Jump to content

Donald Trump 2018

TheFlyingBoat

By TheFlyingBoat
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45673

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

no it isn't.  this is world leader diplomacy, and there are standards.  that's something you do on a fishing trip with the boys.

and i'd bet a shit ton of nickels that the joke isn't cross-culturally understood by the Germans....the chances are better that was taken as an insult.

It was also meant as an insult, so there's that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 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

Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted
Just now, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

In that instance I would say that would be hilarious for the Ruskies, not so much for Americans. And I guess that actually gets to the root of the issue too with Donald, all his "humor" is always at the expense and making fun of or putting down another party. There is no shared humor or building consensus/humor. It's divisive humor and, while the right's memes in particular are pretty funny, they don't do anything but divide.

and what's so fucking funny about that?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mo Horn

Mo Horn 8832

Posted
Posted (edited)

I confess to not knowing everything about Congress and passing laws. I know some things take 60 votes, but I thought most legislation only requires a majority. Wouldn't this fall into that category? Doesn't the GOP hold the majority?  Why do they need the Democrats to change the law? I haz confused. 

Edited by Mo Horn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45898

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

no it isn't.  this is world leader diplomacy, and there are standards.  that's something you do on a fishing trip with the boys.

But Trump's base loves the way he "says what he means".

 

Quote

and i'd bet a shit ton of nickels that the joke isn't cross-culturally understood by the Germans....the chances are better that was taken as an insult.

How could it be taken as anything BUT an insult?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texas73

Texas73 420

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

In that instance I would say that would be hilarious for the Ruskies, not so much for Americans. And I guess that actually gets to the root of the issue too with Donald, all his "humor" is always at the expense and making fun of or putting down another party. There is no shared humor or building consensus/humor. It's divisive humor and, while the right's memes in particular are pretty funny, they don't do anything but divide.

Seriously? Do you know what "hilarious" means?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TornACL

TornACL 7698

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Kasich would have beat Clinton, would have appointed somebody similar to Gorsuch, supported a BBA, supported lowering individual and corporate taxes, opposed funding for PP, supported a social safety net, and opposed the ACA. And had the happy benefit of not having a particularly malignant form of NPD.  But the GOP had spent too many decades cultivating total fucking political nonsense within their base that they decided to go with the reality TV star. 

A FUCKING MEN

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45898

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Also, you know the guy who eats well done steak with ketchup didn’t even have the pink starburst, which is the only one that isn’t nasty.  So, there’s literally no upside for Merkel.

He allegedly only eats red and pink.  Don't ask me how I know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22694

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Kasich would have beat Clinton, would have appointed somebody similar to Gorsuch, supported a BBA, supported lowering individual and corporate taxes, opposed funding for PP, supported a social safety net, and opposed the ACA. And had the happy benefit of not having a particularly malignant form of NPD.  But the GOP had spent too many decades cultivating total fucking political nonsense within their base that they decided to go with the reality TV star. 

Kasich would have happily gotten my vote.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted
Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

Kasich would have happily gotten my vote.

I've only voted for a Republican once in my live (GWB first round), and I have my own areas of disagreement with Kasich, but he was clearly the only adult in the room in the GOP primary.  Not sure if I would have pulled the lever for him or not in the general (doesn't really matter in Texas), but if I was king of the GOP primary I would have put him on the ticket in a nanosecond over the other choices.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45673

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I've only voted for a Republican once in my live (GWB first round), and I have my own areas of disagreement with Kasich, but he was clearly the only adult in the room in the GOP primary.  Not sure if I would have pulled the lever for him or not in the general (doesn't really matter in Texas), but if I was king of the GOP primary I would have put him on the ticket in a nanosecond over the other choices.   

For sure.  I would have voted for him over Hillary and I've voted D my entire life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Kasich would have beat Clinton, would have appointed somebody similar to Gorsuch, supported a BBA, supported lowering individual and corporate taxes, opposed funding for PP, supported a social safety net, and opposed the ACA. And had the happy benefit of not having a particularly malignant form of NPD.  But the GOP had spent too many decades cultivating total fucking political nonsense within their base that they decided to go with the reality TV star. 

Kasich was the best of the Republican options.  But he did not have a powerful PR machine behind him, so of course he had no chance.  There is a direct relationship between the amount of money & effort invested by PR machines into an issue/story/idea and what the people care about.  For example, the nation did not seem to have much concern when over three thousand kids were hurt or killed in 2016 in Afghanistan, but today many are to the point of wishing death on one another over the border separation issue.  Why is this disparity the case?  I don't believe it's because of any selective bias among people.  I think its because there is more vested interest by people of means in one story over the other and these people have power PR machines at their disposal.  There are images of crying children at the border all over social media, but I don't remember seeing any videos of maimed Afghanistan children with their mothers crying over them on US mainstream or social media.  That would be a pretty disheartening scene and would rightfully move people to action.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105095

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

For example, the nation did not seem to have much concern when over three thousand kids were hurt or killed in 2016 in Afghanistan,

1 -- there was and remains a rather strong opposition to our military activities in Afghanistan, in large part driven by the cost in civilian lives.

2 -- unintended collateral damage causing civilian deaths is widely seen as morally different than purposeful targeting of civilians.

I'll tell you unequivocally that if the US followed a path in Afghanistan of 1) purposefully killing children/civilians, and then 2) using the threatened continuation of that tactic as negotiation leverage ("Hey Taliban, we'll stop killing kids if you'll lay down your arms"), I would be beyond enraged.  Because we'd be committing clear-as-day war crimes.

Purposeful harm to children and families.  For political negotiation leverage.

Our admin is no better than a run-of-the-mill hostage taking criminal enterprise.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)

Watch out for #7 right now.

 

Year One Under Authoritarian Rule:  What to expect?

 

  1. They will come to power with a campaign based on fear, scaremongering and distorting the truth. Nevertheless, their victory will be achieved through a democratic electoral process. But beware, as this will be their argument every time you question the legitimacy of their actions. They will claim a mandate from the People to change the system.
     
     
    Remember – gaining power through a democratic system does not give them permission to cross legal boundaries and undermine said democracy.
     
  2. They will divide and rule. Their strength lies in unity, in one voice and one ideology, and so should yours. They will call their supporters Patriots, the only “true Americans”. You will be labelled as traitors, enemies of the state, unpatriotic, the corrupt elite, the old regime trying to regain power. Their supporters will be the “People”, the “sovereign” who chose their leaders.
     
     
    Don’t let them divide you – remember you’re one People, one Nation, with one common good.
     
  3. Through convoluted laws and threats they will try to control mainstream media and limit press freedom. They will ban critical press from their briefings, calling them “liars”, “fake news”. They will brand those media as “unpatriotic”, acting against the People (see point 2).
     
     
    Fight for every media outlet, every journalist that is being banned, censored, sacked or labelled an “enemy of the state” – there’s no hope for freedom where there is no free press.
     
  4. They will create chaos, maintain a constant sense of conflict and danger. It will be their argument to enact new authoritarian laws, each one further limiting your freedoms and civil liberties. They will disguise them as being for your protection, for the good of the People.
     
     
    See through the chaos, the fake danger, expose it before you wake up in a totalitarian, fascist state.
     
  5. They will distort the truth, deny facts and blatantly lie. They will try to make you forget what facts are, sedate your need to find the truth. They will feed “post-truths” and “alternative facts”, replace knowledge and logic with emotions and fiction.
     
     
    Always think critically, fact-check and point out the truth, fight ignorance with facts.
     
  6. They will incite and then leak fake, superficial “scandals”. They will smear opposition with trivial accusations, blowing them out of proportion and then feeding the flame. This is just smokescreen for the legal steps they will be taking towards totalitarianism.
     
     
    See through superficial topics in mainstream media (see point 3) and focus on what they are actually doing.
     
  7. They will propose shocking laws to provoke your outrage. You will focus your efforts on fighting them, so they will seemingly back off, giving you a false sense of victory. In the meantime they will push through less “flashy” legislation, slowly dismantling democracy (see points 4 and 6).
     
     
    Focus your fight on what really matters.
     
  8. When invading your liberal sensibilities they will focus on what hurts the most – women and minorities. They will act as if democracy was majority rule without respect for the minority. They will paint foreigners and immigrants as potential threats. Racial, religious, sexual and other minorities will become enemies to the order and security they are supposedly providing. They will challenge women’s social status, undermine gender equality and interfere with reproductive rights (see point 7). But it means they are aware of the threat women and minorities pose to their rule, so make it your strength.
     
     
    Women and minorities should fight the hardest, reminding the majority what true democracy is about.
     
  9. They will try to take control of the judiciary. They will assault your highest court. They need to remove the checks and balances to be able to push through unconstitutional legislation. Controlling the judiciary they can also threat anyone that defies them with prosecution, including the press (see point 3).
     
     
    Preserve the independence of your courts at all cost, they are your safety valve, the safeguard of the rule of law and the democratic system.
     
  10. They will try to limit freedom of assembly, calling it a necessity for your security. They will enact laws prioritizing state events and rallies, or those of a certain type or ideology. If they can choose who can demonstrate legally, they have a legal basis to forcefully disperse or prosecute the rest.
     
     
    Oppose any legislation attempting to interfere with freedom of assembly, for whatever reason.
     
  11. They will distort the language, coin new terms and labels, repeat shocking phrases until you accept them as normal and subconsciously associate them with whom they like. A “thief”, “liar” or “traitor” will automatically mean the opposition, while a “patriot” or a “true American” will mean their follower (see point 2). Their slogans will have double meaning, giving strength to their supporters and instilling angst in their opponents.
     
     
    Fight changes in language in the public sphere, remind and preserve the true meaning of words.
     
  12. They will take over your national symbols, associate them with their regime, remake them into attributes of their power. They want you to forget that your flag, your anthem and your symbols belong to you, the People, to everyone equally. Don’t let them be hijacked. Use and expose them in your fight as much as they do.
     
     
    Show your national symbols with pride, let them give you strength, not associate you with the tyranny they brought onto your country.
     
  13. They will try to rewrite history to suit their needs and use the education system to support their agenda. They will smear any historical or living figure who wouldn’t approve of their actions, or distort their image to make you think they would. They will place emphasis on historical education in schools, feeding young minds with the “only correct” version of history and philosophy. They will raise a new generation of voters on their ideology, backing it with a distorted interpretation of history and view of the world.
     
     
    Guard the education of your children, teach them critical thinking, ensure their open-mindedness and protect your real history and heritage.
     
  14. They will alienate foreign allies and partners, convincing you don’t need them. They won’t care for the rest of the world, with their focus on “making your country great again”. While ruining your economy to fulfil their populist promises, they will omit the fact that you’re part of a bigger world whose development depends on cooperation, on sharing and on trade.
     
     
    Don’t let them build walls promising you security instead of bridges giving you prosperity.
     
  15. They will eventually manipulate the electoral system. They might say it’s to correct flaws, to make it more fair, more similar to the rest of the world, or just to make it better. Don’t believe it. They wouldn’t be messing with it at all if it wasn’t to benefit them in some way.
     
     
    Oppose any changes to electoral law that an authoritarian regime wants to enact – rest assured it’s only to help them remain in power longer.
     
 
 

And above all, be strong, fight, endure, and remember you’re on the good side of history.
EVERY authoritarian, totalitarian and fascist regime in history eventually failed, thanks to the PEOPLE.
 

– With love, your Eastern European friends

 

http://learnfromeurope.org/

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Kasich would have beat Clinton, would have appointed somebody similar to Gorsuch, supported a BBA, supported lowering individual and corporate taxes, opposed funding for PP, supported a social safety net, and opposed the ACA. And had the happy benefit of not having a particularly malignant form of NPD.  But the GOP had spent too many decades cultivating total fucking political nonsense within their base that they decided to go with the reality TV star. 

How does the Russia investigation play out in this scenario?  Because you know, there would still be one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

1 -- there was and remains a rather strong opposition to our military activities in Afghanistan, in large part driven by the cost in civilian lives.

2 -- unintended collateral damage causing civilian deaths is widely seen as morally different than purposeful targeting of civilians.

I'll tell you unequivocally that if the US followed a path in Afghanistan of 1) purposefully killing children/civilians, and then 2) using the threatened continuation of that tactic as negotiation leverage ("Hey Taliban, we'll stop killing kids if you'll lay down your arms"), I would be beyond enraged.  Because we'd be committing clear-as-day war crimes.

Purposeful harm to children and families.  For political negotiation leverage.

Our admin is no better than a run-of-the-mill hostage taking criminal enterprise.

On point 1, it is true that there is opposition.  But you have to admit that it is not nearly as polarizing as the border issue nor has it gotten the amount of press or public outcry.  On point 2, they are certainly different moral questions but it's not so clear to me that the killing of foreign children is the lesser of two evils.  I'm pretty sure the Afghan families of wounded children would not find much comfort in our moral disputations on the issue.  

The Afghanistan war is one of the longest running wars in American history.  We know that many civilians, including children, will die each year as a direct result of it; whether we target them or not, we know that children will die terrible & violent deaths as a direct result and yet we decide to continue.  It costs our nation billions of dollars.  It is not needed for the preservation of our nation at this point and hasn't been for years.  Yet it doesn't get much press or deliberate PR proliferation because it is not advantageous for either party (or any other significantly influential group) to highlight it.  Consequently, there is comparatively little public outcry over it.  

 

3 hours ago, TornACL said:

There's a much more visceral reaction when things occur on American soil as opposed to "over there". 

This is true.  But the is does not justify the ought.  This also does not discount the direct influence of the PR efforts on public perception.  

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28767

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

  For example, the nation did not seem to have much concern when over three thousand kids were hurt or killed in 2016 in Afghanistan, but today many are to the point of wishing death on one another over the border separation issue.  Why is this disparity the case?  I don't believe it's because of any selective bias among people.  I think its because there is more vested interest by people of means in one story over the other and these people have power PR machines at their disposal. 

For the record, I am extremely outraged over the nightmare happening at the border and have been outraged regarding the civilian deaths occurring in Afghanistan for over a decade.

With regards to the PR, you are correct about the amount of coverage one issue gets over the other. The deaths of children in Afghanistan resulting from American bombing gets little coverage. It does get covered pretty frequently in libertarian and leftist media but we are on the fringe so that doesn't really count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26444

Posted
Posted (edited)

Singin' Mikey Cohen resigns as RNC Deputy Finance Chair, because there are some lines he just won't cross:

 

Quote

"As the son of a Polish holocaust survivor, the images and sounds of this family separation policy is heart wrenching,” Cohen wrote. “While I strongly support measures that will secure our porous borders, children should never be used as bargaining chips."

 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27653

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, retread said:

Looks like the Rs are finally turning things around.

Trump isn't stopping the zero tolerance policy that's designed to discourage asylum seekers, he's just not ripping families apart anymore. Too bad the psychological damage is already done to thousands of children. I'm sure miller is smiling with glee

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...