Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

Have you voted? ;)


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Papi said:

Quite telling when members of your own party vote against your nominee. Without VP Pence's tie-breaking vote (first time in history) she would never have been confirmed. Go Team Trump!

 

13 minutes ago, Papi said:

Dude, you are so far up your own ass you can't even see straight.  As others have already stated, it is the first time a VP has cast a tie-breaker vote for a cabinet appointment.  How about you go learn your history.

/facepalm

Reading your two posts it seems you place the greater significance on the fact the Presidents party in the Senate voted against the Presidents nominee.

The truly significant aspect is it was a successful nomination.

When it comes to "up your assery" you would be aware that these things are whipped up the ying-yang and the vote count is well known before it hits the floor. If there would've been any doubt the nomination would've been withdrawn or they would've made a stand on principle. In a vote like this it is quite possible that the two GOP senators were considered vulnerable in their respective States and were given a pass rather than being whipped to the extreme.

Politics, my friend, and the end result is what matters... Trump is still WINNING!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 853
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For one thing, anyone who's password is.... 'password' is just an idiot. Regardless I don't give a stuff if Russia is behind it or not (and given that no evidence has been produced, one has to wo

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, fittybolger said:

 

Reading your two posts it seems you place the greater significance on the fact the Presidents party in the Senate voted against the Presidents nominee.

The truly significant aspect is it was a successful nomination.

When it comes to "up your assery" you would be aware that these things are whipped up the ying-yang and the vote count is well known before it hits the floor. If there would've been any doubt the nomination would've been withdrawn or they would've made a stand on principle. In a vote like this it is quite possible that the two GOP senators were considered vulnerable in their respective States and were given a pass rather than being whipped to the extreme.

Politics, my friend, and the end result is what matters... Trump is still WINNING!

It is worth pointing out that two Republican's decided not to tow the party line (we can speculate to the actual reasons all day long but both have publicly stated they don't feel she is qualified to fill the position), it is also equally significant to note that as a result, the VP's tie-breaking vote is the only thing that saved her confirmation and that it is a first for a cabinet position.  It's all political theatrics, of course, but significant nonetheless.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

1. Or, more accurately, the Democrats are largely stonewalling everything the Republicans are doing...

2. That, and the US public education really blows chunks compared to the rest of the world, so it's time something different is done...  

1. Turnabout is fair play.  

2. I'm all for change, and I agree our education system needs work, however, she's a billionaire who couldn't answer basic questions about test scores and measuring student's proficiency or their growth.  From the outset, she doesn't appear to be qualified--but time will tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Papi said:

1. Turnabout is fair play.  

2. I'm all for change, and I agree our education system needs work, however, she's a billionaire who couldn't answer basic questions about test scores and measuring student's proficiency or their growth.  From the outset, she doesn't appear to be qualified--but time will tell.

Good post... apart from the "doesn't appear qualified". She is very qualified to clean house in education. Democrats being tough on education unions is analogous to Republicans being tough on NRA. 

Now on to what I feel is the true significance of the tied vote.

1) Two republicans voting against the nominee is bigly meh... look over all House and Senate votes, on all issues, and the picture is far less party-line / partisan than we have in Parliamentary democracies and that is a good thing IMO.

2) Trump winning is bigly today... but this is a 4 year Presidency.

3) The big significance, IMO, is what my fear has been all along with Trump = he will have to compromise his agenda due to lack of Congressional support. This also ties in to my rage against the media as biased manipulators of public opinion and the elite / establishment self interests. Trump has had to fight EVERYONE to gain the Presidency and emerged victorious... but the day to day battle against these same interests goes on and Congress is very sensitive to their personal interests = re-election. I fully expect these interests to foment race riots or whatever extreme agenda to remove Trump. (surreptitiously of course)

The more people, such as yourself, fixate on "Bowling Green Massacre" and "Vice President breaks tie" and other such minutia the bolder they will become. The more Trump keeps "Winning Bigly" the more desperate they will become. An exciting time ahead methinks. :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

And that exact behavior needs to end ASAP.  That's why a normal political discussion can't be had with the Democrats before they start calling you every name in the book when you disagree with them - because they know they're right and the rest of us plebs had just better accept it. /eyeroll

So the Democrats should take the moral high ground and end the behavior that both parties have been guilty of (but most recently, the Republicans, during the past eight years)...ok...sure, I don't have a problem with that.  But stop pretending that your party hasn't been a party of "No" for the better part of a decade.

48 minutes ago, fittybolger said:

Democrats being tough on education unions is analogous to Republicans being tough on NRA. 

 

The analogy made me laugh, so +10 for that alone.

 

26 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

The only thing that concerns me is the emergence of the Antifa domestic terrorists, and wondering how many more groups the Democrats will inspire to follow in their footsteps.

 

Saying the Democrats in any way "inspire" Antifa domestic terrorists (sigh) is like saying the Republicans inspire people like Dylan Roof to commit mass shootings.  Ridiculous on both counts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, fittybolger said:

The more people, such as yourself, fixate on "Bowling Green Massacre" and "Vice President breaks tie" and other such minutia...

I think the reason why people fixate on...as you say, the minutia, in regards to Trump, starts with the man himself.  He's rude, arrogant, sexist, etc. etc. etc....he's not an easy person to like.  Also, he's a sore winner (I wonder how long we are going to have to hear him boast about those 3-5 million illegal voters)...all of this makes him an easy target, not to mention one that people want to hit repeatedly.  People expect him to fail.  People want him to fail. 

He says and does things that are not necessarily "presidential".  That should come as a surprise to no one--in fact, his supporters may enjoy the fact that he carries himself the way he does.   He has no tact.  He called our military leaders losers along the campaign trail (in regards to a recent Iraqi operation), stuff like that tends to bend people the wrong way, regardless of his actual intentions--the man puts his foot in his mouth a lot.  So, you can't actually be surprised that people are quick to judge and criticize often.

Personally, I wish the media would ignore his twitter feed--it's a distraction, often times he's just trolling people left and right.  Unfortunately, he often cites policy or intentions in-between the rants against SNL, Hamilton or pick-your-rant-of-the-week.  Considering the office he now holds, I'm hoping you can see how that can be slightly troublesome.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Papi said:

I think the reason why people fixate on...as you say, the minutia, in regards to Trump, starts with the man himself.  He's rude, arrogant, sexist, etc. etc. etc....he's not an easy person to like.  Also, he's a sore winner (I wonder how long we are going to have to hear him boast about those 3-5 million illegal voters)...all of this makes him an easy target, not to mention one that people want to hit repeatedly.  People expect him to fail.  People want him to fail. 

He says and does things that are not necessarily "presidential".  That should come as a surprise to no one--in fact, his supporters may enjoy the fact that he carries himself the way he does.   He has no tact.  He called our military leaders losers along the campaign trail (in regards to a recent Iraqi operation), stuff like that tends to bend people the wrong way, regardless of his actual intentions--the man puts his foot in his mouth a lot.  So, you can't actually be surprised that people are quick to judge and criticize often.

Personally, I wish the media would ignore his twitter feed--it's a distraction, often times he's just trolling people left and right.  Unfortunately, he often cites policy or intentions in-between the rants against SNL, Hamilton or pick-your-rant-of-the-week.  Considering the office he now holds, I'm hoping you can see how that can be slightly troublesome.

Yup Trump is in your face no doubt about it. Tells it like he sees it and done with true alpha male stubbornness. His biggest appeal to me has always been his anti-political status quo. "Screw the "world". This is America and America first". Screw the media. Screw the Democrat and Republican establishment. He is there to get things done and if the American electorate perceives that he is accomplishing this, despite the media, he will be a steamroller. Reagan had the American people so Congress feared his "Bully Pulpit" and if Trump's populism can also achieve this the media and establishment can rant all they want. It's a gamble.

8 minutes ago, LordVorontur said:

The next person that uses the word "Bigly" in a sentence will feel the full force of my battle-axe being embedded in their skull.

bigly... Bigly... BIGLY YUGE!!!

Stay your hand... wasn't used "in a sentence". :) 

Bigly is actually based upon "big league" or "big time" both of which have been favorite phrases of my brother for years before Trump made them ubiquitous.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LordVorontur said:

The next person that uses the word "Bigly" in a sentence will feel the full force of my battle-axe being embedded in their skull.

Second time in two days I have bludgeoned this forum with the awesomeness that is Genesis... ABBA melts into insignificance.

Edit: Around 3:50 "my house getting bigger" :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that Cabinet posts had to pass a 60 vote filibuster in the past (up to 4? years ago) and now they don't, it is hardly surprising that this is the first time the VP had to break a tie. I wouldn't be surprised if there were lots of past cabinet votes that didn't exactly follow party lines.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

How long until someone sneaks a nuke, loads it into a car with US tags, and then suicide nukes a US city?

Doesn't seem very likely. Other than movies, I can't think of a time where this has actually happened, even in places crawling with extremists. Regular ol' car bombs and the like, sure, but nukes would be a bigly exaggeration of the situation.

But you are right, the US does need to manage its borders better. So does Canada, and every other nation in the world where any Thomas, Richard, or Harold (or should that be Tahir, Rashid, and Hussain?) can just cross a border on a whim. As much as I hate restricting freedom of movement, in the current climate nations need to be able to keep out the riffraff, at least until said riffraff can undergo a religious conversion into a modern form, like all the others.

Mr Trump, build up this wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FundinStrongarm said:

Considering that Cabinet posts had to pass a 60 vote filibuster in the past (up to 4? years ago) and now they don't, it is hardly surprising that this is the first time the VP had to break a tie. I wouldn't be surprised if there were lots of past cabinet votes that didn't exactly follow party lines.

Very astute observation. Had not occurred to me. *tips hat*

Short sighted of the Democrats to reduce from 60 to 50 because there is already talk of the Republicans expanding this to include Supreme Court nominations as well. When the Democrats wail in sackcloth and ashes all the Republics need say is that the Dems established the precedent. Good for goose = good for gander.

1 hour ago, Doro said:

Doesn't seem very likely. Other than movies, I can't think of a time where this has actually happened, even in places crawling with extremists. Regular ol' car bombs and the like, sure, but nukes would be a bigly exaggeration of the situation.

But you are right, the US does need to manage its borders better. So does Canada, and every other nation in the world where any Thomas, Richard, or Harold (or should that be Tahir, Rashid, and Hussain?) can just cross a border on a whim. As much as I hate restricting freedom of movement, in the current climate nations need to be able to keep out the riffraff, at least until said riffraff can undergo a religious conversion into a modern form, like all the others.

Mr Trump, build up this wall.

Iran is one of the few nations friendly with North Korea... North Korea has nukes... Iran has a nuclear program... North Korea assists Iran in it's nuclear program... both are working on ballistic missile capability...

The math isn't good whether it is a nuke border crossing or ICBM or ICRF (Inter Continental Rusty Freighter) or ???

Even dirty bombs which are strategically placed can cause massive damage / disruption.

A couple weeks ago I had a heart test called a "nuclear stress test". Doc injected me with nuclear dye for imaging purposes. My brother lives in the USA and I was supposed to travel there for his retirement party the next day. I asked the doctor if he thought it was wise to travel and he said "no" but added it was a good thing I mentioned it because I would set off alarms. WTF? said I. Apparently the USA has nuclear sensors at border crossings sensitive enough that even this injection would set them off so he wrote me a doctor note that would let me across should I decide to go. Well I thought it was cool that I could walk around setting off nuclear alarms but it is also encouraging to know just how sensitive their sensors are. It was the weekend of the Trump inauguration so security would've been extra tight at the border... and... well... IMO Hobbit Lives Matter so I decided not to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, fittybolger said:

Iran is one of the few nations friendly with North Korea... North Korea has nukes... Iran has a nuclear program... North Korea assists Iran in it's nuclear program... both are working on ballistic missile capability...

You'd be more likely to see terrorists getting nukes from Pakistan than Iran (who has only ever asked for a nuclear program for energy's sake, not weapons, which the hypocritical US has so often stood in the way of), or North Korea (who barely have enough for weapons testing, which is why they're all talk but no action and a fucking joke of a nation, seriously NK needs to sort its shit out). But still, we're far from the fear of nukes getting smuggled into the US to blow up a city. If there was a list of places to get hit, the US would be somewhere after Europe, and Europe would be somewhere after Israel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Doro said:

You'd be more likely to see terrorists getting nukes from Pakistan than Iran (who has only ever asked for a nuclear program for energy's sake, not weapons, which the hypocritical US has so often stood in the way of), or North Korea (who barely have enough for weapons testing, which is why they're all talk but no action and a fucking joke of a nation, seriously NK needs to sort its shit out). But still, we're far from the fear of nukes getting smuggled into the US to blow up a city. If there was a list of places to get hit, the US would be somewhere after Europe, and Europe would be somewhere after Israel.

USA, Europe, Israel, Pakistan-India, India-Pakistan, South Korea... who knows... but the math ain't good IMO.

Iran developing nuclear tech for strictly power generation? ... yup... just like Israel... and Saddam's OSIRAK. Right?

Doro has been abducted by space aliens... who is this new, less cynical, Doro?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fittybolger said:

USA, Europe, Israel, Pakistan-India, India-Pakistan, South Korea... who knows... but the math ain't good IMO.

Iran developing nuclear tech for strictly power generation? ... yup... just like Israel... and Saddam's OSIRAK. Right?

Doro has been abducted by space aliens... who is this new, less cynical, Doro?

First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.
Who's next?

France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
They can't wipe us out for at least five years.
Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Who's next?

Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

You're thinking tactically, which is wrong in the scope of terror. Europe's too small and too densely populated and is generally cowing to the Islamics now, so that wouldn't make much sense.  Trump, however, is not, so the attack would be more about poking fingers in the eyes of the US than anything else.  Israel, while a very good tactical target, wouldn't have near the appeal because the US news media tends to ignore Israel.  The key here is that influencing the US influences the English speaking internet - which is among the larger sections of the 'Net.  Or in other words, it's about impact and statements rather than tactical gains - which is why they flew civilian planes into buildings.

Also, tactical nukes are a lot smaller than what we normally think of as nukes (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon ), and if drugs get smuggled across the border, a tactical nuke wouldn't be that much of a stretch.

US would be ideal for a terrorist because the US news media would browbeat Trump with it, and generally provide the PR as they talk the tragedy to death.

I'm thinking historically, more than anything. For example, Europe has had (and will continue to have) more terrorist attacks from Muslims than the US has. Which means the likelihood of an advanced attack on a nation is leaning more towards the region with the most incidents, i.e. Europe. And this is primarily because it's much easier to attack a place that's closer, less defended, and without a massive ocean separating it and the Middle-east, than it would be to attack the US. The idea that Europe is cowing to Islam now is just simple mistake, since anti-Islamic feeling is stronger than ever, and gets stronger with each attack that happens (apart from the liberal media, of course, who take any opportunity to say "not all Muslims" instead of "they just ran over dozens of kids with a truck").

Also, the US really isn't much of a victory for their cause. They blow up a place in the US and it just further supports Trump's decisions. The US isn't as much of a jewel in the terrorists' crown as you might think (it seems France gets that "honour").

Link to post
Share on other sites

If ISIS somehow managed to get their hands on a nuke, and this is very unlikely, and then managed to get it into the US and detonate it, what you the US response be?  My bet Trump would order a full scale nuclear attack on the area of the Middle East the ISIS hold.  ISIS would lose badly, the group might survive but they would be very small and weak.  They know this so are not likely to actually do it.

How many times has ISIS actually attacked the US.  They always claim it was someone working for them but anyone can claim that, it doesnt mean it is true.  ISIS is more focused on Europe, especially France, and the Middle East

America has a far bigger problem with gun crime than it does with Islamic terrorist, but wont do anything to tackle that.  There was 476 mass shootings in the US last year.  A rise from 2015 when there was 372.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So...

people sophisticated enough to acquire a nuke cannot figure out how to get over, under or around a wall?

In any case, key locations in the U.S. that need to be traversed for this project all have Geiger counter sensors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cossieuk said:

If ISIS somehow managed to get their hands on a nuke, and this is very unlikely, and then managed to get it into the US and detonate it, what you the US response be?  My bet Trump would order a full scale nuclear attack on the area of the Middle East the ISIS hold.  ISIS would lose badly, the group might survive but they would be very small and weak.  They know this so are not likely to actually do it.

How many times has ISIS actually attacked the US.  They always claim it was someone working for them but anyone can claim that, it doesnt mean it is true.  ISIS is more focused on Europe, especially France, and the Middle East

America has a far bigger problem with gun crime than it does with Islamic terrorist, but wont do anything to tackle that.  There was 476 mass shootings in the US last year.  A rise from 2015 when there was 372.

"lose badly" would depend on what their overall objective is.

AFAIK ISIS wants to unite the Islamic world under a Caliphate that would then proceed with global jihad.

Terrorist activities in the west increase their profile in the Islamic world and the bigger the damage caused the greater their rewards.

A nuke in San Francisco or New York or London or Paris... IMO would be met with tens of millions of voices shouting Allahu Akbar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, fittybolger said:

A nuke in San Francisco or New York or London or Paris... IMO would be met with tens of millions of voices shouting Allahu Akbar.

I couldn't disagree more.  To say that you honestly...genuinely...think that tens of millions of people would celebrate the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocents...either you just flat out hate Muslims...have a twisted, maniacal outlook on your fellow man...or you've been drinking the FoxNews kool-aid for far too long.  Or all three.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

And yet the leading cause of death in the US is traffic by a very wide margin, and you don't hear the politicians complain about that.  So until that happens, you can take your gun control BS and shove it.

The intent/purpose of cars is for transportation.

The intent/purpose of guns is to kill/maim.

That was some serious Kellyanne-esque deflection, Al--even for you.

3 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

You've got to approach the terrorist line of thinking as "what has the most propaganda value", not "what makes the most tactical sense".  This is also where the SJWs are playing right into their hands.

Actually, you (and people who think like you) are playing right into their hands, you're just too blissfully self righteous you can't see it.  Your logic and the actions you want this administration to take will only feed the thugs who are trying to recruit people into ISIS to do us harm.  You're doing their job for them.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

Exactly, because a nuclear attack against those targets would be propaganda fuel for decades, as it shows them striking at the target, letting the native media outlets cover the devastation further showing how "weak" we really are.

You've got to approach the terrorist line of thinking as "what has the most propaganda value", not "what makes the most tactical sense".  This is also where the SJWs are playing right into their hands.

Trumps travel ban is great propaganda for ISIS.

If the US was to retaliate with nukes they would wipe out most of ISIS, and a hell of a lot of innocent people in the process.  Propaganda is no use when you are dead .

16 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

And yet the leading cause of death in the US is traffic by a very wide margin, and you don't hear the politicians complain about that.  So until that happens, you can take your gun control BS and shove it.

Most traffic deaths are accidents, how many mass shootings are accidents? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...