Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - D.W.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 50
For awhile I was hoping similar logic would force Congress to 'solve' the immigration issue.  But it seems nothing can convince either side to fix something they don't want fixed...  We've just upped the stakes on how the topic can be leveraged.   :'(

Well said. 

Kinda like surfing the seedy parts of the internet to check if your virus and popup blocker really works as well as advertised or not.   ;D

This is like one of those color blind tests.  We know we are both looking at the same thing, but see entirely different pictures.  Every once in awhile, if I squint and turn my head just right, I can KINDA see what they are talking about before I lose it again.

TheDrake:  I'm concerned because of {list}
Seriati:  I'm comfortable with Trump because of how he's addressed {list}

means WS actually believes Trump is a murderer in waiting, too...
Trump DOES have a concealed carry permit, doesn't/didn't he?  I seem to recall reading that.  :P  So who knows!  haha

If you want to omit him from the "we" go right ahead, but that's not really the issue I'm raising, which is that there is a direct threat perceived from Trump and that the question is not truly hypothetical for you. Saying you don't really think murder is the threat is a misdirect since you (apparently) do seem to think there is a threat.
I think there is a threat of a threat.  :)  Meaning I fully expect him to make threats in line with him doing some extra-legal power grab; still short of murder, "but hey, you know, people love him, and some of those people... you know, they have guns.  And those people, let me tell you, they will fight for me." 

But at the end of the day, he'll be out, someone else will be in.  He'll do something, or at least propose something, wacky to cover his ass, it won't work, and we swear in the next POTUS.  Or maybe an ally of his will be in office next, and they will sweep any (alleged) crimes under the rug so "the nation can move on", and that's that, much to the outrage for that person's full term in office.

I don't know why you have such a bee in your bonnet, but it's absurd to keep acting like it's not on the table, when I LITERALLY had to respond to the hypo that our systems make not be adequate because the President could murder Congress.
I didn't realize I was the one with a bee in my bonnet.  :) 

To me this is akin to how we pick each other's metaphors apart when we are talking about something else, not literally stated. 

As to the sated, literal hypothetical?  :)

One or more Secret Service agents or sgt. at arms, on hand would snuff him out and accept the consequences for the good of his country should Trump, seriously, and literally start trying to execute congress... personally.  The End.   ::)

For instance there hasn't been and never, ever was a thread entitled "Obama could murder someone on 5th Ave and get away with it" because Obama was a chill dude.
Or just maybe it's because Obama never jokingly claimed he could do so...    ::)

Actually D.W. I think you're underplaying a literal narrative that's been in the air for a while, which is that Trump is a literal tyrant and may not give up the Presidency when his term is up.
IMO Trump WANTS to be a tyrant.  He admires people with tyranty qualities.  His 'style' is ill suited for democracy, and he knows it.  Will he push things as far as possible?  Yes, but so have those before him, most recently one of the party I favor.  Will he do so without care of how bad it looks?  Here is where he sets himself apart with a resounding YES.  Icing on the cake, he likes to imply or joke about tipping over that tyrant line.  Of civil war, riots in the street, a populous uprising to defend him. 

It's all in terribly bad taste, but that doesn't make him a tyrant.  Our system is pretty good at preventing that.  (as this discussion is pointing out)  We are talking a mass execution of congress for it to go down.  Complicity or at least strife caused paralysis of pretty much all of our law enforcement systems and even military.  It's implausible to the point of being discussed purely for entertainment value and (this is important) being a metaphor for what a prick this guy is for stress testing our system in this way.

Yes, Trump riles up a lot of people.  But no matter how much some people like to trot out OMB and TDS, we will never live up to the craziness with which the left are portrayed in the minds of those using such labels.

Apparently you did.  We are not "worried about it", because this is not a thread discussing how best to overthrow the tyrant.  It's not even seriously about war-gaming such a situation.  This is about the legal protections offered to the office and what the extents of them are, and... if the way they are understood is a "correct" interpretation of our system, with a hint of "should it be though?" tossed in for flavor.

Murder, is shorthand for asking if the protection is absolute.  We do this because setting a standard somewhere between "technically a crime but we aren't going to upend the government for THAT" and "what if he just starts a murder spree?" is not useful to discussion.  It's too subjective as our system insures that if you look hard enough everyone in that office would run afoul of SOME law, and that shouldn't get them bounced out of office.  But trying to codify the law and make a line in the sand is something we'd never agree upon.  So... MURDER!

With us now?

Nobody is honestly worried about Trump personally murdering anyone.  Only he, and his attorney have floated that hypothetical.  We DO think about other legal issues though.  But IF we are going to entertain Trump going (more?) mad and starting with the murderin' then... why stop with just one!  The preposterous scenarios are to demonstrate how preposterous Trump and this one guy (if not his team) are being in their "defense" or plea to end oversight (translate that to witch hunts if it's too loaded a term for ya Crunch).

second, the US Armed Forces would squash a revolt of armed citizens flat.
Bull.  You would be lucky to hang onto half of them.  The internal strife would be truly stunning before we even had to consider armed civilians.  And THAT assumes the secret service are all in lock step with the President's... coup?  No, umm... consoildation of power!

Gods, you guys are a bloody-minded lot.
Political Action Thrillers are interesting thought experiments.  At least for this bloody-minded poster.  :P

It was the flip side they were worried about.  Frivolous lawsuits bombarding a president with demands for appearance (and his attention) such that he couldn't actually do his job.

This is just the law of unintended consequences.  They did give the protection a safety feature though.  (they were damn good at those)

This "feature" however is what is freaking the President out right now.  He is looking at it as if it was a trial.  Not to downplay the seriousness of impeachment, but one reason it exists, is to remove that protection.  (so there could be a trial)

The most controversial part of the whole hypothetical is WTF secret service was up to while this event went down?

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 23, 2019, 02:10:00 PM »
I hear what your saying and how from that perspective - all those that disagree with Trump handling of some issue comes from a place where they have determined he is guilty from the election on.
Don't be silly.  We thought this long before he ever ran for office.  We just didn't care about him enough to make issue of it.   ;D

General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 23, 2019, 02:06:52 PM »
Quick aside, sorry:
Can anyone give me an example of another habitual/regular user of "Truthful Hyperbole"?   (A phrase I always felt was just a polite way of saying, "Ignore his spewing of BS, he's telling a story, not saying anything you are suppose to take at face value.")

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 23, 2019, 10:16:01 AM »
If he does appear on tape, would you wonder if it wasn't a deep fake
In all honesty?  Yes, we should wonder that.  It's coming any day now.  If not him, some other prominent politician. 

Ya, my friends in the security field are still... unimpressed, with facial recognition tech when it comes to non white faces.   :-\ 

If you are letting automation decide who to hire, that only tells me what you are looking for is an automaton, not a person.   ::)

General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 22, 2019, 05:06:41 PM »
That was a particularly depressing lens to see Democratic party through.  I'll clue you in, but you probably won't believe me.  Some of us, no, MOST of us, actually DO give a *censored*, and aren't putting on an act to keep 'our team' in power.  I'm not sure what for... if the policies we peruse are largely all self serving and insincere?
Okay, but why?
  Because without a realistic hope of employment without going through official channels the draw of entering and living "illegally" goes away.  My sneaking suspicion is that within 2-5 years of strict enforcement, the businesses who previously exploited these people will be begging the lawmakers to fix our immigration (or at least work visa) programs.  If that requires a bit of welfare and social support within that time-frame, I think it's worth it.   
All of that is like treating the symptom and leaving the illness alone.
It's the exact opposite of that.  Trump tried to frame it as if the choice to come here could lead to unimaginable sorrow for your family.  Unfortunately it can STILL lead to amazing opportunities for a better life.  We are incentivizing breaking the law.  You are hung up on providing services to these people.  What people if they know when they get here they cannot get a job unless they enter legally. 

Nothing that has been proposed is comprehensive.

However its clear at least half the population doesn't respond well to the method and wonder if there is more intended.
It's worse than that.  A good deal of them don't wonder at all.  They "know" what was intended.  That's where the different set of "facts" line comes into play.  It's not ALL bull, though most of the time that just means Trump is making poop up again, in this case it really is about people hearing two entirely different messages when he speaks.  Or, more accurately, three different messages.  The middle and the extremes on both sides.

General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 22, 2019, 02:10:39 PM »
I understand that you think the (out of context) statement from Trump is a "dog whistle" and means something completely different from how I'm interpreting it.
The question I have, is:  is this how you believe Trump meant it?  How YOU interpreting it, could just be another way of saying, "what I would like to believe he meant".  Or "this is how I have to rationalize it". 

As much as Trump bemoans the media, he loves it.  He plays it well.  It's where he lives and breaths.  In almost any other situation I would agree with the points you are making TheDeamon.  But the man is trolling the left.  He identifies buttons and pushes them.  He wants his opponents distracted and operating on constant outrage.  It keeps him (or at least his persona) firmly in the spotlight while things continue to get done.

He gives a wink and a nod to his extreme base while tweaking his extreme opponents, leaving those few still "in the middle" parsing out exactly what he said and in what context.  Either defending or at least questing if it's really as bad as all that. 

So how does someone being targeted by outrageous statements communicate with someone deaf to the dog whistles?  Do you just insist that the whistle noise must be imagined?  I mean, one group is barking and another group is whining and acting very agitated.  They both indicate the same thing caused their reaction. 

Is the advice to ignore it?  It's not "real" because YOU are sure he didn't mean it? 

If it was JUST the tiny sliver of hyper sensitive lefties out there pointing fingers, I'd be inclined to agree.  As I've said before, there is a growing portion on both sides of the red/blue divide that are spoiling for a fight.  They both heard something. 

General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 22, 2019, 12:45:50 PM »
Ellen Degeneres felt compelled to make a statment about how this event took place. I think it says a lot about the current political climate that she felt it even needed to be publicly addressed.
You say this as if it was a threat to her that she had to address or lose dollars / status.  What happened was a chance encounter was leveraged for attention.  That says a lot more about the current media climate than it does about politics.    ::)

General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 22, 2019, 11:57:55 AM »
I don’t know if Trump has done that, I think he likes to play on the edge, so its a fair concern.
To be fair to Trump, his opponent gives the same impression.  So I think it was more about ethics than preventing bending of the law.

That's a problem for the political elite, cause they don't want that to happen, and particularly a problem for the Democrats are they are counting on demographic shift to deliver them a "permanent majority."  So what to do?
I gotta say, if these' "political elite" crafted this mind trap they are savants.  This is as close to perfect as it gets.  Because that sure as *censored* sounds like, "We gotta stop those Democrats so they don't taint our nations white purity!"

Not to mention it also makes the bizzaro assumption that the Republican party has absolutely nothing to offer non-whites.  Yikes!  I mean.  If there IS a cabal of "political elite" out there crafting this narrative, and you know, not just the whole shining beacon inspiring people to long for a better life here in our country, because... you know, we're awesome like that, (not to mention population / birth rate demographics), then those "elites" have earned their label.  They are mighty indeed.   ::)

If you really care why aren't you demanding your Congresspeople get to the table and fund and reform the system?  Why aren't they already doing that if this is really a battle against racism?
My preferred method is penalties to the point of asset seizure for anyone employing illegals.  Then we can ramp up legal immigration when the need for those workers is painfully (economically) obvious.  The use of bigger and bigger sticks while the carrots are still left out and encouraged is reprehensible.  But both sides seem to be cool with it, because that's how our economy works!  Oh well.

General Comments / Re: Innocent Hillary
« on: October 21, 2019, 04:27:47 PM »
Take a simple one.
Obama had child separation happening on his watch.
While the media admittedly didn't point this out, such that I didn't even know it was a thing until Trump came along, it happened.  I think most on the left accept/justify/rationalize this as a terrible unintended consequence of our laws and see it as proof that the current system is flawed and needs addressed now.

On Trump's watch though, it is viewed as a cudgel, meant to terrify those contemplating coming here with the threat their children will be taken from them, potentially kept here while the parents are sent back.  If we don't, you know, loose them, or let them get sick, or even die on our watch.  But you know, those are the chances you take!  It's YOUR fault you terrible parents for even contemplating breaking our laws. 

Same policy, optics matter.  In this case, Obama no doubt had the media on his side.  He also wasn't broadcasting a threat to prospective illegal crosser or asylum seekers.  HOW a thing is done, is often more important than IF a thing is done when it comes to politics.

Trump's "sin" is shattering the illusion that we are all good people in this together who happen to have some differences of opinion on how that happens.  It wasn't all kittens and rainbows when Obama was in office, but I'm still convinced (barring some legit gripes about Executive power consolidation) that was mostly about the backlash of closet racism outraged some of the country felt ready for a black president.  Also related to the audacity of those who felt we were ready for a woman president... 

I'm truly sorry for those who still do fit in the "I want what's best for this country but think you Democrats got it all wrong" category.  It's not fair you get hit as collateral damage.  But, like Trump's supporters.  We also need to keep fighting.  I suppose as compensation you get to hold your nose for HOW policy is being made, and just look at the technical merits of what is being done.  So that's something, I guess.

General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 21, 2019, 04:11:51 PM »
Border security, an offshoot on solving our illegal immigration problem, is one policy I can get behind, I even brought that up just the other day as an example.  You cannot find a "majority" of Americans who agree with how he's perused that policy though. 

I can not count how many times I asked what her issues were and none of her supporters could tell you.
Because she was a terrible candidate.  /shrug  I'm sure not going to defend her. 

General Comments / Re: Innocent Hillary
« on: October 21, 2019, 03:37:28 PM »
But, unless I'm grossly mistaken, you don't know Donald Trump. All you see of him is the publicly-presented character; and yes, it's a character because every public person is presenting a character, even if sometimes it's closer or futher from their 'normal self'.
Good points.  I don't know him.  My problem is with his "persona".  That persona is not presidential.  It's barely that of a functioning adult.  I understand that persona was seen as entertaining to others to watch on TV.  I even understand, in theory, how that persona could (maybe?) function in a business setting.  At least one based upon tending to competing ego's as a major component to getting anything done.

But none of that translates to the prestige of the office or as someone representing all of the people of the United States of America.  Or the commander in chief of our troops. 

Maybe the pettiness, the bungling, the appointing sycophants (or family), the lying, the (appearance of?) refusal to take advice... maybe these are all just part of a persona. 

How is that not worse?  That changes it from being unfit for the office into active sabotage!

General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 21, 2019, 03:28:51 PM »
I like coming here.  It's right in the name.  I can always count on getting a hit of that, "wow, and I thought *I* was cynical."  :)

Would it scare you to consider that that's all it ever was, and the rest was self-delusion?
People go on and on about how dishonest Trump is and how he is a constant pathological liar. 

I would suggest his inability to act (just another form of lying) is one of his biggest detriments.  We need to believe that these people we grant all this power over us have our best interests at heart.  Sure we may know they are selfish and power hungry, but we still need to believe that story we tell ourselves.  Any time it's blatantly demonstrated to be just self-delusion, that politician loses their job.  At least in a well functioning democracy anyhow.

Did Trump telegraph his punches on the campaign trail?  Yep.  Doesn't mean he's doing what's best for the country.  Just that he does what he needs to show he's fighting.  Who hardly matters.  As long as he's a fighter and not letting whoever it is, get the best of him.  And insuring the list of potential enemies to fight keeps growing.  Democrats?  Hillary?  Illegals?  PC culture?  The Media?  Jhina?  Iran?  AntiFa?  The Deepstate?  Enemies everywhere.  But he's fighting!  Unifying and leading are boring.  We want FIGHTERS!

General Comments / Re: Innocent Hillary
« on: October 21, 2019, 02:53:59 PM »
I tend to agree.  But making the effort, is generally a pre-condition to retaining one's job/position.  Those unable to act... sociable, are not often welcome socially.  At least not in the long term.

General Comments / Re: Innocent Hillary
« on: October 21, 2019, 02:18:44 PM »
I know some people who can still do their job, and put on a publicly acceptable face, who know better than to express the disgust they feel for coworkers or customers or even the general public.

They aren't linked. 

General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 21, 2019, 02:15:28 PM »
The concept of "doing what's best for the country" is a sort of slogan that doesn't cover the context of both the office as it is or the way people think; especially those who hunger for political power.
Previously, the path to that political power, was by appearing, and campaigning, and promising, and (sometimes) fulfilling those promises, to make at least your base and enough of the center believe you were indeed "doing what's best for the country". 

What terrifies me now, is we see that someone can fulfill that hunger, and needn't do any convincing beyond selling a few red hats with a slogan on it. 

General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 21, 2019, 12:37:51 PM »
At least politically, they all pretty much are pursuing goals that they could (and in most cases probably do) believe are good for the country.
Right here you nail the heart of the matter.  I have believed this of every other president, regardless of party my whole life.  I may have thought they were foolishly or recklessly wrong, but I did believe that. 

I don't with Trump. 

General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 21, 2019, 11:47:32 AM »
That is a radically different perspective than mine.

Would you at least concede that "the media" has an abnormally larger bug up their rumps regarding Trump in particular then?  Or do you just see this DNC puppetry as par for the course? 

How do YOU view Trump (in terms of troubling/evil) compared to other former presidents or candidates in his party?  Just more of the same unfairly maligned by The Media?

General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 21, 2019, 10:42:08 AM »
If you truly believe that, then what changed about "the media"?  What new skill did they develop this cycle?  I don't remember thinking any former presidents were evil incarnate.

The Media is bad.  Nothing to do with Trump himself.  I've been duped huh?  Half the country or more... duped by their "game"?  Hey I get it, a lot of people like the policies goin down right now.  Don't try to pretend it wasn't a deal with the devil to get them through. 

Now, I do think Pence is a fanatic.  Not evil, but as someone who wants religion as far from politics as possible he is disturbing, but evil incarnate?  Nahh.  Still dangerous though.  But I guess that's just me being played as well.

General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 21, 2019, 10:34:59 AM »
Are we arguing it did/did not happen?  Here I thought it was an argument as to what extent it matters? 
This topic, and the (fair or not) general impression I get of her doing whatever it is she thinks she can get away with while avoiding prosecution, is why I desperately wanted her to fail to gain the party nomination.  That and being married to a former president.  (Down with dynastic rule!)  :P

Did I compromise my standards in order to try and defeat Trump?  Yep. 

She deliberately flaunted the system to avoid FOIA.  It does matter to me.  Just, as it happens, not as much as preventing Trump from winning.  What makes me scratch my head and ponder is if it was Hillary vs. an actual sane Republican nominee, would I have tossed in a protest vote knowing a SC seat or two was in the balance?  Kinda glad I didn't have to find out that answer.  (Well, not really, given the outcome...)  :P

General Comments / Re: Innocent Hillary
« on: October 21, 2019, 09:56:29 AM »
Maybe Trump is a singularity. Perhaps families wouldn't be breaking themselves apart if it wasn't for Trump and people wouldn't be beating each other up in the streets, hitting someone for wearing the wrong kind of hat and so forth.
I think that's a pretty sure bet, unless Trump has forever tipped us towards celebrity politics.  Can you remember another president having a "brand", let alone people displaying that on a hat?  His pompousness and in your face "fight" towards "the enemy", be that the press, the liberals, the illegals or whatever, is what some people gravitate towards.  His "brand" is shorthand for that. 

People were frustrated (on both sides), that's kinda the nature of this point in history.  Trump, to his credit, noticed this, and tapped into it (or just got REALLY REALLY lucky and his personality just struck a chord right now?).  People wanted to fight.  Being passive was no longer acceptable.  Trump showed he wanted to fight.  I'm pretty nauseated by WHAT he chooses to fight, but he is unapologetically confrontational. 

People keep talking about how the left has changed.  Yes, just like ALL of the U.S. did.  Just like Cherry said, "No forgiveness. No understanding. No meeting anyone half way or trying to see things from their point of view. No agreeing to disagree. No mercy."  There are some like that for sure.  The common thread, is A LOT more people refuse to be passive.  Our world is more connected, we're all "wired in" and we see direct and sometimes instant results in what happens to this world and politics.  Of course both sides are more passionate now.  You have to make an effort to "unplug" enough not to feel a sense of urgency anymore.

General Comments / Re: Innocent Hillary
« on: October 21, 2019, 09:47:01 AM »
This seems to brush opposition to Trump based on only WHO he is.  I think that's a part of it but seems too much of an excuse.  It's also HOW he does things. 

The President taking steps to force congress to act on immigration?  I am behind that.  I could probably even excuse some draconian measures to force their hand.  But HOW Trump has approached this?  Walls, scare tactics and increasing human suffering in a way that all seems to be more a goal than a tactic for true reform?  I cannot excuse that.

The President taking a hard-line economically with China?  I am behind that.  A one man trade war that teeters on his whims while he is increasingly unpopular enough that China would be silly not to wait it out and see if there is a backlash to him placing someone in office eager to hit the "undo button" on everything about his administration (just as Trump is when it comes to Obama)...  Ya, not so much.  Come up with a PLAN!  Sowing chaos in an attempt to get China to make a deal while we play economic chicken is not a tactic that inspires confidence.

The President bringing our troops back home when our objectives have been met?  I am behind that as well.  Doing so in a way that all but guarantees a tragedy with zero time for anyone on the international stage to even attempt to mitigate it?  That is disgusting and tarnishes our national representation.

Then there's the other policies of his I cannot stand, but, most of those are just R. vs D. or conservative vs progressive, or caveman theocrat vs actual evolved humans.  :P

General Comments / Re: G7 2020
« on: October 20, 2019, 02:30:16 PM »
Ohh, too true Crunch.  I assume it was his supporters / side all telling him, "You cannot DO this!  It's a terrible idea sir!  Please, for the love of God, quit trying to give them rope to hang you with.  Are you TRYING to lose the next election?"

Even then, I'll grant you I'm surprised he'd be swayed.  ;)

General Comments / Re: They’re all Russian agents
« on: October 20, 2019, 02:27:32 PM »
It hasn't come back to bite Hillary yet.   ;D
(Well, it did partly cost her an election, so... lesson learned!)

General Comments / Re: Innocent Hillary
« on: October 20, 2019, 02:24:23 PM »
When I say "I want a president" I'm measuring by the bar set by those before Trump.  Did I make jokes about Bush Jr. being a little dim?  Ya, guilty.  But even he acted in a demeanor I consider "presidential".  Does that sometimes lean on prepared speeches and a whole team of advisiors propping one up to make one look MORE presidential?  Sure.  That's the job.

The person holding the office is intended to represent the nation.  Even if they more heavily represent their party's interest, they are still suppose to represent who we are as a nation and project what we (at least claim to) represent on the international stage. 

Trump presents himself as ONLY a TV star or sometimes, a businessman looking for the next deal.  He is obsessed with attention grabbing (increasing ratings/viewership) and causing chaos/distractions (business tactics?)  None of it leads to an image of someone level headed and informed, responsible for guiding this country forward (as his politics see best fit for all of us).  It goes way beyond Democrat vs Republican.  I just want someone who seems like a grown up, and up to the significant challenge of that office.

So yes, that person has existed in every case up until this one.  They may not be there persuing the policies I want, but there are people out there who can act "presidential".  Just not Trump.  (apparently)  I mean, I've seen him give a couple scripted speeches that nail it.  Unfortunately even those, in several cases, he "clarified" to the point of making them meaningless shortly after.  He WANTS to be seen as unpredictable and chaotic.  That's who he is and how he operates.  It does not fit with the office of the president.

General Comments / Re: G7 2020
« on: October 19, 2019, 11:50:12 PM »
Umm, the "carrying on" got it stopped.  :P

General Comments / Re: Innocent Hillary
« on: October 19, 2019, 09:30:29 PM »
I don't think she would be making us a laughing stock abroad.  I don't think she would be AS divisive (though still a good deal too divisive) to this country.  I don't think she would be encouraging racism.  I don't believe she is an idiot. 

I want a president.  Not a sad pathetic joke of a shady businessman turned reality star trying to dismantle this government piece by piece as if he was going to earn a bonus check based upon how good a job he does tearing apart and weakening this country.

In short, even if the worst of what you believe about Hillary was the case, I'd rather have her in office right now and under investigation waiting for the system to remove her.  I wouldn't be wondering how many decades it would take to un*censored* what she's doing while still in power. 

That my bar is now that low, is depressing beyond belief to me, but here we are. 

General Comments / Re: They’re all Russian agents
« on: October 19, 2019, 01:09:30 PM »
I also found her statement particularly nauseating. 

Her statement made it sound like anyone targeted by the Russians needs to immediately drop out of any race or be labeled an "asset".  Not accused of cooperating or coordinating with them... just being USED by the Russians makes you an asset?  WTF? 

She and the Democratic party loyalist bear zero responsibility for putting Trump in office?  Are THEY all "assets"?  I guess that word is only for those who don't toe the party line?

It IS insanity.  Be assured far fewer of us buy into this BS of our "party leadership" than seems to be the case on your side.   :P

General Comments / Re: Innocent Hillary
« on: October 19, 2019, 12:59:02 PM »
Pure as the driven snow?   :o
Voting for her was one of the most disappointing things I've done at the ballot box, but despite all her failings, I'd still take her over Trump any day. 

While there are some who no doubt feel the way you do, don't assume just because some of us didn't want Trump in office we somehow supported his opponent.  That was the first election I voted against someone, rather than for someone.

General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 19, 2019, 12:00:15 PM »
The way I look at it is views I oppose are obviously out there, and in significant numbers.  The more I can understand the lines of reasoning behind them, the less confused/enraged I find myself.  I may never agree, but getting away from, "Are these people *censored*ing insane!?!" is a good start.  :P

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 18, 2019, 03:33:07 PM »
Okay.  Are you opposed to the head of the executive branch doing what the executive branch is charged to do?  The reason to consider how it seems to those living under Oligarchs is simply that no one but the President himself may have been in a position to convince them that a fair investigation of a Vice President's son would be okay.  Without the President's personal involvement, it's very possible they would deem the request as something that should be ignored as potentially triggering another attack by an Oligarch (e.g., like when Joe Biden threatened them with pulling $1B in aide).
This seems reasonable but I fear there's a trap in there.  We need to abide by OUR laws and processes and ethics.  Not simply "speak their language" when it comes to dealing with other countries. 

General Comments / Re: G7 2020
« on: October 18, 2019, 01:30:18 PM »
Honestly, even if it cost Trump money to host, they shouldn't be hosting anywhere he and his direct family have active business ties.  It's almost as if we should have rules against this kinda thing to keep everyone on the up and up...

General Comments / Re: G7 2020
« on: October 18, 2019, 01:13:55 PM »
On the flip side, imagine all the nice things people would have to say about Trump if he hosted it at cost, were he not the president.  :P 

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 18, 2019, 01:10:04 PM »
What do you think is "counter-factual."
I don't know enough to point to things.  But scifibum brought up 4chan inventions.  That would be an example of what I meant, not that *I* had further info to toss into the ring.

The reason I asked about the timeline (which you seemed to hedge a bit on there) was that it does matter if the efforts to get him replaced took place during or after an investigation into Biden's son. 

I'm all for shutting down VIP kids from cashing in off their daddy's positions.  I'm sure not going to defend him.  I'm perfectly happy to compartmentalize this one and investigate both Biden and Trump.  :P  I'm pro transparency and anti-nepotism / dynasties. 

At this point I don't much care how it "seems" to those living under Oligarchs.  I'm only interested in holding OUR elected officials to the law, and doing what we can to stop Oligarchs here at home from consolidating power.

It IS terrible.  Nobody should have to tell you this. 
What is important is the follow up.  "So what SHOULD he have done?"  And IMO there are no good answers.

I think a simple, "we are pulling out by X date.  We are concerned for the safety of our allies in the region but we cannot stay here indefinitely.  We would ask the other NATO members to assist Turkey in reaching a peaceful end to hostilities in our absence." 

Just giving a window and NATO time to react would not obligate us to be the forever shield of the Kurds or obligating us to assist in setting up a Kurdish state.   

This is a terrible situation, but I'm not convinced it was ours to "fix", though at least making a genuine effort to stop Turkey from doing something outrageous... would have been nice.  Although Trump did show some masterful statecraft in his letter, apparently that didn't cut it.  :P

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 17, 2019, 08:27:19 PM »
ow think about how it looked from their perspective that Hunter got a seat on the board of gas company, controlled by a Ukranian oligarch, at the same time his father was vice president, and miraculously thereafter, the US and EU pressure the government to end an investigation into that company, US and European policy expressly becomes to favor Ukranian gas and the legal obstacles that company was facing in the EU are "resolved" after Hunter advises them on which legal counsel to retain.
Seriati, I expect you've looked into this a lot more than me.  Are you confident in the timeline as you've outlined above?

Also, I  don't think anyone has suggested Biden is or should be immune from investigation.  Just that some of the things he's accused of are to greater or lesser extent... counter-factual

General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 17, 2019, 05:24:39 PM »
It is a silly reason to ask to be unregistered.  :)  Now if you're a self diagnosed internet addict...

Not that I would know anything about that.   ;D

General Comments / Re: The impossible economy
« on: October 17, 2019, 05:22:29 PM »
Except for your use of "intentionally" which I think you just made up, this is literally the definition of a competitive labor market.
Not sure I follow what you mean by "made up" but the "intentionally" was key to the point.  Maybe I'm wrong but I thought Crunch was illustrating how the average worker pay was going up while bemoaning that his company was losing workers because they were paying less.  As he is one who recently taut the incredible economy, I found this interesting.  That somehow businesses who refuse to raise pay were generating these worker increases, by pushing people into the arms of others, who I guess CAN afford to do so.  Yes, I get this is how the labor market works, I just found it amusing that the simple solution of: "pay them more", seemed to be off the table.  So I assume self-sacrifice of accepting high turnover for the greater good was at play.  After all, workers cannot get ahead, if they aren't behind at some point I guess.   ::)

For your second question, I'm a terrible example.  I've stayed put when many others in my field have swapped companies to get ahead.  I don't know if it's loyalty, comfort or risk aversion or what, but I've not made my career ship jumping.  Surely to the overall detriment of my potential salary.  Your point is valid, but I'm probably a statistical anomaly on that front.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 50