logo Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 38

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

ferris209 said:

Second, Washington D.C. is located in a heavily Democrat city (you can tell by the high crime rate and high level of poverty)

Yeah that’s great. Time to stop reading your posts.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

ferris209 said:

Second, Washington D.C. is located in a heavily Democrat city (you can tell by the high crime rate and high level of poverty)

Yeah that’s great. Time to stop reading your posts.

Quit making promises you can’t keep. 😉

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ferris209 said:

I really don’t understand the point from either side, the whining of the Trumpets, or the gloating about the smaller crowd by the anti-Trumpers.

Logic and common sense can naturally deduce the myriad of reasons for a smaller crowd in 2017 vs 2009.

Maybe it has something do with Obama being more popular in 2009 than Trump is in 2017?

Maybe it has something do with the fact that Obama won the popular vote in 2008 and Trump didn’t in 2016?

Second, Washington D.C. is located in a heavily Democrat city (you can tell by the high crime rate and high level of poverty).

Was this really necessary?

so far I’ve personally been impressed with some of what Trump as done.

That is insane and biased as hell.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

ferris209 said:

I really don’t understand the point from either side, the whining of the Trumpets, or the gloating about the smaller crowd by the anti-Trumpers.

Logic and common sense can naturally deduce the myriad of reasons for a smaller crowd in 2017 vs 2009.

Maybe it has something do with Obama being more popular in 2009 than Trump is in 2017?

Maybe it has something do with the fact that Obama won the popular vote in 2008 and Trump didn’t in 2016?

Also factors. Though none are conclusive.

Second, Washington D.C. is located in a heavily Democrat city (you can tell by the high crime rate and high level of poverty).

Was this really necessary?

Yes.

so far I’ve personally been impressed with some of what Trump as done.

That is insane and biased as hell.

My personal opinion is bias? Who’ve thunk it.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

ferris209 said:

TV’s Frink said:

ferris209 said:

Second, Washington D.C. is located in a heavily Democrat city (you can tell by the high crime rate and high level of poverty)

Yeah that’s great. Time to stop reading your posts.

Quit making promises you can’t keep. 😉

quit being an annoying wise ass. There, I said it.

If my rational, point driven, debate discussion is annoying, I can stop.

Author
Time

D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.

But what about the crime rate and the poverty levels? As well as those in New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.

Author
Time

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.

But what about the crime rate and the poverty levels? As well as those in New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.

Densely populated places will naturally attract crime and poverty.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ferris209 said:

I really don’t understand the point from either side, the whining of the Trumpets, or the gloating about the smaller crowd by the anti-Trumpers.

Logic and common sense can naturally deduce the myriad of reasons for a smaller crowd in 2017 vs 2009.

First, Obama was the first black President, or half-black President to be precise, so his inauguration was a far more historical event than the average inauguration. This tends to bring in more looky-loos.

Second, Washington D.C. is located in a heavily Democrat city (you can tell by the high crime rate and high level of poverty). Additionally, the area also has a high number of black residents, so naturally the crowd will be bigger seeing that it’s far easier for these folks to get to the inauguration than it is for Mid-Western Republicans.

Third, there was rioting, violence, and all kinds of civil disorder occurring throughout the city in 2017, so a lot of people who might have attended decided against it in order to avoid personal harm or risk. This wasn’t a factor in 2009 because I don’t recall any Conservative groups trashing Washington on the election of Obama.

Fourth, and let’s just face the facts, Dems have a much better ground game in that they tend to spend way more money on making crowds look bigger at major events. They put a larger focus on collecting funds to bus people in and put people up in hotels that otherwise wouldn’t go. Republicans , for whatever reason, just don’t tend to do this and tend to have a “if they want to come, they’ll find a way” attitude. I know I do.

So, in conclusion, who should really care what the crowd looked like. I know I don’t, so far I’ve personally been impressed with some of what Trump as done. I have no clue if he’ll screw up, if he’ll be magnificent, or if he’ll just be meh. Who really knows, and anyone who claims to know is speaking through pure bias.

Fifth, white tiles made the gaps far more visible.

Sixth, security was reportedly considerably tighter because conservatives don’t riot when they don’t get their way (they sat still for eight years of that fraud “Barry Hussein”, and the demented lefties can’t make it 24 hours.) It was reportedly more difficult and time-consuming to be screened to enter the central parts of the mall.

I’d say it’s very important. The lefties are trying to whip-up chaos. The more they feel supported, the more they will agitate and destabilize.

The great test will be whether Trump will expose the birth certificate (or rather the lack thereof.) If he does so quickly before great distractions, he’s for real about stopping the insanity and horror. If not, he’s part of the cabal effort to destabilize and set people at each other’s throats before ‘The Big Glitch’.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.

But what about the crime rate and the poverty levels? As well as those in New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.

Densely populated places will naturally attract crime and poverty.

Ok. What’s their education levels though?

Are all those college educated folks prone to violence to poverty?

Author
Time

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.

But what about the crime rate and the poverty levels? As well as those in New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.

Densely populated places will naturally attract crime and poverty.

Ok. What’s their education levels though?

Are all those college educated folks prone to violence to poverty?

Nearly half the D.C. population has a college degree. The violence and poverty levels are not on par with that number.

Author
Time

thejediknighthusezni said:

ferris209 said:

I really don’t understand the point from either side, the whining of the Trumpets, or the gloating about the smaller crowd by the anti-Trumpers.

Logic and common sense can naturally deduce the myriad of reasons for a smaller crowd in 2017 vs 2009.

First, Obama was the first black President, or half-black President to be precise, so his inauguration was a far more historical event than the average inauguration. This tends to bring in more looky-loos.

Second, Washington D.C. is located in a heavily Democrat city (you can tell by the high crime rate and high level of poverty). Additionally, the area also has a high number of black residents, so naturally the crowd will be bigger seeing that it’s far easier for these folks to get to the inauguration than it is for Mid-Western Republicans.

Third, there was rioting, violence, and all kinds of civil disorder occurring throughout the city in 2017, so a lot of people who might have attended decided against it in order to avoid personal harm or risk. This wasn’t a factor in 2009 because I don’t recall any Conservative groups trashing Washington on the election of Obama.

Fourth, and let’s just face the facts, Dems have a much better ground game in that they tend to spend way more money on making crowds look bigger at major events. They put a larger focus on collecting funds to bus people in and put people up in hotels that otherwise wouldn’t go. Republicans , for whatever reason, just don’t tend to do this and tend to have a “if they want to come, they’ll find a way” attitude. I know I do.

So, in conclusion, who should really care what the crowd looked like. I know I don’t, so far I’ve personally been impressed with some of what Trump as done. I have no clue if he’ll screw up, if he’ll be magnificent, or if he’ll just be meh. Who really knows, and anyone who claims to know is speaking through pure bias.

Sixth, security was reportedly considerably tighter because conservatives don’t riot when they don’t get their way (they sat still for eight years of that fraud “Barry Hussein”, and the demented lefties can’t make it 24 hours.) It was reportedly more difficult and time-consuming to be screened to enter the central parts of the mall.

I’d say it’s very important. The lefties are trying to whip-up chaos. The more they feel supported, the more they will agitate and destabilize.




Though I suppose these images bring warm feelings to your fucked up, bigoted heart.

Anyway, millions protested today. As far as I’ve read there wasn’t a single arrest.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.

But what about the crime rate and the poverty levels? As well as those in New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.

Densely populated places will naturally attract crime and poverty.

Ok. What’s their education levels though?

Are all those college educated folks prone to violence to poverty?

Nearly half the D.C. population has a college degree. The violence and poverty levels are not on par with that number.

So, education aside, are there high levels of violence and poverty in Washington D.C.?

Author
Time

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.

But what about the crime rate and the poverty levels? As well as those in New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.

Densely populated places will naturally attract crime and poverty.

Ok. What’s their education levels though?

Are all those college educated folks prone to violence to poverty?

Nearly half the D.C. population has a college degree. The violence and poverty levels are not on par with that number.

So, education aside, there are high levels of violence and poverty in Washington D.C.?

What do you consider high? I feel comfortable saying D.C. has high levels of education because they do (highest in the country). Is that the same for violence and poverty? Don’t know, but my point was obviously the rates will be higher there than in any old small town, USA.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.

But what about the crime rate and the poverty levels? As well as those in New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.

Densely populated places will naturally attract crime and poverty.

Ok. What’s their education levels though?

Are all those college educated folks prone to violence to poverty?

Nearly half the D.C. population has a college degree. The violence and poverty levels are not on par with that number.

So, education aside, there are high levels of violence and poverty in Washington D.C.?

What do you consider high? I feel comfortable saying D.C. has high levels of education because they do (highest in the country). Is that the same for violence and poverty? Don’t know, but my point was obviously the rates will be higher there than in any old small town, USA.

Compare it to other similar cities.

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

False equivalency at its finest.

Only the lines you’ve connected in your mind could lead to such a conclusion.

Yeah, because I’m the only one crazy enough to believe that a politician could do something just as illegal as any normal person could do, LOL.

Hillary Clinton stole classified information, fled the country, and intentionally disseminated it to news organizations?

You consider their alleged crimes to be “just as illegal”. This is a false equivalency because 1) if Hillary were guilty, it would be of some form of negligence (willful or not), not treason, and 2) Hillary hasn’t been charged with a crime even after extensive FBI investigation, no matter how much you wish she had been.

Jeebus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

False equivalency at its finest.

Only the lines you’ve connected in your mind could lead to such a conclusion.

Yeah, because I’m the only one crazy enough to believe that a politician could do something just as illegal as any normal person could do, LOL.

Did you try to misinterpret what he was saying? I don’t know where any of that came from.

Yes. This represents a pattern of behavior. I don’t know if it’s a debate tactic to shift the goalpost and therefore his argument or just an obtuse misreading of the facts.

How do you know it represents a behavior if you don’t even know whether it’s a debate tactic or an obtuse reading? We differ in opinion on their matter of guilt and this is what you come up with?

Your motivation is irrelevant. This is your debate style. We’ve all seen it before. You say something wonky, you get challenged, you claim to have meant something other than what you said, and you respond to any further challenges by claiming that the misunderstanding is on the challenger’s side. Whether it’s obtuse or gaslighting, both indicate willful misdirection.

And we don’t differ on their matter of guilt, we differ on the facts. Snowden intentionally disseminated classified material to unauthorized individuals for the purpose of leaking it to the public. Clinton used a private e-mail server that may or may not have exposed classified material to potential hacking. These simply aren’t the same crimes, wouldn’t receive the same charges, and wouldn’t carry the same sentences. And I’ll remind you again that the then-head of the FBI found Clinton to be negligent, but not criminally so.

We can have different opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

thejediknighthusezni said:

ferris209 said:

I really don’t understand the point from either side, the whining of the Trumpets, or the gloating about the smaller crowd by the anti-Trumpers.

Logic and common sense can naturally deduce the myriad of reasons for a smaller crowd in 2017 vs 2009.

First, Obama was the first black President, or half-black President to be precise, so his inauguration was a far more historical event than the average inauguration. This tends to bring in more looky-loos.

Second, Washington D.C. is located in a heavily Democrat city (you can tell by the high crime rate and high level of poverty). Additionally, the area also has a high number of black residents, so naturally the crowd will be bigger seeing that it’s far easier for these folks to get to the inauguration than it is for Mid-Western Republicans.

Third, there was rioting, violence, and all kinds of civil disorder occurring throughout the city in 2017, so a lot of people who might have attended decided against it in order to avoid personal harm or risk. This wasn’t a factor in 2009 because I don’t recall any Conservative groups trashing Washington on the election of Obama.

Fourth, and let’s just face the facts, Dems have a much better ground game in that they tend to spend way more money on making crowds look bigger at major events. They put a larger focus on collecting funds to bus people in and put people up in hotels that otherwise wouldn’t go. Republicans , for whatever reason, just don’t tend to do this and tend to have a “if they want to come, they’ll find a way” attitude. I know I do.

So, in conclusion, who should really care what the crowd looked like. I know I don’t, so far I’ve personally been impressed with some of what Trump as done. I have no clue if he’ll screw up, if he’ll be magnificent, or if he’ll just be meh. Who really knows, and anyone who claims to know is speaking through pure bias.

Sixth, security was reportedly considerably tighter because conservatives don’t riot when they don’t get their way (they sat still for eight years of that fraud “Barry Hussein”, and the demented lefties can’t make it 24 hours.) It was reportedly more difficult and time-consuming to be screened to enter the central parts of the mall.

I’d say it’s very important. The lefties are trying to whip-up chaos. The more they feel supported, the more they will agitate and destabilize.




Though I suppose these images bring warm feelings to your fucked up, bigoted heart.

Anyway, millions protested today. As far as I’ve read there wasn’t a single arrest.

I’d bet good money the first two images are ‘Westboro Baptist’ type agitprop for their ‘Two Minute Hates’. The last two couldn’t be more reasonable.

These demonstrations were agitated with the suggestion that Trump would be “delegitimized” before taking the oath. It’s all about extreme destabilization and pitting half the nation against the other half.

Author
Time

Eavesdropping solved the interview problem, but it presented a new one. After hearing Trump’s discussions about business on the phone, Schwartz asked him brief follow-up questions. He then tried to amplify the material he got from Trump by calling others involved in the deals. But their accounts often directly conflicted with Trump’s. “Lying is second nature to him,” Schwartz said. “More than anyone else I have ever met, Trump has the ability to convince himself that whatever he is saying at any given moment is true, or sort of true, or at least ought to be true.” Often, Schwartz said, the lies that Trump told him were about money—“how much he had paid for something, or what a building he owned was worth, or how much one of his casinos was earning when it was actually on its way to bankruptcy.” Trump bragged that he paid only eight million dollars for Mar-a-Lago, but omitted that he bought a nearby strip of beach for a record sum. After gossip columns reported, erroneously, that Prince Charles was considering buying several apartments in Trump Tower, Trump implied that he had no idea where the rumor had started. (“It certainly didn’t hurt us,” he says, in “The Art of the Deal.”) Wayne Barrett, a reporter for the Village Voice, later revealed that Trump himself had planted the story with journalists. Schwartz also suspected that Trump engaged in such media tricks, and asked him about a story making the rounds—that Trump often called up news outlets using a pseudonym. Trump didn’t deny it. As Schwartz recalls, he smirked and said, “You like that, do you?”

Schwartz says of Trump, “He lied strategically. He had a complete lack of conscience about it.” Since most people are “constrained by the truth,” Trump’s indifference to it “gave him a strange advantage.”

When challenged about the facts, Schwartz says, Trump would often double down, repeat himself, and grow belligerent. […] Whenever “the thin veneer of Trump’s vanity is challenged,” Schwartz says, he overreacts […]

Source. A long article, but very interesting and worth a read. So far nothing I’ve ever seen from Trump contradicts anything I read here.

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)

Author
Time

thejediknighthusezni said:

The last two couldn’t be more reasonable.

There’s nothing reasonable about about the birther movement and the Birther-in-Chief. Thanks for this and previous posts; makes it easy to jump past anything you post from now on.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

ferris209 said:

Warbler said:

ferris209 said:

TV’s Frink said:

ferris209 said:

Second, Washington D.C. is located in a heavily Democrat city (you can tell by the high crime rate and high level of poverty)

Yeah that’s great. Time to stop reading your posts.

Quit making promises you can’t keep. 😉

quit being an annoying wise ass. There, I said it.

If my rational, point driven, debate discussion is annoying, I can stop.

I regret the name calling here, but as of late your debate style has hardly been rational, point drive, debate. Sorry but it isn’t hasn’t been.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ferris209 said:

Warbler said:

ferris209 said:

I really don’t understand the point from either side, the whining of the Trumpets, or the gloating about the smaller crowd by the anti-Trumpers.

Logic and common sense can naturally deduce the myriad of reasons for a smaller crowd in 2017 vs 2009.

Maybe it has something do with Obama being more popular in 2009 than Trump is in 2017?

Maybe it has something do with the fact that Obama won the popular vote in 2008 and Trump didn’t in 2016?

Also factors. Though none are conclusive.

if you say so.

Second, Washington D.C. is located in a heavily Democrat city (you can tell by the high crime rate and high level of poverty).

Was this really necessary?

Yes.

nope.

so far I’ve personally been impressed with some of what Trump as done.

That is insane and biased as hell.

My personal opinion is bias? Who’ve thunk it.

your judgement is clouded by bias.