Jump to content

U.S. Politics megathread (merged)


trex

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I think I have got it. Every politician in the world who has in the last 40 years (or perhaps ever) done something awful, and whose party has at some point held him or her to a high standard (even before that party has done so), is related to Trump.

 

Why would you think that’s what the post you quoted meant?

 

 

Your trolling is getting more transparent and pointless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • JFK-1

    2823

  • Maple Leaf

    2214

  • Justin Z

    1584

  • Watt-Zeefuik

    1512

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Francis Albert
10 minutes ago, Les Izemore said:

 

Why would you think that’s what the post you quoted meant?

 

 

Your trolling is getting more transparent and pointless. 

Just struggling to understand what a Democrat's 40 year old indiscretions have to do with this thread. UA gave what seems to me a rather inadequate explanation of the relevance (or how it is "related") to which I responded.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Just struggling to understand what a Democrat's 40 year old indiscretions have to do with this thread. UA gave what seems to me a rather inadequate explanation of the relevance (or how it is "related") to which I responded.

 

 

 

I would humbly suggest that the fact that the Democrats have so strongly criticised and are seeking removal from office, compared to Trumps lack of action and ignoring of the Steven King comments, and his lethargic comments about the Charlotesville, demonstrations with both sides having nice people, allows comment on this thread for comparatory reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Les Izemore said:

 

Why would you think that’s what the post you quoted meant?

 

 

Your trolling is getting more transparent and pointless. 

he really is best ignored. He just posts whatever he feels will get an argument, no matter the subject. Been trolling for years and seems to be allowed for some reason. As I say, best just put him on ignore as you can't argue with him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
40 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

 

I would humbly suggest that the fact that the Democrats have so strongly criticised and are seeking removal from office, compared to Trumps lack of action and ignoring of the Steven King comments, and his lethargic comments about the Charlotesville, demonstrations with both sides having nice people, allows comment on this thread for comparatory reasons.

No need for humility. The analogy as I understand it is that the Democrats or some of them are seeking to remove this guy from office (have they succeeded yet and is he "gone by yesterday morning" as predicted?) while too many Republicans have failed to challenge Trump, whose indiscretions(to put it mildly)  are far greater and far more recent and of hugely greater import. I just think that a focus on Trump rather than trying to portray the Democrats as "holier than thou" would be more to the point. Or focus if you like. 

 

(And some people (not you) need to look up the meaning of trolling, and if they think I have been allowed to break the Board's rules, report me to the Mods).  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
36 minutes ago, XB52 said:

he really is best ignored. He just posts whatever he feels will get an argument, no matter the subject. Been trolling for years and seems to be allowed for some reason. As I say, best just put him on ignore as you can't argue with him

:greatpost:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, XB52 said:

he really is best ignored. He just posts whatever he feels will get an argument, no matter the subject. Been trolling for years and seems to be allowed for some reason. As I say, best just put him on ignore as you can't argue with him

 

I agree with your point about his making statements purely to get a reaction (trolling) and know I could be accused of falling for his shite when I replied. 

 

I genuinely don’t get the point of that sort of behaviour though. 

 

It’s like the the boy who cried ‘wolf’, try it too many times and nobody will take you seriously ever again. 

 

I never put anyone on ignore though, even when they’re howling to the moon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
1 hour ago, Ugly American said:

Meanwhile, the Senate has released internal documents showing that the theft and abuse of children at the border wasn't accidental.

 

They did it on purpose.

 

http://liblog.law.stanford.edu/2019/01/memorandum-reveals-united-states-government-planned-to-traumatize-migrant-children/

A "draft memorandum" doesn't "prove" anything. Though I don't doubt the Trump administration's intentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Les Izemore said:

 

Why would you think that’s what the post you quoted meant?

 

 

Your trolling is getting more transparent and pointless. 

You could write a huge post that captures perfectly what FA thinks, but he'll find the sentence that could be taken out of context and argue with you for days about it. It's just the way he is, my granny called it conter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

You could write a huge post that captures perfectly what FA thinks, but he'll find the sentence that could be taken out of context and argue with you for days about it. It's just the way he is, my granny called it conter.

 

Giving minimum oxygen to this discussion, a “conter” is still a phrase used in my family. I first heard it used by my great-grandmother, born 1899. 

 

It’s an an old argument. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governor Tarkin
13 hours ago, Smithee said:

You could write a huge post that captures perfectly what FA thinks, but he'll find the sentence that could be taken out of context and argue with you for days about it. 

 

That's what I like best about him tbh.

Most who question the general groupthink tend to improve the board. If you think the board should be a place for debate and discussion that is.

I still think he's full of it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

That's what I like best about him tbh.

Most who question the general groupthink tend to improve the board. If you think the board should be a place for debate and discussion that is.

I still think he's full of it though.

"General groupthink" is such crap though, everyone in here is an individual living their own life in their own house. In any large group there will be a significant number who happen to agree, that doesn't mean there's some groupthink to be sniped at from the sidelines. 

 

If I put in the effort to engage I prefer a bit of good faith back, and dislike someone deliberately ignoring the point to focus on some irrelevance. I have no problem with disagreement, it's a place for debate and discussion, but I do have a problem with being deliberately contrary - it's very boring and unrewarding to engage with.

 

To each their own though, just count me out 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

That's what I like best about him tbh.

Most who question the general groupthink tend to improve the board. If you think the board should be a place for debate and discussion that is.

I still think he's full of it though.

 

That’s a very balanced opinion of Trump, especially your last sentence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

"General groupthink" is such crap though, everyone in here is an individual living their own life in their own house. In any large group there will be a significant number who happen to agree, that doesn't mean there's some groupthink to be sniped at from the sidelines. 

 

If I put in the effort to engage I prefer a bit of good faith back, and dislike someone deliberately ignoring the point to focus on some irrelevance. I have no problem with disagreement, it's a place for debate and discussion, but I do have a problem with being deliberately contrary - it's very boring and unrewarding to engage with.

 

To each their own though, just count me out 

 

Well said, Smithee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governor Tarkin
3 hours ago, Smithee said:

"General groupthink" is such crap though, everyone in here is an individual living their own life in their own house.

 

It's not though, unless you insist on defining it in such narrow terms.

FA seems to gauge the general consensus - and it can be very general - then comes up with some point or other to challenge the assumptions that this consensus is built around.

He makes some good points and will occasionally admit when he's wrong.

 

3 hours ago, Smithee said:

If I put in the effort to engage I prefer a bit of good faith back, and dislike someone deliberately ignoring the point to focus on some irrelevance.

 

To be fair, you could be talking about any one of us with that one.

O wad some Power the giftie gie us, eh.

Edited by Governor Tarkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

It's not though, unless you insist on defining it in such narrow terms.

FA seems to gauge the general consensus - and it can be very general - then comes up with some point or other to challenge the assumptions that this consensus is built around.

He makes some good points and will occasionally admit when he's wrong.

 

 

To be fair, you could be talking about any one of us with that one.

O wad some Power the giftie gie us, eh.

Some people like to take the contrary view on almost every subject even if thats not their belief and its done behind the guise of debate.

 

If its your opinion then fair play discuss it and debate it but taking an alternative viewpoint and arguing it to death for the sake of it becomes exacerbating, as you're then only ever viewed as the person who appears to be antagonistic on everything.

 

Anyway whats the mad ******* been upto this week.

 

 

Edited by Jamboelite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

It's not though, unless you insist on defining it in such narrow terms.

FA seems to gauge the general consensus - and it can be very general - then comes up with some point or other to challenge the assumptions that this consensus is built around.

He makes some good points and will occasionally admit when he's wrong.

 

 

To be fair, you could be talking about any one of us with that one.

O wad some Power the giftie gie us, eh.

Groupthink and consensus aren't the same thing, there's a much more negative connotation to the term groupthink. And I'm not saying groupthink doesn't exist, I'm saying the term is often used as a way to dismiss a popular point of view, just because a lot of people share it.

 

You said your favourite thing about FA was his ability to find a sentence to disagree with even when he completely agrees with the post, but that's very different from challenging the assumptions that shape consensus. 

 

But whatever, I certainly didn't intend to talk about a poster at such length and don't want to bore anyone further.  At the end of the day none of us are perfect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governor Tarkin
2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

You said your favourite thing about FA was his ability to find a sentence to disagree with even when he completely agrees with the post, but that's very different from challenging the assumptions that shape consensus. 

 

I know, but I never said that challenging the assumptions that shape the consensus was my favourite thing about him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

That's what I like best about him tbh.

Most who question the general groupthink tend to improve the board. If you think the board should be a place for debate and discussion that is.

I still think he's full of it though.

 

Disagreement is a healthy thing but it should be honest, not manufactured disagreement. And the board should be a place where at the very least we figure out where the lines of honest disagreement are. Haphazardly taking the contrary point, often with effectively no understanding of or any attempt to understand the facts on the ground, as FA does so often, just turns the whole thing into a farce.

 

Relatedly, it's exactly what the President has done with political discourse in this country -- he has almost no positions that he actually strongly believes in, aside from having learned out how to profit from racism and xenophobia from his father. For every position he holds today, you can almost always find one that's the exact opposite in his tweets or statements from his past. (Hence the "Trump flip-flops" https://www.businessinsider.com/president-trump-flip-flops-made-from-tweets-2018-12#despite-making-only-three-flip-flop-designs-in-five-sizes-with-a-price-point-of-about-30-morrison-sold-every-single-trump-flip-flop-he-made-in-less-than-a-month-he-says-they-are-permanently-sold-out-15)

 

I enjoy a good argument far more than is healthy (which is probably why I spend so much time on this board) but at the same time, the joy of a good argument should never take more importance than, say, the moral horror of government agents intentionally stealing thousands children from their families, putting them in cages, then losing track of them, all for the sake of somehow scaring off people from trying to exercise their legal right to apply for asylum. If your response to that is to ignore the horror but try to find an angle that makes you feel clever and gives you the feeling of winning the argument, it doesn't make you helpfully contrarian, it makes you infuriating and toxic to sane discourse.

 

I really don't like putting people on ignore but I finally added FA this week because he's really reached new lows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

I know, but I never said that challenging the assumptions that shape the consensus was my favourite thing about him.

You're right, you didn't, I took from the flow of conversation that you were expanding on what you'd said, but fair enough.

Your actual favourite thing is his finding an ambiguity to argue with even when he agrees - seems mental to me but like I say, to each their own!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governor Tarkin
12 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Your actual favourite thing is his finding an ambiguity to argue with even when he agrees - seems mental to me but like I say, to each their own!

 

 

 

Sometimes the Devil is in the detail, buddy. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FA is quite right to challenge what he believes to wrong or not how he perceives the situation. As long as he can put his hand up when he's wrong. Healthy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Gordons Gloves

It's the SOTU tonight, should be fun.  I predict a few 'off script' rants about how shite the dems are and how 'sad' some things are.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Craig Gordons Gloves said:

It's the SOTU tonight, should be fun.  I predict a few 'off script' rants about how shite the dems are and how 'sad' some things are.  

SOTU Bingo? ?
- Wall

- No collusion

- State of Emergency

- Putin/ Kim Jong Un/Saudi King Salman = Good guy/Great Guy

- Pope Francis/Macron/Trudeau = Bad guy
- FBI/CIA slated for stupidity
- Fake News

- Never heard of/spoke to/or ever met George Papadopolous/ Paul Manafort/ Rick Gates/ Michael Flynn/ Roger Stone/Michael Cohen
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
3 hours ago, ri Alban said:

FA is quite right to challenge what he believes to wrong or not how he perceives the situation. As long as he can put his hand up when he's wrong. Healthy!

Thanks. Contrarian or "conter"?Guilty. I distrust unaninimity or near unanimity. You don't have to look to hard or too far back where such unanimity was disastrously wrong. A Trump sympathiser? Nonsense. I don't really see the point of competing to show I hate Trump more than others. That seems to me to be what many posters do. But that of course doesn't matter. But too many politicians and too much of the media seem to do so. Most of my criticism has been not of Trump (too easy) but of the pathetic opposition to Trump ... the heavily scripted comedians and talk show hosts who trivialise political debate and the Democrats and Republicans failure to offer much except a faith in the long shot of impeachment which even if it happens will be after Trump has served most of his first term ... at least.

Aplologies for the rant. Most of my critics apparently have me on ignore anyway ... a bit pathetic IMO but there you go.

 

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dump to parade a bullied schoolboy with his surname (unlucky kid) and victims of migrant crime at state of union. Maybe he can fit in those Bill Clinton accusers he used in the 2016 debates for a wee rerun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Thanks. Contrarian or "conter"?Guilty. I distrust unaninimity or near unanimity. You don't have to look to hard or too far back where such unanimity was disastrously wrong. A Trump sympathiser? Nonsense. I don't really see the point of competing to show I hate Trump more than others. That seems to me to be what many posters do. But that of course doesn't matter. But too many politicians and too much of the media seem to do so. Most of my criticism has been not of Trump (too easy) but of the pathetic opposition to Trump ... the heavily scripted comedians and talk show hosts who trivialise political debate and the Democrats and Republicans failure to offer much except a faith in the long shot of impeachment which even if it happens will be after Trump has served most of his first term ... at least.

Aplologies for the rant. Most of my critics apparently have me on ignore anyway ... a bit pathetic IMO but there you go.

 

 

I've always felt that you defended your corner in a reasonable manner, and I certainly don't view your posts as trolling.

 

But you often come across as a defender of Trump, even if that isn't what you've intended.  That's what happens when you criticise a Trump critic.

 

It's beyond doubt that Trump is a liar, a racist and a misogynist.  It's possible that he's also a traitor.  You stated previously that you don't want to "pile on", which is fair enough.  But why anyone would want to defend, even in the slightest, that abhorrent man is beyond me.

 

I doubt if there are many who seriously think that Trump will be impeached.  I don't.  The likeliest outcome is that he will be the Republican candidate in 2020, but it is possible that some financial dealings between the Trump empire and  Russia will be uncovered.  If that happens, and in view of his frequent denials, his position as POTUS will be untenable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Gordons Gloves

 

 

1 hour ago, RobboM said:

SOTU Bingo? ?
- Wall

- No collusion

- State of Emergency

- Putin/ Kim Jong Un/Saudi King Salman = Good guy/Great Guy

- Pope Francis/Macron/Trudeau = Bad guy
- FBI/CIA slated for stupidity
- Fake News

- Never heard of/spoke to/or ever met George Papadopolous/ Paul Manafort/ Rick Gates/ Michael Flynn/ Roger Stone/Michael Cohen
 

 

1 hour ago, Barack said:

 

It's meant to be fairly 'optimistic' going by what unknown aides are saying.

 

Nice thought of Pelosi, to invite two transgender soldiers to watch the SOTU too. 

 

Wall, is a certainty.

Caravan.

Secure Southern Border.

Greatest achievements of any President, in their first two years.

Great.

 

 

Drugs are killing you and they come from illegal immigrants.

I have no idea who Don Jr is or who he spoke to.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
25 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I've always felt that you defended your corner in a reasonable manner, and I certainly don't view your posts as trolling.

 

But you often come across as a defender of Trump, even if that isn't what you've intended.  That's what happens when you criticise a Trump critic.

 

It's beyond doubt that Trump is a liar, a racist and a misogynist.  It's possible that he's also a traitor.  You stated previously that you don't want to "pile on", which is fair enough.  But why anyone would want to defend, even in the slightest, that abhorrent man is beyond me.

 

I doubt if there are many who seriously think that Trump will be impeached.  I don't.  The likeliest outcome is that he will be the Republican candidate in 2020, but it is possible that some financial dealings between the Trump empire and  Russia will be uncovered.  If that happens, and in view of his frequent denials, his position as POTUS will be untenable.

Ok where and when have i "defended" Trump? Even in the slightest. Criticising a Trump critic doesn't count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Barack said:

Wonder if Coyotes might get a mention again.

 

Child exploiting Coyotes, no less. 

well they are wylie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Ok where and when have i "defended" Trump? Even in the slightest. Criticising a Trump critic doesn't count.

 

Yes it does.

 

From your post 30 minutes ago, you stated ... "Most of my criticism has been not of Trump (too easy) but of the pathetic opposition to Trump."

 

Criticising opposition to Trump is defending him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
3 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Yes it does.

 

From your post 30 minutes ago, you stated ... "Most of my criticism has been not of Trump (too easy) but of the pathetic opposition to Trump."

 

Criticising opposition to Trump is defending him.

Well I disagree.

Was about to appologise for what came out as an aggresive response to you. 

But criticising the stupidity and ineffectiveness of much criticism of Trump is not the same as defendingTrump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Well I disagree.

Was about to appologise for what came out as an aggresive response to you. 

But criticising the stupidity and ineffectiveness of much criticism of Trump is not the same as defendingTrump. 

 

It's OK.  I can handle aggressiveness.

 

All I know about your position regarding Trump is what you've posted on this thread.  On numerous occasions you've criticised other posters for their comments on Trump.  Are you claiming that all of those posts you criticised were stupid and ineffective?

 

And can't you see, by doing that for the better part of two years, you will be viewed as a Trump defender? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

Real ugly ones, Justin, mate. :(

 

:lol: This is the danger of turning on the news these days with Trump as president

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Barack said:

Wonder if Coyotes might get a mention again.

 

Child exploiting Coyotes, no less. 

 

Would be ironic, considering the link UA posted about the administration intentionally separating children from their parents in order to inflict emotional distress on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Barack said:

Porcupines, have been linked to the sex-trafficking, of illegal Drug-Lord Latino babies.

 

I want that mentioned.

 

Porcupines . . . or hedgehogs?

 

image.thumb.png.8d2e37fca02dc4de4d07e9c782c8b5dc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
21 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

It's OK.  I can handle aggressiveness.

 

All I know about your position regarding Trump is what you've posted on this thread.  On numerous occasions you've criticised other posters for their comments on Trump.  Are you claiming that all of those posts you criticised were stupid and ineffective?

 

And can't you see, by doing that for the better part of two years, you will be viewed as a Trump defender? 

No. I just thought those posts did not address the real issue. Which is not that Trump is all that you and others repeatedly say - he is vile idiotic etc etc but that the opposition to.him has been incompetent. And will going on being so as long as the "we hate Trump more than you" competition goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

No. I just thought those posts did not address the real issue. Which is not that Trump is all that you and others repeatedly say - he is vile idiotic etc etc but that the opposition to.him has been incompetent. And will going on being so as long as the "we hate Trump more than you" competition goes on.

Incompetent?

 

If you're watching the address tonight, you'll notice the person to his right is different.

 

Kind of important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Thanks. Contrarian or "conter"?Guilty. I distrust unaninimity or near unanimity. You don't have to look to hard or too far back where such unanimity was disastrously wrong. A Trump sympathiser? Nonsense. I don't really see the point of competing to show I hate Trump more than others. That seems to me to be what many posters do. But that of course doesn't matter. But too many politicians and too much of the media seem to do so. Most of my criticism has been not of Trump (too easy) but of the pathetic opposition to Trump ... the heavily scripted comedians and talk show hosts who trivialise political debate and the Democrats and Republicans failure to offer much except a faith in the long shot of impeachment which even if it happens will be after Trump has served most of his first term ... at least.

Aplologies for the rant. Most of my critics apparently have me on ignore anyway ... a bit pathetic IMO but there you go.

Nothing wrong with a good rant, better that, than some of the shite that you see these days.

I don't see the point in ignoring someone else's point of views. Challenge them if you think they're wrong, or don't. Just don't read what confirms your own and accept it when someone shows the truth. That's what gets on my tits. ✌️

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

“If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation." :rofl:

 

To use an overused expression on JKB, that line was cringe worthy. :facepalm:

The brightest part of the speech, to me, was where he was touting the fact that so many women in America had got jobs last year, and all the newly-elected Democratic Congresswomen jumped up and pointed to themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DETTY29 said:

Yee-ha.

 

America would have been at war with North Korea by now if he hadn't  been elected. 

 

Kim has done very nicely out of clueless unfit buffoon Trump. His regime was in deep trouble until Donnie enabled him on the world stage for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

To use an overused expression on JKB, that line was cringe worthy. :facepalm:

The brightest part of the speech, to me, was where he was touting the fact that so many women in America had got jobs last year, and all the newly-elected Democratic Congresswomen jumped up and pointed to themselves. 

 

He actually said, "you weren't supposed to do that!"

 

What a trainwreck of a speech. He does fear and loathing as well as any politician in my lifetime, but now with the House in Democratic hands he has to do "unity." So his version of unity is, "let's all come together in peace and harmony and if you don't do it my way I'M GOING TO START KILLING PEOPLE!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Maple Leaf changed the title to U.S. Politics megathread (merged)
  • Kalamazoo Jambo changed the title to U.S. Politics megathread (title updated)

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...