At least he comes across as a serious, reasonable an presentable character.Originally Posted by thethe
At least he comes across as a serious, reasonable an presentable character.
Why kid? That's sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Everyone who knows Trump talks about his vindictive nature and his love of revenge.
I'm not a republican but these sources are basically verified left wing propaganda. Just look at the majority of their "columns". Hit piece after hit piece and largely based on nothing other than over reactions and fear mongering.
I read it earlier this morning and it might be very well that my reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired but from what I remember of the article, it was basically trying to group the majority of Trump supporters under the negative label of "authoritarianism". The feminist author never uses the words "white supremacist" or "racist" but she cleverly hides behind phrases like saying Trump supporters want to "punish those who are different" and "kick out those who share different beliefs". I'm paraphrasing there but if you search the article you'll find statements just like that. If you cut out all the **** and get down to the meat and potatoes of the article, she is basically saying that if you take this silly 4 question quiz and answer the questions a certain way, you officially support authoritarianism. Which means you require a strong leader who leads with force, eliminates the enemy, punishes those who are different and/or deviate from the status quo. Cutting out more ****, it means that people who support Trump want war and to get rid of the other races, queers and weird people that we don't deem to be normal.
The article is nothing more than made up science, backed by biased polls, taken by biased media outlets and written by a biased feminist that is completely devoid of anything that can even remotely be stated as a fact. It's just a thinly veiled "Trump supporters are aggressive, racist, homosexual haters" article that we've seen time and time again by these crazy people who can't seem to get it out of their heads that Trump supporters voted for him for many other reasons that don't have to do with hatred or bigotry.
While we're on the subject of hatred and bigotry, I'm beginning to see why people become bigots. You get a massive group of people who want equal rights, which is perfectly fine. These people start out being "offended" by everything, which is annoying. Then they start occupying college campuses and somehow are given the biggest voice to spread their message, which is annoying. Then they start coming up with terms like "white privilege", which is annoying. Then they start ganging up on anyone who doesn't have the same ideals as them, which is annoying. Then they throw a **** fit when their candidate doesn't get elected, which is annoying. Then they start blaming white men for their problems, which is annoying. Then they group all supporters of the opposing candidate as racist, bigoted misogynists, which is annoying.
In the end you have a group of people who started as a peaceful equal rights group that somehow evolved into the exact same thing they set out to abolish in the first place. In essence, they turned themselves into the racist, bigoted misogynists and on the flip side of the coin they pissed off half the country which in turn created new racist, bigoted misogynists towards them. Instead of peacefully starting awareness for their cause, they came out of the woodwork like a bunch of know it all teenagers and managed to piss off millions of people who cannot stand them anymore and now they're going to point and say "racist!" when they started the wildfire by annoying the hell out of everyone. What's sad is that the majority of the media outlets support them and give them this massive voice and for whatever reason people accept this **** as journalism when it's nothing other than butt hurt, snot nosed children, attempting to trick the masses into believing that anyone who doesn't agree with them must hate gays, women and any race that isn't white.
Jaw (11-18-2016)
Lol I don't think Ford was planning on making the move.
Forever Fredi
I don't think you're fully considering/appreciating my point. I"m not disagreeing with what you're saying here, I"m trying to point out/illustrate what you're NOT saying.
Places reporting Jeff Sessions as Attorney General.
Bad move Donald.
Forever Fredi
Bigger fish? There is no fish.
Trump has played a false and misleading game with Ford as a talking point for months.
Why would we assume that being president-elect would inspire him to do anything differently?
So Ford had no stated plans to relocate Lincoln production--had in fact announced further investment there, but Trump is taking credit for their not moving it to Mexico?
In other news, I'd like to personally take credit for the Atlanta Braves not relocating to Jalisco.
Well, if I had to put money on it I'd agree with Hawk...these are at the very least olive branches to ensure their locations relative to the tent and the direction of their piss, as per LBJ.
Really draining the swamp. Smh
Too racist to be a judge but hey, attorney general
Honestly finding the worst of the worst
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
Damn, dude. There is ZERO room for nuance in your world, huh?
Is it possible that Roosevelt was a successful, and a "great," if you will, President, AND that Japanese internment was one of the lowest points of the 20th century?
*creates fake news story giving credit to Julio3000 for stopping Braves from relocating*
Definitely concerned with Trump making up a story and then claiming to solve it.
Not to overtly butt in here, but perhaps it might help if you knew who his favorite president of the 20th century was/is. I know, from past discussions with him (unless he's changed his opinion since then) but perhaps that should be your next question to him. Just a suggestion.
Hold on thar' pardner. There's no question that in retrospect what FDR did vis-a-vis Japanese citizens was deplorable and a black mark against American freedom and while I don't view Trump's recommendations as dramatic as internment camps, they too would constitute an infringement on the rights of many Americans. Outside of registration, I don't think any of Trump's other suggestions deviate that far from current practice. But back to FDR, history needs to be viewed through the lenses of the time when actions were taken and the Japanese military attack on Pearl Harbor was a shock wave of great magnitude.
Did FDR win WWII? Not single-handedly of course, but he helped awaken an isolationist nation to the threats posed by both the Axis and the Japanese.
I know you and I disagree fairly clearly (but hopefully politely) on economic policy, but FDR was faced with unprecedented challenges with the economy and he took broad and dramatic actions to put people to work. The unemployment rate was above 20% and the crisis in the agricultural economy was present for a full decade before 1929. There had been periodic panics in the past, but really nothing of this magnitude (which also has to be viewed in through the lens of the Great Depression being the first crisis when a majority of Americans lived in urban settings).
I think a lot of people really misunderstand Keynes (and like mqt, I think Keynes is A-OK). Keynes' suggestions called for short-term stimulus with the government as a consumer to put people to work. When the economy recovers, my understanding of Keynes is that those stimuli should be reduced if not eliminated. I get that the Austrian school of von Mises (but not necessarily Hayek) believes the government should never be a major consumer of services and I can respect that position though I don't agree with it. On the other hand, many on the Left misconstrue Keynes to justify government spending beyond the means to pay for the programs on an on-going basis.
There are two elements to any government budget deficit (or surplus): structural (do projected expenditures exceed revenue or vice-versa regardless of economic performance) and cyclical (the deviations in the size of the deficit due to economic performance). Keynes believed that once things were in balance structurally, the stimulus programs could be reined in. We all have to remember that when Presidents call for massive increases in defense spending, that is Keynes at work regardless of how those suggesting those increases often make pronouncements of how they hate Keynes. But the bottom line is Keynes was not a socialist (and socialists and communists made it clear during that era that Keynes wasn't in their respective tribes).
People claim that we only got out of the depression due to WWII, but they tend to disregard the fact that FDR cut back a lot of the stimuli in the late-1930s to appease more conservative elements of both political parties. The Great Depression was uncharted territory and drastic actions were taken. Did they all work? No. But enough of them did, especially in terms of infrastructure to keep the country from falling off the edge. What I really laugh about is that FDR's pre-WWII deficits were in the same range as those during Reagan's presidency and the Right vilifies FDR while praising Reagan.
I've veered off track of the OP, but I have always viewed Lincoln and FDR as the two greatest Presidents in that they faced unprecedented challenges to the Union and kept things together. Did they make mistakes? Certainly. Every President is a mixed bag. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and ran the war like soldiers were fodder, but in the end the Union survived. Roosevelt inherited a country where things had changed dramatically, but the power structure (financially and in government) had ignored those changes, bringing about an economic catastrophe. While not totally solving that issue, his efforts kept the country from going into the ditch (which it could have). He galvanized the country to go to war and while I don't subscribe to flat-out militarism, I think Just War theory would probably put WWII at the top of justifiable wars in modern history.
I never seem to get the vitriol tossed FDR's way. One can disagree with his policies, but at the same time should recognize the challenges he faced. My parents lived through the Great Depression and while they didn't go on and on about it, we kids got a glimpse of how desperate life was for most Americans during that time. People complained in 2008 about how they couldn't take their kids on an annual vacation due to the economic downturn and how it was the government's fault (I will spare you my screed on that). In the early-1930s, most folks would have settled for a one-day vacation from the horrid conditions they experienced from the moment they awoke.
Last edited by 50PoundHead; 11-18-2016 at 09:01 AM.
No. I don't think it's possible.
If Trump locks up all of the Muslims in this country, I wouldn't give a **** what else he did.
I don't understand what registering Muslim will accomplish
Since 9/11 we have had more terrorist attacks from white christian males 18-24 than Muslims.
I in no way think registering white males 18-24 ( Where history tells us the real threat lies) would eliminate (or identify) the existential threat of going to the movies.
Perhapst to assuage the fears of imminent Sharia Law coming to Northern Michigan
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
The funny thing I'm viewing thus far in the transition is that it appears a lot of the same alligators are returning to the swamp that was scheduled to be drained.
Last edited by 50PoundHead; 11-18-2016 at 10:53 AM.
DaneHill (11-18-2016), Julio3000 (11-18-2016), The Chosen One (11-18-2016)
I have long contended the entire purpose of the Republican Party and its off shoots has been to dismantle the New Deal/
Programs and more importantly regulation
No more --- no less
The first step is to de legitimize FDR.
The Right could care less about abortion or race or school prayer etc.
It has all been a ruse to get out the vote to elect candidates that will meet this end
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
How about globally?
I pretty much agree. I believe there are voters concerned about the social/cultural issues you mention and those resonate more clearly on the Republican side of the ledger right now (they didn't before a generation ago), so I get that. But the creditor class wants to make the debtor class pay and pay and pay.
Yeah, how about globally ?
Was it Muslims who invaded USSR in the early 80;s or Iraq in the early aughts ?
Was it muslims that voluteered to cut up the Ottomaon Empire to suit Churchill aim the control the seas early 20th century ?
Was it Muslims that invaded England in the 13-14-15th centuries to convert the non believers ?
So yeah, what about globally ?
These people are fighting back
.......
Newtons 3rd Law
Context my friend, context
.....
My next thought is Muslim-Americans came here to get out of the fight
Last edited by 57Brave; 11-18-2016 at 11:06 AM.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
