Jump to content

Donald Trump 2018

TheFlyingBoat

By TheFlyingBoat
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 44.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3593

  • retread

    1324

  • Brisketexan

    1195

  • jimmyjazz

    1186

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

M12BH
M12BH

SInce y'all seem to be my clearinghouse for all things political, let me tell a story.  A couple of them, actually.  Three, if you want to be specific. When I was 14 I went with a family frien

ConferenceRoom
ConferenceRoom
brown water
brown water

Slocum’s Razor

BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18191

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

If I were our NATO allies, I’d be running active measures to counter Russia’s efforts and educate the US populace about what is going on.  Not sure why we haven’t seen that. Or maybe we have, and just don’t realize it.

Edited by BrickHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Brandywine said:

The Democratic Party will never learn. They totally screwed up when they didn’t take Trump running seriously, not voting because they thought Hillary was a done deal. They have no simple message and no good candidate to take on Trump. It’s going to be a long walk through the hot desert. I’m fed up with them. I’m so mad right now about this SC pick that I could kick my cat. But I don’t have a cat. So I’ll stew.

Hillary and the DNC actively tried to pump up and help trump in the republican primary because they figured he would be easier to beat. 

Whoops. 

Thats how good they are at politics. 

Maybe blame that instead of Jill stein voters? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ndawg

ndawg 1242

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

We’ll definitely see some furrowed brows. I have no confidence in any of these people doing the right thing. 

I bet folks at Tahoe's chapter might even discuss how concerned they are. Assuming that's a subject that pertains to the particular coalitions that showed up that way. You see, political parties aren't just a monolithic entity, you realize, right? Or something.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Said it before and I will say it again, if Trump tries to detach us from NATO he will be removed from office by means we haven't seen before in this country. 

Trumpsters already see the UN as the boogie man.  In an era where they look up to Putin, NATO is just a globalist organization to which we have ceded our sovereignty, or some such nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
staboner

staboner 4958

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

Yup.  

"Both candidates suck, so we are voting for someone who will never be president in the quixotic hope that both parties will come courting to get our 5% vote in the NEXT election by providing us with the perfect unicorn candidate who we can get behind 100%."  

Grow the fuck up.

i am speaking for myself , but no clue who you are addressing here

i voted for teh loons on the outside because I knew loons on the inside were just getting worse, and will continue to, and after trump will continue to continue to. the trend line is there. if we had hillary - sure i'd have my mental fucking health but the trumpkins would just sink further and get even more retarded for 2018 and 2020. its bake in regardless of our worldview and that 2016 election

as for issues and what you care about, well, what of them? i don't see any of them getting touched with a 10 foot pole. maybe if the democratic war machine even so as remotely talked about anything worth a shit they could have captured some more votes. everything from racism to prison reform to campaign finance reform to banking reform to drug reform to anything worth a shit. sure, a peep here and there but i didn't believe a thing and it was disingenuous AF. lets not forget 2008 obama refusing to touch gay rights. 2008 - "i choose not to comment on that now". and loved the fucking love the guy but the Ds are and were balless, soulless suckers of satin's cock 

here is teh democratic war machine for you:

hello black people in a church - i promise that the penalties for crack cocaine need to more like the penalties for just cocaine. we love minorities. vote quimby!

been parroting that stupid shit for 30 years. 

and trust me - this is not fun nor easy. i want trump gone like anyone with a brain, but lets just get too lost in the shitshow now and oversimplify the greater problems our entire government apparatus presents to our quality of life and has for a very long time. 

happy shit sandwich eating

Edited by staboner
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
staboner

staboner 4958

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, staboner said:

i am speaking for myself , but no clue who you are addressing here

i voted for teh loons on the outside because I knew loons on the inside were just getting worse, and will continue to, and after trump will continue to continue to. the trend line is there. if we had hillary - sure i'd have my mental fucking health but the trumpkins would just sink further and get even more retarded for 2018 and 2020. its bake in regardless of our worldview and that 2016 election

as for issues and what you care about, well, what of them? i don't see any of them getting touched with a 10 foot pole. maybe if the democratic war machine even so as remotely talked about anything worth a shit they could have captured some more votes. everything from racism to prison reform to campaign finance reform to banking reform to drug reform to anything worth a shit. sure, a peep here and there but i didn't believe a thing and it was disingenuous AF. lets not forget 2008 obama refusing to touch gay rights. 2008 - "i choose not to comment on that now". and loved the fucking love the guy but the Ds are and were balless, soulless suckers of satin's cock 

here is teh democratic war machine for you:

hello black people in a church - i promise that the penalties for crack cocaine need to more like the penalties for just cocaine. we love minorities. vote quimby!

been parroting that stupid shit for 30 years. 

and trust me - this is not fun nor easy. i want trump gone like anyone with a brain, but lets just get too lost in the shitshow now and oversimplify the greater problems our entire government apparatus presents to our quality of life and has for a very long time. 

happy shit sandwich eating

and FYI I will be voting straight ticket Dem for the first ever in 18 and 2020. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89424

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Pentagon ain't gonna put up with it no matter what Skeeter in Oklahoma or his representatives or senators think either.

I don't relish the prospect but it's what will happen. 

18-20 year olds who carry rifles and man the tanks only care about getting paid and getting laid.  I know, I was one of them.   Hell, bump that up into the mid-20s. None of us gave a shit about Bill fucking around.

Those who care that much also know that if they do it, Trump has free rein to declare martial law.  That’s even worse than getting out of NATO.

Edited by atomheartbevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89424

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Tuco said:

Trumpsters already see the UN as the boogie man.  In an era where they look up to Putin, NATO is just a globalist organization to which we have ceded our sovereignty, or some such nonsense.

Many in the military served alongside NATO troops in Afghanistan.  Trump will be creating lots of new Democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8349

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

18-20 year olds who carry rifles and man the tanks only care about getting paid and getting laid.  I know, I was one of them.   Hell, bump that up into the mid-20s. None of us gave a shit about Bill fucking around.

Those who care that much also know that if they do it, Trump has free rein to declare martial law.  That’s even worse than getting out of NATO.

I'm not talking about the grunts -- I know them well, as my son is one right now.

 

Talking about the brass. They can't conceive of a life beyond NATO. Half the generals are probably fucking the wives of Dutch generals right now and are getting sick of having to explain Trump to them, and if he tries to drive a wedge in that grand alliance they will take him down.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted

I don't think Trump would pull the US out of NATO.  But I think it's entirely possible he will do things which make it more difficult to deal with Russia, including adjustments to who we allow to join, how much we join in joint exercises, where we stick missiles and bases, etc..   That may piss off heads of state and various generals, but the Republicans are not going to give a shit about it.  Any criticism he receives will be parried with some bullshit about NATO countries paying their bills or questioning our right to sovereignty.  "AMERICA FIRST!" It will  serve to make the alliance less relevant and will destabilize it. His actions won't poll badly with his base, and nobody is going throw a coup over it.  The worst that might happen is some of the Republican former military will squawk about, at which point Trump will call them traitors or cowards.  At some point, if we receive enough criticism from our allies, perhaps he uses that as an excuse to formally pull out of it.  But there is no real reason to formally pull out if he can effectively neuter the organization. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89424

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I'm not talking about the grunts -- I know them well, as my son is one right now.

Talking about the brass. They can't conceive of a life beyond NATO. Half the generals are probably fucking the wives of Dutch generals right now and are getting sick of having to explain Trump to them, and if he tries to drive a wedge in that grand alliance they will take him down.

2020 is not that far away.  If they want Trump gone, a few resigning very publicly and making it clear why they are resigning sends a powerful message to the troops and vets.   Even better, finding a solid officer to run for the D’s could chip away at Trump in 2020.

Trump lost by millions.  Tens of thousands in a few states gave it to him.  It’s not that hard to beat him in 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brandywine

Brandywine 1313

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Tuco said:

Trumpsters already see the UN as the boogie man.  In an era where they look up to Putin, NATO is just a globalist organization to which we have ceded our sovereignty, or some such nonsense.

Those Trumpsters sound like the old John Birch Society.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

If I were our NATO allies, I’d be running active measures to counter Russia’s efforts and educate the US populace about what is going on.  Not sure why we haven’t seen that. Or maybe we have, and just don’t realize it.

NATO, EU, and the Atlantic Council are currently doing the most to combat disinformation in democracies.  Putin is not a fan.

Some links

https://www.stratcomcoe.org/

https://disinfoportal.org/#

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted

Warning: this will give you the sads.

The America We Thought We Knew Is Gone

Because countries are not people, it’s tricky to translate whatever “loving one’s country” means—it’s quite abstract—into the language of heartbreak. It sounds melodramatic. What can heartbreak mean as a civic matter? And yet it is what I feel.

A corrupt but weak president—this has been my comfort, his weakness—has been given a gift that will make him strong. After upholding the travel ban, weakening labor unions, and allowing crisis pregnancy centers to misrepresent themselves to women seeking help, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he was retiring before the midterm elections. That decision empowers a reality-television star who lost the popular vote by millions to reform the Supreme Court for at least a generation—a court that rather than rebut his claim to power has affirmed it. In his own branch, he asked James Comey for a loyalty oath and lamented not getting one from Jeff Sessions, whom he has repeatedly condemned for recusing himself in the Russia investigation, saying he never would have hired him as attorney general had he known. There is every reason to think he will do the same for a Supreme Court nominee. When Neil Gorsuch—who took the seat Mitch McConnell withheld from Merrick Garland—seemed to distance himself from the man who offered him the robes, Donald Trump reportedly considered pulling the nomination. Trump has said he will pardon himself if he needs to, a controversial stance that would likely need approval from the high court. Now he has been given a way to assure it. He holds the power over the person who can rubber-stamp him into invulnerability.

The capitulation of two branches of government to a terrifying third, elected by a minority, is not how our government was envisioned. That is frightening. It is also, depending on the America you want to live in, painful.

The problem isn’t simply that Trump—who styles himself a “law and order” president—values neither: He objected to the Central Park Five’s going free, despite the DNA evidence proving their innocence. He wantedtheir false imprisonment. It isn’t just that he advocates against due process, tars asylum applicants as criminals, and characterizes even their children as an “infestation.” It isn’t simply that he sees black men as intrinsically guilty, the same as brown refugees. It’s that he shouts about law and order while upholding the immunity of the rich and the cruel: He pardoned Joe Arpaio, who tortured undocumented immigrants in unlivable tent cities he openly called concentration camps, and, in pardoning Dinesh D’Souza, has signaled he will pardon his cronies if they are convicted for illegally helping him.

This is open corruption, and it has been openly embraced.

That fills me with grief, but my grief can’t make it untrue. And if this benthic sadness has any value, it’s that clarity. There is no more equivocating to do. You don’t have to equivocate about Trump’s corruption—or Wilbur Ross’, or Scott Pruitt’s. You don’t have to parse whether a “falsehood” is really a “lie.” It is simply true that the president is corrupt and that his supporters celebrate his corruption. That twisted power has enfeebled the institutions that depend on the very things the president would call weak—honesty and honor and service. As those institutions collapse, so does a polity capable of reasoning without them.

For instance: Confused by the fever that’s seized it, the country has spent days debating the “civility” of a restaurant owner who asked Sarah Huckabee Sanders to leave, after she had defended the president’s policy putting children in cages as a “deterrent” to other migrants. He called sitting members of Congress “crazy” and pettily insulted that same restaurant’s cleanliness. But Trump’s own discourse somehow doesn’t factor into this earnest discussion of civility.

It is as strange as it is dangerous that everyone—supporters and antagonists alike—now excises Trump from this discussion about how people should treat each other. Even more shocking, though, is that this impulse to cordon Trump off, either by forgiving or excepting him, has extended to the courts, where language must matter if the institution is to function. In upholding Trump’s ban on travel from Muslim-majority countries—which Sean Spicer spent days as Trump’s press secretary insisting was not a ban—the Supreme Court dismissed his many, many public statements that declared an intent to discriminate based on religion. (Note that the justices did the exact opposite—citing evidence that some members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission expressed “bias” against the baker’s religious belief—to rule in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.)

The result is that Trump, a man who has repeatedly said that he only responds to consequences, has faced none. His lies meet with no institutional resistance. Quite the contrary. His decision to say outrageous, incorrect, inflammatory things has paid off handsomely: His supporters believe them, and those in power will not acknowledge that he has said anything at all. The combined effect has rendered him immune to every standard we, as a country, once shared.

This is frightening enough to make denial attractive.

But it is important now to deny nothing, and to instead reiterate that he did say these things, even if the court has plugged its ears. It falls to us to state what the Supreme Court of the United States would not: His intent was to discriminate on the basis of religion—he campaigned on a “Muslim ban.” That is not equivocal. It is clear. There’s even a tweet from a before-times Mike Pence saying, “Calls to ban Muslims from the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional.” It is necessary to point out what’s true, because (and this is the painful lesson of this week) our institutions won’t. Trump’s call for a “Muslim ban” happened—it’s not our imagination! That the court ignored this neatly proves that the organs of democracy intended to prevent presidential abuse are the ones in denial, and show no sign of waking up.

This is the sadness I’m feeling. It is deep because it is clear. There is no longer doubt.

The word hypocrisy bobs up in these discussions, but the issue—as many have pointed out—is not hypocrisy, because those who are failing us do not aspire to intellectual or moral consistency in the first place. There is no negotiating with, or appeasing, or even engaging a party that feels no responsibility to the truth. Lying is more than “uncivil.” It corrodes relationships and trust, and the damage it does it permanent. I know it’s fashionable these days to wear one’s cynicism on one’s sleeve: We predict every promise will be broken because expecting honesty is laughably naïve. This makes reality easier to live with and joke about. But it’s a symptom of national rot. Being lied to, constantly, is not the price of being governed. That we have naturalized this—that we expect nothing less, in fact—shows how far we’ve already gone down a bad, bad road. This was already an unhealthy country in many ways. But at least lies were still resented. Now they are celebrated.

The country we thought we shared is changing faster than anyone expected. I wrote last week about the cognitive mismatch I felt at the relative normalcy outside my window as our government punished parents by taking their children away—in many cases, permanently. One week later, I cannot unsee how much even my window has changed and will change. The party ruling our country has demonstrated there is no principle it will respect, no norm it will endure. My rights as a woman are in danger. Civil rights are in danger. And the republic is in danger.

I am sad, above all, because the damage being done now no longer feels like it can be stemmed—let alone reversed—with a single election. This will last decades. The downturns my generation has already weathered—the 2008 crisis that hinged on obscure derivatives traded by a privileged few, robbing wealth from millions—were only the beginning. Education is now a luxury. Pensions barely exist. Health care is under threat. Retirement is, to those my age, a cruel joke. We’ve been waiting. For recovery, for relief, for some semblance of an American dream we can access.

It is clear, now, that there was nothing to wait for. In the time we’ve been waiting, the rich have only gotten richer and angrier and whiter, but it will never be enough for them. The good-faith ideological battle some thought right and left were waging turned out to be no such thing: Modern conservativism was never about small government. Or personal liberty—for women and people of color, anyway. It wasn’t about fiscal responsibility: The GOP passed a tax plan that has blown up our national debt, which is projected to reach 78 percent of America’s GDP by the end of this year, the highest it’s been since 1950. And Republicans are still not happy. They will pretend that this crisis they created will require “sacrifices,” gutting services poor Americans desperately need, like health care. The poor and disadvantaged will die.

Meanwhile, those in power will celebrate how much they deserve their wealth and how little anyone else deserves. And they will grab for more. You’d think they’d be happy: America now has the highest income inequality in the industrialized world. But even that is not enough. The greed is insatiable. And it is a greed not just for wealth but for domination—for permanent entitlement. What they want is to be served. At restaurants. On golf courses. In corporate offices. There is no form of protest they will respect: loud or silent, formal or spontaneous, civil or rude. Written petitions or marches on the streets. They don’t care. Those in power have been very clear about what they do care about. “We have more money and more brains and better houses and apartments and nicer boats,” Trump said Wednesday in a speech to his supporters, because he cannot help but say what he really means. “We are the elite.”

That vicious little “we” excludes most of America. Those in power have cut off diplomatic relations with the country they’re meant to govern, and the party they’re meant to govern with. The point-of-no-return polarization that pundits still feebly warn against is already here. It is sad. It is true.

I started by talking about love. The country I believed in, which aspired to true equality of opportunity, and welcomed immigrants, and strove to make the American dream available to everyone, failed often. The ideal was never the reality, but at least there was an agreed-upon goal, one worth working toward in common. Even that is gone. The most vital trust that our government, as a whole, will protect the interests of the people has been violated.

So, yes: Today, I am sad. But there is power in calling things what they are. Other feelings will come.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/supreme-court-is-now-trumps-and-so-we-grieve-for-america.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23395

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


The problem is (1) he wants the patient to die, and (2) the patient is us.

Maybe an analogy will help: a cancer patent shows up at the hospital with a life-threatening infection and fever. We all know that the cancer is a big, long-term problem. And it’s systemic. But every sane doctor will FIRST treat the IMMEDIATE threat - the infection that threatens to kill the patient. Failing to do so, and standing back imperiously, saying “but the cancer is a real problem, and we must also treat that”...while the patient fucking dies from an infection....well, that’s what the Anastasis types are doing.

Now, imagine that patient was one of your loved ones - your wife, your child. And Dr. Anastasis stands there, yammering about the underlying cancer while your child dies from an infection. You’d want to throttle that Dr, and you’d be right.
 

Oh good. Another brisket strawman wrapped in one of his stupid analogies. But let’s run with it, at least it doesn’t involve an airplane. Let’s call this one a blood cancer patient.

Your lymphoma patient, perhaps your wife or daughter, presents with fever. Your emotive dumbass, still reeling from the recognition that a serious and often fatal blood cancer has set in, despite years of ignoring all the symptoms, knee jerk diagnoses the origin of the fever as infection, and runs hysterically around the ED room screaming at the doctor to "DO SOMETHING WE HAVE TO TREAT THE INFECTION OR SHE IS GOING TO DIE."

Unfortunately, what you fail to realize is that in lymphoma patients fever is often non-infectious in origin, and in many cases is actually a manifestation of the cancer itself, rather than a symptom related to an infectious process requiring antibiotics. While you are flailing about and building up your hysterical rage to throttle somebody, maybe the doc just recognizes that the core problem is likely the neoplasm and the complex biological process that yields a noninfectious fever. Sure, the doctor supports appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment while we are waiting on the cultures to plate out. That is prudent and indicated. The doctor in fact has been supporting prophylactic antibx treatment for the patient for a long time (medical analogy breaks down here, but otherwise true if antibx treatment is constraining the power of the executive branch in this case). But the reality is that in this case the cancer is the driving cause of the current situation, whether the fever is infectious in origin or non-infectious.

Either way, running around the ICU threatening to throttle the oncologist is not particularly productive. But such it is, dealing with hysterically emotive people who have lost their wits when confronted with the reality of a dire situation. They often cling to some side car aspect, the outcome of which they think they have a chance of influencing, while the ultimate prognosis is well understood. Same type folks fret hysterically when confronted with the treatment options. Wallowing in a delusion that the status quo is somehow maintainable, because they can’t fathom the adverse event profile associated with the treatment that offers the hope of remission, or even partial remission. But the fever, the infection, the antibiotics, that makes sense to them, that they understand. Too bad the fever isn’t infectious in origin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104604

Posted
Posted
Oh good. Another brisket strawman wrapped in one of his stupid analogies. But let’s run with it, at least it doesn’t involve an airplane. Let’s call this one a blood cancer patient.
Your lymphoma patient, perhaps your wife or daughter, presents with fever. Your emotive dumbass, still reeling from the recognition that a serious and often fatal blood cancer has set in, despite years of ignoring all the symptoms, knee jerk diagnoses the origin of the fever as infection, and runs hysterically around the ED room screaming at the doctor to "DO SOMETHING WE HAVE TO TREAT THE INFECTION OR SHE IS GOING TO DIE."
Unfortunately, what you fail to realize is that in lymphoma patients fever is often non-infectious in origin, and in many cases is actually a manifestation of the cancer itself, rather than a symptom related to an infectious process requiring antibiotics. While you are flailing about and building up your hysterical rage to throttle somebody, maybe the doc just recognizes that the core problem is likely the neoplasm and the complex biological process that yields a noninfectious fever. Sure, the doctor supports appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment while we are waiting on the cultures to plate out. That is prudent and indicated. The doctor in fact has been supporting prophylactic antibx treatment for the patient for a long time (medical analogy breaks down here, but otherwise true if antibx treatment is constraining the power of the executive branch in this case). But the reality is that in this case the cancer is the driving cause of the current situation, whether the fever is infectious in origin or non-infectious.
Either way, running around the ICU threatening to throttle the oncologist is not particularly productive. But such it is, dealing with hysterically emotive people who have lost their wits when confronted with the reality of a dire situation. They often cling to some side car aspect, the outcome of which they think they have a chance of influencing, while the ultimate prognosis is well understood. Same type folks fret hysterically when confronted with the treatment options. Wallowing in a delusion that the status quo is somehow maintainable, because they can’t fathom the adverse event profile associated with the treatment that offers the hope of remission, or even partial remission. But the fever, the infection, the antibiotics, that makes sense to them, that they understand. Too bad the fever isn’t infectious in origin.

And too bad you’re giving the cancer a complete pass as well.

But to be fair, you look VERY concerned, what with the white coat and the furrowed brow. VERY concerned.

In our weakened state, our cancer has led to a secondary infection that may kill us. Anyone with a fucking IQ above room temp sees it. One doesn’t need to ignore the cancer to decide to treat the infection.

But your concern is very appreciated. It will bring great comfort, I’m sure.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23395

Posted
Posted
Just now, DDD Dad said:

Anastasis, will you and Brisket just get it over with and fuck already?

Kthxbye

I've met brisket years ago, he's not even close to my type. The funny thing is, we actually share a fairly similar perspective in terms of where this whole thing is going. But he needs an outlet. I just wish he would try a bit harder with his analogies and avoid strawman nonsense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...