Donald Trump 2018

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I’m all but certainly headed for the gulag when the time comes.

[BrickHorn 18,298]

6 minutes ago, Chooky said:

How is any of this shit real? 

They aren’t real.  

[Biff Tannen 45,751]

Meanwhile, Ivanka just got more trademarks granted by the Chinese.  She better end up behind bars as well when this is all over.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,595]

I'll check her butt for my country.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[retread 2,951]

He's such a loathsome animal

 

[Biff Tannen 45,751]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Hey Marco.

[David Dennison 18,993]

14 minutes ago, retread said:

He's such a loathsome animal

 

The Democrats have their issue, and it's going to be a big winner if this continues.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Apparently you suck at it. 

That is probably true.  But in my defense this crowd is hard not to agitate.

  

2 hours ago, TornACL said:

I gave you a list of 10 in explicit detail and you ignored 9 of them. Enough with this fucking charade.

I didn't do an in depth analysis of your post because I thought it was clear that it didn't even remotely meet a reasonable standard of explicit statements that can be objectively verified.  I thought pointing this out would only appear antagonistic and I didn't really feel like going down that path.  But since you seem more frustrated that I ignored it:

"We're willingly walking away from the ideals and institutions upon which this country was founded."

You do not state which ideals or which institutions, nor how we are walking away from them or what exactly will be the result of this.  One can make this same statement about any leader in any country and it would be just about impossible to verify or falsify.  

"the administration is strategically attacking and attempting to dismantle these things in order to clear the way for God knows what."

What things?  You didn't state anything specifically.  

"Like it or not, this is a global economy. Protectionism and economic isolationism is a bizarre and blazingly ignorant philosophy in the 21st century, and will do long term damage to the country. Using the term Globalist as a epithet is a red badge of ignorance."

Will do long term damage such as?  This is vague and is impossible to verify or falsify.  

"Tariffs and added governmental interference will do nothing but drive inflation higher. There is nothing efficient about it at all, but of course to debate the merits of tariffs assumes that our president actually has a cogent strategy, which I'd argue is not the case."

To your credit, this actually is a verifiable claim.  You think the tariffs will lead to inflation.  Now you do not state how much inflation will be driven higher, but it is at least an objectively verifiable claim.    

"Our absurd and pointless confrontational approach to our friends and allies has put us in the back seat when it comes to leading the world."

This is another incredibly vague statement that is impossible to verify or falsify.  What are the metrics used to determine when one is the back seat?  The opponents of Obama made identical types of accusations.  

"I think your last paragraph is telling, and I do believe a lot of people in this country would urinate on the constitution and the graves of the founding fathers, so long as it meant that their comfortable suburban lifestyle is preserved, and that they perceive their families to be safe from brown people."

You end with this complete mischaracterization instead of giving an honest attempt at trying to understand my point.

So now I've addressed your post.  I don't think you know what it means for a claim to be objectively verifiable.  

 

2 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Just because someone can't assign a numeric value to a specific concern doesn't make that concern any less valid.  There were plenty of concrete, actual answers to your question.  And the fact of the matter is that many of the most alarming consequences stem from unquantifiable concerns.  Slow, deliberate erosion of political and societal norms are what allow the truly horrific consequences to materialize.    

 

Something doesn't need to be quantifiable to be verifiable.  I know responses were given, but not much in the way of concretely verifiable responses.  

 

2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Welcome to conversations with Aphelion.  

Hey, now.  I actually think we are allies on this issue, at least in a limited sense.  

  

2 hours ago, TornACL said:

[Aphelion runs a car company]

Engineers: This car is a death trap. You can't sell this car to the public.
Aphelion: I'm going to need to hear your concerns in explicit detail and see some quantifiable predictions of why you think this car is so dangerous.
Engineers: Look at this thing, it's plainly obvious at this point that this car is a death trap. The fucking doors won't stay closed.
Aphelion: Explicit detail please.
Engineers: It has failed every safety test, you fucking idiot.
Aphelion: Explicit detail please.
Engineers: I just gave you explicit detail. You're ignoring it.
Aphelion: That's just a negative action, it doesn't mean it will cause permanent damage on the roads once it hits the market. I need quantifiable predictions of what permanent damage this car could cause in the future. I agree it looks bad, but I can't understand until you give me predictions.
 

Aphelion sells 100 cars. 75 of them explode on the highway in the first day.

Aphelion: I would like to come back here and say, the engineers were right. This absolutely shapes the way I see things now.

Thanks for giving the analogy; this is useful.  The point that I am making is that people are claiming that the car is a death trap, I am asking them for verifiable reasons why, and they are saying because it just really seems that way.  I say, "which safety tests will it fail?" and the answer is "look at that hood, it just doesn't seem like it would be safe."  I ask "do you believe it will fail the upcoming front collision safety crash test and if it passes will it change your opinion on its safety?" and they say "stop obsessing about the verifiability of this issue; if you can't see that it is unsafe it's because you are an imbecile."

 

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

If my wife catches me screwing her best friend, I need you to assign a numeric value to how negative the repercussions will be.

If you cannot quantify how bad the outcome will be, then you have nothing to offer, and I refuse to believe that there will be any repercussions.

Something doesn't need to be quantifiable to be verifiable.  

 

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

@AphelionI have yet to see you engage with Trump supporters in the manner that you just attempted with us, his opponents, either here or on shaggy. Could you please provide a link to the said conversations? I do enjoy hearing a diversity of honest views.

Those of us who recall you from the previous board remember you as somewhat of a mathematics prodigy; however, your support of views that go beyond "verifiable" and "quantifiable" facts such as the existence of god has left a few of us a bit leery of your self-assigned mediator role.

You state you're not a fan of Trump, yourself. Please, elucidate clearly in "verifiable" and "quantifiable" terms your own concerns regarding his presidency. We'd like to see some numbers, of course.

I post on many forums under many different handles.  I seldom use the same user name twice.  I don't want to be found and identified by folks in other arenas.  So I will not be linking anything.  Also, I have many conversations in real life with folks on these topics and I cannot link those.  While you are going back through your memories on shaggy, see if you can find anything that remotely suggests that I was a Trump advocate or even moderately interested in US politics.  

What I am suggesting is that the form that these discussions take are less than ideal.  To give an analogy, let's say I don't think run and shoot offense is the most effective offense and that there are better ones out there.  I tell this to a fan of the of the Falcons in 94 and he says "this is because you are a fan of the 49ers and secretly hate the Falcons."  

Edited June 15, 2018 by Guest

[safe sex 11,800]

So, when do Canada and a coalition of European forces invade? 

[shnsajax 3,592]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Democrats have their issue, and it's going to be a big winner if this continues.

Trump is going to keep them detained only to release them in October and try to make it look like he was a savior before the elections.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Democrats have their issue, and it's going to be a big winner if this continues.

Nope, there will be more egregious shit before the election.

Remember the Trump shutdown and how that would have some effect on the midterms?

lol that was an eternity ago.

 

[David Dennison 18,993]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Nope, there will be more egregious shit before the election.

Remember the Trump shutdown and how that would have some effect on the midterms?

lol that was an eternity ago.

 

Until he changes this policy, it's going to grow. More cameras and journalists are headed to the border, not fewer. They need to get a handle on this quickly.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Democrats have their issue, and it's going to be a big winner if this continues.

I don't want this issue.  Fuck politics. The GOP needs to fix this, fast.  This is beyond wrong. 

[4th&Five 41,617]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Until he changes this policy, it's going to grow. More cameras and journalists are headed to the border, not fewer. They need to get a handle on this quickly.

This. The longer it goes on the more bad stories come out. Just wait until one of these kids dies in a detention center. 

[TornACL 7,733]

12 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

What I am suggesting is that the form that these discussions take are less than ideal.  To give an analogy, let's say I don't think run and shoot offense is the most effective offense and that there are better ones out there.  I tell this to a fan of the of the Falcons in 94 and he says "this is because you are a fan of the 49ers and secretly hate the Falcons."  

You wasted all those words and all that time to conclude ultimately that internet message board arguments aren't fully fleshed out? Fucking groundbreaking stuff there, man.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

Just now, 4th&Five said:

This. The longer it goes on the more bad stories come out. Just wait until one of these kids dies in a detention center. 

There's already been a father committing suicide after his child was taken away. 

[David Dennison 18,993]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I don't want this issue.  Fuck politics. The GOP needs to fix this, fast.  This is beyond wrong. 

I completely agree, but I also recognize the politics. The optics of this particular issue are terrible for Republicans.

[Guest]

Just now, TornACL said:

You wasted all those words and all that time to conclude ultimately that internet message board arguments aren't fully fleshed out? Fucking groundbreaking stuff there, man.

I didn't limit that to message boards.  It's pervasive throughout society.   

[Brisketexan 105,478]

10 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Something doesn't need to be quantifiable to be verifiable.  

Then you just rendered your entire long bullshit "just asking questions" post pointless.

It's easily verifiable that our standing among our allies is already diminished -- read statements from their leadership, members of their governing bodies, and the slate of political commentators working within those countries.

It is easily verifiable that Trump is playing into Putin's hands and doing exactly what Russia wants -- see the same.

And we could go on and on.  But you don't give a fuck about that.  Others here cut you slack as if you were truly objective.  You're not.  A jury listening to you for 30 seconds would discern that you're not.  Nothing will convince you of the risks of Donald Trump.  Nothing.  By your approach and metrics, there is no way to verify that the bullet is heading towards your skull until your brains are flying out of the exit wound.  The rest of us see the crazy fucker pointing the loaded and cocked gun at us, and we're running for cover, and figuring out how to shoot back.

[TornACL 7,733]

Just now, Aphelion said:

I didn't limit that to message boards.  It's pervasive throughout society.   

I'm so glad you're above it all and you're here to teach us how to be better!

I have yet to see you make one single fleshed out, explicit, quantitative argument about anything, however. So maybe I should withhold my praise a while.

[Dr. Teeth 5,847]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Then you just rendered your entire long bullshit "just asking questions" post pointless.

It's easily verifiable that our standing among our allies is already diminished -- read statements from their leadership, members of their governing bodies, and the slate of political commentators working within those countries.

It is easily verifiable that Trump is playing into Putin's hands and doing exactly what Russia wants -- see the same.

And we could go on and on.  But you don't give a fuck about that.  Others here cut you slack as if you were truly objective.  You're not.  A jury listening to you for 30 seconds would discern that you're not.  Nothing will convince you of the risks of Donald Trump.  Nothing.  By your approach and metrics, there is no way to verify that the bullet is heading towards your skull until your brains are flying out of the exit wound.  The rest of us see the crazy fucker pointing the loaded and cocked gun at us, and we're running for cover, and figuring out how to shoot back.

Typical lib. Why do you want to take away his gun rights. 

[Mapache 1,117]

Pruitt Just Gutted Water Protections for 117 Million , informed Trump in a happy birthday tweet

The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday inched closer to proposing a regulation to replace an Obama-era rule that clarified which bodies of water qualified for federal protection. 

The proposal comes more than a year after EPA administrator Scott Pruitt signed an executive action to revoke the 2015 Clean Water Rule, also known as the Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rule. The regulation clarified which wetlands and streams could be protected under the Clean Water Act and expanded federal authority to all “navigable” waters. That extended the federal safeguards to 2 million miles of streams and 20 million acres of wetlands, securing the drinking water of more than 117 million Americans. 

But a federal judge stayed the Clean Water Rule in 2015; the rule has since bounced around the courts. In January, the Supreme Court volleyed the case back to the district court level. In the meantime, Pruitt began the process of repealing the rule outright. 

On Thursday evening, Pruitt said he planned to send the new rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget. In a tweet wishing President Donald Trump a happy birthday, Pruitt said he announced the WOTUS replacement in a meeting with farm interests in Lincoln, Nebraska. 

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/06/pruitt-just-gutted-water-protections-for-117-million-people/

 

If there is anyone I hate as much if not more than Trump it's this piece of shit

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Until he changes this policy, it's going to grow. More cameras and journalists are headed to the border, not fewer. They need to get a handle on this quickly.

I don’t think you understand, Trump wants more attention drawn to the cruelty. He wants there to be outrage from the “liberal media”. He wants the tension to boil over to the point of violence so he can blame it on the violent left.

He’s been doing this since the beginning. Remember the Muslim Ban? Remember Charlottesville? He walked away from those egregious displays of moral cowardice without consequences and his poll numbers are stronger now.

The Republicans in Congress are complicit in all of this too but they are being held hostage by Trump because he can destroy anyone of them with a tweet or two.

 

[Brisketexan 105,478]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t think you understand, Trump wants more attention drawn to the cruelty. He wants there to be outrage from the “liberal media”. He wants the tension to boil over to the point of violence so he can blame it on the violent left.

He’s been doing this since the beginning. Remember the Muslim Ban? Remember Charlottesville? He walked away from those egregious displays of moral cowardice without consequences and his poll numbers are stronger now.

The Republicans in Congress are complicit in all of this too but they are being held hostage by Trump because he can destroy anyone of them with a tweet or two.

 

All accurate.

Trump wins, either way.  

1 -- nobody does anything.  He gets to keep being a cruel sonofabitch, and showing those dirty beaners who's boss, thrilling his base.

2 -- people do something (even just peaceful protests).  He (and his pals the russian bots) get to play all that as "antifa paid by George Soros to come burn down your houses," and crack down on them, and be the law-and-order hero/strongman his followers want....thrilling his base.

Trump is playing a time-honored game.  The reason it has such a long track record is because it WORKS.  Trump wins.  America loses.  That's the score, and it's all over but the shouting.

[David Dennison 18,993]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t think you understand, Trump wants more attention drawn to the cruelty. He wants there to be outrage from the “liberal media”. He wants the tension to boil over to the point of violence so he can blame it on the violent left.

He’s been doing this since the beginning. Remember the Muslim Ban? Remember Charlottesville? He walked away from those egregious displays of moral cowardice without consequences and his poll numbers are stronger now.

The Republicans in Congress are complicit in all of this too but they are being held hostage by Trump because he can destroy anyone of them with a tweet or two.

I couldn't care less about Trump. He'll be gone soon enough. I want majorities in Congress. This is a gift for Democrats.

[mdmost 43,074]

Trump would do something about it but it's just this Russia investigation and those lyin' son of a bitch, Democrats. 

Edited June 15, 2018 by mdmost

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Then you just rendered your entire long bullshit "just asking questions" post pointless.

It's easily verifiable that our standing among our allies is already diminished -- read statements from their leadership, members of their governing bodies, and the slate of political commentators working within those countries.

It is easily verifiable that Trump is playing into Putin's hands and doing exactly what Russia wants -- see the same.

And we could go on and on.  But you don't give a fuck about that.  Others here cut you slack as if you were truly objective.  You're not.  A jury listening to you for 30 seconds would discern that you're not.  Nothing will convince you of the risks of Donald Trump.  Nothing.  By your approach and metrics, there is no way to verify that the bullet is heading towards your skull until your brains are flying out of the exit wound.  The rest of us see the crazy fucker pointing the loaded and cocked gun at us, and we're running for cover, and figuring out how to shoot back.

What I meant is that there are statements that can be verified or falsified but do not have an associated number or quantity to them.  For example, "the sun is shining outside."  This can be checked and given a simple true or false response.  This was in response to posters taking the quantification statements and distorting them.  

I'm not sure what posts you've been reading, but very few in this thread are cutting me any slack as if I'm being objective.  

 

6 minutes ago, TornACL said:

I'm so glad you're above it all and you're here to teach us how to be better!

I have yet to see you make one single fleshed out, explicit, quantitative argument about anything, however. So maybe I should withhold my praise a while.

Do you think there exists some combination of words I could write that would lead you to believe that I'm not as loathsome as you currently believe?     

[Biff Tannen 45,751]

19 minutes ago, Mapache said:

Pruitt Just Gutted Water Protections for 117 Million , informed Trump in a happy birthday tweet

 

If there is anyone I hate as much if not more than Trump it's this piece of shit

 

Yep.

[Biff Tannen 45,751]

3 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Trump would do something about it but it's just this Russia investigation and those son of a bitch, Democrats. 

*Lyin' sonofabitch Democrats

[Jack Straw 2,954]

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Republicans in Congress are complicit in all of this too but they are being held hostage by Trump because he can destroy anyone of them with a tweet or two.

 

Republicans in Congress are not being held hostage by Trump.  With a very few exceptions, they share Trump’s values.  They applaud all of this behind closed doors.  That’s why there is no pushback from the GOP.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, Jack Straw said:

Republicans in Congress are not being held hostage by Trump.  With a very few exceptions, they share Trump’s values.  They applaud all of this behind closed doors.  That’s why there is no pushback from the GOP.  

I know this isn’t completely true but it doesn’t matter because their public silence is compliance.  

Behind closed doors they would love to get rid of Trump but the consequences politically for going against the king are catastrophic.  Even if they deposed Trump with a united front the political consequences would be devastating and move the Republican Party more towards Trumpism AND ineptitude because voters would punish them.

[David Dennison 18,993]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I know this isn’t completely true but it doesn’t matter because their public silence is compliance.  

Behind closed doors they would love to get rid of Trump but the consequences politically for going against the king are catastrophic.  Even if they deposed Trump with a united front the political consequences would be devastating and move the Republican Party more towards Trumpism AND ineptitude because voters would punish them.

The catastrophe is going happen sooner or later. The Republican Party is screwed. That's the bright side of Donald Trump winning in 2016.

[Brisketexan 105,478]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I know this isn’t completely true but it doesn’t matter because their public silence is compliance.  

Behind closed doors they would love to get rid of Trump but the consequences politically for going against the king are catastrophic.  Even if they deposed Trump with a united front the political consequences would be devastating and move the Republican Party more towards Trumpism AND ineptitude because voters would punish them.

If you're in the GOP, your choices are "supporter" or "collaborator."

Both are lower than the lowest level of shit in the world's oldest septic tank.  Fuck 'em all.

[retread 2,951]

I'm not sure most Congressman really care one way or the other. Whatever gives them more power and keeps them in DC. At his point, it's the 85% approval rating for DOTUS among R voters thats keeping them in line.

Edited June 15, 2018 by retread

[Brisketexan 105,478]

Just now, David Dennison said:

The catastrophe is going happen sooner or later. The Republican Party is screwed. That's the bright side of Donald Trump winning in 2016.

It's not. It will be successful and dominate national politics for some time based on the three-legged stool of:

1) higher turnout rate among Trump cultists versus ordinary human beings

2) gerrymandered districts blunting the impact of the ordinary human beings who do show up and vote

3) comprehensive voter suppression efforts (in states where elections are decided by a few thousand votes, keeping a few thousand likely dem voters off the voter rolls, or making sure that the burden to vote can't be met by at least a handful of them makes a difference).

They don't have to win the hearts and minds of the people.  They just need to (1) get enough votes and (2) make sure as many of the opposing votes either don't happen or don't really count (waste them in a gerrymandered district).  That's their electoral strategy.  It's a good one.  It will win.  For a long time.

[Dr. Teeth 5,847]

Behind closed doors, Republicans are sucking his cock. Not sure why we keep thinking they’d want to get rid of him. 

[David Dennison 18,993]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

It's not. It will be successful and dominate national politics for some time based on the three-legged stool of:

1) higher turnout rate among Trump cultists versus ordinary human beings

2) gerrymandered districts blunting the impact of the ordinary human beings who do show up and vote

3) comprehensive voter suppression efforts (in states where elections are decided by a few thousand votes, keeping a few thousand likely dem voters off the voter rolls, or making sure that the burden to vote can't be met by at least a handful of them makes a difference).

They don't have to win the hearts and minds of the people.  They just need to (1) get enough votes and (2) make sure as many of the opposing votes either don't happen or don't really count (waste them in a gerrymandered district).  That's their electoral strategy.  It's a good one.  It will win.  For a long time.

I disagree. And that's cool. Barack Obama got elected in the United States of America. Politics is cyclical. The momentum will shift back to the Democrats. 

[Brisketexan 105,478]

Just now, David Dennison said:

I disagree. And that's cool. Barack Obama got elected in the United States of America. Politics is cyclical. The momentum will shift back to the Democrats. 

I hope you're right.  But my money's on you being wrong.

They've found a winning recipe, and they're going to execute the hell out of it.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,901]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

Behind closed doors, Republicans are sucking his cock. Not sure why we keep thinking they’d want to get rid of him. 

something something wrinkly old man balls

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, retread said:

I'm not sure most Congressman really care one way or the other. Whatever gives them more power and keeps them in DC. At his point, it's the 85% approval rating among R voters thats keeping them in line.

I know this is going to sound crazy but deep down, not all politicians are amoral nihilists. They didn’t all enter the invasive profession of public service just for the money and power.  

They get put in positions where they have to compromise their values to retain power or achieve one of their benevolent objectives and that’s unfortunate.  The Republicans are being tested right now like never before to see how far they will go and they are failing miserably.

 

[Skyline 325]

8 minutes ago, retread said:

I'm not sure most Congressman really care one way or the other. Whatever gives them more power and keeps them in DC. At his point, it's the 85% approval rating for DOTUS among R voters thats keeping them in line.

 

He's easily super popular among his party members. We have to remember that Bush was there due to a war and 9/11. Otherwise Trump would be leading this. 

[Skyline 325]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I disagree. And that's cool. Barack Obama got elected in the United States of America. Politics is cyclical. The momentum will shift back to the Democrats. 

And with that, all the Republicans on shaggy who vanished after Trump became president will come pouring back ready to shit on whichever the next Dem president is. 

[Brisketexan 105,478]

1 minute ago, Skyline said:

 

He's easily super popular among his party members. We have to remember that Bush was there due to a war and 9/11. Otherwise Trump would be leading this. 

Bingo.  Let's not lie to ourselves and say "the GOP is truly decent, and they'll come around."  Look at the chart.  Look at it.  The GOP is beyond redemption, and certainly beyond convincing to correct the error of its ways.  They are all-in on Trumpism, and enthusiastically so.  Proceed accordingly.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, Skyline said:

 

He's easily super popular among his party members. We have to remember that Bush was there due to a war and 9/11. Otherwise Trump would be leading this. 

I’d like to see these numbers put up against the percentage of the population that identifies as Republican.

I bet Trump’s numbers wouldn’t be nearly as strong when that is factored in.

[Skyline 325]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’d like to see these numbers put up against the percentage of the population that identifies as Republican.

I bet Trump’s numbers wouldn’t be nearly as strong when that is factored in.

People don't "identify" as much with a party nowadays, but it's not like there's moderates who are constantly swinging between the parties. 

[4th&Five 41,617]

 

[David Dennison 18,993]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’d like to see these numbers put up against the percentage of the population that identifies as Republican.

I bet Trump’s numbers wouldn’t be nearly as strong when that is factored in.

You do the math.

[hayden_horn 11,365]

4 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

that's horrifying

[scottsins 1,981]

4 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

The kid in a cage is actually at Dallas City Hall.  However, the main thing I took away was just the sad sick comments posted next to the photo.