Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
Sign in to follow this  
Doro

US Elections 2020

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Amenhir said:

Aww what's the matter?  Looks like someone's pussy hurts.  You're a little bitch.  Out of curiosity, when you open your mouth can you hear the air escaping your head?  People like you are why I'm pro-choice.  

The hearsay argument was laughable at best.  With a person who actually heard the call coming forward, they can longer use that argument to discredit the whistle-blower.

At least I'm not showing vapid bullshit while pretending it's an independent thought like you are. 

Can't wait to see how badly you'll be crying when Trump wins in 2020 as you'll somehow be blindsided by the obvious.... again.   And then proceed to fail at a coup (which is actually the crime of sedition) for a legitimately elected president until 2024 like your have been failing at doing since 2016.

Then again, expecting moronic thugs to follow the law is too high of an expectation... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Amenhir said:

They want to know who it is in order to mount a specific smear campaign or flat out threaten them.  It's hard to come up with a clever nickname you can rage tweet about if you don't know who it is.  Of course the whole whistle-blower protection act was created to protect them from retribution.  Unfortunately, you can't expect any of those people to appreciate laws and such.

Exactly.

I wouldn't think anyone would be dumb enough to think they could call out a person under federal protection. A President can't. It isn't within the power of a sitting President. In fact, any action taken by Trump were it provable, will have him charged upon his presidential term expiring. Screwing around with federally protected witnesses carries a heavy penalty.

Trump's action regarding the whistle blower and calling them out is reminiscent of what a New York wannabe Goombah does. The very act shows Trump's mentality. At this point, someone who grew up in the 60's NY slums, could lead our country better and be held with a higher regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Amenhir said:

People like you are why I'm pro-choice.

It's quite refreshing to see a pro-abortion advocate admitting that abortion is really about killing people.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I really don't understand as a dutch citizen, is that it will probably be Trump against probably Biden/Warren/Sanders; 3 out of 4 will be in their eighties if they fulfull their term, Warren will be 76 I think;

And if I see them I really have doubts about their health (mental ánd physical). Is this the best you have in the USA? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Thrabath said:

The thing I really don't understand as a dutch citizen, is that it will probably be Trump against probably Biden/Warren/Sanders; 3 out of 4 will be in their eighties if they fulfull their term, Warren will be 76 I think;

And if I see them I really have doubts about their health (mental ánd physical). Is this the best you have in the USA? 

Unfortunately the House and Senate have career politicians taking and holding spaces that could be held by younger people. The lack of term limits help parties in control keep their position more secure by having senior members filling and staying in committees for lengthy periods. By having this happen it excludes younger politicians to rise to the top and possibly make a run for the office of President. I'm sure there have been many junior House and Senate members, who have left before they ever reached a position where the idea of running in a Presidential election was potentially tenable.

There is a lot more to be said on the subject of why younger people aren't seeking this goal. Lack of term limits is just one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's certainly better to have old people as politicians in comparison to literally autistic 15 year old Swede crusading against muh global warming or AOC and her political/economic ideas .

Also if i was Dutch citizen i would rather think about why i'm becoming minority in my own country .... just sayin' .

Share this post


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

The thing I really don't understand as a dutch citizen, is that it will probably be Trump against probably Biden/Warren/Sanders; 3 out of 4 will be in their eighties if they fulfull their term, Warren will be 76 I think;

And if I see them I really have doubts about their health (mental ánd physical). Is this the best you have in the USA? 

Which is why Trump is going to curb stomp them.

None of the Democratic candidates (except for perhaps Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang) are electible because they are either a foot in death's door, or so far off to the left that no American would vote for them even WITH the entire MSM propaganda machine propping them up (which is why HRC got the Democratic nomination due to the MSM going on and on about the super delegates despite the electorate heavily favoring Sanders during 2016).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bohemond said:

It's quite refreshing to see a pro-abortion advocate admitting that abortion is really about killing people.

The great irony is that they have rationalized abortion as birth control so that the racist Democrats can perform eugenics without the populace realizing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/george-conway-trump-unfit-office/599128/

 

I'm still reading this. Seems to be 40 paragraphs long maybe more. I'll edit this post after I'm done with thoughts and probably a few quotes that seem important or especially highlight the magnitude of what defines Trump's mental problems.

 

Holy shit! The sad comedy of reading this is like a surreal LSD party. Where everyone is drinking the Koolaid to relate to this mentally disturbed person we as US citizens call our President. Forty five minutes in and, I'm still not done reading the article and continuing on. The article is well structured and must have 100s of links to follow up on anything said in its text. If nothing else, Trump could be a good writer for a comedian.

Share this post


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

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/george-conway-trump-unfit-office/599128/

 

I'm still reading this. Seems to be 40 paragraphs long maybe more. I'll edit this post after I'm done with thoughts and probably a few quotes that seem important or especially highlight the magnitude of what defines Trump's mental problems.

Oh yes, a publication known to lean left ( https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic/ https://www.allsides.com/news-source/atlantic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Atlantic ), so the forgone conclusion is that they have fabricated/misconstrued/taken out of context many things to create the argument for why Trump should be impeached... when the reality is that they are butthurt that HRC never was elected, so they're going to do everything in their power to stop Trump.  Funny how they all seemed to like Trump just prior to him throwing his name in the hat for the Republican presidential nomination.  It's almost like he committed an unforgivable sin and they must excised him from reality....

That said, if you do the research and bring in a few right leaning sources to either refute (or back up) what The Atlantic said, I would be interested in that analysis.

Edited by Doro
removed ad homs

Share this post


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

Oh yes, a publication known to lean left ( https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic/ https://www.allsides.com/news-source/atlantic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Atlantic ), so the forgone conclusion is that they have fabricated/misconstrued/taken out of context many things to create the argument for why Trump should be impeached... when the reality is that they are butthurt that HRC never was elected, so they're going to do everything in their power to stop Trump.  Funny how they all seemed to like Trump just prior to him throwing his name in the hat for the Republican presidential nomination.  It's almost like he committed an unforgivable sin and they must excised him from reality....

That said, if you do the research and bring in a few right leaning sources to either refute (or back up) what The Atlantic said, I would be interested in that analysis.

I looked at your 1st link response about the article, I finished reading. In it is this.

Analysis / Bias

Both The Atlantic Magazine and web publication produce quality journalism that utilizes moderately loaded wording that typically favors the left: This Is the Moment of Truth for Republicans. All news stories on The Atlantic are properly sourced to factual information and usually present a reasonable balance on issues. Editorially, The Atlantic takes a Left-Center position on most issues and has  long  endorsed Democratic candidates.

A factual search reveals The Atlantic has never failed a fact check by an IFCN fact checker.

 

I don't follow a preset path for reading and even less so for politics. I read what I find interesting that hopefully has something of value and educates. So you pointing out it is left leaning material is fine. Though by their own scale it says Left-center.

 

Just to know. What eventually led me to the article I read was a search for this.  Racist Democrats

What ever you say about the publishers intent, is of no concern to me. Perhaps you have proof? In any case, its just one article of many, I read today and not all were of a political nature. With that said, you are welcome to read the article in its entirety and refute and claims being made. Ofc I'll expect any refutes to also disprove the links to them included as well.

I understand a story can be enacted as a play and told by many people in many ways. So, I always expect alternative versions of the same story being told by different people. Publications are essentially these people.

Yes the viewpoint for this version of the accounts is from a left leaning central view. Let me ask this. Can you provide a publication or article from a right or even right-center about the same topic? If you can, I'd read it mainly just too offer some balance to what I've just finished reading. Surely there must be something out there because in the article I read, even Trumps own present or past cabinet members pointed to very similar conclusions and they are, as I can assume, Republicans. Unless ofc the article and its contained links are all false. If so the link you offered would be incorrect. Meaning all the facts don't check out.

 

The article is lengthy and talks about Fiduciary responsibility and if our current President can meet the expectation of the Constitutional Articles which define this. This really has very little to do with political view. I'm sure the United States has plenty of left wing nut jobs as the right. It has to do with capability and questioning our President and his past actions. Meeting Fiduciary responsibility requires a President to have a sound mind and understand the selfless nature of meeting those responsibilities.

This is the heart of the article, I read. Can a Narcissist, who may actually be a Malignant Narcissist, be a working, productive President?

 

As I said, at the beginning of this post. I didn't have a preset agenda. Now you've defined it as a left wing publication and provided proof. It's up to you to decide to offer the other side of the topic from a right sided view. After all, that is what discourse requires to further any future exchanges, on the subject. If I were, to offer every view point, I might as well internalize the whole matter myself with placing no value of being "here".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Thrabath said:

The thing I really don't understand as a dutch citizen, is that it will probably be Trump against probably Biden/Warren/Sanders; 3 out of 4 will be in their eighties if they fulfull their term, Warren will be 76 I think;

And if I see them I really have doubts about their health (mental ánd physical). Is this the best you have in the USA? 

I remember Reagan got a lot of crap for his age.  Reagan was actually younger than Biden and Sanders when he was elected to his second term.  There are a few reasons why old people get elected.  One reason is that old people do more of the voting.  Old people are also viewed as having more wisdom and experience. 

The Senate is a whole 'nother ball of wax.  Politicians are easily bought, and without term limits, it becomes more about being re-elected than helping the country.  Unfortunately, we;d have to get those same people to vote for term limits.  What you end up with his an entire legislative body comprised of old people who will never change their mind on anything.  

I think things will start to change as younger generations that are more tolerant and open-minded get to the age of giving a shit about their civic duty, or when the population takes  a giant hit when the baby boomers all die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Splay said:

Just to know. What eventually led me to the article I read was a search for this.  Racist Democrats

They are better at hiding it than the Republicans.  Much of it has to do with how they have institutionalized it into social programs (like welfare) that promote behavior counter to what psychology has determined to be beneficial, like the mother/father family where both parents are present.  A lot of the absentee fathers issue started out when the minority fathers realized that they could actually earn more income for their family by not being present, so they made the necessary sacrifices for the first generation, but unfortunately their children learned the wrong lessons, and became the actual absentee fathers.  Articles like http://fathers.com/statistics-and-research/the-consequences-of-fatherlessness/ go into why this is bad for the kids.

Then you have the Hollywood depiction of the African American - which is almost always done as a gangster, and very rarely are they depicted as a normal middle class person.  That's very subtle indoctrination and reinforcing of the gang culture... which ties back to what we were talking about earlier with gun violence.  When you grow up and all you know is the gang culture, most are going to follow in that path.

4 hours ago, Splay said:

What ever you say about the publishers intent, is of no concern to me. Perhaps you have proof? In any case, its just one article of many, I read today and not all were of a political nature. With that said, you are welcome to read the article in its entirety and refute and claims being made. Ofc I'll expect any refutes to also disprove the links to them included as well.

There's a lot of normalization with the Associated Press, and how that works within the news media (as many outlets run their articles).  The problem when the left sees a problem and the right does not with little in the center.  People in either echo chamber automatically assume the opinion to be part of the other one, even if one echo chamber is demonstrably wrong while the other is correct.

4 hours ago, Splay said:

Yes the viewpoint for this version of the accounts is from a left leaning central view. Let me ask this. Can you provide a publication or article from a right or even right-center about the same topic? If you can, I'd read it mainly just too offer some balance to what I've just finished reading. Surely there must be something out there because in the article I read, even Trumps own present or past cabinet members pointed to very similar conclusions and they are, as I can assume, Republicans. Unless ofc the article and its contained links are all false. If so the link you offered would be incorrect. Meaning all the facts don't check out.

There's too much noise, and too much of an agenda to throw Trump out of office.

And too much ignoring of how https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Procedure is supposed to work.  Most of the Democrat claim has been (from what I can tell) "We're going to impeach you because we don't like you" which is complete and utter bullshit.

4 hours ago, Splay said:

The article is lengthy and talks about Fiduciary responsibility and if our current President can meet the expectation of the Constitutional Articles which define this. This really has very little to do with political view. I'm sure the United States has plenty of left wing nut jobs as the right. It has to do with capability and questioning our President and his past actions. Meeting Fiduciary responsibility requires a President to have a sound mind and understand the selfless nature of meeting those responsibilities.

This is the heart of the article, I read. Can a Narcissist, who may actually be a Malignant Narcissist, be a working, productive President?

I think Trump has shown that, yes, they can.  The biggest problem Trump has had (and why he draws so much flack) is that' he's quintessentially anti-establishment (in the lobbyist sense), and he's been working (as he can) to break up some of their hold over the government... which started with the FBI as that was pretty obviously politicized towards the Democrats around the time of the election.

4 hours ago, Splay said:

As I said, at the beginning of this post. I didn't have a preset agenda. Now you've defined it as a left wing publication and provided proof. It's up to you to decide to offer the other side of the topic from a right sided view. After all, that is what discourse requires to further any future exchanges, on the subject. If I were, to offer every view point, I might as well internalize the whole matter myself with placing no value of being "here".

The thing is, as alluded to earlier, the entire impeachment argument is coming from the Democrats, and most Republicans see it as largely baseless.  With respect to Ukraine, Biden needs to be investigated to see if he actually did break the law (which I strongly suspect he did), and if he did do so, his ass needs to be arrested and tried.  If that involves sending Rudy and Barr to the Ukraine to do it, and asking the Ukraine to help the US look into the matter, I don't see an issue with it as it's no different from normal police accusation as they have probable cause that an abuse of power has occurred.  While I can definitely see the issue with the timing on this (why now and not several years earlier?), the Democratic smokescreen to terminate the investigation into probable criminal activity strikes me more as a CYA thing rather than wanting to get to the truth of the matter - which only lends validity to the claims that Biden broke the law.... otherwise this entire Ukraine investigation debacle is one giant gift to the Democratic party and they should let it play out and then roast the Republicans over it.

If Biden truly has nothing to hide.... why make all this noise?

---

One more thing with the racist Democrats... the Democrats were the party of the South during the US Civil War, and many lobbied to retain slavery while the North was largely Republican (something they have tried to bury in the years since). The KKK ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan ) was created by ex-Confederates and had deep ties to many Democrats (including a mentor of HRC) until it became socially radioactive.  And then you have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws which, according to Wikipedia:

Quote

All were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures after the Reconstruction period.

And then you get all the joy of the anti-Semitism espoused by Ilhan Omar, and a couple other members of the Democratic brat pack, which gets defended by the Democrats as a whole.

So yeah, the Democrats be racists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think everyon

e does some sort off discrimation, because we as human like to put things/people into definable boxes and we usually prefer things we know compared to things we don't know.

And about the parties, I remember reading something about the parties switching from standpoints years ago, so what we call democratic positions were republican positions a long time ago and vice versa?

On 10/8/2019 at 4:49 PM, ZaklanoSrce said:

Well it's certainly better to have old people as politicians in comparison to literally autistic 15 year old Swede crusading against muh global warming or AOC and her political/economic ideas .

Also if i was Dutch citizen i would rather think about why i'm becoming minority in my own country .... just sayin' .

Well, I think Greta Thunberg is used by people to steer the public debate and young kids are ideal for that. Even though I am certain that global warming is happening and that we are, at least partially, to blame for it and we can solve it/ the impact of it. And even if it's not true, transitioning to non-fossil-fuels will make us as western countries a lot less dependent on middle-eastern countries, which is positive.

And I don't have the feeling I'm becoming a minority in my own country (okay, I'm a Christian and most of the Dutch don't believe in anything anymore, so I'm becoming a minority). Yeah, about a quarter of our population has at least 1 (grand)parent that is not from the Netherlands, but I have those kind of people in my own family. Heck, even our whole royal family falls under that definition. I believe the power of our small country is to deal with different backgrounds and cultures and merge them together. And yes, that gives problems and these days people prefer to focus on discussing about those problems instead of solving them. Left-wing is very good in ignoring, Right-wing is very good in shouting about the problem and neither of them is really solving the problem.

Politicians...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2019 at 2:32 AM, Bohemond said:

It's quite refreshing to see a pro-abortion advocate admitting that abortion is really about killing people.

It's not. There's a very clear line when a fetus becomes a person: at birth. And before the standard strawman comes up, no I do not support late-term abortions unless out of medical necessity. I also do not support abortion as an alternate form of birth control, but that's a rubbish argument anyway, as any woman who's ever had an abortion can tell you it's not a simple thing that you just brush off and go to work after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MueR said:

There's a very clear line when a fetus becomes a person: at birth. 

This is maybe your opinion,but it's not true according to any legal definition that i know .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ZaklanoSrce said:

This is maybe your opinion,but it's not true according to any legal definition that i know .

 

The legal definition varies wildly, mostly based on how much religious influence was part of the legal process. For example, look at Alabama's (stricken down) 6 week abortion law, which is ridiculous on it's face, is heavily influenced by religious views. While we can argue back and forth about when a fetus is a person, there's two possible moments when one might say that it's no longer abortion. The first is the moment when a fetus is viable (ie, can survive outside the body of the mother) and no, a 20% survival chance isn't viable so let's say at about the 26 week point when the survival chance is over 50%.

The other is birth. Like I said, I'm not in favor of abortions that late, unless there's medical need. Any pro-life advocate who says a pregnant woman should carry a fetus to term even if there's a high chance she will either die or suffer severe medical complications, is simply not pro-life and just anti-abortion. The distinction between the two in my view is hopefully clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MueR said:

The legal definition varies wildly, mostly based on how much religious influence was part of the legal process. For example, look at Alabama's (stricken down) 6 week abortion law, which is ridiculous on it's face, is heavily influenced by religious views. While we can argue back and forth about when a fetus is a person, there's two possible moments when one might say that it's no longer abortion. The first is the moment when a fetus is viable (ie, can survive outside the body of the mother) and no, a 20% survival chance isn't viable so let's say at about the 26 week point when the survival chance is over 50%.

The other is birth. Like I said, I'm not in favor of abortions that late, unless there's medical need. Any pro-life advocate who says a pregnant woman should carry a fetus to term even if there's a high chance she will either die or suffer severe medical complications, is simply not pro-life and just anti-abortion. The distinction between the two in my view is hopefully clear.

The US is just too darn prudish about sex.  It's fine to show someone blowing their head off on tv, but don't discuss sex openly.  The ironic thing is that people who chastise women for not taking responsibility are also the ones that are doing everything in their power to limit the availability of affordable birth control.  When I was sowing my wild oats I could walk into a Planned Parenthood and walk out with a garbage bag full of condoms.  I don't agree with abortion as birth control.  Unfortunately, the extreme sides of the spectrum want all or nothing. As far as I'm concerned, it really isn't any of my business what people choose to do with their bodies.  It would be nice if we could agree on a middle ground.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ZaklanoSrce said:

Just sayin'

So would a solution be to remove the embryo/foetus from the mother, thereby freeing her body as is her choice, and putting the still developing baby in a vat to finish turning into a human?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony here is that the "pro-life" movement cares more about the baby when it's inside the mother's womb than it does once it's been born (and the mother can fuck right off).  Oh, you can't actually afford to care for a baby?  Not our problem.  Oh, you're suffering from postpartum depression?  Not our problem.  Oh, the shit-for-brains father left you and doesn't want to help raise the kid.  Not our problem (but at the same time, we will make two parent households a part of our platform).

Personally, I would like to see more women (on both sides of the argument) coming forward, sharing ideas, reaching compromises and passing legislation (if necessary).  Because Fox News having a panel full of men (with a priest for added hypocrisy) discussing a woman's reproductive rights is out right laughable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for US President in 2020, who would win?

Would he beat out the current Democrats running?

Would he beat the Incumbent President or any other possible Republican?

 

It is an interesting proposition to think about.

Arnold was the President of California. He has experience and more than others who have ran, or won in the last two Presidential terms. The notion he won running for Governor in one of the US's liberal strongholds says something.

 

I say he would win and not because his views are perfect to win. Not because he has prior experience. It would be for the same reason Trump won. And... the reason is?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If technology one day allows growing babies in vats i guess that would be one way to solve this problem,but in that case i would support " mother " loosing any right to that child after " turning into human " .If you didn't want it inside you,you don't any right to it afterwards .

Irony is that " pro-choice " movement completely ignores and discriminates against other gender .How about you give man right to " financial abortion " - if a man doesn't want that child he shouldn't be forced to pay child support ( and sure in that case take away his right to ever see the child ) .

If women decides that she wants a child - man is a financial slave .

If man wants that child and women doesn't - he can fuck himself .

Doesn't seem very " equal " right ?

Share this post


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

If technology one day allows growing babies in vats i guess that would be one way to solve this problem,but in that case i would support " mother " loosing any right to that child after " turning into human " .If you didn't want it inside you,you don't any right to it afterwards .

Irony is that " pro-choice " movement completely ignores and discriminates against other gender .How about you give man right to " financial abortion " - if a man doesn't want that child he shouldn't be forced to pay child support ( and sure in that case take away his right to ever see that child ) .

If women decides that she wants a child - man is a financial slave .

If man wants that child and women doesn't - he can fuck himself .

Doesn't seem very " equal " right ?

If a man doesnt want a child then he should use a fucking condom. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

×