Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 41

Their rights may or may not be but their pussies definitely are.

Oh wait, that means their rights definitely are.

Well…we’re waiting…

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/22/511103785/trump-is-yet-to-sever-ties-with-his-business-despite-promises-to-do-so-report-sa

DominicCobb said:

Jetrell Fo said:

DominicCobb said:

Jetrell Fo said:

DominicCobb said:

Fo, you do a really fantastic job at missing every single point.

Well then, I am thankful to be getting such positive criticism, from someone who is perfect.

Thank you.

I would love to know what you think is “positive criticism.” I’m not making fun of you here, I’m just telling you that, like usual, you’re coming to all the wrong conclusions.

Except for the part about me being perfect - that’s a right conclusion, thanks.

Well, would you share what conclusions you believe I’m getting wrong, without heckling me over it? I would be happy to have a respectful conversation over it.

At the risk of going off topic, this post:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.

I saw your original response before you disappeared it.

You’re a real jerk for saying what you did and acting like you’re better than others around here. “Low-information voters” my foot. I want to swear but I don’t need to get banned just because I let you get to me too.

You have your opinion I have mine, this conversation ends now.

I didn’t “disappear” it. I removed it because it was a personal insult that wasn’t necessary, even though I believe it to be true. But since you brought it up, yes, I believe Trump is a low-information candidate president for low-information voters.

We don’t have our own opinions on Clinton/Snowden. I have facts and you have the newly-minted “alternative facts” (straight up Orwellian, can’t believe it came from a public figure). If it’s your position that Clinton should have been charged for what she did, that’s fine, but arguing that Clinton’s transgressions and Snowden’s transgressions are the same and should be treated the same is asinine and betrays your irrational anti-Clinton bias. That’s the real reason you’re disengaging, just like ferris. You prefer the comfort of conspiracy theories to logic and truth.

The conversation only ends if you leave the thread and you never bring up Clinton’s alleged crimes again. If you post, anyone gets to respond.

Just to be clear, a member in this forum has never been — and never will be — banned for their opinion, political or otherwise, or for moderate swearing. Swear if you like; it’s perfectly acceptable within reason according to the rules as long as it’s not a personal insult.

Just so I understand, gaslighting is good for everyone but those not liked. Encouraging the exact behavior the rules are meant to discourage is okay too. No mercy, no respect, no concern for those here you don’t like because they aren’t like you in any way. Take em down folks, take em down. And some of you complain about Trump being an asshole?

As for ferris, he’s a good person, why bash him? He serves and protects in the real world, puts his life on the line for it too, how many here can say that? Just because he doesn’t share others view of the world here or their opinion it’s okay to crap talk him? Sounds like it to me.

So yeah, anyone reading, it would seem you are now allowed to treat me and probably ferris anyway you want when we post. Swing away litlle cherubs, we are apparently not worthy of your greatness and innocence, we are the mats on which you can now wipe your feet on freely. The word has been given.

This is why I disengaged. Your entire response is a personal insult but, since rules are rules, anything goes when it’s Fo who posts? Your posting style and your pm style clearly align with the likes of Mr. Frink. No wonder he’s untouchable, he’s like you, and that is the preferred appreciated attitude apparently. I am not sad that I am not like you guys.

Do your worst, it is what you’re best at, isn’t it?

😦

is incredibly far off base. Just because Jay is having a political disagreement with you doesn’t mean he’s using his admin powers to persecute you and insult you without repercussions. He did say that one insult (which I personally wouldn’t even consider an insult), but he caught himself and removed it (everyone makes mistakes). Nothing about the rest of his post(s) are personal insults (unless you consider any kind of criticism a personal insult).

You always seem to make things personal when it never is. This is a political thread, we’re having a political discussion. If someone disagrees with your opinion or how you’re arguing it, that doesn’t mean they literally hate you or think you’re a total idiot. It’s the same thing with what you said about ferris. Jay was critiquing his debating style and then you had to go and make it an insult on his personal character. No one here doubts he is a good guy. We all know he is a cop and we all respect that. But it doesn’t mean we can’t disagree with him.

I believe (and I could be dead wrong here) that since the internet itself is a cold version of communication, presentation has a lot of sway when it comes to people’s perception of what is actually being said. With that in mind, critique is fine as long as it’s presented in a way that gets the message across without sounding crass. My posts are responses based on my experiences here and their affect on me as a person and a member. The words we chose are what convey our intentions and if we chose not to filter ourselves people will get the wrong impression. I think some people count on that, they thrive on it, because it empowers them to continue their assault without fear of repercussions. And frankly, there have been little to none, for some.

As a U.S. Army Veteran myself, leading by example when you’re the one in charge, is an absolute must if you want people to trust you. Since you are not privy to my pm conversations I know you don’t have all the information needed to even consider understanding at least some of my tone. I will tell you only that there was something deeper at hand which probably fueled the entire exchange. It’s not to say that something hasn’t been done to try and correct that but it excuses neither from their part.

In closing, I appreciate your input, and I thank you for being even-handed in your response. It’s the best dialog I’ve had with you to date and I hope we have more of it. I also hope that other members reading this start to understand the importance of their words when they communicate here and find a way to better the connection instead of always crapping all over it for some form of amusement.

Have a good one Dom. And thanks.

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Their rights may or may not be but their pussies definitely are.

Oh wait, that means their rights definitely are.

You’re referring specifically to abortion, which is legally challenged by people who think that the conceived but yet to be born have rights. It’s framed as misogynist even though it isn’t.

It’s also being illegally challenged, for example this attempt in Texas which was struck down as being illegal.

But there’s plenty of other non-abortion examples, such as this and this and this and this.

And by the way I never said “misogynist,” you did. There are plenty of reasons women’s rights are under attack without having to assume misogyny is the only one.

moviefreakedmind said:

doubleofive said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Devil’s advocate: it’s a silly sign, but it’s also supposed to be a joke. And, like most jokes, there’s some truth behind the intent. Which is to say, obviously women have far more rights than guns (don’t think anyone doesn’t literally think that), what they’re trying to say is that they wish protecting women’s rights were as important to politicians as protecting “gun’s rights” (preventing gun control).

I still don’t agree with the premise that women’s rights are under attack in the United States.

Looks like over 3 million women disagree with you, and since they’re women, I trust they know the issue more than you do.

Well, 60,000,000 people disagree with you on Donald Trump. See how that’s not a convincing argument?

Since you only responded to that post, I take it my argument is convincing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-withdrawal-trumps-first-executive-action-monday-sources-say/

This is a terrible article. The headline says he also reinstated the “Mexico City Abortion Policy”…and then the article only mentions it in passing without ever saying what it actually is.

How many people know what it is? I had to look it up.

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/23/so-how-did-you-like-president-trumps-first-few-days-pretty-awesome-right/

Good summary of Trump’s first weekend as president. Summary of the Summary: It went poorly.

Somehow I missed this little gem.

Later in the press briefing, Spicer described Enrique Peña Nieto as the “prime minister” of Mexico, when in fact he is that nation’s president. As the conservative Bill Kristol tweeted, “It is embarrassing, as an American, to watch this briefing by Sean Spicer from the podium at the White House. Not the RNC. The White House.”

And this one.

On Jan. 20, Betsy DeVos — Trump’s nominee to head the Department of Education — tweeted that she was “Honored to witness the historical Inauguration and swearing-in ceremony for the 45th President of the United States.” There are multiple grammatical problems with this tweet. For example, “historical” should be “historic,” “Inauguration” should not be capitalized in this usage and “for” only works with “swearing-in ceremony” and not with “inauguration.” The tweet should have read: “Honored to witness the historic inauguration of, and swearing-in ceremony for, the 45th president of the United States.” (Which is admittedly a little awkward but at least not incorrect in several ways.)

Being apprised of the error by Twitter users, DeVos then tweeted out a “corrected” version that still contained some of the same grammatical screwups.

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Their rights may or may not be but their pussies definitely are.

Oh wait, that means their rights definitely are.

You’re referring specifically to abortion, which is legally challenged by people who think that the conceived but yet to be born have rights. It’s framed as misogynist even though it isn’t.

When your sitting President talks with pride about sexually harassing/assaulting women and grabbing them by the p****, it is not surprising some may fear that women’s rights are under attack.

Ric Olie may have written this article but in this day and age of Alternative Facts, we need a hero like Ric more than ever.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sources-say-theres-a-sense-of-unease-in-intel-community-after-trump-cia-visit/

U.S. government sources tell CBS News that there is a sense of unease in the intelligence community after President Trump’s visit to CIA headquarters on Saturday.

An official said the visit “made relations with the intelligence community worse” and described the visit as “uncomfortable.”

Authorities are also pushing back against the perception that the CIA workforce was cheering for the president. They say the first three rows in front of the president were largely made up of supporters of Mr. Trump’s campaign.

moviefreakedmind said:

doubleofive said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Devil’s advocate: it’s a silly sign, but it’s also supposed to be a joke. And, like most jokes, there’s some truth behind the intent. Which is to say, obviously women have far more rights than guns (don’t think anyone doesn’t literally think that), what they’re trying to say is that they wish protecting women’s rights were as important to politicians as protecting “gun’s rights” (preventing gun control).

I still don’t agree with the premise that women’s rights are under attack in the United States.

Looks like over 3 million women disagree with you, and since they’re women, I trust they know the issue more than you do.

Well, 60,000,000 people disagree with you on Donald Trump. See how that’s not a convincing argument?

1. How many of these people are women?

2. Where did you get your number from?

Hahahahaha.

http://www.businessinsider.com/dallas-stars-troll-trump-inauguration-attendance-claims-2017-1

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

doubleofive said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Devil’s advocate: it’s a silly sign, but it’s also supposed to be a joke. And, like most jokes, there’s some truth behind the intent. Which is to say, obviously women have far more rights than guns (don’t think anyone doesn’t literally think that), what they’re trying to say is that they wish protecting women’s rights were as important to politicians as protecting “gun’s rights” (preventing gun control).

I still don’t agree with the premise that women’s rights are under attack in the United States.

Looks like over 3 million women disagree with you, and since they’re women, I trust they know the issue more than you do.

Well, 60,000,000 people disagree with you on Donald Trump. See how that’s not a convincing argument?

2. Where did you get your number from?

Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway.

Alternative facts:

the Sky is orange

the grass is purple

water freezes at 100 degrees Fahrenheit

America declared independence on 12/25/0001 AD.

Trump is not a sexist pig.

TPP is dead. Link is unedited footage of Trump meeting with US business leaders. I’ve worked in an assembly plant at some point in my life and Trump is really reminding me of the guy who was in charge there, really had a loud mouth but was able to give competent board meetings. That’s not an endorsement, just an observation.
https://youtu.be/HeD2sli_ATU

Because government is bad.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/23/trump-freezes-federal-hiring/?utm_term=.c8facaedf326

President Trump issued an executive order Monday freezing federal hiring. The hiring freeze excludes national security employees.

“President Trump’s action will disrupt government programs and services that benefit everyone and actually increase taxpayer costs by forcing agencies to hire more expensive contractors to do work that civilian government employees are already doing for far less,” said American Federation of Government Employees President J. David Cox Sr. “This hiring freeze will mean longer lines at Social Security offices, fewer workplace safety inspections, less oversight of environmental polluters, and greater risk to our nation’s food supply and clean water systems.”

In 1982, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined hiring freezes imposed by former presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and determined that was not an effective strategy.

Hiring freezes have “little effect on Federal employment levels,” the GAO said. The report said the freezes “disrupted agency operations, and in some cases, increased costs to the Government.”

Dammit, there goes any hope of getting a job at the Library of Congress.

Another Press Briefing now.
https://youtu.be/I6gMfIsUB-s