Jump to content

GW Hayduke

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1686
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GW Hayduke

  1. 7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    I am aware who and what he is specifically targeting.  And I would agree wrt the electorate and the media.  I do however believe that that the entire political apparatus, or at least the vast majority of it, is corrupted.  

     

     

    I get that it appears to be entirely or mostly corrupt but I wonder how much of that is due to the republicans controlling two branches of government. Although there are a lot of things that can be done to make our system less “corrupt” imo like campaign finance reform, removing dark money, more transparency. I think the dems are gonna have a strong anti-corruption platform for 2018

  2. 3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    I've been a critic of Comey for a while, but his virtue signalling hits the nail on the head with this one. We have a corrupted political apparatus, a mind numbing stupid and short sighted electorate, and a broken information distribution system. The list of our societal faults could go on a while, but this is a pretty good start. 

    He wasn’t referring to the entire political apparatus, the entire electorate, or the entire media

  3. 3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Does anyone else find it somewhat ironic that Russian oligarchs, who control most of their very corrupt country, including, apparently, law enforcement and banking, would have any need to launder money, at least outside the Russian Federation and former Soviet republics?

     

    I get that they need to invest it outside of the countries they control, but it seems like they could launder it beyond all recognition right there at home with no risk.

    We have sanctions against Russian banks

  4. 2 minutes ago, Jester said:

    I like to imagine it's a real life Breaking Bad scam similar to Walt Jr.'s fundraising efforts for his Dad's cancer treatment.   The Russians utilized stolen credit card/bank info to drop small amounts into Trump's coffers without anyone noticing.  Surely the real life Saul had connections to make this happen.

    Not sure if folks heard about this but one method of money laundering the Russians were potentially using had to do with online gaming where dirty money was used to purchase in-game features. I forget the details of the company that was doing this for an oligarch

  5. 1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

    You have to admit Clapper’s claim isn’t exactly scientific.  

    Of course. I don’t think anyone was claiming it was.

  6. 11 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

    It's not a popular or politically correct opinion, but we need more "water throwers."

    People like Tammy need to be called out for their bullshit.  The venom spewed daily by that heinous bimbo is contributing to the decline and divide in our country, and there need to be repercussions for someone whose sole purpose is to drive this country apart.

    Richard Spencer got punched, and suddenly he's fallen off the face of the earth.

    They all know what they are doing, they are just banking on nobody else doing anything about it.

     

    On one level I like the idea of punching nazis. Although I feel there should be a better way to wage a culture war - which this clearly is.

    IMO to win this culture war, the hearts/minds of  the Fox News viewers would need to be swayed and/or they need to be minimized. Somehow we need to keep the number of people who read breitbart or watch tucker Carlson from growing. And ideally get those viewers to recognize that when they see a piece on an immigrant/non-white doing something terrible, it is a news piece solely intended to inflame their identity and is not a true reflection of our world.

  7. 2 minutes ago, Stringer said:

    Best I can tell, she had a drink thrown at her at a restaurant.  You know, real important stuff the President of the United States should be worried about.

    Bunch of snow flakes.

    This taps squarely into identity politics and their narrative that “they” are under attack by “them.” 

    “They” being white women, Americans, responsible gun owners, the coal miner, republicans.

    Them being black guys, immigrants, non-Americans, animals, gun-grabbers, globalists, democrts.

    • Like 3
  8. 1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

    James Clapper, he of the shredded credibility. 

    I’m just happy to know that everybody, EVERYBODY, here is with Tomi Lahren.  

     

     

    What happened to Clapper’s credibility?

  9. 5 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

    The thing I was wondering during the campaign, all along, scratching my head and wondering, was "Who the hell is funding Trump's campaign? What lobbies are behind him?" There's that old idea that our politicians should wear NASCAR style suits bearing the patches of all the Fortune 500 companies that own them, but I could never figure out what would go on Trump's NASCAR uniform. With guys like McCain and Graham, it's Raytheon and Lockheed. With Dole it was Big Ag. With all the Bushes it was Big Awl. Democrats get the unions, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Big Law, and certain elements on Wall Street. 

    But with Trump? Where was the money coming from, and who would demand favors in return?

    And don't try to tell me he self-funded this shit, or that the Mercers alone funded the entire campaign. 

    Trump has support of most traditional republican groups like defense, gun and oil but has brought immigration and identity with him. He would need a patch for the alt-right, white pride, or something to symbolize the “immigrants are scary and unamerican” crowd. I would also argue that he gets a patch for certain US worker-class sectors that believe they are disenfranchised by the global market place, such coal and steel.

  10. 37 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

     


    Brisket?

    I’m coming around on the punish-the-gun-owner idea. I need to mull it over with my happy hour politics buddies.

    I also kind of like going after ammo. I have to show ID to buy beer, maybe I should have to show ID that states I passed gun safety to buy ammo? Although that may be unconstitutional.

     

    "Punish" implies the effort is directed at an identity. 

    I think of it as a society seeking its citizens to take steps to help protect other citizens. 

    Though sometimes I think of it as a teacher comforting and telling a child he is special after the child had a fit and screaming because he's not allowed to throw rocks at the playground.

  11. 4 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

    I suppose I would consider a bribe to be an emolument.  Why?  If it is ever proved that trump took a bribe he will go down.

    Bribery is already something that trump can’t be a part of. It seems by turning the definition of emoluments into bribery, you’ve effectively made the emoluments requirement disappear. Brilliant!

  12. 2 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

    The emoluments issue is a tricky one.  But it is not, at all, the slam dunk many of claim.  There are plenty of legal and popular opinion arguments that trump is not violating the act.  I would think the question of whether or not paying market rate for a service is considered an emolument (it is certainly not a gift) could go to SCOTUS.

    IMO, the only way emoluments gets any traction is if it can be proved that foreign govts paid over market rates at Trump properties and then received some kind of benefit.  The public knew trump owned hotels and golf courses all over the world when he was elected.

    With that being said, I do not have a problem with an audit of the trump properties to see what was paid.  If it was over market, then trump should go down.

    I also recall the trump folks saying any profits from foreign govt revenue would be donated to charity.  I would support following up on that.

     

    How is your definition of emoluments different then a bribe?

  13. 13 minutes ago, JohnRedHorn said:

    Nobody cares about the constitution anymore, just like nobody cares about responsible fiscal spending. It's all about what I want and fuck you if you get in the way. No negotiation. No compromise. Just use whatever narrative fits your opinion and reject whatever doesn't. We're one step away from political killings and assassinations because fuck civility just give me what I want now.  

    I agree that things are shitty and the rule-of-law, free press, and an honestly informed electorate are under attack. However, I disagree with the no body cares idea. There is still clearly one-half of the political spectrum that cares about those things.

  14. 8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    I just don’t think it will be sensible. I think it will be in reaction to the past few years and the fact that the GOP and NRA is hell-bent on telling them to fuck off  

    They may even make the Vegas shooting front-and-center - one guy killing and wounding over 900 people is a pretty good argument for their side when the GOP did basically nothing. 

    The NRA will be happy though. Memberships will go through the roof. 

    Sure though I don’t think of it as a reaction but more as an effort to solve a problem. Sensible is just an opinion and some folks will undoubtedly feel like anything that happens is drakonian or tyrannical. I would use “sensible” if it turns out to still allow for our legitimate uses of firearms while making a measured effect on our overall rate of firearm deaths.

    Most industries try and get our in front of regulations. I’m not sure why the gun industry isn’t doing this. The forestry industry in the US has sought to avoid regulations through sticking to best practices. Ride-sharing companies do their own background checks. 

  15. 30 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

    Both sides leak any confidential info that is beneficial to them.  Seems like every conversation is leaked. It’s pathetic. I doubt that’s the reason.

     

     

    Maybe. Maybe not.  Fact is, DOJ and FBI are subject to congressional oversight by elected representatives.  They’ve been avoiding it.  

    The both sides argument is getting old. It’s intellectually weak IMO. See false equivalence fallacy.

    I do not believe that both sides leak classified/confidential information for the purpose of political gain that puts our nation’s security at risk. See Valerie Plame, the Nunes memo, and this example of outing a foreign CIA/FBI asset.

    • Like 1
  16. 1 hour ago, Armybrat said:

    No, just reacting to the brain dead partisanship  others continue to post. Yeah, we know what Trump is - I said so when he announced he was running. IDGAF if he gets impeached & convicted, he's a deserving candidate for a prison cell - along with most of his crowd.

    What amazes me are those who think his political opponents are the answer to our country's ills. They are not, just as DJT never has been. They are as bad as he is but the blinders they hand out are working as planned for the cattle who support them (Both parties).

    I gave up on the republicans at the turn of the millennium. Why haven't you people done the same with your own corrupt slimeballs?

    FYI, the “both-sides-are-the-same” rationale is a meme. It’s a meme because people mock it. People mock it because it is intellectually lazy.

  17. 2 minutes ago, JohnRedHorn said:

    If that was satirical then bravo. If not then wtf? 

    Duh, the US is the only civilized western society that has easy access to guns and a majority of gun owners who are irresponsible and don't keep their guns locked in a gun safe whenever not in use. 

    You dont have to take away guns, you just start charging whoever the legal owner of any gun that is used in a crime with that crime. If dumb ass daddy of this kid was up for capital murder and the death penalty alongside his kid then we'd either see a lot of people deciding to not own guns or we'd get rid of irresponsible gun owners by making felons out of them. 

    It’s not a satirical question although the answer is obvious to a lot of folks though not all - see the blaming of doors, abortion, etc.  It’s not satirical because it is meant to refocus on the real, more important question, and away from the question that only looks at mass shootings.

    I agree however that increased enforcement and possibly expanding liabilities may be an effective strategy

  18. 4 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

    The easy answer is the US has by far more guns than any other country, total volume and per capita. Literally more guns than people. Only country on earth that can come close to that claim. 

    If we had more hang grenades than people and they were extremely easy to buy, we would lead the world in hand grenade deaths. 

    Totally agree that that is the easy and obvious answer. I would add that in addition to that, the lack of any effective controls surrounding firearms contributes to this. There are several countries that allow ownership of firearms that do not have near our levels of gun violence.

  19. 28 minutes ago, yoladu said:

    Can anyone care to explain to me why it is so drastically higher in the United States?

    I think that is an important question. Why does the US have such a high refequency of mass shootings?

    I would add that another important, and actually IMO more important, question is why does the US have such a drastically higher rate of overall firearm-related violence when compared to other first world countries?

    The reason I think this question is more important is because it reflects a much larger amount of harm/death, e.g., mass shootings are not that common when compared to other instances of gun violence.

  20. 9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    I think we will see something on the level of the AWB, with a lot more provisions.  And I think there are plenty on the left who are ready to roll something out the moment they get power and we have another major shooting.  It's too easy to organize kids who are 18 or about to be 18, and people in general these days, and more and more parents are getting concerned.     

    The AWB happened in 1994 before school shootings were on the national conscious, before the internet was widespread and well before social media, before 58 people were killed and 850 injured by a single guy, before two dozen little kids were slaughtered in an elementary.  

    Not many 18 year olds used to vote, but this is one of those single issues that could do the trick.  And that's not even getting into the fact that Trump is trying to hand Congress over to the Dems within 1-2 elections, thereby setting the stage for something more comprehensive than the AWB.

    I would agree that the concept of sensible gun control is building political steam and would entail something more comprehensive than the past AWB. IMO sensible gun reform would have the primary goal of decreasing the overall rate of firearm-related deaths in the US and a secondary goal of decreasing the frequency/magnitude of mass shootings

  21. 16 minutes ago, Hate said:

    No it won't.  The only thing it will do is to change the weapon of choice of said mass shooter.  See Va Tech, Killeen, Austin, etc. 

    I get that there are examples where a mass shooter didn’t use an AW; however, to take that fact and use as evidence that removing or heavily restricting AWs from a population would not decrease the body count from mass shootings doesn’t hold up. AW appear to be the weapon of choice for mass shooters.  This rational seems to assume that a strategy isn’t appropriate unless it stops all mass shootings. Society doesn’t operate with these extremes in mind. The goal is to lower the magnitude, body count associated with mass shootings. And that is just one of the goals with effective gun control

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...