At 12/22/16 08:58 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: Whoever wrote his speeches needs to start writing his tweets too. The only people responding to his tweets are aso just there to have pissing contest with one another. Trump said upon victory that he wanted an america that loves each other. He is not making it happen.

What they need to do is what I don't think they'll be able to do: Take away all his social media, set up someone to handle any and all interview requests and basically just completely restrict access to him, and his access to others. This is not a guy that does deep thinking it seems like, and he really needs people to be the barrier between what comes out of his brain and what reaches the public.

But I don't see them being able to because Trump is at heart a classic narcissist. He NEEDS that camera on him, needs people telling him he's great and needs that constant attention. But until they can convince him to do what he did at the end of the campaign (which is turn all that stuff over and STOP doing that) you're going to continue to have the pattern of Trump saying something stupid/awful/terrifying, somebody on his staff trying to soften and "clarify it" and then Trump potentially (if it looks like his hardcore base is turning on the softening) turning around and repudiating that to go back to what he said originally. This was my biggest problem with a Trump Presidency: You don't know what he's actually for, what he actually wants to do, because it changes based on what he thinks his audience wants to hear.

At 12/24/16 04:26 PM, RightTime wrote: California becomes heart of anti-Trump resistance

California can and will continue to lead on policy,” said Alex Padilla, California’s secretary of state.
He said his state is ready to oppose Trump on federal policies that would hurt California, and on nominees such as Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican and immigration hard-liner nominated to lead the Department of Justice.
California mayors have also pledged to resist aggressive immigration enforcement. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has been adamant in keeping L.A. as a "sanctuary" city — one that actively resists federal immigration policies — and he announced Monday a fund to defend immigrants from deportation.
The state’s political leaders are signaling they will be a part of the resistance to Trump’s pick for attorney general. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the 24-year California senator, will be the top Democrat next year on the Judiciary Committee, which will consider the Sessions nomination.
Becerra said all legal options are on the table when it comes to fighting to defend California's policies, including litigation and political action.

so in short California is going to continue defying federal law like they always have citing states rights and being whiny cunts like always.

you do know you need to be impeached by congress and need a 2/3rd majority of a GOP controlled House which isn't happening.

At 12/24/16 05:40 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: you do know you need to be impeached by congress and need a 2/3rd majority of a GOP controlled House which isn't happening.

Not everybody is behind Trump. Again, and I cannot stress this enough, he's basically our first Third Party President. Not a true Republican and I could certainly see these guys wanting to get rid of him if he doesn't prove controllable.

At 12/24/16 04:26 PM, RightTime wrote: Today's Trump Headlines, courtesy of TheHill.com:

Trump planning to close foundation: report

Great spin here. He's dodging, and so are they, any serious reportage about the allegations that it's a slush fund for him, and absolutely no mention that the NY AG stopped them from accepting donations pursuant to an investigation of such.

Trump NY co-chair makes racist remarks about Michelle Obama

But you know, racism played no part in his election or his selection of people. None.

Trump shares letter from Putin: 'His thoughts are so correct'

He's also clearly no puppet of Russia....clearly.

Trump warns UN after Israel vote: 'Things will be different' soon

Probably true. One thing he's going to have to do to keep the party power players happy is to take the usual "Israel can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants" Conservative line. I mean....I'm sure completely ignoring the Palestinians and other Arab interests in the area won't result in anything bad right? Never has before....

Sanders rips Trump as 'Tweeter in Chief' for nuke talk

I've ripped the Democrats for being bad at messaging and branding. But to me this is another example. While I think Sanders is better then most of them at putting complex issues into more simply to digest fragments, I feel like someone his age ripping on someone's use of Twitter has the potential to make him come off as "that cranky old man that doesn't understand new technology". Also, Hillary tried this line, and still lost. I think it's in the best interests of the left to abandon just about anything from that failed attack line and regroup.

Trump praises Putin's criticism of Democrats in tweet

See above, also, of course he did. Anyone who agrees with him is automatically a best buddy. Dangerous thing to make so readily apparent. Especially to someone like Putin.

Trump's CIA pick faces 'serious management problem'

I'm kind of curious how easily his Cabinet picks and such are going to go through Congress. I'm thinking at least some of them may hit a snag or maybe even lose on close votes. I could be wrong though.

California becomes heart of anti-Trump resistance

Is anyone surprised?

Brzezinski: Trump told me 'let it be an arms race' on nukes

99 Red Balloons....

Trump argues Berlin attack is 'purely religious threat'

Way to play into exactly what ISIS and asshats like them want buddy. Way to go....

At 12/24/16 05:46 PM, spotsxd wrote: If the Land of the Free can elect a Fascist as president, I think anything is possible. If the Republicans had any sense at all, they would get him out of there as fast as possible. He's too dangerous.

you forget he is only one part of three branches of government with checks and balances in place.

At 12/24/16 08:48 PM, spotsxd wrote: All three branches will soon be controlled by the Republican party, so they will be able to get away with almost anything.

and even if trump screws up he most likely won't be impeached because of the sheer number of GOP seats taken, and even with what Avie said it that even some GOP won't like him that won't effect much since Trump will probably give concessions to the GOP of rubber stamping the OK on legislation carte blanche with that ability and losing support by the GOP if you don't tow the party line you might find yourself alone in the upcoming midterms in mid 2018. and then there's the Midterms themselves if they actually don't screw up or actually do business-as-usual or actually improve we could see an increase of GOP seats, since the demographics that actually turn out for midterms are whites, conservatives, that are middle class in the 45-64 age range.

I'm afraid that they will completely rig the system so that Democrats can never get elected. Then we're 100% screwed. Trump and his team couldn't care less about the American people, they just want money and power.

oh yeah district jerry mandering and Voter ID Laws that'll put the voting demographic that democrats target at a serious disadvantage but it is a smart one.

At 12/25/16 09:14 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: and even if trump screws up he most likely won't be impeached because of the sheer number of GOP seats taken, and even with what Avie said it that even some GOP won't like him that won't effect much since Trump will probably give concessions to the GOP of rubber stamping the OK on legislation carte blanche with that ability and losing support by the GOP if you don't tow the party line you might find yourself alone in the upcoming midterms in mid 2018.

I look at it as if they can't get Trump to understand that a lot of what he wants to do, while popular with the low information voter who put him in, is patently illegal or untenable in some cases. If he tries it, he will wind up forcing their hand because it will be next to impossible to ignore a blatantly criminal President and not invoke the Articles in a case like that. I'd also point out Pence is much more palatable to these people and their base (like the Christian Conservatives) and has already made a lot of promises to those groups, and I suspect much more then Dick Cheney will actually be the puppet master running the Trump administration. What John Kasich said about that offer for him to be VP a few months back rang very true to me, and made the most sense in the event that Trump got elected. This doesn't even touch the possibility that the investigation that's under way about Russia could still come back with something explosive and if Trump or his campaign are in any way directly linked then he's done and we wind up with an unprecedented Constitutional crisis situation to deal with. The odds on that I'd peg as quite low, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. More likely though, I think he and his people knew nothing, or at least not enough to be actionable. I think Putin saw a useful idiot and worked hard to get him elected.

The mid-terms I feel are a separate issue, but will be a great test of two things:

1. How did the Left sustain their anger and frustration over the election? The biggest problem the Left has, and elections are pointing this out over and over again in this country is they continue to think you just show up every 4 years and vote and that's all that matters. Had they showed up in the last mid-term cycle to block that last round of Republican gains, then Trump wouldn't have the super majority, or the Supreme Court pick we're so afraid of now. I vote in all cycles, and I encourage everybody to do the same. You cannot look at any election as "skippable" If the protest, resistance, whatever you'd like to call it movement can be sustained into the mid-term cycle. Republicans could find themselves out simply because of party affliation.

2. How well can Trump deliver on his promises? Because to me, I really believe what secured him the nod was white, manufacturing based workers and other low income folks that bought the line about him being tough on outsourcing, immigration, and foreign importation. I don't see him delivering there and if and when he doesn't, those voters I think will stay home during the mid-terms, and stay home next election cycle like they did for Romney. I know that it's fun to think you have some kind of ideological mandate when you win, and seem to win big. But I think the voters who tip the scales aren't terribly ideological really. They just want to be able to pay their bills, take care of their family, and maintain their standard of living. The more I look at things, the more I think Obama and Trump were actually tapping a lot of the same sort of voter to put them over the top, and that spells disaster in my mind to pols who don't deliver on their promises because if I'm right, you're talking about the most mercenary of voter because Trump and Obama are about as opposite as you can get.

and then there's the Midterms themselves if they actually don't screw up or actually do business-as-usual or actually improve we could see an increase of GOP seats, since the demographics that actually turn out for midterms are whites, conservatives, that are middle class in the 45-64 age range.

The wish lists I hear are the usual economic voodoo that doesn't help anything, just adds to debts and put's us back on the road to recession. I hear a lot of attempts to roll back liberal social gains (which I think again is something that only plays to a small, dwindling crowd, but I could be wrong) that will probably be wasted effort since a lot of it will get tied up in Constitutional challenge. Another problem they have is they have a majority in two branches now (legislative, and executive) and barring the Dems pulling a Hail Mary, they'll get it in a third too (Judicial). Scary if you don't like their wish list, exciting if you do, but there's a potential downside too which the Dems found out in 2010: If you are not seen as being effective, and getting things done, you potentially wind up out on your ass. With big majorities like this too, there's no one to blame, there's no ability to say the other side blocked you and get the public to buy into that because the reply will be "but we gave you that huge majority so you didn't have to worry about that". I would definitely be keeping a weathered eye on that horizon if I'm a Congressional Republican with an election in 2018. It'll be interesting.

oh yeah district jerry mandering and Voter ID Laws that'll put the voting demographic that democrats target at a serious disadvantage but it is a smart one.

Gerrymandering is beginning to be struck down in different courts, this will effect both sides since it's a misnomer that only Republicans are doing it (but they certainly do it more effectively). Voter ID Laws are still out there, but similarly being challenged. The Left needs to start taking notes from the right in terms of realizing they have to get more active at making sure they win more state level elections and win hearts and minds at that level if they want to be effective. The more you dig into what happened in November with an honest, critical eye, the more I think you see this didn't happen over night, this had been building and the Left ignored it or got comfortable with the idea of "well, it can't happen here....not with this guy...." until it did. Time to start fighting a smarter fight or get left in the dust.

At 12/26/16 03:09 PM, Sause wrote: It amazes me how little we know about Melania, speaking of.

I think it's intentional. Tiffany all but doesn't exist at this point. There was zero coverage or press about her in the run up to the election and the post-election transition.

Like, is she purposefully hiding from the media for some reason? I know that TMZ will target anything about her appearance and mock her for it, but what I want to know is Melania the woman, person, human being, s/h/it whatever

Well, it's possible she was an illegal, so that's a reason to hide her. She cribbed from Michelle Obama. Also she isn't going to be First Lady. To me, she's a trophy wife who's going to continue to be a trophy wife and have very little role in the administration it seems.

At 12/26/16 03:09 PM, Sause wrote: It amazes me how little we know about Melania, speaking of.

That's because once the Don tires of her, he'll dump her back onto the scrap heap he got her from, call up his best buddy Vladimir Vladimirovich and order the next one, who then gets delivered ready for use.

At 12/26/16 01:26 PM, Sause wrote: What do you guys think of this "God-Emperor" title Trump has been given? I personally think it's hilarious, and that the people who keep pushing it have been playing WAY too much Warhammer 40k

link, https://twitter.com/Supreme_Mentor/status/812698138880442370

HOW FUCKING DARE YOU SPEAK SUCH HERESIES! YOU MUST BE UPROOTED AND ERADICATED!

So Michael Moore is apparently going to release a plan to stop Trump tomorrow.
Go ahead you fat fuck. Say something that finally get's your worthless ass thrown in prison. And keep destroying your party by being sore losers.

At 12/27/16 05:34 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: So Michael Moore is apparently going to release a plan to stop Trump tomorrow.

Ah, the Left's version of a smarter Ann Coulter. Though he did predict Trump when nobody else did....wait....so did she....yeah, ok, going to stick with that comparison then, yes.

Go ahead you fat fuck. Say something that finally get's your worthless ass thrown in prison.

Like what? I thought we still had Free Speech. You know, until Trump and his alt right buddies try to pass that bullshit legislation that makes discrimination legal for 2 seconds until the court challenges come flying in. Once again kids, example A of why the alt right don't actually give a fuck about the Constitution or freedom in general.

And keep destroying your party by being sore losers.

Well, you guys did it for 8 years and got what you hope is a fascist puppet man who will let you do what thou wilt for at least 4. So don't get mad if the other side cribs from the playbook your side wrote.

At 12/28/16 04:26 AM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: I don't get why you brought the alt right into this at all.

Because that is the main umbrella and contingents of it have been very vocal in their support of Trump. Acting like this is not a group that worked to make him President, and is indeed happy he has been elected.

But don't assume we are all one big happy family over on the right.

I don't. The fractured nature of both the right and the left, and the rise in power and voice of extreme fringe players on those two sides is very very disturbing to me. Everybody's house has problems right now, it'd be a mistake to assume that because they won it somehow has them off the ropes, it doesn't.

Both sides hate racist.

Bullshit. You cannot universally speak for all contingents of both sides. Nor can you speak for the entirety of the alt right as I have seen videos (and posted them here) of prominent figures who claim allegiance to the alt right making white power statements. Also Trump made many racially divisive and inflammatory statements of same throughout his campaign and yet still won. While it would be wrong to say every voter subscribed to those views and cast their ballot accordingly, it would be equally wrong to say none of them did, but cast their ballot as they did regardless.

The right polices it's own side, and now we have folks like Tucker Carlson, and Ben Shapiro calling out SJW types on the left, and it looks like we are doing all of the work.

I'd argue nobody is really "policing" anything on the Right especially. There are so many prominent pols, personalities, and others who have manipulated a small angry group for election, financial gain, and etc that it has given rise to a very rotten climate in this country which culminated in the election of someone with no political experience and routine accusations of inappropriate or illegal conduct on a variety of issues. The Left is guilty of elitism and manipulation as well, but to a less distressing degree I think. Everybody needs to take a long hard look at their houses and clean them the fuck up.

At 12/28/16 03:11 PM, RightTime wrote:

At 12/28/16 02:51 PM, spotsxd wrote:
Here it is: https://www.facebook.com/mmflint/posts/10154046637756857

When's the last time Moore made a political plan that actually worked? As far as I can tell the only thing he's good at is making documentaries that return a profit, at least most of the time. I'm assuming the budget was above $149k there, based on the budget on his previous docs.

LOL he's getting reamed in the comments. I'm sure he's spending his time blocking everyone who isn't supporting him (which is a LOT). And not surprisingly he's calling for civil disobedience during the inauguration, which can easily turn violent (and I'm sure it will). If it does arrest him for inciting a riot.
And it's not going to do shit. Trump won fair and square.

I honestly find it rather depressing that the liberal elite are still having their bitchfit over Trump when he hasn't even been in the Oval Office yet. My hope is that they stop calling him bad names once January 21st arrives and actually buckle down and mitigate Trump's and the GOP's plans for the next 4 years while building up what they lost in the election. Preferably they also get away from the blowhards like Moore who seem to be more about instigating shit rather than actually providing solutions.

Then again, we all know the old saying about a dog and how loud his bark is.

At 12/28/16 07:17 PM, orangebomb wrote: I honestly find it rather depressing that the liberal elite are still having their bitchfit over Trump ....

Agreed. All attempts to block or stop him have failed. Barring the government finding direct collusion with Russia to to get elected, he's getting sworn in, and now the goal needs to be mitigating damage, blocking any horrendous collapses and generally reminding the right they don't have a blank check and "hey, we're still here!"

When the Right lost, they got mad, and they shat all over Obama, but they also turned that into action at the local, state, and federal level. This is something Liberals have failed to grasp so far, perhaps in part because they took the wrong messages from Obama's two terms and believed the country was headed their way. Well, it isn't. So it's time to do the work of trying to make sure it actually does. I really believe that this victory is actually ultimately going to make the GOP and authoritarian elements within it VERY vulnerable because they promised a lot of solutions to complex problems. Solutions they can't deliver. Liberals and Democrats need to be ready, willing, and able to seize the opportunity when the more "mercenary" contingents of the Electorate get their buyer's remorse and want to kick these guys out when they don't deliver.

At 12/28/16 06:03 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: LOL he's getting reamed in the comments.

Oh no! He should clearly give up then. Because surely this kind of thing is all about popularity.

I'm sure he's spending his time blocking everyone who isn't supporting him (which is a LOT).

Is that why I see him responding to people without even needing to click down? It must be.

And not surprisingly he's calling for civil disobedience during the inauguration, which can easily turn violent (and I'm sure it will). If it does arrest him for inciting a riot.

Civil Disobediance, protest, is an enshrined part of our first amendment rights. The Tea Party was playing this for awhile. You people are such hypocrites. If it turns violent though, then those people absolutely should be arrested and prosecuted. Protest does NOT allow for violent resistance or harming others, you screw your message into the ground when you resort to that level.

And it's not going to do shit. Trump won fair and square.

I think there's a pretty good pack of evidence to cast doubt on that. But again, you people are shitting on the very tings that made this possible for you: Grass roots campaigning and organization. This is exactly what the Right did to get here. Yes, Moore is being super inflammatory with his comments here, but when you pull the inflammatory commentary and the hyperbole out, he is advocating basic principles of grass roots American Democracy: Pressure you're local officials into understanding your concerns by making yourself known and that your vote is not securely in their pocket. Protest and demonstrate policies that you think are unfair or unjust to make yourself known to both sides (but again, no violence, don't do things that would distract from the true message or allow it to be ignored), and get involved, run for office, be part of the process. If you don't like what's happening, don't just sit and bitch, DO something to change it.

It's what the Right effectively did once Obama was elected and nearly a decade later they have a Congressional majority, the White House, and most state and local legislatures and governors are also quite Red. Either you and those scoffing at this are ignorant of this fact....or you KNOW what I'm saying is true, and it scares you, just a little, that the current climate might just be enough for the Blue team to finally wake up and realize what they need to do if they want their ideals to get through, and stay through.

At 12/29/16 01:28 AM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: So in other words they are your boogie man figure for the right wing. Well if you read even a small part of the article they are not too happy now after being disowned like they were.

No....my point was if you pitch a big tent, and don't really guard who's coming in through the flap, you eventually might get some people in the tent you don't want to be there. That's not just a problem confined to this one particular group or movement, it's happened throughout recent political history, and prior to it as well.

If you don't assume that why did you bring them into a discussion with a Micheal Moore hater? Did that particular user show support to their movement previously if so I apologize, if not bringing them up out of nowhere is just silly.

I don't see how bringing up a group that was identified as gaining more power within the Republican Party and being a key supporter of getting Trump elected is an "out of nowhere" subject to be discussing in a thread like this.

So both sides have people who hate racist, but both sides also have racist people within their house. I can't argue with that.

Except for where you seemed to be trying to until you saw that I a) wasn't going to let you make such a blanket statement you can't possibly prove, and b) that I wasn't going to be the kind of myopic boob that acts like racists only support one side or the other. They may feel like one side gives them a better home then the other does....but I think it would be just ridiculous to assume that that one issue cuts them off completely from voting for the other guys.

How does publicly disowning a prominent and controversial figure not count as a form of policing? Now people know that man does not represent us, and the alt right which you hate is dividing itself.

Because I'm still not sure I'm seeing evidence that there is some sort of "organized leadership". Also, you disowned the racist, but you still stand behind a candidate who in part got elected by race baiting, by arguing he would build a wall to keep people out, and create a prejudicial policy of banning people from entry into the country because of their religion. You can't denounce bigotry and then vote for it. You can't have it both ways.

Sounds like you have described your candidate as well.

LOL! No, no I really didn't. This is the problem. The false equivalency because people like yourself don't want to hear anything outside your bubble and your ideas and nothing that gets said to the contrary penetrates.

I mean, Hillary has been in politics pretty much her entire adult life. Trump flirted with it briefly before running in 2015. She has been a Secretary of State and a First Lady. He's never held an office, either elected or appointed. Just based on that how can you say they match up on "political experience"?

I disagree because of the violence seen from the left.

Trump rallies. People were getting physically assaulted based on race, on just simply protesting, etc. There is sure a small violent contingent on the left, but that the right only grudingly acknowledges now these incidents at these rallies, but still ignores the FBI is investigating Trump's potential call to assassinate Hillary (they are, go look) makes your point here laughable and it's why we can't have a serious conversation. I'm willing to concede problems, and you go "yeah, you guys suck, we're perfect".

while both sides have always needed to clean house your side has become out of control. I would say it has become quite distressing on the left, and very obviously so.

We didn't elect the demagogue that has policies that will curtail freedom and tank the economy. We aren't anywhere near the group in power for at least the next 2 years. You won't be able to kick the Left around as a boogeyman any more to reasonable people.

This is going to be four great years for the GOP.

At 12/30/16 04:10 AM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: Your point was to embarrass a republican, or have you not actually followed the issue of that movement. You assume they have far more power than they actually do. take the tinfoil hat off avi. You sound like a fanatic bring them up that way.

My point was to point out people acting like undesirables didn't vote for Trump, and aren't part of the coalition that helped get him elected are either lying, or they just aren't paying attention. Nothing more, nothing less. It's also to point out to Republicans that if you look at guys like this, and have the same revulsion for them that I do, then you know, police your shit and kick them off the bus as much and as publicly as you can. Make sure they know they aren't welcome. It's also to point out that when you are voting for the same candidates that they're voting for, you should probably put some thought into that, and maybe think twice before casting that ballot the same way again. That's just my two cents, do with that what you will.

You brought it up in a discussion about Micheal Moore a pundit for the left. What context did that have at the time? absolutely none.

Let's look at some context, I'm going to show you the post chain where this started:

wildfire4461 wrote: So Michael Moore is apparently going to release a plan to stop Trump tomorrow.

I wrote: Ah, the Left's version of a smarter Ann Coulter. Though he did predict Trump when nobody else did....wait....so did she....yeah, ok, going to stick with that comparison then, yes.

wildfire4461 wrote: Go ahead you fat fuck. Say something that finally get's your worthless ass thrown in prison.

I wrote: Like what? I thought we still had Free Speech. You know, until Trump and his alt right buddies try to pass that bullshit legislation that makes discrimination legal for 2 seconds until the court challenges come flying in. Once again kids, example A of why the alt right don't actually give a fuck about the Constitution or freedom in general.

So that's where all this came from. So now I've got some questions for you:

1. Why are you pillorying me about something that wasn't even addressed to you?

2. Why are you ignoring everything else I wrote in that post, and just talking about a contingent of people that did help get the current Pres elected and trying to work on image control for them? Do you want to have a serious discussion? Or do you just wanna shill? Because if it's the latter, you can just stop replying to me now because I don't like that game.

You took one sentence I wrote and decided to start an entire discussion about it.

Pot meet kettle! Fuck, at least I actually qouted the whole thought to pick at it.

Who was actually trying there avi? You are this determined to demonize the right?

No sir. I'm that determined to point out bullshit when I see it. You said something you couldn't possibly prove, you admitted as much, I questioned your motives then as I question them now. You want to talk points? Let's talk points.

The alt right will never hold a seat in congress, or the senate. If our senators and congressman disown them, and even our elect won't let them into inauguration speeches how exactly do you not see that when our organized leaders disown them?

You misunderstood what I meant. I'm not talking about the Republican establishment or anybody like that acknowledging them. They never will. I think they always saw these guys as a useful bloc they could manipulate....then they stopped following the script. I was talking about organized leadership within the movement who are clearly saying "this is what we are, this is what we aren't".

Neither can you fool.

Ad Hominem ill becomes everybody.

Your Hillary advocated violence(read below) you can only claim trump is a racist or a bigot, and this is just typical left ad homenim that has lost all meaning over the years.

It's not ad hominem if he says bigoted things. Obama wasn't born here. Obama is a Muslim (therefore bad). Mexico is sending rapists and criminals. These are things he's said, do you deny them?

Your sides claims every republican, supporter, candidate, or nominee to be a fascist, racist, or nazi every year.

Lol, no, they don't. But go back and show me where I personally have done that. I can't speak for all of the left, and they don't speak for me. I'm sure you feel the same. Also, I may have voted for Hillary, but I wasn't super excited to do it, my candidate was Bernie Sanders. I came over to Hillary because while there was a lot about her I didn't like, I felt the alternatives were no alternative at all. So it was more a process of elimination thing. But yeah, just go ahead and assume everybody can be easily labeled.

Remember to follow your own liberal 30 second rule you spoke of please.

Guy wants to ad hominem me, then try for the moral high ground? Lol. Funny. I calls 'em like I sees 'em guy.

So you defend only her political experience and none of the other accusations that is quite interesting.

I went with the long hanging fruit on your inaccurate statement. Sorry. Plus I figure you wouldn't listen to any denials of the rest of it. You clearly didn't during the campaign, so why try that much harder about it now? I doubt I have any magic bullet that'll change your mind.

Yep she had more political experience.

So once again, you make an inaccurate statement, I prove you wrong, you admit to it. But then...

Made absolutely no difference and she was only able to run a smear campaign through out the entire election.

Her being bad at campaigning doesn't change the fact that saying her level of experience vs. Trump's was equivalent. You're just quickly dancing away from the point where you have to concede a point (and lose some credibility) into a completely different realm of discussion and hope nobody catches it. Well, I did.

Well regarding violence during this years election hillary is likely to be investigating yet again for advocating for it.

This blog offers no concrete smoking gun. Clinton's camp denies it, the videos are as the article says "edited". But even if they DID do what they're accused of, you have nobody throwing punches on the Dem side. You have them saying "ok, say something bad about Donald Trump, and his guys will swing". So in the end, you still have what I said was happening: People say something anti-Trump at a rally, Trump supporters turn it physical. You didn't actually refute me.

Google must also be quite biased against hillary supporters since violence from them is easier to find.

LOL! You typed crap into Google and got nothing but youtube videos, and breitbart (and breitbarts founder is an advisor to Trump). This is laughable sourcing.

Is that because trump supporter violence is being covered up?

No, just denied by the Right until Trump finally came clean after winning and saying "yeah, ok, that happened"

Or is it that the left is actually more violent than the right is?

I'm gonna go with....no, since you failed to prove that. But if you get some good evidence, I'll take another look.

Here is an example of what happened in my state. Graffiti encourages people to kill trump supporters.

I condemn that. But that's ugly speech. Do you have any proof this graffiti lead to a physical attack?

You are only willing to concede if I agree with you on the issue,=

No guy. I'm willing to concede if you give me real evidence. You give me youtube, and breitbart. Youtube is not a valid source, and breitbart is a completely conservative shill site. It's founder is also part of the Trump Administration. They are not evidence in a discussion like this.

I'm not even touching the rest of this because it's mindless speculation that I personally disagree with. I think what won Trump the election was Rust Belt factory workers who bought the line about keeping factory jobs here. He won't be able to do that, so they won't be there for him again in 4 years.

At 12/30/16 09:06 PM, spotsxd wrote: More like 4 great days. That's how long it'll take for Donald to figure out how to launch nukes.

Ehhh, No. All of Trump's nuke talk is nothing more than saber rattling. Even he wouldn't be dumb enough to launch a nuke without getting some sort of negative response. Unless North Korea actually decides to bomb Seoul, of course.

At 12/30/16 08:25 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:

At 12/30/16 07:15 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Giant wall of rambling and self righteousness.

Just got on saw that shit in my notifications. Avi if you want people to respond to you make your post just long enough to cover, but but short enough to stay interesting.

Yes, like the page and a half of text he was responding to. Dumbass hypocrite.

At 12/30/16 09:06 PM, spotsxd wrote:

At 12/30/16 04:31 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: This is going to be four great years for the GOP.

More like 4 great days. That's how long it'll take for Donald to figure out how to launch nukes.

I hear Trump loves him some good o'l fashion American Football.
though there would be no way for him to justify a preemptive nuclear attack internationally especially to the UN (even though its practically useless) and NATO (which the US is one of the biggest contributors too NATO even admits to being over-reliant on the US) but its not like we wouldn't get possible backlash politically and economically.

nukes are a double edged sword that ensures mutually assured destruction when used either offensively or defensively.

At 12/30/16 08:25 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: Just got on saw that shit in my notifications. Avi if you want people to respond to you make your post just long enough to cover, but but short enough to stay interesting.

This is how you know the other guy is out of anything relevant to say. This exact thing right here. :)

I thought of this thread.

At 1/1/17 07:50 AM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: You also provided no links or proof the entire time to back up any of your statements. Nothing but speculation and opinions from you.

So now it's "no I didn't lose, you lost", really? Like I said before, if you want to continue the discussion, cool, we can do that. If it's just down to personal insult or "you lost, no you lost, no no....you clearly lost!" then I think we've just kind of hijacked this thing and it's time to get going. I'd rather just meet up again when we've got something new to say to each other and let the masses decide who did what better (if they even care to do so).

Did mean to talk about Trump and nukes though yesterday but I had some New Year's stuff to do which extended into today. I really don't think Trump is going to launch a nuke at anybody. I honestly think he has zero political will to do anything. He just wants to have the attention, have people tell him he's wonderful and what he's doing is wonderful, play with his twitter....and he'll delegate the actual job to Pence. Which is where I think he'll start to get himself into trouble, because either he'll delegate something he isn't supposed to legally, he'll do something illegal by accident and then have to pay for it (I've heard this has happened once or twice during the transition. Nothing super damaging really, just people who don't know what they're doing, asking questions they aren't supposed to ask, and then having to be told about it). That's my whole theory really as to why I think he can't make it a full term, especially if his first half is as dreadful as I suspect it will be, and it winds up with Dems picking up more seats in Congress making any mistakes he might make much more periless to his Presidency.

I think the worst thing the Left can do, and has been doing. Is trying to speculate on what he will or won't do and trying to blow it up. Is he dangerous? Well, sure, he's a political know nothing who seems to pay no real attention to anything outside of his own mirror and has childish reactions to anything he doesn't like. But he's not going to be omnipotent. He's going to have handlers, he's going to have people who are doing a lot of the heavy lifting for him, and he can only steer the ship so far in any right or wrong direction. But let's also remember he isn't actually steering it for the next 3 weeks or so. When people get too far into the hyperbole and what not, they kind of almost make the guy seem like an under dog or give some of his "people plot against me for no reason" paranoia some credence.

At 1/1/17 10:08 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Did mean to talk about Trump and nukes though yesterday but I had some New Year's stuff to do which extended into today. I really don't think Trump is going to launch a nuke at anybody.

///
I apologize I am to lazy today look for it.
But I remember a story during the election where Trump supposedly said The USA should give South Korea & Japan nukes. Let them deal with North Korea.

I thought it was brilliant. After all who is going to attack South Korea for nuking North Korea. We already know the North has nukes ...sure they probably can only deliver them by truck train or boat ....but they have proven themselves capable of building & setting them off.
Can you imagine the large crap 'dear leader' would take in his pants if he knew his enemies in the south could drop one on his location by missle or bomb from an aircraft any time they wanted ????
LMAO

At 1/2/17 03:16 PM, spotsxd wrote: The less countries have nukes, the better. You never know when a crazy person (like Trump) will get into power and use them for the wrong purpose.

;;;
The above statement goes completely against the USA's 'right to bear arms ' grrrrrrrrrrrroooowl.

If South Korea did decide to use nukes against North Korea, they would have to figure out how to approach it.

There are 2 Korea's because China & the USA wereusing the Korea peninsula to fight a war (ok police action whatever)
But there was until then just 1 Korea & if there was a loss of the leadership in the North, they could reunify.

Using nukes is a really bad idea in general.

Until we all toss them around for a day or so, how will we know for sure.
Could be the best thing to happen to planet earth since the last major Asteroid collision.

At 1/2/17 03:42 PM, morefngdbs wrote: But there was until then just 1 Korea & if there was a loss of the leadership in the North, they could reunify.

If this were the end of the Korean War, I think that might be a very accurate statement. As stands we've had 60 or so years of seperation and the way the North is structured and that a whole generation or two now has been raised as seeing themselves as either "north" or "south" suggests to me re-unification would be a complicated, taxing process. Not against it per se, as getting rid of the Kims would be great for the world as a whole, but I think you oversimplified.

I'm also not for helping the South get weapons because I feel like the North at this point will simply use their nuclear capabilities to threaten the South as a way to ensure the international community keeps sending them aid as a bribe not to do anything to the South or anybody else. This extortion is necessary to the North. If we gave the South weapons, the international complications are tremendous. I think the current Kim is probably mentally ill, and he's clearly paranoid and has a tenuous grasp on power (his continuous military purges seem suggestive of both things to me), to put that kind of a threat to him in his own backyard may make him feel cornered and like his only option is to launch. If he does, and it's clear SK got their hardware from us, that could trigger war with China thanks to their comprehensive treaties with the North and the whole region becomes the hottest of hot zones again, drawing us into another quagmire and creating situations less then friendly actors like Putin may exploit.

So to route this back to our subject, this for me is the danger of Trump and his stupid statements like this. It's also why I think our best outcome is for him to basically be a figurehead. Because I doubt he's considered any of this....I doubt he even has the most elementary grasp of what is happening tbh.