Donald Trump

[FogBlueInSanFran]

What will the rationalization from his supporters be for this one?

a) "What did he say that was wrong?"
b) "It's about time a President stood up for American interests."
c) "Yeah, but the economy is doing so well."
d) "See? We told you he wanted to avoid military entanglements overseas."

He's fucking 7 years of age.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

The only single bit of that tweet is that all 4 'squad' members are (relatively) young.

What will the rationalization from his supporters be for this one?

a) "What did he say that was wrong?"
b) "It's about time a President stood up for American interests."
c) "Yeah, but the economy is doing so well."
d) "See? We told you he wanted to avoid military entanglements overseas."

He's fucking 7 years of age.

That is utterly alarming.

The way I see it is this is him testing the water with his supporters. He's probably got a focus group on it right now trying to decide if genocide will enhance his chances of re-election in 2020.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Just utterly f*cing mind bending to think he's actually said (in a live interview) he has plans in place to flatten Afghanistan, but he doesn't want to use them. He just seems to be going out of his way to piss people off.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Just utterly f*cing mind bending to think he's actually said (in a live interview) he has plans in place to flatten Afghanistan, but he doesn't want to use them. He just seems to be going out of his way to piss people off.

Brave words for a man with heal spurs

 

[bluethrunthru]

Does Pence qualify for his own thread?

 

[Dax777]

The only single bit of that tweet is that all 4 'squad' members are (relatively) young.


That is utterly alarming.

The way I see it is this is him testing the water with his supporters. He's probably got a focus group on it right now trying to decide if genocide will enhance his chances of re-election in 2020.

They all voted against the border relief appropriation
They all campaigned on abolishing ICE.
They are all young, and inexperienced.

There isn't much In that tweet that's FACTUALLY false. I can't speak to their intelligence as I don't know much about some of them. So the intelligence quip might be an overgeneralization.

I know Trump lies a lot. But even liars have their moments.

 

[Dax777]

What will the rationalization from his supporters be for this one?

a) "What did he say that was wrong?"
b) "It's about time a President stood up for American interests."
c) "Yeah, but the economy is doing so well."
d) "See? We told you he wanted to avoid military entanglements overseas."

He's fucking 7 years of age.

I think You've said it.

 

[mat]

Barr leaning on Mueller to STFU during his hearing on Wednesday.

"No Obstruction! No Collusion!"

 

[mat]

 

[super_city_si]

They all voted against the border relief appropriation
They all campaigned on abolishing ICE.
They are all young, and inexperienced.

There isn't much In that tweet that's FACTUALLY false. I can't speak to their intelligence as I don't know much about some of them. So the intelligence quip might be an overgeneralization.

I know Trump lies a lot. But even liars have their moments.

Well then it would fair to say that trump is OLD, inexperienced and not very smart.

 

[Dax777]

Well then it would fair to say that trump is OLD, inexperienced and not very smart.

It would be. And I doubt many would argue against that.

But as you can see from my response, my objection wasn't to what Trump was or wasn't.

Rather, I was objecting to the fallacious claim that nothing in the tweet was true. As that could not be farther from the truth.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

They all voted against the border relief appropriation
They all campaigned on abolishing ICE.
They are all young, and inexperienced.

There isn't much In that tweet that's FACTUALLY false. I can't speak to their intelligence as I don't know much about some of them. So the intelligence quip might be an overgeneralization.

I know Trump lies a lot. But even liars have their moments.

Yes, you are technically correct. Facts do matter, but then quoting facts out of context can be also be misleading.

Representatives (the clue is in the name), should vote based on what they think is best for their constituents. That's how democracy is supposed to work.

An as for ICE, it is currently not fit for purpose.

And the question of intelligence; I can only think of one reason why Trump has threatened legal action against his former schools if they release any of his transcripts, and it's not because those transcripts will substantiate his claims that he's a stable genius.

 

[Dax777]

Yes, you are technically correct. Facts do matter, but then quoting facts out of context can be also be misleading.

Representatives (the clue is in the name), should vote based on what they think is best for their constituents. That's how democracy is supposed to work.

An as for ICE, it is currently not fit for purpose.

And the question of intelligence; I can only think of one reason why Trump has threatened legal action against his former schools if they release any of his transcripts, and it's not because those transcripts will substantiate his claims that he's a stable genius.

I am at a loss as to what facts I've quoted out of context. It goes without saying what the job is of people in Congress. Of course, they can vote as they please. But others can point out how they've voted.

They voted against the bill because they decided anything that helps border patrolling hurts their overall goal. Which is to be Anti-ICE, Anti-Borders, and anti-border security.

So any appropriation that helps those things are a No No, even if it will also provide the relief that will prevent children from getting sick and dying. Sadly, dying children and children living in filth is better for their politics than money to relief such condition if that money also improves Border Security.

They are in fact doing the very thing many here have condemned the administration of doing. I.e. attempting to use appropriation as a tactic. Just like the administration is supposedly using 'separation' as a tactic.

However, unlike "separation'' there is no other practical value to attempting to withhold appropriation. Other than to increase the sufferings of the innocent for the purpose of personal propaganda. But if you know of any other practical purpose that I'm missing. I'm all ears.

But I digress. All this is for a different thread about politics in America, which I keep confusing this thread for. Only to be reminded this really isn't a thread about politics at all. It's a thread about bashing Trump.

We should start an American politics thread. A place for those who'd like to debate the actual facts, theories and ideologies of left, right and center American politics. But just like actual appropriation for Border expenditure, I'm sure it won't be popular.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I am at a loss as to what facts I've quoted out of context. It goes without saying what the job is of people in Congress. Of course, they can vote as they please. But others can point out how they've voted.

They voted against the bill because they decided anything that helps border patrolling hurts their overall goal. Which is to be Anti-ICE, Anti-Borders, and anti-border security.

So any appropriation that helps those things are a No No, even if it will also provide the relief that will prevent children from getting sick and dying. Sadly, dying children and children living in filth is better for their politics than money to relief such condition if that money also improves Border Security.

They are in fact doing the very thing many here have condemned the administration of doing. I.e. attempting to use appropriation as a tactic. Just like the administration is supposedly using 'separation' as a tactic.

However, unlike "separation'' there is no other practical value to attempting to withhold appropriation. Other than to increase the sufferings of the innocent for the purpose of personal propaganda. But if you know of any other practical purpose that I'm missing. I'm all ears.

But I digress. All this is for a different thread about politics in America, which I keep confusing this thread for. Only to be reminded this really isn't a thread about politics at all. It's a thread about bashing Trump.

We should start an American politics thread. A place for those who'd like to debate the actual facts, theories and ideologies of left, right and center American politics. But just like actual appropriation for Border expenditure, I'm sure it won't be popular.

Are you saying the current administration are not using separation as a tactic to discourage migrant border crossings?

The UN have condemned this practice, and declared it illegal under international law, despite loud and clear whataboutery from Nikki Haley and others . The US have clearly and unashamedly prioritised migrant prevention over the protection and care of innocent children. Some of these children may never be reunited with their parents. The bill that the 4 congresswomen voted against in no way addresses this issue.

 

[Dax777]

Are you saying the current administration are not using separation as a tactic to discourage migrant border crossings?

The UN have condemned this practice, and declared it illegal under international law, despite loud and clear whataboutery from Nikki Haley and others . The US have clearly and unashamedly prioritised migrant prevention over the protection and care of innocent children. Some of these children may never be reunited with their parents. The bill that the 4 congresswomen voted against in no way addresses this issue.

Lol, in a 6 paragraph response condemning a position, you pick out a tangential point and focus on it as if it were the point. But I'll oblige you.

There are other legitimate reasons for separation other than its use as a tactic. A point implicitly stated in the very next paragraph to the one you quoted. However, there are NO other legitimate reasons for not appropriating funds for those children other than its use as a tactic.

To bring us back to the actual point of this discussion. What other value does witholding funding have? Other than as a tactic?

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Lol, in a 6 paragraph response condemning a position, you pick out a tangential point and focus on it as if it were the point. But I'll oblige you.

There are other legitimate reasons for separation other than its use as a tactic. A point implicitly stated in the very next paragraph to the one you quoted. However, there are NO other legitimate reasons for not appropriating funds for those children other than its use as a tactic.

To bring us back to the actual point of this discussion. What other value does witholding funding have? Other than as a tactic?

Because throwing money at the situation doesn't address the fundamental issues - I'll leave it at that.

 

[Dax777]

Because throwing money at the situation doesn't address the fundamental issues - I'll leave it at that.

That's a first. The one time money is all that was needed, turns out to be the only time Leftist grew a conservative conscience. Lol

But I'm happy that you are at least willing to admit the lives of Innocent children are worth sacrificing on the alter of 'addressing the fundamental issues'

Whatever those are.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Donald J. Trump
(@realDonaldTrump)

“I completely read the entire Mueller Report, and do you know what I concluded after reading both Volume 1 and Volume 2? There is no there there. NO THERE THERE! We completely wasted everybody’s time and taxpayer’s money.” @trish_regan.

This from the guy who famously said "I don't read". Basically, he's saying I've read it and it totally clears me of any wrong doing, so let's move on.

 

[super_city_si]

Donald J. Trump
(@realDonaldTrump)

“I completely read the entire Mueller Report, and do you know what I concluded after reading both Volume 1 and Volume 2? There is no there there. NO THERE THERE! We completely wasted everybody’s time and taxpayer’s money.” @trish_regan.

This from the guy who famously said "I don't read". Basically, he's saying I've read it and it totally clears me of any wrong doing, so let's move on.

He hasn’t read it. I think he’s quoting someone who has and is saying there’s nothing in it.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

He hasn’t read it. I think he’s quoting someone who has and is saying there’s nothing in it.

That's how I read it.
Trish Regan is a Foxite. Business I think.

I have no idea what 'No there there' means, whether in CAPITALS or not.

The Mueller testimony isn't going to be very interesting. He'll say 'see the report' a lot. Agent Orange will parrot 'no collusion no obstruction' and wave his tiny hands.