Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Here, I quoted the report because you either:

A. Can't Read

B. Are Stupid

C. Both (I assume C)

Sorta hard to push impeachment, as it should be, when an independent commission found that Trump did not collude/coordinate with the Russian Government to interfere with the 2016 election.

And yet, you said this:

image.thumb.jpeg.888120c1eb6ab21eed6e48204294a113.jpeg

So who exactly is “stupid”?  And didn’t you recently report someone for a “personal attack”? 
 

Edited:  And I was wrong about the report...that was Homestar.  My apologies for the mixup.

Edited by HeloDude
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Prozac said:

You’re being a bit disingenuous here. Lincoln spent 30 years in politics. Jefferson over 30, and Reagan over 20. By any account they were all career politicians, regardless of how they got their start. As a matter of fact, off the top of my head, I can’t think of any prominent politicians who were elected prior to doing some sort of other work (I’m sure there are a few).  I don’t think “knowing so much that isn’t so” is an affliction that is limited to liberals. 

All 3 were prosperous before and without politics.  Is that true of our current class of career politicians?  But I do agree with your last sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HeloDude said:

And yet, you said this:

image.thumb.jpeg.888120c1eb6ab21eed6e48204294a113.jpeg

So who exactly is “stupid”?  And didn’t you recently report someone for a “personal attack”? 

You do realize that impeachment isn’t a legal process, right? Can you show me where I said Trump was impeached for colluding with Russia?

Recently report? No, I have a DD-214, so I don’t really care. I was banned by a mod, without notice, for showing data where he was wrong and apparently that got his panties in a twist.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sua Sponte said:

You do realize that impeachment isn’t a legal process, right? Can you show me where I said Trump was impeached for colluding with Russia?

Recently report? No, I have a DD-214, so I don’t really care. I was banned by a mod, without notice, for showing data where he was wrong and apparently that got his panties in a twist.

You literally were responding to Lloyd’s post regarding Russian collusion...and your response was about Trump not being able to be indicted but that can and was impeached, which you said is like an indictment.
 

And now you’re trying to backtrack and suggest that your post had nothing to do with Russian collusion?  Let me guess...you’re drinking more than usual tonight.  Everything ok?

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HeloDude said:

You literally were responding to Lloyd’s post regarding Russian collusion...and your response was about Trump not being able to be indicted but that can and was impeached, which you said is like an indictment.
 

And now you’re trying to backtrack and suggest that your post had nothing to do with Russian collusion?  Let me guess...you’re drinking more than usual tonight.  Everything ok?

I’m not backtracking anything. Trump was alleged to have colluded with Russia, an independent counsel investigated the allegation and did not substantiate it, however even if they had, the DOJ couldn’t refer charges for an indictment. Why? Because that was the OLC’s policy on sitting presidents. Had Mueller opined that Trump had colluded with Russia, it would’ve most likely been another article of impeachment.

An impeach is like an indictment since the House is acting like a grand jury, then the Senate acting like a trial jury.

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sua Sponte said:

I’m not backtracking anything. Trump was alleged to have colluded with Russia, an independent counsel investigated the allegation and did not substantiate it, however even if they had, the DOJ couldn’t refer charges for an indictment. Why? Because that was the OLC’s policy on sitting presidents. Had Mueller opined that Trump had colluded with Russia, it would’ve most likely been another article of impeachment.

An impeach is like an indictment since the House is acting like a grand jury, then the Senate acting like a trial jury.

You said Trump was impeached when responding to Lloyd’s post about Russian collusion, did you not?

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sua Sponte said:

Correct, because I quoted him. I however never said he was impeached for collusion with Russia.

Oh...well, usually when you quote someone and respond to their post, it has something to do with their post.  But I guess doing the complete opposite would also make sense.  

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pointing out the obvious to the oblivious since those that believe it so will just be reaffirmed and those that don't won't or will accept it since it supports their position(s):

 

Interesting that Project Veritas set up a CNN technical producer with, essentially, a honey trap and the poor schmuck, trying to get laid, 'fesses up to all the shenanigans that those on the right have been pointing out - deliberate, stated corporate policy to defeat Trump, deliberate hiding of stories facts detrimental to Democrats, hyping Kung Flu coverage for ratings (shocked, I tell you, shocked), deliberately only covering white on black crimes and not reporting on black on anybody else, especially Asian, crime since it "doesn't help BLM."

 

Twitter just banned both Project Veritas and O'Keefe personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Pointing out the obvious to the oblivious since those that believe it so will just be reaffirmed and those that don't won't or will accept it since it supports their position(s):

 

Interesting that Project Veritas set up a CNN technical producer with, essentially, a honey trap and the poor schmuck, trying to get laid, 'fesses up to all the shenanigans that those on the right have been pointing out - deliberate, stated corporate policy to defeat Trump, deliberate hiding of stories facts detrimental to Democrats, hyping Kung Flu coverage for ratings (shocked, I tell you, shocked), deliberately only covering white on black crimes and not reporting on black on anybody else, especially Asian, crime since it "doesn't help BLM."

 

Twitter just banned both Project Veritas and O'Keefe personally.

And O'Keefe is suing them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Twitter just banned both Project Veritas and O'Keefe personally.

And by doing so, verified the accusations you listed.  It’s big tech/social media/MSM censoring the truth and opposing opinions.  Doubling down is really all they can do at this point.  

Forceable suppression of opposition is one of the hallmarks of fascism.  This is modern day fascism.  

Edited by lloyd christmas
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Pointing out the obvious to the oblivious since those that believe it so will just be reaffirmed and those that don't won't or will accept it since it supports their position(s):

 

Interesting that Project Veritas set up a CNN technical producer with, essentially, a honey trap and the poor schmuck, trying to get laid, 'fesses up to all the shenanigans that those on the right have been pointing out - deliberate, stated corporate policy to defeat Trump, deliberate hiding of stories facts detrimental to Democrats, hyping Kung Flu coverage for ratings (shocked, I tell you, shocked), deliberately only covering white on black crimes and not reporting on black on anybody else, especially Asian, crime since it "doesn't help BLM."

 

Twitter just banned both Project Veritas and O'Keefe personally.

We are starting to live in scary times. 
 

What is one supposed to do when the line between a private enterprise and government entity can no longer be discerned?

Big tech has become so powerful and so intertwined with the Democrat party that they are essentially a defacto arm of the party/government. The left of course loves this because they can censor, delete, or promote any speech they wish and then hide behind the guise of “It’s a private business, they can set their own terms of service”. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

Forceable suppression of opposition is one of the hallmarks of fascism.  This is modern day fascism

Forcible suppression of opposition is one of the hallmarks of communism. This is modern day communism.

Wait 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

And by doing so, verified the accusations you listed.  It’s big tech/social media/MSM censoring the truth and opposing opinions.  Doubling down is really all they can do at this point.  

Forceable suppression of opposition is one of the hallmarks of fascism.  This is modern day fascism.  

Wait, wait. I thought one of the hallmarks of a Democratic and open society was freedom of speech, which the Supreme Court recently ruled most definitely applies to corporations. Do you think big tech/MSM/etc are doing any of this with regards to anything other than their bottom lines? Fascism? Hardly. This is un encumbered, free range capitalism doing what it does. I happen to agree that it’s not necessarily the best situation for our country. Repealing Citizens United would be a great first step towards improving things. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Wait, wait. I thought one of the hallmarks of a Democratic and open society was freedom of speech, which the Supreme Court recently ruled most definitely applies to corporations. Do you think big tech/MSM/etc are doing any of this with regards to anything other than their bottom lines? Fascism? Hardly. This is un encumbered, free range capitalism doing what it does. I happen to agree that it’s not necessarily the best situation for our country. Repealing Citizens United would be a great first step towards improving things. 

Seriously? We don't have anything near "unencumbered, free range capitalism" in the US. Kickbacks, payoffs, power influencing, etc but not even close to capitalism.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Prozac said:

Do you think big tech/MSM/etc are doing any of this with regards to anything other than their bottom lines? 

I absolutely believe big tech/MSM/etc are doing any number of things in concert with the power players in our government to shape, swing and direct public opinion in their favored direction.  Examples of this are literally everywhere. 

And yes, they do it for profit, ie their bottom line.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2021 at 11:21 PM, kaputt said:

We are starting to live in scary times. 
 

What is one supposed to do when the line between a private enterprise and government entity can no longer be discerned?

Big tech has become so powerful and so intertwined with the Democrat party that they are essentially a defacto arm of the party/government. The left of course loves this because they can censor, delete, or promote any speech they wish and then hide behind the guise of “It’s a private business, they can set their own terms of service”. 

Remember when Republicans were against net neutrality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2021 at 12:40 PM, bfargin said:

Seriously? We don't have anything near "unencumbered, free range capitalism" in the US. Kickbacks, payoffs, power influencing, etc but not even close to capitalism.

Just like how Russia never had true Communism? 

Your argument is just a no true Scotsman fallacy. 

America is a capitalist society. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never said it wasn't capitalism, just said it wasn't  unencumbered, free range as I quoted. Of course we live in a capitalistic society, it's just one where all of the government checks and balances have been corrupted and big money/corporate influence has overtaken any sense of a free market. When huge businesses get tax breaks and tax and other governmental privileges it's not free range capitalism at all, it's a marketplace bought and paid for with the government protecting the big players.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bfargin said:

Never said it wasn't capitalism, just said it wasn't  unencumbered, free range as I quoted. Of course we live in a capitalistic society, it's just one where all of the government checks and balances have been corrupted and big money/corporate influence has overtaken any sense of a free market. When huge businesses get tax breaks and tax and other governmental privileges it's not free range capitalism at all, it's a marketplace bought and paid for with the government protecting the big players.

Shack.

It's absolutely insane that Amazon can hold a nationwide contest for which city can provide it the most tax breaks while any one of us would be laughed out of the room for asking for similar treatment of we started a small business.

As long as conservatives keep reflexively defending the globalization of American jobs and the asymmetrical treatment of immensely powerful corporations, millennials and Gen Zers will continue flocking to the bankrupt and dangerous philosophies of Marx/Bernie/progressives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never said it wasn't capitalism, just said it wasn't  unencumbered, free range as I quoted. Of course we live in a capitalistic society, it's just one where all of the government checks and balances have been corrupted and big money/corporate influence has overtaken any sense of a free market. When huge businesses get tax breaks and tax and other governmental privileges it's not free range capitalism at all, it's a marketplace bought and paid for with the government protecting the big players.


So what's your solution?

There's no such thing as a free and unencumbered market-something or someone will consolidate wealth and power and use that to influence both the market and the surrounding society that enables the market. That could be government (communism at the extreme) or individual actors (corporate monopolies or individuals), or anywhere between.

Since we don't live in a society that controls businesses directly, how does government incentivize the behaviors it wants to see? Attracting a large business to a city brings people, and if those people are paid well, it injects money into other industries and businesses in the city, as well as increased tax revenue in and screaming other businesses.

But there aren't many carrots a city has to attract an industry or business. It's mainly financial benefits, such as reduced taxes (whether it's on profits or on property taxes), or funding infrastructure for the business (like funding a stadium for a sports team, or public transportation like a metro stop).

If a business gets large enough, it gains influence through it's wealth, both directly and indirectly. It gives them negotiating power when dealing with government (particularly lower levels), particularly if their industry isn't dependent on location. Just like AF pilots, a business can vote with their feet to go somewhere they feel better appreciated.

If a business can influence government and laws, why shouldn't it do so to make conditions favorable for themselves to make more money? Arguably, for a publicly traded company, it's their fiduciary responsibility to do so.

So why is corporate influence on government bad? Is it because they might not be acting in the best interests of society at large?

So then what? Well, government can enact laws/regulation to curb certain actions or behaviors, but this often gets played as "attacking the free market" and/or being socialist/communist.

The only real way to reduce corporate influence in government is to reduce their ability to influence, which is through limiting how much wealth they can accumulate. And the way that's done it's through taxes.

However, this creates a danger with government overreach, especially if the ideals elected government officials hold do not match the people they represent. That tax money has to go to funding what society wants or needs, otherwise, the problem just gets shifted from undue business influence to some other segment of society having undue influence (like the 2 major political parties...).
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Shack.
It's absolutely insane that Amazon can hold a nationwide contest for which city can provide it the most tax breaks while any one of us would be laughed out of the room for asking for similar treatment of we started a small business.
As long as conservatives keep reflexively defending the globalization of American jobs and the asymmetrical treatment of immensely powerful corporations, millennials and Gen Zers will continue flocking to the bankrupt and dangerous philosophies of Marx/Bernie/progressives.


That's because Amazon has enough money to influence outcomes and brings enough jobs that site selection can have significant impacts to that site. A small business bringing maybe 100-200 people won't have the same impact as Amazon bringing several thousand jobs.

Coincidentally, that's similar to why labor unions work: an individual worker can't negotiate as well as a large organization, unless they have unique/rare abilities. Same goes for businesses- a small business won't be able to negotiate with government as well as a large business, unless they possess something the government is interested in.

I'd bet younger people are flocking to the far left because there's no real middle ground when it comes to voting. I don't think younger people necessarily care if large businesses are treated better than small businesses, they care about making end meet and getting paid well enough to do the things they want. Republicans have doubled down on backing business interests, particularly when wages have been stagnant for so long when compared to productivity expected from workers.

So yeah, if you're in a position where you feel financially squeezed, you're going to vote for someone who will at least consider a minimum wage increase, or better worker protections like sick leave or access to healthcare. They're going to vote for someone who will help them meet basic needs, all the other politics don't really matter if you're struggling. And since Republicans won't even entertain any debate on those subjects (and use the "free market" as an excuse to not engage in meaningful debate, or to acknowledge that there might be a problem), of course they'll vote Democrat, even if they don't fully agree with their platform. The unfortunate byproduct of that is that it enables the far left to push their agenda on many other unrelated fronts.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...