2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don [Results begin on page 409]

[Tuco 5076]

45 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

pussy, while essentially denigrating America.

You may want to give it a month before defending America's honor.  If it hadn't been for a fucking global pandemic, there is a solid chance that America would have re-elected the fucking criminal who put brown kids in cages, as a deterrent.

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Tuco

[Goredho 17345]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I wouldn't want to impose on Armybrat to dust off any part of his arsenal.

*wistful sigh*

[Ghost of LL 15481]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You're clearly right.  The American people are wonderful, kind, well-educated, not racist, and thoughtful, and the GOP is a bona-fide center-right party with our best interests at heart.  Man, can't believe I missed those things.

You believe that Mencken was wrong.  I don't.  

And if you really want me to get the wife to go back and dig up some receipts for donations to the food bank over the past couple of years....well, I'm not gonna fucking do that.  Ask GOLL if I donate to the food bank regularly -- he knows.

He does.  I acknowledge that.

But I think the wager was for $100 over and above what you would give as a matter of course.  I'm not competent to testify that you did that.

Regardless--Brisket and I have our own $100 wager on the outcome of this election.  The dumb sumbitch gave me even odds (I would've happily covered 3-1).  So while he may be wrong, he's putting his money where his (dumb) mouth is.

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

7 minutes ago, Tuco said:

You may want to give it a month before defending America's honor.  If it hadn't been for a fucking global pandemic, there is a solid chance that America would have re-elected the fucking criminal who put brown kids in cages, as a deterrent.

 

I don’t think he was ever getting re elected. 
I’ve put my stake in the ground. If I’m wrong I’m wrong it’s happened before and it will happen again. 
here’s what I don’t understand about you using brown kids in cages as proof Trump is uniquely evil... was that not Obama admin policy that was simply continued. Didn’t the picture in the cage come from prior to Trumps inauguration?  Or is that fake news?

You don’t strike me as disingenuous so that’s a serious question. I don’t get it. 
and this isn’t a “but Obama or a moral equivalency argument.... this is merely saying you can’t claim Trumps inherently evil for carrying on prior policy. Not and be logical. But if that information is wrong I’m happy to hear it. 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

He does.  I acknowledge that.

But I think the wager was for $100 over and above what you would give as a matter of course.  I'm not competent to testify that you did that.

Regardless--Brisket and I have our own $100 wager on the outcome of this election.  The dumb sumbitch gave me even odds (I would've happily covered 3-1).  So while he may be wrong, he's putting his money where his (dumb) mouth is.

That was indeed the wager. Actually the wager was $100 and when I won’t I told him I didn’t want his  money I wanted  him to take a picture of $100 worth of foos to the food bank and post the picture with a caption that said Wulaw was right. Or even without the caption. But it never happened. Which is bullshit. Or he could have sent me the check bc that was the actual bet. 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[Brisketexan 104585]

48 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

while essentially denigrating America.

Oh, and we can't let this shit slip by.  I haven't denigrated America.  Not a single bit.  I've just observed.  

 

And to all of that, America's response is classically American - you think we've smeared shit all over ourselves so far?  America says

 

[Captainant 27447]

2 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

here’s what I don’t understand about you using brown kids in cages as proof Trump is uniquely evil... was that. It Obama admin policy that was simply continued. Didn’t the picture in the cage come from prior to Trumps inauguration?  Or is that fake news?

and this isn’t a “but Obama or a moral equivalency argument.... this is merely saying you can’t claim Trumps inherently evil for carrying on prior policy. Not and be logical. But if that information is wrong I’m happy to hear it. 

So this is 100% a "but Obama". Obama put that policy  in place to address the new trend of sending children unaccompanied. The trump admin took that policy of detaining unaccompanied minors, and would treat their parents misdemeanor charge as a felony to formally arrest the parent and manufacture unaccompanied children.

You're really missing the forest for the trees to ignore that the trump admin has separated over 5,000 children from their parents and intentionally did not keep records to facilitate reuiniting the families they tore apart. And they're (steven miller, et al) on record explicitly saying that the human cruelty is the point.

That is the definition of uniquely evil.

[Ghost of LL 15481]

1 minute ago, Wulaw Horn said:

here’s what I don’t understand about you using brown kids in cages as proof Trump is uniquely evil... was that. It Obama admin policy that was simply continued. Didn’t the picture in the cage come from prior to Trumps inauguration?  Or is that fake news?

You're mostly wrong here.  

After Obama announced DACA, the Latin American rumor mill (which included some of their actual media outlets) misstated the effect as being that kids were allowed to stay.  They didn't get the nuance that it had to be kids who were brought in by their parents before the policy went into effect.  The result was that a whole bunch of parents in Latin America packed up their kids--some of whom were exceedingly young--and sent them on their way north in the expectation that, once they crossed the border, they'd be "Dreamers" and get to stay.

That, by the way, was completely predictable.  And I criticized the Obama Administration bitterly for it, if anybody recalls.

And the result was equally predictable--Border Patrol started picking up tons of unaccompanied minors.  And they had nothing to do with them.  So they put them in detention (although for a reasonably short period of time until their cases could be adjudicated).  Nonetheless, it was an outcome that was completely predictable and wholly avoidable but for the Obama Administration's short-sightedness and bungling.

But--that is very different from the Trump Administration policy of child-separation.  Under the Trump policy, children are taken from their parents who accompanied them across the border and thrown in cages.  As reported by The New York Times last week, senior DOJ officials--including Sessions and Rosenstein--created this policy to be as draconian as possible in an effort to deter people from immigrating to the United States.

That's not the continuation of any Obama Administration policy.  That's an entirely new policy.

[Captainant 27447]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

But--that is very different from the Trump Administration policy of child-separation.  Under the Trump policy, children are taken from their parents who accompanied them across the border and thrown in cages.  As reported by The New York Times last week, senior DOJ officials--including Sessions and Rosenstein--created this policy to be as draconian as possible in an effort to deter people from immigrating to the United States.

The trump admin is applying Obama's unaccompanied minor policy to children with their parents. Only difference is that trump's DHS/CBP is taking accompanied minors and ripping away their parents.

Then putting the newly alone children into cages in the desert.

But yeah, both sides or whatever the fuck.

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, and we can't let this shit slip by.  I haven't denigrated America.  Not a single bit.  I've just observed.  

 

And to all of that, America's response is classically American - you think we've smeared shit all over ourselves so far?  America says

 

It’s almost like in a country with 330 million people you can find something somewhere to support any point of view. 

[Goredho 17345]

I find two lawyers on the intardnet arguing over the fine print of a $100-to-a-food-bank bet incredibly amusing.

[Pancho 44466]

 

[Storm the Field 5271]

Brisket: "More terrible news for Biden"

Both states are 51-44. Better hope Trump doesn't get 120% of undecideds.

Also, MI is 51-43 and FL 48-44. 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Storm the Field

[Brisketexan 104585]

Just now, Wulaw Horn said:

It’s almost like in a country with 330 million people you can find something somewhere to support any point of view. 

We didn't find "something" in that respect.  We found enough something to 1) win the electoral college, and 2) continue to control numerous states for the foreseeable future.

These folks aren't unicorns.  They are a dominant faction of the electorate.

[Voldemort86 2259]

3 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

Brisket: "More terrible news for Biden"

Both states are 51-44. Better hope Trump doesn't get 120% of undecideds.

Also, MI is 51-43 and FL 48-44. 

Some people like to go out of their way to be unhappy.

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

14 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

You're mostly wrong here.  

After Obama announced DACA, the Latin American rumor mill (which included some of their actual media outlets) misstated the effect as being that kids were allowed to stay.  They didn't get the nuance that it had to be kids who were brought in by their parents before the policy went into effect.  The result was that a whole bunch of parents in Latin America packed up their kids--some of whom were exceedingly young--and sent them on their way north in the expectation that, once they crossed the border, they'd be "Dreamers" and get to stay.

That, by the way, was completely predictable.  And I criticized the Obama Administration bitterly for it, if anybody recalls.

And the result was equally predictable--Border Patrol started picking up tons of unaccompanied minors.  And they had nothing to do with them.  So they put them in detention (although for a reasonably short period of time until their cases could be adjudicated).  Nonetheless, it was an outcome that was completely predictable and wholly avoidable but for the Obama Administration's short-sightedness and bungling.

But--that is very different from the Trump Administration policy of child-separation.  Under the Trump policy, children are taken from their parents who accompanied them across the border and thrown in cages.  As reported by The New York Times last week, senior DOJ officials--including Sessions and Rosenstein--created this policy to be as draconian as possible in an effort to deter people from immigrating to the United States.

That's not the continuation of any Obama Administration policy.  That's an entirely new policy.

Thanks man. 
so the kids that came under Obama- they were out in cages? Yes?  No?  I ask because I know I read that picture that was on the cover of time happened during Obama, but again, the news is such a cluster fuck of absurdity that I don’t ever know what to believe and what not to. 
that does, however, explain a difference in policy that is certainly real. 
I guess I could ask- is a well meaning policy that leads to the shit show under Obama any better than the draconian policy under Trump,  it I suppose it is at least arguable that these are in fact different policies, so I do appreciate the explanation. 
I’ve long ago gotten used to the idea I won’t ever get What I want on immigration which is a W type policy that balances the need to enforce a border while recognizing that we want people to come here and we really ought to treat them in a neighborly way. 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[Brisketexan 104585]

1 minute ago, Voldemort86 said:

Some people like to go out of their way to be unhappy.

I mean, or, we could just sit here, in the America of 210,000 extra dead, an economic shitshow, devolving yet again into violent racial division,with the rule of law and all ethical norms ground to dust, and just.....be.  Your own moment of shit-covered zen.

[Dark Horse 2263]

Fucking hilarious 

 

[Ghost of LL 15481]

5 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Thanks man. 
so the kids that came under Obama- they were out in cages? Yes?  No?  I ask because I know I read that picture that was on the cover of time happened during Obama, but again, the news is such a cluster fuck of absurdity that I don’t ever know what to believe and what not to. 
that does, however, explain a difference in policy that is certainly real. 
I guess I could ask- is a well meaning policy that leads to the shit show under Obama any better than the draconian policy under Trump,  it I suppose it is at least arguable that these are in fact different policies, so I do appreciate the explanation. 
I’ve long ago gotten used to the idea I won’t ever get What I want on immigration which is a W type policy that balances the need to enforce a border while recognizing that we want people to come here and. Ask ally ought to treat them in a neighborly way. 

Yes.  There were kids in cages under Obama.

As to your question, if I may rephrase it someone, of "whether there is a difference between a (1) negligent action that causes a small number of kids to be put in cages for a short period of time before being reunified with their parents and (2) a policy borne of malice with the intent that a much larger number of children be taken from their parents, put in cages for an indeterminate period of time, and then not reunified with their parents because we purposefully lost the paperwork to do so," my answer is . . . are you motherfucking kidding me with that type of #bothsides false equivalence bullshit?

[Continental Op 3934]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

He got 46.4% of the vote in 2016.  That's a lot closer to a repeat than you think.  And again, the national totals are meaningless.  States are all that matter.

Well yes, the states are all that matter.  We have promising looking polling data from key states all over the last few pages of this thread and here you are still running around pissing your pants.  Are we 100% out of the woods in terms of Trump losing the election?  Absolutely not, but the only thing worse than some promising looking polls are a bunch of polls with Biden down 7% in MI/WI/PA/FL.  Get a grip.

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We didn't find "something" in that respect.  We found enough something to 1) win the electoral college, and 2) continue to control numerous states for the foreseeable future.

These folks aren't unicorns.  They are a dominant faction of the electorate.

That vote differently than you. But that doesn’t make them inherently evil. I know too many really good and decent people voting for him that don’t pay attention, we’re born into it, or think that the Dems or morally reprehensible to get too twisted up about it. 
Not everyone puts the thought into it

that people here do and half the people here are loons anyway (he says, acknowledging he is one). 

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean, or, we could just sit here, in the America of 210,000 extra dead, an economic shitshow, devolving yet again into violent racial division,with the rule of law and all ethical norms ground to dust, and just.....be.  Your own moment of shit-covered zen.

There’s not 210k extra dead man for

fucks sake. There’s 210k dead. There were always going to be people dying from this thing. Under any administration. Look at our deaths per 100k and they match up pretty well with Western Europe. We are ... average at dealing with this?  Maybe a little below average. But there aren’t 210k extra deaths. That’s unmitigated horse shit that you really ought to be ashamed to type. Because you are smarter than that. 

[Ghost of LL 15481]

12 minutes ago, Dark Horse said:

Fucking hilarious 

 

I know there has been a lot of criticism of the Biden campaign, but a lot of their rapid-response social-media shit has been really on point.

[UncleSonny 6551]

16 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I guess I could ask- is a well meaning policy that leads to the shit show under Obama any better than the draconian policy under Trump

 

2 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

fucks sake. There’s 210k dead. There were always going to be people dying from this thing. Under any administration. Look at our deaths per 100k and they match up pretty well with Western Europe. We are ... average at dealing with this?  Maybe a little below average. But there aren’t 210k extra deaths. That’s unmitigated horse shit that you really ought to be ashamed to type. Because you are smarter than that. 

Funny when you want to find a little nuance and when you don't.

[jimmyjazz 45554]

16 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Thanks man. 
so the kids that came under Obama- they were out in cages? Yes?  No?  I ask because I know I read that picture that was on the cover of time happened during Obama, but again, the news is such a cluster fuck of absurdity that I don’t ever know what to believe and what not to. 
that does, however, explain a difference in policy that is certainly real. 
I guess I could ask- is a well meaning policy that leads to the shit show under Obama any better than the draconian policy under Trump,  it I suppose it is at least arguable that these are in fact different policies, so I do appreciate the explanation. 
I’ve long ago gotten used to the idea I won’t ever get What I want on immigration which is a W type policy that balances the need to enforce a border while recognizing that we want people to come here and we really ought to treat them in a neighborly way. 

You'll need to translate.  I'm not sure what you're asking.

Kids who came across the border under the Obama administration were overwhelmingly allowed to remain with their parents, and no cages were involved.  When unaccompanied minors came across, they needed to be protected.  When minors came across with parent(s) who were accused of US crimes, they needed to be separated.  Those were the conditions under which kids were put in "cages" (and they were treated far better than they are treated under Trump).

The truth is important.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yes.  There were kids in cages under Obama.

As to your question, if I may rephrase it someone, of "whether there is a difference between a (1) negligent action that causes a small number of kids to be put in cages for a short period of time before being reunified with their parents and (2) a policy borne of malice with the intent that a much larger number of children be taken from their parents, put in cages for an indeterminate period of time, and then not reunified with their parents because we purposefully lost the paperwork to do so," my answer is . . . are you motherfucking kidding me with that type of #bothsides false equivalence bullshit?

The pictures of kids in cages that were taken when Obama was president were from 2014, when about 60,000 unaccompanied minors arrived at the border. Those kids weren't removed from their parents. They showed up without their parents. It would be great if that was where the discrepancies ended, but I'm pretty sure that years later, we still have kids detained at the border without any sort of plan as to how we are supposed to get them back to the parents they showed up with who we already deported.

[Brisketexan 104585]

12 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

There’s not 210k extra dead man for

fucks sake. There’s 210k dead. There were always going to be people dying from this thing. Under any administration. Look at our deaths per 100k and they match up pretty well with Western Europe. We are ... average at dealing with this?  Maybe a little below average. But there aren’t 210k extra deaths. That’s unmitigated horse shit that you really ought to be ashamed to type. Because you are smarter than that. 

I used 210 "extra dead" as in "more dead than we'd have without COVID," that's all.  I mean, that's how the death toll from the disease has been examined -- how many "excess deaths" above the ordinary expectations does a country have?  

I am confident that under competent leadership, we'd have plenty of COVID dead.  But not 210k....not a death toll that we've acheived with leadership defying the most basic of common-sense public health measures....sure, it would suck.  But it wouldn't be the utter shitshow that it has been.

And yeah, GOLL laid out for you the rather dramatic difference between the Obama-era policies and the Trump admin's purposeful policy of functionally deciding to commit state-actor terrorism in order to influence third party actions.  And man...what's really blown me away is how much I've ended up defending Obama -- at least in relative terms -- when I think he was a below-average president, and I thought he had a shitty immigration policy.  If you support W's approach to immigration, then you and I see almost perfectly eye-to-eye on that topic.  It was the one thing I gave W an "A" on....even though discourse had already devolved to a point that it became apparent that we were never going to get anything sane done on immigration.

Edited October 12, 2020 by Brisketexan

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

11 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yes.  There were kids in cages under Obama.

As to your question, if I may rephrase it someone, of "whether there is a difference between a (1) negligent action that causes a small number of kids to be put in cages for a short period of time before being reunified with their parents and (2) a policy borne of malice with the intent that a much larger number of children be taken from their parents, put in cages for an indeterminate period of time, and then not reunified with their parents because we purposefully lost the paperwork to do so," my answer is . . . are you motherfucking kidding me with that type of #bothsides false equivalence bullshit?

2 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

The pictures of kids in cages that were taken when Obama was president were from 2014, when about 60,000 unaccompanied minors arrived at the border. Those kids weren't removed from their parents. They showed up without their parents. It would be great if that was where the discrepancies ended, but I'm pretty sure that years later, we still have kids detained at the border without any sort of plan as to how we are supposed to get them back to the parents they showed up with who we already deported.

And- with me haven’t paying attention during that period of time to anything other than starting two small businesses and trying to raise my 3 little kids this is what I’m left with- who to believe... what numbers are real?  Did Obama’s policy lead to 70k kids in cages?  How many did Trumps?  Are either of them truly evil or are each committed to their own way of trying to solve this problem and neither having a good answer for it. And do I believe the press, who in their fervent hatred for Trump seems to have beclowned themselves over and over?  Or do I believe Trump, Eno I think has a pathological and conventional need to lie?  Or just flush it down with everything else in life that qualifies as white noise and go about my day because that’s what’s in front of me. 
Seriously though, I do appreciate the explanation of the differences in policy. That’s never been explained to me before and I’ve heard basically-  nothing to see here- this is just a continuation of Obama era policies. Which it sounds like should be rated as partially false or mostly false. 

[staboner 4957]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

You didn’t post the receipt

so it didn’t happen. You’ve since been wrong about everything. Yawn. And the awesome thing is literally nothing can happen which will convince you that you are anything but correct. 

not sure what your issue is with brisket and this bet, but generally i've always liked you as an intelligent conservative poster.

that last sentence is irony my man 

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I used 210 "extra dead" as in "more dead than we'd have without COVID," that's all.  I mean, that's how the death toll from the disease has been examined -- how many "excess deaths" above the ordinary expectations does a country have?  

I am confident that under competent leadership, we'd have plenty of COVID dead.  But not 210k....not with leadership defying the most basic of common-sense public health measures....it would suck.  But it wouldn't be the utter shitshow that it has been.

And yeah, GOLL laid out for you the rather dramatic difference between the Obama-era policies and the Trump admin's purposeful policy of functionally deciding to commit state-actor terrorism in order to influence third party actions.  And man...what's really blown me away is how much I've ended up defending Obama -- at least in relative terms -- when I think he was a below-average president, and I thought he had a shitty immigration policy.  If you support W's approach to immigration, then you and I see almost perfectly eye-to-eye on that topic.  It was the one thing I gave W an "A" on....even though discourse had already devolved to a point that it became apparent that we were never going to get anything sane done on immigration.

Yeah W was great on immigration. I’m a honk but I think he was great on a lot of things including unifying a country in the time of Something shitty and returning a level of class to the office of the presidency- Clinton shit all over it- W restore it- Obama acted unlawfully every way to carry that on I’m an honorable way and then Trump fucking desecrated it beyond the wildest dreams of that redneck hillbilly who preceded it. I miss W. I loved W. I wish he or someone like him would come back. And many of the people who voted for W are now voting for Trump and they didn’t become worse people. They are just republicans and voting for what they vote for. 
Same as I would expect you could reanimate Stalin or Mao’s corpse, run them as a Democrat and they’d get a lot of votes because Dems vote for Dems and republicans vote for republicans and 85% of this country is full of partisans. 

[Brisketexan 104585]

3 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Are either of them truly evil or are each committed to their own way of trying to solve this problem and neither having a good answer for it.

When your "way to solve a problem" involves using purposeful acts of cruelty intended to inflict pain on children to send a political message (not incidental to a policy, but the very PURPOSE of the policy).....yeah, that's fucking evil.

Obama was incompetent, and his decision ended up leading to real pain.

The Trump admin affirmatively chose "cause pain" as the actual policy.

Those are really, really fucking different.  I mean, I've hurt people in my life, plenty.  But there's a goddamned ocean of difference between "man, I fucked up and hurt you" and "Damn right I hurt you, maybe that'll teach you to act differently next time."

[Tuco 5076]

I'm going to go ahead and neg you (Wulaw) because I don't think you are actually this stupid.  Maybe I'm giving you too much credit.  But that just came across as way more dishonest than ignorant. 

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Tuco

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

1 minute ago, staboner said:

not sure what your issue is with brisket and this bet, but generally i've always liked you as an intelligent conservative poster.

that last sentence is irony my man 

If trump wins that’s something that will convince me I’m obviously fucking wrong. But everything we’ve seen, basically since his imagination, is a repudiation of at a minimum his scummy-ness. 

[Ghost of LL 15481]

5 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

That’s never been explained to me before and I’ve heard basically-  nothing to see here- this is just a continuation of Obama era policies. Which it sounds like should be rated as partially false or mostly false.

No--it's entirely false.  It really is.  It's like the City having a policy of euthanizing dogs in the pound after they've been there for more than 14 days, and then adopting a new ordinance that dogs are banned within city limits, sending cops around to every house, taking every dog from its owner, and shooting the dog.

But, but, but--the City was always killing dogs.  It's just a continuation of that policy.

No--it's really not.

[Captainant 27447]

1 minute ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Same as I would expect you could reanimate Stalin or Mao’s corpse, run them as a Democrat and they’d get a lot of votes because Dems vote for Dems and republicans vote for republicans and 85% of this country is full of partisans. 

This is some real bad #bothsiding just because your party elevated a craven huckster grifter that likes to grab pussy. 

And aside from that, I'm pretty certain that neither Mao nor Stalin would align with the dem voting base on most progressive social issues lol. 

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

When your "way to solve a problem" involves using purposeful acts of cruelty intended to inflict pain on children to send a political message (not incidental to a policy, but the very PURPOSE of the policy).....yeah, that's fucking evil.

Obama was incompetent, and his decision ended up leading to real pain.

The Trump admin affirmatively chose "cause pain" as the actual policy.

Those are really, really fucking different.  I mean, I've hurt people in my life, plenty.  But there's a goddamned ocean of difference between "man, I fucked up and hurt you" and "Damn right I hurt you, maybe that'll teach you to act differently next time."

Do you not whip your kids?  Is that not intentionally hurting them to try to get across a policy objective (don’t do this bc I said so). 
can being cruel never be calculated to be an attempt to be kind in the long run?  I do it with my kids bc I love them even if they think it’s cruel. 
the kind of thing I’d whip them for would be to keep them from facing the danger of

being separated from me around a bunch of Dangerous people that would

do them harm. 

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

No--it's entirely false.  It really is.  It's like the City having a policy of euthanizing dogs in the pound after they've been there for more than 14 days, and then adopting a new ordinance that dogs are banned within city limits, sending cops around to every house, taking every dog from its owner, and shooting the dog.

But, but, but--the City was always killing dogs.  It's just a continuation of that policy.

No--it's really not.

Do you have any idea the scope of the problem?  Hotdog water said 60k under Obama- is that true?  If

so- how many under Trump?  Does the number matter

to you.  Should it?  

[Brisketexan 104585]

Just now, Wulaw Horn said:

Do you not whip your kids?  Is that not intentionally hurting them to try to get across a policy objective (don’t do this bc I said so). 
can being cruel never be calculated to be an attempt to be kind in the long run?  I do it with my kids bc I love them even if they think it’s cruel. 
the kind of thing I’d whip them for would be to keep them from facing the danger of

being separated from me around a bunch of Dangerous people that would

do them harm. 

No.....just fucking NO, man.  Jesus tapdancing motherfucking hot boiled CHRIST, are you trying to fucking justify the choice to be PURPOSEFULLY CRUEL TO CHILDREN IN ORDER TO PERSUADE OTHERS TO BEND TO YOUR WILL?  Read GOLL's analogy about dogs to get this.  Holy fucking shit.

Just.   Holy.  Fucking.  Shit.

All that stuff I said about Americans being shitty people?  You just proved me right in a single post.

[staboner 4957]

2 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

If trump wins that’s something that will convince me I’m obviously fucking wrong. But everything we’ve seen, basically since his imagination, is a repudiation of at a minimum his scummy-ness. 

why would you hang you hat on trump winning or losing? A) it is potentially fucking rigged with one party doing their best to limit voting and B) shouldn't we care more about the vitality of the democracy and what one certain person/party are doing to it?

for only the second time in my voting life my usual cynicism is being put on the back burner. Getting a minority POTUS was the first instance and now the second is trying to protect whatever democratic values we have left.

anyway, take it easy man. 

[4th&Five 41459]

 

[Brisketexan 104585]

1 minute ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Do you have any idea the scope of the problem?  Hotdog water said 60k under Obama- is that true?  If

so- how many under Trump?  Does the number matter

to you.  Should it?  

OBAMA DIDN'T FUCKING SEPARATE THEM.  THEY SHOWED UP UNACCOMPANIED.

GODFUCKINGDAMMIT WHAT THE FUCK IS FUCKING WRONG WITH YOU?

[Captainant 27447]

Wulaw doing a great job of "just asking questions" and ignoring the answers.

trollpicture.jpeg

[Continental Op 3934]

5 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah W was great on immigration. I’m a honk but I think he was great on a lot of things including unifying a country in the time of Something shitty and returning a level of class to the office of the presidency- Clinton shit all over it- W restore it- Obama acted unlawfully every way to carry that on I’m an honorable way and then Trump fucking desecrated it beyond the wildest dreams of that redneck hillbilly who preceded it. I miss W. I loved W. I wish he or someone like him would come back. And many of the people who voted for W are now voting for Trump and they didn’t become worse people. They are just republicans and voting for what they vote for. 
Same as I would expect you could reanimate Stalin or Mao’s corpse, run them as a Democrat and they’d get a lot of votes because Dems vote for Dems and republicans vote for republicans and 85% of this country is full of partisans. 

I had two chances to vote for Obama and didn't do it either time but to put him or Bill Clinton in the same sentence as Trump is absurd.  You're a fucking retard.   Texas is going to go blue at some point in the next decade and you'll have to pull up anchor and set sail in a roofless winnebego for Mississippi or some other shithole state where the population reflects your values.  

[The Dog 43801]

fucking lawyers argue about everything. 

[jimmyjazz 45554]

5 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Do you not whip your kids?  

Let me count the number of times I've spanked my kids.

Zero.

[Loch Ness Monster 3533]

For the sake of America I just hope Biden stays alive until January.

[Guest Lobo]

I think Trump thinks "corporal punishment" is what Jared does to Ivanka at night...on his command.  

[immamac 42516]

He only needs to make it to November 4

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

6 minutes ago, staboner said:

why would you hang you hat on trump winning or losing? A) it is potentially fucking rigged with one party doing their best to limit voting and B) shouldn't we care more about the vitality of the democracy and what one certain person/party are doing to it?

for only the second time in my voting life my usual cynicism is being put on the back burner. Getting a minority POTUS was the first instance and now the second is trying to protect whatever democratic values we have left.

anyway, take it easy man. 

Because he’s fixing to get repudiated by the American people. That’s why I care. I’d he doesn’t lose then he didn’t and I’m wrong. Very wrong. 

[Brisketexan 104585]

1 minute ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Because he’s fixing to get repudiated by the American people. That’s why I care. I’d he doesn’t lose then he didn’t and I’m wrong. Very wrong. 

But he's NOT "fixing to get repudiated by the American people."  His approval rating is about what it has been -- 41%.  A sizable chunk of Americans -- a dangerously large chunk -- not only will never "repudiate" him, they worship him.

Your BEST case is an electoral defeat that is tighter than it should be.  You wouldn't call it a winning repudiation that speaks well of the American people if we voted for Mussolini at a rate of 40% plus.  You'd read that as "holy fucking shit, what the fuck is wrong with us that 40%+ of us support Benito Fucking Mussolini?"

Jesus.  The lengths you will go to excuse Trump and his cult followers....well, there's no limit, is there?