The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. - Page 627 - Politics and Economics

Right, which would a reasonable argument if we were advocating for open borders, which no one is. We're just advocating for common sense and a tiny speck of human compassion.

03-03-2017 , 04:57 PM

#15652

wheatrich

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 21,405

some dems aren't doing town halls as well, that goes both ways.

trump just tweeted demanding a 2nd investigation on pelosi for her russian ties. (she's in a photo with russian amb at a table in 2010)

Well dude's got a point, let's investigate everybody.

03-03-2017 , 04:58 PM

#15653

BroadwaySushy

banned

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 3,237

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noze

Trump fans admitting he lost the popular vote is progress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by campfirewest

03-03-2017 , 04:58 PM

#15654

chip&aprayer

enthusiast

Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 95

Quote:

Originally Posted by Autocratic

You asked what OUR solutions were little buddy.

So your solution is to ignore the law? Where do you draw the line on which laws to ignore?

03-03-2017 , 04:59 PM

#15655

MyrnaFTW

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 7,649

Trump is suggesting Pelosi also get investigated ,, so much for sounding presidential

03-03-2017 , 04:59 PM

#15656

truefish

grinder

Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 474

Quote:

Originally Posted by markksman

No Hillary lost because people didn't vote and brain damaged people , some whose pseudonyms might rhyme with clay dish, voted for trump.

It was painfully obvious trump was a much worse future president then Clinton. It wasn't even close, the divide was monstrous. Reality has only proven it worse.

So the fact your dumb self voted for trump has nothing to do with Clinton. If you looked at the two candidates and chose trump you are damaged.

If it was painfully obvious then Clinton would have won. The fact is the SJW class isn't as large as you think. Sorry, not there yet but keep trying buddy.

03-03-2017 , 05:00 PM

#15657

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

Quote:

Originally Posted by truefish

If it was painfully obvious then Clinton would have won. The fact is the SJW class isn't as large as you think. Sorry, not there yet but keep trying buddy.

She got more votes.

03-03-2017 , 05:00 PM

#15658

SuperUberBob

Not interesting enough

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 48,217

At least truefish is honest about being a bigoted pos. The other Trump trolls here try to dress it up and hide it.

03-03-2017 , 05:00 PM

#15659

aoFrantic

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 25,221

Quote:

Originally Posted by chip&aprayer

So your solution is to ignore the law? Where do you draw the line on which laws to ignore?

Perhaps start at ones that don't have you starting squads to round up ethnicities and deport them without trial to a huge economic detriment to your economy?

03-03-2017 , 05:01 PM

#15660

wheatrich

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 21,405

anyone using the word clinton or hillary should be banned from this thread forever, she lost for many reasons that have been discussed a million times, it doesn't matter anymore and shut up. This thread is about trump only.

03-03-2017 , 05:02 PM

#15661

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperUberBob

At least truefish is honest about being a bigoted pos. The other Trump trolls here try to dress it up and hide it.

https://theestablishment.co/when-a-w...c60#.wltvsaddg

Quote:

Many western debates have had a strong element of privilege running throughout their history. To be able to imbibe at a salon, stand at a podium, or sit at a roundtable while sparring about the minutia of important issues requires a surplus of time, a dispassionate objectivity, and a platform that many don’t have the luxury of possessing around issues that can be life or death. We live in a world where the most hotly debated issues surround questions of women’s rights, health care, racism and racial oppression, immigration, trans rights, reproductive rights, and religious discrimination. To be able to take issues fundamental to the health and safety of millions of people and turn them into sport where winners and losers are decided by talking points requires some level of insulation from the negative impacts of the outcome in order to enjoy participating.

It is no surprise to me that online debate has become the international sport of cis white men. Those who are least likely to be negatively impacted by the outcomes of discussions regarding the rights of marginalized people, who are driven by little more than ego and the risk of slight discomfort if society is made more equal, can gleefully jump from post to post, forum to forum, challenging the heartfelt pleas of those most at risk. “Well actuallys” are flung at those working for justice and equality like drive-bys of apathy. And those who are fighting for their lives are then forced to battle each challenger bearing advanced degrees in Google and entitlement in order to prevent the outright dismissal of their lived experience.

03-03-2017 , 05:02 PM

#15662

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 100,186

Quote:

Originally Posted by chip&aprayer

So your solution is to ignore the law? Where do you draw the line on which laws to ignore?

a) It's about level of punishment. You can sanction people but still give them a path to citizenship if they're obviously contributing to society.

b) Thousands of laws aren't enforced every day. I'm sure you don't have any pirated music on any of your devices right? Never smoke weed right? If so, you should go to jail. Don't do the crime, it's just that simple.

Gonna be hilarious when Sessions cracks down on all the legal-weed enjoying Trumpbros. I have a feeling "it's the law" won't be as popular.

There are so many spooky laws still on the books that cops could start arbitrarily enforcing if they wanted to.

03-03-2017 , 05:02 PM

#15663

aoFrantic

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 25,221

Quote:

Originally Posted by wheatrich

anyone using the word clinton or hillary should be banned from this thread forever, she lost for many reasons that have been discussed a million times, it doesn't matter anymore and shut up.

It's all they have. This line of "defense" won't end any time soon.

03-03-2017 , 05:02 PM

#15664

truefish

grinder

Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 474

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Right, which would a reasonable argument if we were advocating for open borders, which no one is. We're just advocating for common sense and a tiny speck of human compassion.

What about a speck of human compassion for the folks killed by illegals. Screw them right?

03-03-2017 , 05:03 PM

#15665

weeeez

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 3,766

why do people assume winning election=being right?

03-03-2017 , 05:04 PM

#15666

aoFrantic

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 25,221

Quote:

Originally Posted by truefish

What about a speck of human compassion for the folks killed by illegals. Screw them right?

So your premise is that liberals sympathize with murderers?

03-03-2017 , 05:04 PM

#15667

chip&aprayer

enthusiast

Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 95

Quote:

Originally Posted by aoFrantic

Perhaps start at ones that don't have you starting squads to round up ethnicities and deport them without trial to a huge economic detriment to your economy?

And you make that decide which laws to pick and choose? Because why, you know better than everyone else? Forget that laws were enacted for a reason. If you want change, work to change the laws, not ignore what you don't like.

03-03-2017 , 05:05 PM

#15668

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by truefish

Not our problem. Can't save everybody.

This is a guy we could save. You are advocating spending a bunch of time, effort, and money un-saving him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chip&aprayer

So your solution is to ignore the law? Where do you draw the line on which laws to ignore?

Trump seems to ignore lots of laws, and lots of folks don't seem to care that he does.

03-03-2017 , 05:05 PM

#15669

truefish

grinder

Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 474

Quote:

Originally Posted by aoFrantic

It's all they have. This line of "defense" won't end any time soon.

That's the left for you, open minded until it's not what you agree with. Then it's ban then or shut them down. Didn't work during the election. America woke up and voted. 4 years baby, at least. My 401K and IRAs have gained a lot of ground in the last two months. My home value even went up. America is good.

03-03-2017 , 05:06 PM

#15670

Autocratic

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 11,276

Quote:

Originally Posted by chip&aprayer

Have you ever violated a law?

03-03-2017 , 05:06 PM

#15671

truefish

grinder

Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 474

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

This is a guy we could save. You are advocating spending a bunch of time, effort, and money un-saving him.

Trump seems to ignore lots of laws, and lots of folks don't seem to care that he does.

How many people did Obama deport? How many people did he drone? We're you bitching then?

03-03-2017 , 05:06 PM

#15672

wheatrich

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 21,405

Quote:

Originally Posted by chip&aprayer

So your solution is to ignore the law? Where do you draw the line on which laws to ignore?

You must be furious at trump and at least half his cabinet then.

03-03-2017 , 05:07 PM

#15673

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

Quote:

Originally Posted by aoFrantic

It's all they have. This line of "defense" won't end any time soon.

August 2014:

https://twitter.com/sarahkendzior/st...54334760456192

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

Quote:

Whataboutism is a term describing a propaganda technique used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world during the Cold War. When criticisms were levelled at the Soviet Union, the response would be "What about..." followed by the naming of an event in the Western world.[1][2] It represents a case of tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy),[3] a logical fallacy which attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position, without directly refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument.

The term describing the technique was popularized in 2008 by Edward Lucas in an article for The Economist. Lucas said that this tactic is observed in the politics of modern Russia, along with this being evidence of a resurgence of Cold War and Soviet-era mentality within Russia's leadership.[1]