupid? I'm not sensationalizing a damn thing. Americans need water. Notice I'm not saying anything about food? Because you can go weeks without eating. The number one priority is water. People are dying for ****s sake.

Last edited by Matty Lice; 10-01-2017 at 01:09 PM.
10-01-2017 , 01:00 PM
nvm
10-01-2017 , 01:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clovis8
Bush's handling of Katrina is widely seen as the biggest black mark on his presidency from which he never really recovered.

I'm willing to bet Trump's response to PR will be completely forgotten by the next outrageous thing and won't even make a top 20 list in a year. This will be true even if thousands die.

What a difference 12 years makes.
more like katrina was the last straw. but bush is gonna go down with at least 2 other obv and much more horrid mistakes.
10-01-2017 , 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
But here's the rub...

You are talking to a pro-choice, pro-DREAMER, pro-marriage equality, prior Obama-voter.

And you are triggering me. For sure. I admit that. With the Liberal virtue signaling.

You all will never get your European style social democracy if you can't find common ground with me. Because Bubba from Alabama sure as hell isn't gonna be able to take your Liberal condensending tone.

So whatever, have an American ran by the right for another generation because you purge all allies. Whatever.
You're literally trying to destroy the country out of spite. We don't negotiate with terrorists.
10-01-2017 , 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
P,

Look up "banality of evil" and then delete your post.
M,

I apologize for not knowing that expression and its background. I now see the clever turn of phrase, although the explanation still obscures the evil for any others who may not have known the phrase previously. Perhaps my post can stand to illuminate more directly the evil implied. Awval himself seems to have taken no exception to the phrase, until my post.
10-01-2017 , 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matty Lice
As usual, you don't get it.

55% of the people are without water right now. That is close to 2 million Americans. With the heat index, it is over 100 degrees every day. I live in Florida and I went 4 days without power. It is pure ****ing misery with the heat and humidity.

I said if something isn't done, by this time next week, there could be hundreds of thousands dead.

WTF do you think will happen if 2 million people don't get water in the next week?

Seriously, are this stupid? I'm not sensationalizing a damn thing. Americans need water. Notice I'm not saying anything about food? Because you can go weeks without eating. The number one priority is water. People are dying for ****s sake.
Then let's get them water.

No one is against them getting water.
10-01-2017 , 01:09 PM
I'm sure many Americans in 1861 were saying:

"This is why the civil war started. With all the liberal virtue signaling. Bubba from Alabama sure as hell isn't gonna be able to take your liberal condescending tone."

"Whatever, enjoy having 2 Americas now because you purged all your allies. Whatever."
10-01-2017 , 01:12 PM
The key to winning bubba is to be more evil than the current cheeto clown god idol. **** bubba's vote.
10-01-2017 , 01:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
You are talking to a pro-choice, pro-DREAMER, pro-marriage equality, prior Obama-voter.

And you are triggering me. For sure. I admit that. With the Liberal virtue signaling.
Didn't you say you voted for Trump because of a prospective tax cut? So all that stuff about pro-choice, pro-DREAMer etc... that was the virtue-signaling, wasn't it? It was nice things you talked about but for which you would sacrifice exactly nothing.

So I dunno, awval, man, I kind of feel like if we need to make common cause with person-shaped chunks of sewer-flotsam like you... fair enough. Go ahead and shoot the hostage, the ransom's too high. You're too morally repugnant to be worth dealing with, we'll just put you down as "Republican For Life" and you can stop bothering us about it.
10-01-2017 , 01:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patron
M,

I apologize for not knowing that expression and its background. I now see the clever turn of phrase, although the explanation still obscures the evil for any others who may not have known the phrase previously. Perhaps my post can stand to illuminate more directly the evil implied. Awval himself seems to have taken no exception to the phrase, until my post.
Because there are consequences to calling your fellow Americans "evil".

I mean it's such a joke. You all could have your social democracy if you weren't so damn condensending. You think WV voters want the AMT cut? Or to reduce the top income tax rate to 35%?

You all just have to keep virtue signaling. 10,000 refugees from Syria wasn't enough. Open borders or you're a racist. LETS TAKE THEM ALL.

Passing the DREAM act isn't enough. Give every single undocumented immigrant citizenship or.... RACIST.

I get that it's the internet and that it's much more easier to "get in ones face" on a forum than in real life.

But you see what making enemies out of allies gets you.
10-01-2017 , 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
Then let's get them water.

No one is against them getting water.
Yes, we should get them water. If Trump failed to do the things he could have, in order to get them water, is that worthy of criticism to you?
10-01-2017 , 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
Then let's get them water.

No one is against them getting water.
We have aircraft carriers that can produce 400K gallons of water a day. Go tell your dip**** Daddy to send one to the area.
10-01-2017 , 01:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre
Also keep in mind that this hurricane didn't come out of nowhere. There should have been contingency plans in place for most scenarios.
Contingency plans are an essential part of national and local government. You don't have to react off the top of your head, you just take down the file for that emergency off the shelf or perform the equivalent computer action. And then you adapt the prepared plan as required. The British were criticised for their speed of response to the last hurricane, but the US response to the disaster in Puerto Rico has been just bewilderingly useless.

      
m