Donald Trump 2018

[burntorangebongos 10749]

4 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

You got to let it go. Let's dump Trump first.  

However, when discussing you, Brisket errs in creating a bad teammate-Trump dichotomy. You're a message board poster. Trump is President. You're entitled to be a fringe leftist who doesnt want moderates in your tent. Whatever leftist actually runs for President isnt entitled to that.  

It's kind of like when some in the deaf community are so deep into their culture that they reject those in the hearing world that want to join a cause of theirs or interact. They shun the hearing.  Crazy but it happens. BT is too deep into his culture to try and countenance intergating.

[atomheartbevo 89750]

12 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I'm wondering where everyone's line in the sand is for expatriating. If the Dems don't win the house this year, do y'all plan on sticking around? What about if Trump wins in 2020?

We aren’t there yet, but my wife can get Canadian or UK citizenship thanks to her parents.  

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

So the talking point I’m seeing on FB right now is Hillary took 400 million in Russian money, which is false, so it doesn’t matter what Trump does in regards to Russia.

[ndawg 1242]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

We aren’t there yet, but my wife can get Canadian or UK citizenship thanks to her parents.  

Yeah, I've definitely started the process of figuring out what my options are. I'm fortunately in a profession that other countries actively attract, but it's still by no means guaranteed. It's scary to think about anyone wanting to leave but not being able to.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

15 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Honestly, if democracy dies in America, no place on earth will be safe in the short term. 

I think Europe and Canada can hold the rope as long as they aren't attacked by fascist America. 

But I think America will be fine. The free press is still free and the internet is controlled by corporate overlords rather than the US govt.  Neither of those things can be quietly changed, and even Johnny Sack would get up and resist if they were loudly changed. 

[Anastasis 23479]

12 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Re: election security funding...can we get a detailed breakdown of what’s happened here? I’m ready to freak out, but am hoping to get a more complete understanding of whatever just went down before I completely lose my shit.

There is already money at the states from prior grants, unspent, and with no requests from the states for more funding. House Democrats want more allocated, not because there is are specific unfunded needs, but because they can make political points at the moment, and rally chants on the floor. Wapo article discussing some of the things that get left out of the twatters: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/house-gop-refuses-to-renew-election-security-funding-as-democrats-fume-over-russian-meddling

[Brisketexan 105168]

26 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The Republican roadmap is clear. Use voter ID laws specifically designed to disenfranchise minorities, while opening the door to Russian hackers to access state databases, figure out who the white liberals are, and fuck with their registration status.

And the thing is, it's not even subtle.  It's an open and shameless roadmap.  And nobody can stop it.  Reason # 12,398 while I say this Republic is over.

18 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Honestly, if democracy dies in America, no place on earth will be safe in the short term. 

And there's this.  Which is what I have told my daughter, who is looking to go overseas for college, and does not seem particularly interested in returning to this country.  I've told her that if the US is in the shit this deep....so will be any of the countries she's looking at.  There's no place safe.

I've told her to learn to work on cars, and drive aggressively, to prepare for our future:

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

6 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I think Europe and Canada can hold the rope as long as they aren't attacked by fascist America. 

But I think America will be fine. The free press is still free and the internet is controlled by corporate overlords rather than the US govt.  Neither of those things can be quietly changed, and even Johnny Sack would get up and resist if they were loudly changed. 

Ehhhh, I'm not so sure in all that. If Trump is able to secure his power for a second term and works to do some really crazy shit, the economy would take a huge hit which would impact most countries. Also, our military will have to decide how to act because I think it will be torn between securing social unrest in America and dealing with bad actors abroad acting on their bad intentions. Putin would start being aggressive in its goals, which could easily mean invading some European nations, and without a solid NATO, Russia could do whatever it wanted. 

Edited July 19, 2018 by SmokeyTheBear

[bad_teammate 13219]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And nobody can stop it. 

Conservatives could. They just don't want to.

[ndawg 1242]

4 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Ehhhh, I'm not so sure in all that. If Trump is able to secure his power for a second term and works to do some really crazy shit, the economy would take a huge hit which would impact most countries. Also, our military will have to decide how to act because I think it will be torn between securing social unrest in America and dealing with bad actors abroad acting on their bad intentions. Putin would start being aggressive in its goals, which could easily mean invading some European nations, and without a solid NATO, Russia could do whatever it wanted. 

NATO may well solidify in response to the Putin friendly shift in US foreign policy. They must be shitting themselves right now.

[triplehorn 2664]

 

[Brisketexan 105168]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Conservatives could. They just don't want to.

Well, being that they're the ones executing the plan.....that's like saying that the criminal is in the best position to stop his crimes.  No shit, sherlock.  But it ain't happening.  They are in control, they will do what they want, and what they want to do is evil.

[Brisketexan 105168]

1 minute ago, triplehorn said:

 

Oops.  Trump thought he said "Our next president must be ready to cash Putin's checks."  He's not a great listener, I guess.

[bad_teammate 13219]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Well, being that they're the ones executing the plan.....that's like saying that the criminal is in the best position to stop his crimes.  No shit, sherlock.  But it ain't happening.  They are in control, they will do what they want, and what they want to do is evil.

I was told that "conservative" and "Republican" aren't the same thing.

[retread 2951]

Not only are most of DOTUS' accusations actually confessions, but it turns out that many of his 'ideas' are trial balloons floated by Daddy Putin.

[Nivek 16946]

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

 

Difference is that this chic had a deer in headlights moment and possesses a functional brain and is easy to look at.   Trump's deer in headlights moment has been ongoing for several years and it is difficult to look at him.

[Brisketexan 105168]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

I was told that "conservative" and "Republican" aren't the same thing.

When the Venn diagram of "conservatives" "Republicans" and "conservatives who are giant pussies who won't defy the GOP" is written, the overlap is nearly complete.  If they are cowards -- and they are -- then the distinction is without a difference.  The prominent conservatives who are actually working against the GOP is such a small number as to be statistically insignificant.  There is no fixing the party from within, because the numbers won't ever get there.  

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

1 minute ago, Nivek said:

Difference is that this chic had a deer in headlights moment and possesses a functional brain and is easy to look at.   Trump's deer in headlights moment has been ongoing for several years and it is difficult to look at him.

[bad_teammate 13219]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

When the Venn diagram of "conservatives" "Republicans" and "conservatives who are giant pussies who won't defy the GOP" is written, the overlap is nearly complete.  If they are cowards -- and they are -- then the distinction is without a difference.  The prominent conservatives who are actually working against the GOP is such a small number as to be statistically insignificant.  There is no fixing the party from within, because the numbers won't ever get there.  

Next step in programming Death Crew Brisket into Glorious Comrade Brisket...

- What role do you think "fiscal conservatism" as an idea has in shaping what the American conservatives of today are?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

This. There’s literally nothing too far for his supporters. If standing on stage with an enemy leader and supporting him over our own intelligence agencies didn’t turn them off, he can do anything. Turn over our ambassadors for interrogation? Of course! What a great idea! Praise Trump! Yummy librul tears!

I came to this conclusion at Charlottesville. After that, I knew he could get away with anything.

[Brisketexan 105168]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Next step in programming Death Crew Brisket into Glorious Comrade Brisket...

- What role do you think "fiscal conservatism" as an idea has in shaping what the American conservatives of today are?

Error: undefined term.

[retread 2951]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I came to this conclusion at Charlottesville. After that, I knew he could get away with anything.

Each new gambit - like turning a fmr US Amb. over to Putin - is a dangerous step towards an authoritarian USA, and no one will speak up in opposition.

Edited July 19, 2018 by retread

[bad_teammate 13219]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Error: undefined term.

The movement that started in opposition to the New Deal.

- no taxes raised to ensure social safety nets

- no government debt to ensure social safety nets

- little-to-no government regulation of industry (economic or environment regulations)

I'd say that those are 3 things all flavors of "fiscal conservative" can agree on.

 

[Js1 85448]

President Dingus has now backed away from letting Russia interrogate US Citizens

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, softlynow said:

I thought for a moment that this week was a sign that we would survive this moron. But polling shows trumptards don't give a shit. Impeachment will only result in exoneration in the Senate. Nothing fucking matters. Add in the obvious willingness to allow Putin to directly change election results, and I think we're in the last few years of the Republic.

The blue wave will only occur in blue and purplish states. Red state election results will be rigged. A crisis will be fabricated, and Trump will then be reelected.  He will be the last POTUS, and first Premier, or whatever.

In 5 years or so the orangeinsatzgruppen will start rounding up those of us who've voiced opposition on this and other websites, so get your licks in while you can, I guess.

There’s still our intelligence community, law enforcement, and judiciary to check the banana Republicans.  They might not get Trump himself but they will not think twice about hanging some other traitors to strike fear in the other bad faith actors.

Manafort is a good example.  Others will follow.

Edited July 19, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[ndawg 1242]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

President Dingus has now backed away from letting Russia interrogate US Citizens

Ah, the old tried-n-true tactic of floating an idea that would deepen his authoritarian rule, and then backing away. He gives his base a chance to arrive at the conclusion that it was the fake news, and later by the time he actually pulls the trigger and allows it, the act will seem normal.

[Huckleberry 33039]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The movement that started in opposition to the New Deal.

- no taxes raised to ensure social safety nets

- no government debt to ensure social safety nets

- little-to-no government regulation of industry (economic or environment regulations)

I'd say that those are 3 things all flavors of "fiscal conservative" can agree on.

 

I'm a fiscal conservative and I disagree with all three points. There is a spectrum to most things regardless of how much people want to put "the others" into tidy little boxes.

[shnsajax 3591]

31 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I think Europe and Canada can hold the rope as long as they aren't attacked by fascist America. 

But I think America will be fine. The free press is still free and the internet is controlled by corporate overlords rather than the US govt.  Neither of those things can be quietly changed, and even Johnny Sack would get up and resist if they were loudly changed. 

I feel like we are heading for a Julius Caesar type moment in the near future.

[TornACL 7722]

There is certainly no way that "all flavors" of fiscal conservatives can agree on any of those things you listed. Because fiscal conservatism is a relative term. If I am a damn-near libertarian and I don't even want the government paying for new roads, I am going to consider myself fiscally conservative. If I live in San Francisco and I think some of the social services are overboard and need their purse strings tightened and watched more closely, I am going to consider myself fiscally conservative.

In fact, part of why that term has become a running joke is because only crackpots would consider themselves "fiscally reckless".

If someone tells you they're a fiscal conservative, what have you learned about them? In today's world, you've learned virtually nothing. It's the how that matters, in this case. How do they propose we practice this fiscal conservatism?

Edited July 19, 2018 by TornACL

[27-25 2047]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

President Dingus has now backed away from letting Russia interrogate US Citizens

though I'm happy about the change in this case.

[Brisketexan 105168]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The movement that started in opposition to the New Deal.

- no taxes raised to ensure social safety nets

- no government debt to ensure social safety nets

- little-to-no government regulation of industry (economic or environment regulations)

I'd say that those are 3 things all flavors of "fiscal conservative" can agree on.

 

If those positions (using the word "no") are fiscal conservatism, then I never was one.  And neither was pretty much anyone else I knew, including some die-hard Republicans.

There's a cost-benefit of any expenditure, tax, and regulation.  I think intelligent folks simply want a sound cost-benefit analysis done in order to determine the best decision (and note that "cost-benefit" is more than just direct and immediate dollars).  Am I okay with raising taxes for certain expenditures?  Yep.  I think the cost-benefit on education spending, for example, is pretty strong.  I'd pay more in taxes to improve our educational system.  I think we need sound environmental regulations -- some of the ones we have are good, some are bad.  Some are too onerous.  Some are too weak.  I look at the cost-benefit analysis reg by reg.

You do a lot of strawmanning.  It's not helpful.

[Brisketexan 105168]

10 minutes ago, retread said:

Each new gambit - like turning a fmr US Amb. over to Putin - is a dangerous step towards an authoritarian USA, and no one will speak up in opposition.

Perhaps you didn't notice the concern, and furrowed brows among GOP leadership.  Many furrows.  Much brow.  Wow.

4 minutes ago, TornACL said:

There is certainly no way that "all flavors" of fiscal conservatives can agree on any of those things you listed. Because fiscal conservatism is a relative term. If I am a damn-near libertarian and I don't even want the government paying for new roads, I am going to consider myself fiscally conservative. If I live in San Francisco and I think some of the social services are overboard and need their purse strings tightened and watched more closely, I am going to consider myself fiscally conservative.

In fact, part of why that term has become a running joke is because only crackpots would considers themselves "fiscally reckless".

If someone tells you they're a fiscal conservative, what have you learned about them? In today's world, you've learned virtually nothing. It's the how that matters, in this case. How do they propose we practice this fiscal conservatism?

Actually a good example.

I live in Austin.  I find myself pissed off at our city council regularly -- I am much more aligned with the "conservatives" like Troxclair in Austin.  Here, I'm a conservative.

I live in Texas.  I loathe Trump, Dan Patrick, and Rick Perry.  Here, I'm a libtard.

My beliefs are the same in either venue.

[Dertyberd 394]

10 minutes ago, Js1 said:

President Dingus has now backed away from letting Russia interrogate US Citizens

The White House made a statement, but the President didn't.  I no longer believe what comes from the WH is actually speaking for the President.  I have to see it come out of his mouth before I know what he actually believes.  

[bad_teammate 13219]

It's not a "strawman" to define fiscal conservatism in the way I did, it's looking at the history of the term's usage.

Since "fiscal conservative" is literally a term invented in the period after the New Deal and used by politicians in that time to advocate those 3 positions that I just mentioned, it's hilarious to see how fucking bitchy you guys are about someone making a good faith and historically sound effort to define its key principles. And your collective argument is basically, "Actually it doesn't mean anything at all!" like that's some kind of win.

The reality is that, in a historical context, you're not really fiscal conservatives. You just have different visions of how you want government spending to go.

[Huckleberry 33039]

Just now, Dertyberd said:

The White House made a statement, but the President didn't.  I no longer believe what comes from the WH is actually speaking for the President.  I have to see it come out of his mouth before I know what he actually believes.  

You sure that's going to clear it up for you?

[retread 2951]

7 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Ah, the old tried-n-true tactic of floating an idea that would deepen his authoritarian rule, and then backing away. He gives his base a chance to arrive at the conclusion that it was the fake news, and later by the time he actually pulls the trigger and allows it, the act will seem normal.

Immigrant children in cages is not even talked about any more...

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

And, by the way, this is how most treason happens.   It not usually someone who just hates their own country and wants to destroy it.   It's usually someone who (1) convinces himself that their country won't really be harmed by the initial ask, so what if I make a few bucks, or fuck this chick, or avoid the harm I'm being blackmailed about; (2) is angry at someone specific who fucked them and is getting payback at them; or (3) thinks their country and the world will actually be better if they help out the foreign intelligence operative, like the traitors who thought America would be better as a communist nation, or Theodore Hall, the Los Alamos scientist who helped the soviets build the bomb because he thought there needed to be a counterbalance to the US being the only nation with one.  

People rationalize treason like this by thinking "hey it's good for our country because I like Republican policies and judges, and I hate those smug elitist libs. So what if it also works out well for Russia?"   Which is wrong on its own terms, but also never ends there, because enemy nations have a greater goal beyond the short-term collaboration you accepted, and now you're on the hook. 

Treason and terrorism aren’t very far apart as far as what motivates someone to become a traitor or terrorist.  It’s some combination of these five things (C.R.I.M.E.).

 

Compromised

Revenge

Ideology 

Money

Ego

 

[Dertyberd 394]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

You sure that's going to clear it up for you?

Fair point, but it is closer than what someone else writes for him or sends out on his behalf.  His ad-libs are what he actually believes.  

[TornACL 7722]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

It's not a "strawman" to define fiscal conservatism in the way I did, it's looking at the history of the term's usage.

Since "fiscal conservative" is literally a term invented in the period after the New Deal and used by politicians in that time to advocate those 3 positions that I just mentioned, it's hilarious to see how fucking bitchy you guys are about someone making a good faith and historically sound effort to define its key principles. And your collective argument is basically, "Actually it doesn't mean anything at all!" like that's some kind of win.

The reality is that, in a historical context, you're not really fiscal conservatives. You just have different visions of how you want government spending to go.

If we're going to start having discussions using the definitions of words as they were 80 years ago, then we're all going to need to go back and edit a whole lot of posts.

[bad_teammate 13219]

Just now, TornACL said:

If we're going to start having discussions using the definitions of words as they were 80 years ago, then we're all going to need to go back and edit a whole lot of posts.

Or we could just accept a good faith effort at defining a term as it is and then offer more up-to-date visions of its definition instead of being reactionary, moody bitches.

"While it's true that 'fiscal conservative' started as those 3 principles, nowadays it means..."

Something like that.

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

This asshole isn't going to release his taxes for obvious reasons.  He went from the most leveraged asshole in the country to be flush with cash and there's no explanation (right).  Much of that could be cleared up if he offers up his tax filings.  Now, we know he won't this time.  But why won't congress propose (even if it fails) a measure that every President going forward must release their tax returns?  It at least cuts this asshole off to run for re-election.  Or did I miss it where this was already brought to the floor?  

[TornACL 7722]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Or we could just accept a good faith effort at defining a term as it is and then offer more up-to-date visions of its definition instead of being reactionary, moody bitches.

"While it's true that 'fiscal conservative' started as those 3 principles, nowadays it means..."

Something like that.

That was the point of my reply.

[bad_teammate 13219]

2 minutes ago, TornACL said:

That was the point of my reply.

I am a very popular girl at the dance and lots of guys come talking to me. Some are on their man-period 24/7. Sorry if you get caught in the crossfire.

[GSU&UT 1798]

14 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

This asshole isn't going to release his taxes for obvious reasons.  He went from the most leveraged asshole in the country to be flush with cash and there's no explanation (right).  Much of that could be cleared up if he offers up his tax filings.  Now, we know he won't this time.  But why won't congress propose (even if it fails) a measure that every President going forward must release their tax returns?  It at least cuts this asshole off to run for re-election.  Or did I miss it where this was already brought to the floor?  

Some states have passed laws (solid Blue states only though) that any candidate who wants to appear on the ballot must release their tax returns.

[lemonlime 5503]

1 minute ago, Dertyberd said:

Fair point, but it is closer than what someone else writes for him or sends out on his behalf.  His ad-libs are what he actually believes.  

And then he says something different sixteen different times. And he points to the one time he gave the "right" answer, and that's all the GOP parrots and that's the Fox talking point.  All his statements are bullshit and many, probably the vast majority, are lies.  Besides, he believes in nothing, not one fucking thing, other than in his own magnificence.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26509]

1 hour ago, Bevo VIII said:

So the talking point I’m seeing on FB right now is Hillary took 400 million in Russian money, which is false, so it doesn’t matter what Trump does in regards to Russia.

I'm seeing it too, even though Tass walked it back

Mistatement, like poor tackling, is apparently an epidemic
 

Quote

"Browder’s criminal group funneled $1.5 billion from Russia into tax havens. Of this sum, at least $400 million was transferred to the Democratic Party’s accounts. Afterwards, our president asked us to correct the sum for $400,000 from $400 million," Kurennoi said.

 

 

[bad_teammate 13219]

eyyy what's a few factors of 10 between friends?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, ndawg said:

I'm wondering where everyone's line in the sand is for expatriating. If the Dems don't win the house this year, do y'all plan on sticking around? What about if Trump wins in 2020?

I’ll be here fighting all the way to the gulag. 

[Grandioso 2592]

I was about to say, what's $400,000 to Browder? That's a tip for the uber driver. 

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

7 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Some states have passed laws (solid Blue states only though) that any candidate who wants to appear on the ballot must release their tax returns.

Not a bad start but I doubt that does shit - in fact they'll be larger turnout in those states for Dotard, with a write in campaign.