Trump

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 4216
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Trump

Post by BugMeister » Wed, 10. Apr 19, 17:44

Observe wrote:
Wed, 10. Apr 19, 16:46
BugMeister wrote:
Wed, 10. Apr 19, 11:46
- and a perfectly sane woman, like say Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or Elizabeth Warren, wouldn't stand a chance..
Just so you know, Cortez isn't running and can't run, because she is too young. Warren probably won't get the nomination, because frankly, she is uninspiring.
- I was arguing against the proposed scenario..
- in particular, it was the reference to a madman (- a mad man..) - that bugged me..
- notwithstanding the right to determine the level of so-called "insanity" deemed necessary..

- Trump is just a drag..
- a total drag..

- easily manipulated..

- BTW: I give way to your information on the structure of the US constitution re electoral qualification..
- though at least one successful candidate WASN'T qualified - not by any stretch of the imagination.. :lol:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 2394
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Morkonan » Wed, 10. Apr 19, 20:20

Masterbagger wrote:
Wed, 10. Apr 19, 04:57
Democrats are not my circus and not my monkeys. For what it's worth I don't think Biden will be their nominee. They would have to back away from the extremism and the identity politics they have turned up to 11 to run him. Apart from the weird touchiness towards women and children he is unremarkable. It is going to take a total madman to have a chance to defeat President Trump in 2020.
But, no matter if one is traditionally a Republican or Democrat, we all want the "Best Choices Possible" running campaigns, right? That's the kicker... Being traditionally in favor of Republicans, I was extremely disappointed, in the extreme, with Trump as the nominee, especially versus Hillary. I was actually a bit surprised that Hillary got as much support as she did, even though I was more surprised that Trump won. :) No, I am not expected to be rational in these things...

Let's say the Dems do what they want and nominate Sanders or a Sanders-Clone candidate. (I think there's too much pushback against Sanders via the whole Sanders/Clinton debacle, so cloning some of his platform is needed to grab his old support base.) What is then the possible outcome if it is revealed that Trump actually has eaten and survives by eating babies? If the outrage is palpable enough, then we could be looking at a Sanders-Clone in office.

That's why the nominee of the party that one doesn't like is important, overall. One doesn't have to necessarily dwell on it, but planning for the worst outcome can be helpful.
Tycow wrote:
Tue, 9. Apr 19, 20:57
You weren't kidding about his face... talk about fivehead.
I dislike judging people by their appearance. But, in my defense, this guy would have a very different sort of image if, in fact, he was a very different sort of person than he portrays himself to be... He is "that guy." He's the guy most likely to betray you when you sit down with others to play a game of "Risk." He's that one guy that always slowly creeps to Australia every_darn_time. He's that one guy that has "friends" who never smile when they're in his company... unless they're always talking about how much they screwed over someone else, then it's all laughs.

I just get an atmosphere of "cringe" emanating from the television screen any time this guy makes an appearance. I don't know why. Mabye it's some primal survival instinct kicking in or some natural aversion to his phenotype left-over from when Ooog got swindled in an arrowhead deal back in 20,000 BC or something?

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: Trump

Post by Masterbagger » Thu, 11. Apr 19, 03:59

Morkonan wrote:
Wed, 10. Apr 19, 20:20

But, no matter if one is traditionally a Republican or Democrat, we all want the "Best Choices Possible" running campaigns, right? That's the kicker... Being traditionally in favor of Republicans, I was extremely disappointed, in the extreme, with Trump as the nominee, especially versus Hillary. I was actually a bit surprised that Hillary got as much support as she did, even though I was more surprised that Trump won. :) No, I am not expected to be rational in these things...

Let's say the Dems do what they want and nominate Sanders or a Sanders-Clone candidate. (I think there's too much pushback against Sanders via the whole Sanders/Clinton debacle, so cloning some of his platform is needed to grab his old support base.) What is then the possible outcome if it is revealed that Trump actually has eaten and survives by eating babies? If the outrage is palpable enough, then we could be looking at a Sanders-Clone in office.

That's why the nominee of the party that one doesn't like is important, overall. One doesn't have to necessarily dwell on it, but planning for the worst outcome can be helpful.
I'm not really at that point. If democrats want to go full socialist let them do it. Their endgame is going to involve presenting the American working class with a bill. The last time they did that with obamacare did not go so well for them. America has a way of correcting it's government back into the proper path. When you put emotions aside about how great your policies are you end up with convincing people who work hard for their money to part with it to pay for your schemes. Again, let the democrats demand whatever they like. If they want to do stuff that isn't in my best interest then they can go pound sand.
Who made that man a gunner?

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 4216
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Trump

Post by BugMeister » Thu, 11. Apr 19, 11:58

- in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king..
- and particularly in the kingdom of Mammon.. :roll:

"America has a way of correcting it's government back into the proper path."

The Replicant solution:
keep 'em poor - then we can just buy everything they can't afford..
and they will be completely helpless at election time..

- simple, really..
- but devastatingly successful..

- the people don't matter - it's good that WE are in total control..
- just leave it to Amurika, OUR wealth will show YOU the way..
- the poor are just ungrateful scum, who only have themselves to blame..

- yeah, sure..

meanwhile the ever-deceitful Trump (again) assumes the role of victim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elm1YdcPq30
- an "attempted coup", ffs..
- what a total swine..!! :evil: :evil:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 2394
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Morkonan » Thu, 11. Apr 19, 23:40

Masterbagger wrote:
Thu, 11. Apr 19, 03:59
...If they want to do stuff that isn't in my best interest then they can go pound sand.
I haven't found much of anything that a politician has said is in my best interest to actually be "in my best interest." So, the scale for judging that is kinda bent no matter if it's Democrats or Republicans stating it.

Do you think a Democrat can have a good idea?

Serious question. And, no, just as yet-another-disclaimer, I ain't no Democrat. :)

Could a Libertarian or Independent have a good idea?

And, if "No" could be the answer to those questions, what's with candidates who switch parties?

Honestly, I think that politicians have decided that the most important thing they can do while in office is stay in office. Capitol Hill is friggin' "Amway." There's no end to it. There doesn't appear to be a "goal" anywhere other than "winning votes." It's "win vote first, something something complete, second..." That means they have to come up with things that "appeal" to voters. Except, now it's a lot easier to tell the voters what appeals to them.

"I gotta great idea! Let's invent problems that we have solutions for that the People will love hearing about!"

"But, what about-"

"F' that! That's just a mess of problems that would take too much work and I have an election coming up in a year!"

"OK, so for our campaign platform, we're going with-"

"You got it - We're going to implement new regulations that will fix that bit of waxed string on packs of Life-Savers ™ that never works right and makes the consumer have to peel them off the top with their fingernail which removes the foiled paper so it can't be used to keep dirt away from the Life-Saver ™ on top, which means that one Life-Saver ™ is a... HEALTH HAZARD! We'll certainly get a wide selection of people who are against health hazards!"

"But, they don't have any health insurance 'cause it's too expensive. So.."

"Exactly! Why do you think they're so concerned about health hazards to begin with? Am I the only one who does any real thinking about here?"

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: Trump

Post by Masterbagger » Fri, 12. Apr 19, 04:07

Morkonan wrote:
Thu, 11. Apr 19, 23:40

I haven't found much of anything that a politician has said is in my best interest to actually be "in my best interest." So, the scale for judging that is kinda bent no matter if it's Democrats or Republicans stating it.

Do you think a Democrat can have a good idea?

Serious question. And, no, just as yet-another-disclaimer, I ain't no Democrat. :)

Could a Libertarian or Independent have a good idea?
I may be a libertarian at heart. I really do think this should be a nation of gay married couples defending their marijuana fields with legal machine guns. I'm not a perfect fit for the Republican party but to date they have always been a better choice than a democrat. There is no risk at all with disagreeing with a Republican. A democrat is going to go berserk and call you a racist and try to destroy or censor you.
Who made that man a gunner?

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 4216
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Trump

Post by BugMeister » Fri, 12. Apr 19, 15:07

Donald J Trump is running foul of the law - it's official:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CqFpOGS19Q

- it's official news..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sjnlaJ1mN4

- he has nowhere to hide.. :P
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: Trump

Post by Masterbagger » Sat, 13. Apr 19, 05:22

BugMeister wrote:
Fri, 12. Apr 19, 15:07
Donald J Trump is running foul of the law - it's official:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CqFpOGS19Q

- it's official news..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sjnlaJ1mN4

- he has nowhere to hide.. :P
I would have guessed that the Russia collusion narrative falling apart would be a cue to to stop and reevaluate the things the people on the screen tell you are true but I guess I don't have your depth of your conviction. May as well just pivot to a new angle of attack and pull the lever for ludicrous speed. I'm sure you've got him now. Go get em tiger.
Who made that man a gunner?

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 4216
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Trump

Post by BugMeister » Sat, 13. Apr 19, 08:50

the Russian collusion narrative hasn't fallen apart..
and the law is the law..

- the IRS Commissioners will not let the current situation prevail - Trump MUST respond to legitimate enquiry..

MEANWHILE, BACK IN THE REPLICANT SWAMP OF INEPTITUDE:
- seems that there was a Chinese communist operation at Mar-a-Lago, involving a massage-parlour owner and lots of electronic equipment, etc, etc.. :roll:

Q- why is that slimy worm-tongue Stephen Miller still in the White House..??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW6OkEbRjY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY180duyenU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ucxUbV-oAQ

- a criminally corrupt gangster for a president - and Stephen Miller as well..
- the look on AG Barr's face says it all - he's deeply ashamed of what he's being TOLD to do by the Trump Org..
- but he's not allowed to complain - he's effectively in thrall to a lunatic..

- ghastly situation..!!! :o :o :o :o
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 2394
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Morkonan » Sun, 14. Apr 19, 23:01

Masterbagger wrote:
Fri, 12. Apr 19, 04:07
...I may be a libertarian at heart. I really do think this should be a nation of gay married couples defending their marijuana fields with legal machine guns. I'm not a perfect fit for the Republican party but to date they have always been a better choice than a democrat. There is no risk at all with disagreeing with a Republican. A democrat is going to go berserk and call you a racist and try to destroy or censor you.
I'm... I dunno, maybe a sort of Libertarian/Constitutionalist? For instance, the Libertarian Party (If there could be such a thing) is whacked, largely due to the prominence of the "Ron Pauls" who are a bit too isolationist in my opinion.

I'm against the legalized recreational use of marijuana. But, say that around here and people lose their minds... /sigh As far as fully automagic weapons are concerned, I'm against that for individual private citizens, since it's just over-compensation for a small ding-ding... For true "collectors" with a license? Sure, go for it. I have no problem with that.

But, that's not why I responded. :) You brought up a very good point. Well, perhaps a more poignant one:

"...There is no risk at all with disagreeing with a Republican. A democrat is going to go berserk and call you a racist and try to destroy or censor you..."

That is somewhat true. However, Republican's are just as guilty of committing personal attacks as Democrats. To refuse to acknowledge that is to purposefully stick a knitting-needle in your own eye and twist... Republicans will say someone is a Communist/Socialist or Anti-American or a Peacenick or for Open Borders or part of some World Gubbermint Conspiracy. They are no more innocent of such attacks than anyone else in the political spectrum.

Each of these groups, however, insult others not based on "reality" but based upon their own professed platforms. Which... is stupid and anyone with any sense can see right through their words and what they're trying to do with their insults. BOTH groups spend far too much time resorting to attacking an opponent based upon their own platform rather than the opponent's argument. Why?

If I attack someone's point of view by using a major point in my own platform, I am not only casting a negative light on the person I am attacking just because I have implied they are wrong, I am also elevating my own platform at the same time, implying that it is legitimate enough to fuel such a denial in the first place.

Eg: Let's say I am in favor of legalized marijuana and believe it can have positive effects. (NONE OF WHICH IS TRUIE! But... for the sake of this example..)

Opponent: Marijuana is proven to damage brain development, especially in adolescent brains younger than 23 years old or so. It may also have continuing and lingering bad effects on adult brains!

Me: You hate plants! You hate people who have cancer! You don't want people to have a healthy choice for relieving stress and finding solutions other than the damaging effects of alcohol and drugs! I bet you're a lobbyist for the drug companies and the cotton industry that hates hemp growers! (note: Marijuana is not the "hemp" used for cloth manufacture despite what the pot-lobby says.)

I didn't have to address the other's argument. I just threw a bunch of stuff at them that makes my argument, which is fallacious, look better.

That's all the politicians are doing when they assault each other and start making wild accusations. They misdirect the discussion so that it makes whatever their platform is look more legitimate, valid, or more betterer.

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 4216
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Trump

Post by BugMeister » Mon, 15. Apr 19, 09:28

the Replicant's sole raison d'etre is to attack democracy (- and I mean democracy, not the Democratic Party)
other than that, they have no political platform at all..it's the reason why they constantly promote "small government" and
they are always arguing in favour of a hands-off approach to banking and finance.. its easy to see why..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1T3DbFYdFo

Like Thatcher's ugly mob, they want to destroy all conventional notions of society, and simply rob the electorate of everything it holds..
indeed -they want to destroy democratic civilisation and instigate a "dog-eat-dog" situation where wealth and personal power are in total control
- a dictatorship supported by strict state policing, and total surveillance is what they are aiming for.. pretty much like the commies, actually..

- wake up!
- democratic principles annoy the heck out of both the Far-right Replicants and the hard-line Commies.. they simply can't stand it - neither of them - not one bit..

they resort to spouting nonsense about 5-legged horses and straight bananas..
and hope that we will all be side-tracked by a stream of meaningless arguments, or "sensationalised" reporting..
(- just like they did with the utterly corrupt Brexit "referendum")

- and they still think/hope we don't know what's REALLY going on..??
- ha, ha! :lol:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

Bishop149
Posts: 1674
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Trump

Post by Bishop149 » Mon, 15. Apr 19, 11:31

Masterbagger wrote:
Sat, 13. Apr 19, 05:22
I would have guessed that the Russia collusion narrative falling apart would be a cue to to stop and reevaluate the things the people on the screen tell you are true but I guess I don't have your depth of your conviction. May as well just pivot to a new angle of attack and pull the lever for ludicrous speed. I'm sure you've got him now. Go get em tiger.
Meh, none of this is new. . . its just hasn't been the focus.
The fact that Trump is a criminal in more ways than I can count has always been true.
It has been loudly pointed out since the the moment he announced his candidacy.
He broke the emoluments clause on Day 1 of his tenure.
There are multiple ongoing investigations into many of his alleged criminal activities . . . . .I dunno the exact number off the top of my head but it's more than 10.

The Russian collusion angle is
a) Not finished by a long shot.
b) Was only the primary focus because as it was directly related to the election and thus was probably the best chance of getting rid of him.
Which is pretty sad when you think about it, the US political system cares infinitely more about that than a life time of white collar crime to which their response is: "Meh, who cares . . . the rich gonna rich."

I've always maintained that Trumps primary criminal activity would be revealed by his finances, as would any Russia connection.
A few dodgy intel. sharing meetings in Trump tower isn't really the primary concern, if Russia has influence over the US President then it's financial . . . . . how much of Trump's fortune is tied up in Russia? To what extent did the Rosneft deal benefit Trump? Once he's no longer in office, what opportunities will he suddenly find magically open up to him in Russia?
These are IMO the really important Russia questions. . . . but not the most politically relevant ones, which says something about your political system.
They also make the point that electing a capitalist to high office is a TERRIBLE idea, they have spent their entire lives putting personal profit before people, done bloody well out of it and sure aren't going to stop just because you elect them.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

Bishop149
Posts: 1674
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Trump

Post by Bishop149 » Mon, 15. Apr 19, 14:29

I also recently saw the following anecdote expressed, paraphrased from memory:

"I live surrounded every day by die hard Trump supporters, and let me tell you their support for him is based ENTIRELY on the people he chooses to be a A-hole to"

I've been thinking about that a lot, it's essentially: "I like him because he hates who I hate and isn't shy about it".
How do you combat that exactly?
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 4216
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Trump

Post by BugMeister » Mon, 15. Apr 19, 20:04

from March 2018..
some insight into Chelsea Manning's ordeal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hC6ojvH9Us

from August 2018:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXrPMPqYi_k

from October 2018:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpgKa6fBo4Y

- most enlightening.. :)
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

Warenwolf
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed, 13. Apr 05, 04:22
x4

Re: Trump

Post by Warenwolf » Mon, 15. Apr 19, 21:12

Bishop149 wrote:
Mon, 15. Apr 19, 14:29

"I like him because he hates who I hate and isn't shy about it".
Which kind of sums up any society with a highly polarized political discourse....

Best case - it leads to slightly inefficient political system. Worst case - civil war(s).
Ofc most countries with highly polarized politics end up between the two extremes.

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”