Donald Trump running for president

rob112 said:
So you weren’t saying that walls were ineffective here?


You are very good at saying just enough to make your point in a way that you can claim you are not making any point.
Click to expand...

I was making a smart ass comment on a link. If you wish to ignore my longer posts and claim I don't stand behind my points and clarify them when asked, then that's your choice. I don't think a wall along the border will be effective, but there's not a wall currently there to abolish, so... My point toward that is to not waste the money in the first place. If you want to dig deeper into my joke, I would say that there is knee jerk reaction among most conservatives to think of immigrants from southern nations as criminals and military members as gi joe-type heroes that only wish to uphold the laws of our nation, yet this story would show that things are not black and white. Anything else you think I'm being ambiguous about?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Where did you grab this from? I did a quick search and I'm not seeing anything match up like that and don't want to spend all night looking.
Click to expand...

Randomly all over the internetz of course, think Im going to spend 5 hours finding the perfect img's? ROFL!!!!!

Seriously, some of whats on those billboards I posted Im not as familiar with, but I am aware of the Iraq war, he is a supporter of the NSA, Ive heard of the former FBI 9/11 whistleblower but I cant trust people just because they are a whistleblower. Mueller supports illegal wars that have caused the deaths of over a million people. He also supports the war on drugs which oppresses the minority community and stealing from tax payers to fund it, etc...

The man has no ethical integrity, I have no respect for him. He is just a big government tyrant and an accomplice to mass murder.
 
Last edited:
ax1 said:
Randomly all over the internetz of course, think Im going to spend 5 hours finding the perfect img's? ROFL!!!!!

Seriously, some of whats on those billboards I posted Im not as familiar with, but I am aware of the Iraq war, he is a supporter of the NSA, Ive heard of the former FBI 9/11 whistleblower but I cant trust people just because they are a whistleblower. Mueller supports illegal wars, war on drugs which oppresses the minority community, etc...

The man has no ethical integrity, I have no respect for him.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate that, but it has no bearing on the facts in the report. That's the thing that nobody on the Republican/Trump/Fox side is even trying to attack. They'd rather just ad hominem away and hope that's enough of a distraction.

***Note for the slow kids in the class: please let me know if you didn't understand any of the things I said and I can expand/clarify.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I can appreciate that, but it has no bearing on the facts in the report. That's the thing that nobody on the Republican/Trump/Fox side is even trying to attack. They'd rather just ad hominem away and hope that's enough of a distraction.

***Note for the slow kids in the class: please let me know if you didn't understand any of the things I said and I can expand/clarify.
Click to expand...

What you say is true, anything he did in the past doesnt automatically exempt a separate report and incident.

To be honest, Im just more annoyed when I see people (on tv for the most part, lol) raise him up as some mythological hero begging him to say the right things to dethrone malevolent billionaire king so I just cant help myself but to constantly remind the world he is an unconstitutional accomplice to mass murder.

Fox can kiss my ass, I will never forgive them for how they fed the public lies about the gulf war and the rest of them, and promoted the war on terrorism and the destruction of our Bill of Rights and Constitution. I just dont understand people their morality is lost and desensitized, although John Stossel who worked there back in the day is one of the greatest humans on earth and always did his own thing.
 
Last edited:
ax1 said:
What you say is true, anything he did in the past doesnt automatically exempt a separate report and incident.

To be honest, Im just more annoyed when I see people (on tv for the most part, lol) raise him up as some mythological hero begging him to say the right things to dethrone malevolent billionaire king so I just cant help myself but to constantly remind the world he is an unconstitutional accomplice to mass murder.

Fox can kiss my ass, I will never forgive them for how they fed the public lies about the gulf war and the rest of them, and promoted the war on terrorism and the destruction of our Bill of Rights and Constitution. I just dont understand people their morality is lost and desensitized, although John Stossel who worked there back in the day is one of the greatest humans on earth and always did his own thing.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They have the report, so either do something with it or don't and stop expecting Mueller to come in like Matlock with some huge surprise. I think trying to impeach is a waste of time and they need to focus on others things that actually matter unless there is some other huge piece of evidence that hasn't come out yet.

As for the networks, I'm sure it's difficult to turn down that much money to just cluck like hens all day rather than going out and doing real journalism. They sell their soul to do that crap.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Or give me a chance to clarify my point.
Click to expand...

I got your point ma man. My whole point was the whole “this didn’t work in this one scenario so it can’t work anywhere” is a bad argument. It’s even worse when the scenario is a false equivalent. That’s why you got my tongue and cheek about the drug war/prison system essentially.

I mean to be fair I am for abolishing the drug war. I would imagine you would be ok with stopping talks about the wall. Which is both fine.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Or give me a chance to clarify my point.
Click to expand...

I got your point ma man. My whole point was the whole “this didn’t work in this one scenario so it can’t work anywhere” is a bad argument. It’s even worse when the scenario is a false equivalent. That’s why you got my tongue and cheek about the drug war/prison system essentially.

I mean to be fair I am for abolishing the drug war. I would imagine you would be ok with stopping talks about the wall. Which is both fine.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Exactly. They have the report, so either do something with it or don't and stop expecting Mueller to come in like Matlock with some huge surprise. I think trying to impeach is a waste of time and they need to focus on others things that actually matter unless there is some other huge piece of evidence that hasn't come out yet.

As for the networks, I'm sure it's difficult to turn down that much money to just cluck like hens all day rather than going out and doing real journalism. They sell their soul to do that crap.
Click to expand...

The problem I have is that there already is more than enough evidence over a variety of issues I have regurgitated over and over again like a broken record to impeach him for violating his oath of office lol

Unfortunately nobody wants to really come forward and let the whole ship sink, or get assassinated, or move to Russia to have their lives protected.

My point is we dont need Russiagate and thats a minority crime if evidence is there and factual compared to the rest of crimes that clearly factually have been committed. The whole thing is a shytshow joke between servants of the dark side and serves only as a distraction to far bigger issues.
 
Misfit28 said:
So just because you might have to sort through information in Google because your search terms are less than optimal means it is rigged? Critical thinking is a lost art.
Click to expand...

Im 100% certain its now rigged based of personal years of experience and following along with whats been going on politically behind the scenes. Not only do they make it almost impossible to search certain things, but they bring up their choice of links for their own political agenda. Just like when google used to be in China and when you type in Tianamen Square parties and celebrations would come up, but protests completely disappeared.

I cnouw huw tow searc on da foogles duh du dum dum krikakal dinking iz kool
 
Last edited:
Misfit28 said:
So just because you might have to sort through information in Google because your search terms are less than optimal means it is rigged? Critical thinking is a lost art.
Click to expand...

To play devils advocate I would say assuming there is no way that tech companies would manipulate the public would be a lack of critical thinking.

Manipulating information has been done countless times throughout history. That is why almost everything is debated.
 
rob112 said:
To play devils advocate I would say assuming there is no way that tech companies would manipulate the public would be a lack of critical thinking.

Manipulating information has been done countless times throughout history. That is why almost everything is debated.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that they didn't manipulate things, but sometimes you have to dig deeper than just the first few results. If you don't know how to structure a proper query, then everything might seem manipulated.

It's funny how things are so "manipulated", yet people can still find plenty of things to "prove" their conspiracy theories.

And yes, many things in history are total manipulation. Take our current administration for instance.

Oh, and let's not forget the Bible and its many versions and translations.
 
I think Prezidump Dump can win a 2nd term if he campaigns on tax reform and having the US tax payer simply their returns to a single sheet of paper. That would be genius. Oh wait, he did that last time and they passed taxed reform and we all ended up with a single piece of krap!!!!!!
 
Where are his tax returns?
I think each state should pass a law that you have to submit your tax returns for 10 years to run for office.

Let's keep this clean the swamp, for real.
 
justhere4comm said:
Where are his tax returns?
I think each state should pass a law that you have to submit your tax returns for 10 years to run for office.

Let's keep this clean the swamp, for real.
Click to expand...
I'm 99.99% sure that any such laws would be ruled as unconstitutional by the courts. Further, I don't suspect it would be a close decision, and it probably wouldn't even elevate to the Supreme Court because it is pretty cut and dried.

The Supreme Court has already held that states cannot impose additional requirements of candidates beyond what is enumerated by the Constitution, and they have explicitly rejected the argument that the states aren't stopping candidates from running as write-in candidates by restricting ballot access by state law.

The only way that ever happens in our lifetime is via Constitutional Amendment, which is also not ever going to happen.
 
Last edited:
Misfit28 said:
I didn't say that they didn't manipulate things, but sometimes you have to dig deeper than just the first few results. If you don't know how to structure a proper query, then everything might seem manipulated.

It's funny how things are so "manipulated", yet people can still find plenty of things to "prove" their conspiracy theories.

And yes, many things in history are total manipulation. Take our current administration for instance.

Oh, and let's not forget the Bible and its many versions and translations.
Click to expand...

First thought is assuming something about AX1 and his ability to search google. I try my best to not assume things about people.

He does make a good point in if he searches Tiananmen Square you would think a massacre would be a top result. I didn’t double check this, but if true that’s very odd.

Current administration would be the present, so that is confusing in the context of history.

I always find it funny when people say the Bible and not religion in general.
 
rob112 said:
First thought is assuming something about AX1 and his ability to search google. I try my best to not assume things about people.

He does make a good point in if he searches Tiananmen Square you would think a massacre would be a top result. I didn’t double check this, but if true that’s very odd.

Current administration would be the present, so that is confusing in the context of history.

I always find it funny when people say the Bible and not religion in general.
Click to expand...

That Tiananamen Square example was when google was still available in Mainland China so you wouldnt be able to test it yourself. I was comparing my recent searches here on google on other topics to my experiences in China which is 100% true but not as extreme as of yet in the USA. Disturbing though.
 
justhere4comm said:
You sure?

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

I dont have a problem with people wanting tax returns, but this is being weaponized to rig elections by various political groups. Id rather the individual voter just choose if having a open tax return enough to gain their votes and take it off the hands of government to regulate requirements. Actually, Id rather the elections be all up to me because I always would choose the right guy for the job :)
 
Read the article. More than one state.

What’s wrong with it? Don’t run for office if you got something to hide.
 
justhere4comm said:
You sure?

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
I'm aware that various state legislatures have taken up such laws, but the Supreme Court already weighed in on the question of whether states could impose additional requirements for candidates for federal office.

This was the relevant portion of the majority decision in that case:

Such a state imposed restriction is contrary to the "fundamental principle of our representative democracy," embodied in the Constitution, that "the people should choose whom they please to govern them." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 547 (1969) (internal quotation marks omitted). Allowing individual States to adopt their own qualifications for congressional service would be inconsistent with the Framers' vision of a uniform National Legislature representing the people of the United States. If the qualifications set forth in the text of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended.
Click to expand...

The case was US Term Limits Inc. vs. Thornton (Invalid Link Removed) which addressed the question if states could pass laws that restricted ballot access based on additional requirements for holding the office. In this case, it was an amendment to the Arkansas State Constitution to impose term limits on Representatives and Senators, but the question applies equally in this case.

The US Supreme Court in this case upheld the decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court which ruled the amendment unconstitutional and rejected the argument that states had the power to restrict ballot access as they saw fit.

Justice Brown's plurality opinion also rejected the argument that Amendment 73 is "merely a ballot access amendment," concluding that "[t]he intent and the effect of Amendment 73 are to disqualify congressional incumbents from further service." Id., at 265-266, 872 S. W. 2d, at 356-357. Justice Brown considered the possibilities that an excluded candidate might run for Congress as a write in candidate or be appointed to fill a vacancy to be "glimmers of opportunity . . . [that] are faint indeed--so faint in our judgment that they cannot salvage Amendment 73 from constitutional attack." Id., at 266, 872 S. W. 2d, at 357. In separate opinions, Justice Dudley and Justice Gerald P. Brown agreed that Amendment 73 violates the Federal Constitution.
Click to expand...

Shorter overview of the key issue and conclusion from Oyez: Invalid Link Removed
 
Yet still. I’m wondering why this is not the norm.

I guess the system is corrupt in favor for the wealthy and influential only. Not anyone in here certainly.

You guys should run for office. Lol.
 
justhere4comm said:
Read the article. More than one state.

What’s wrong with it? Don’t run for office if you got something to hide.
Click to expand...

But that should be up to the voters, dont you think? Its not complicated, its called a democracy.
 
justhere4comm said:
Yet still. I’m wondering why this is not the norm.

I guess the system is corrupt in favor for the wealthy and influential only. Not anyone in here certainly.

You guys should run for office. Lol.
Click to expand...

Now thats the truth!!!!!

Id rather be pushing to outlaw bribes aka lobby campaign financing.
 
justhere4comm said:
Yet still. I’m wondering why this is not the norm.

I guess the system is corrupt in favor for the wealthy and influential only. Not anyone in here certainly.

You guys should run for office. Lol.
Click to expand...
I know you're joking here, but I seriously considered trying to primary my long time Congressional Representative in 2020, but she is simply too well-known and has too much institutional support for any challenge to have any real chance of success.
 
Well looks like that stupid wall is going up now.

Supreme Court clears way for Trump admin to use Defense funds for border wall construction

(CiaNN) - The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for Invalid Link Removed from the Department of DefenseInvalid Link Removed along the southwestern border that theInvalid Link Removed

The decision allows the Defense Department money to be spent now while a court battle plays out over whether the government had the authority to divert funds that were not appropriated for the wall. The Supreme Court voted 5-4, along ideological lines, to allow the funds to be used while the court appeals proceed.

Invalid Link Removed
 
ax1 said:
Well looks like that stupid wall is going up now.

Supreme Court clears way for Trump admin to use Defense funds for border wall construction

(CiaNN) - The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for Invalid Link Removed from the Department of DefenseInvalid Link Removed along the southwestern border that theInvalid Link Removed

The decision allows the Defense Department money to be spent now while a court battle plays out over whether the government had the authority to divert funds that were not appropriated for the wall. The Supreme Court voted 5-4, along ideological lines, to allow the funds to be used while the court appeals proceed.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
Well shucks. That is just such a tragic result. :/
 
Aleksandar37 said:
At least it makes sense to pull the money from there based on their justification.
Click to expand...
They just better not be pulling it from the space force funds. We need to make sure we show our universal dominance asap!
 
ax1 said:
Well looks like that stupid wall is going up now.

Supreme Court clears way for Trump admin to use Defense funds for border wall construction

(CiaNN) - The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for Invalid Link Removed from the Department of DefenseInvalid Link Removed along the southwestern border that theInvalid Link Removed

The decision allows the Defense Department money to be spent now while a court battle plays out over whether the government had the authority to divert funds that were not appropriated for the wall. The Supreme Court voted 5-4, along ideological lines, to allow the funds to be used while the court appeals proceed.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Nope. They can replace sections in need of repair.
 
justhere4comm said:
< hopes ^ is joking... You're joking... right?.. lol.
Click to expand...

They are getting bored of slaughtering humans so they just wanna up the excitement.

Dear Aliens....run now, and if they show you a cookbook it’s for you, really for you this time!

Invalid Link Removed
 
Invalid Link Removed

Just add this to the already long list of why Reagan was a horrible President, despite Republicans wanting to cherry-pick his memory.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Invalid Link Removed

Just add this to the already long list of why Reagan was a horrible President, despite Republicans wanting to cherry-pick his memory.
Click to expand...

I’ll check out that link later when I get home but yeah quickly, Reagan was a big government war mongering terrorist and that’s the truth.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Invalid Link Removed

Just add this to the already long list of why Reagan was a horrible President, despite Republicans wanting to cherry-pick his memory.
Click to expand...
Political scientists and historians both tend to rank Reagan as one of our nation's best presidents, and that isn't from Republican cherry-picking.
 
jimbuick said:
Political scientists and historians both tend to rank Reagan as one of our nation's best presidents, and that isn't from Republican cherry-picking.
Click to expand...

Doesnt seem like they prioritize ethics, morality and human rights when selecting their picks.

I would change the name of the list to "the least evil presidents list."
 
ax1 said:
Doesnt seem like they prioritize ethics, morality and human rights when selecting their picks.

I would change the name of the list to "the least evil presidents list."
Click to expand...
Yes, yes we know. All Presidents suck because they aren't Libertarian Jesus.
 
My point?
He was one better.

More importantly.
Trump. That pile of garbage is #44.

IMG_2254.JPG
 
justhere4comm said:
My point?
He was one better.

More importantly.
Trump. That pile of garbage is #44.

View attachment 185315
Click to expand...
Ok? So you aren't really making a cogent point, because no one brought Obama up. I was only disputing the idea that Reagan was one of the worst Presidents we've ever had.

I certainly didn't bring up Trump, because, as you well know, I don't like the guy.

Finally, historians rank Reagan 3 places higher than Obama, since you seem intent to compare them with no intent to make a real point: Invalid Link Removed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top