@X-27 Your the not deplorable half (the quote said only half were deplorable). Somehow all Trump supports think they are the deplorable half. Maybe they actually realize they all mad a bad choice - and were not qualified to choose.
@GiantCowFilms I know- it was kinda cruel of her, to make the club only include half of the supporters. Everyone wants to be considered part of the deplorables, and yet according to Hillary, only half of us can be :(
Cow, when Hillary said that quote, she changed the meaning of "deplorable" to make it desirable. - just like "conspiracy theorist" lost its meaning from "crazy nut who dreams of aliens" to "mildly insane guy who asks legitimate questions."
Anyway, its fine. In an ultimate plot twist that has democrats and sane people around the world packing out laughing, the nationalist republican candidate actually managed - somehow - to become a russian puppet. Not even the national enquirer could make up something that good.
@X-27 conspiracy theorist, among normal people, still means crazy nut.
@X-27 He has worked with Putin for many years, assisting in Russian oil drilling. Sure it is only suspicious but not confirmed, but the sanctions are still in the open.
For heavens sake since when does a nationalist candidate propose making friends with our worst enemy? That alone is weird. And if you are being friendly to rivals, why Russia? Why not China, they have so much more to offer.
Besides, the Republicans (your party), blasted Obama for not being harder on Russia. Now they support this guy who wants to flip on that policy for NO reason.
Hillary will work for anyone if she gets enough money. in the past, she made deals with plenty of people. one of them was Russia. In the past election, when she kept making provoking remarks about Russia, and without proof (aside form the "experts") kept provoking them with accusations about "hacking" and "election fraud," certainly appeared as if she wanted open war - or at least damaged relations.
And Trump will work for whoever is going to give him power (e.g. dirt on opponents, oil etc.)
Same thing.
@X-27 damaged relations
Do you even understand US russia relations right now
We are chocking them to death with sanctions. Experts say the Putin regime has only a few years left before it runs out of money, and they can't borrow from outside because of sanctions. Economic collapse is soon going to come, and with that a change in regime.
Maybe, maybe not – we have yet to see. That is part of the thing about him having no political track record. Maybe he will keep his promises, maybe he will just be another power hungry tyrant. Nothing but time can tell.
So what does Putin do? Aides a guy he knows he can entice and blackmail into lifting those sanctions.
@X-27 No. Past behavior is an excellent indicator of future behavior.
Trump has been living in the public eye for decades.
We know how he deals.
And that still doesn't explain why he is so friendly towards Putin.
@X-27 He is installing his family into top white-house positions, and appointing department heads based on how long and how much people supported him. That is textbook political swamp.
He just lied to everyone. To their face. He says one thing and does the other. It is impossible to change the nature of government. To acquire and hold power boxes must be checked, and in checking those boxes governments are corrupted. It is impossible for him to any different.
The only pity is that people were gullible enough not to see that. For heavens sake his blind trust consists out of his kids running his comany. "Hey Dad, can you get the pres. of Ecuador to give us mining rights here." "Sure kids, one moment."
@X-27 Its Impossible because he is already done it.
His appointments are 100% political, and made up of utterly unqualified people. He promised to bring in experts from the business fields into the government. Then he Makes Ben Carson the head of HUD. How does a real estate developer not know someone more qualified.
@X-27 Saying we don't know what a candidate will do is not a reason the elect him.
The entire point of the campaign is predicting what the person will do.
Hey look. I'm going to make a four year old with average intelligence and no special qualities the CEO of this Fortune 500 company. Its not impossible for him to run it properly. The only way well know if is the company isn't bankrupt in four years. For heavens sake. The kid is four, the odds are stacked towards him ruining everything.
Sure you don't know exactly what is going to happen, but its obvious its bad.
Same with appointing a four year old adult to run this country.
@GiantCowFilms sure it is. Picture this scenario - you have three doors in front of you. in door A, there is pressure released spiky trap. In Door B, there is a pressure activated landmine, and you odn't know what is behind Door C. Door A and B have very likely outcomes of death or injury. you would obviously pick door C, unless you knew where the landmine was, and where NOT to step.
Every other candidate had problems - and the public chose trump.
news flash trump was Not my first pick - but after the primary, the choice was simple.
@X-27 The public chose Hillary, but because the electoral collage significantly prefers under developed and under educated voters. we ended up with Trump.
@X-27 What I'm saying his everything bad about Hillary is 10 times worse in Trumps case, in gold lettering.
Sketchy power money-ties? Cue the missing Tax returns. Cue the campaign managers with Russian ties. Cue the Rex Tillerson appointment. Political Favors? Cue the appointment of Ben Carson, Conway, and reince priebus.
Got a problem with Bill? Well, there was this conversation that was held on live mikes. It was so bad the other guy got sacked from his job. Trump got made president.
@X-27 He was already. He screwed over his lenders multiple times.
Every time he screwed up, he was "smart" and made someone else take the shortfall for it.
Except really smart people, Eg. Buffet, Gates and Zuckerberg and such, made many multiplies of what he made, without doing in a single person.
@X-27 I'm afraid getting him out after 4 years won't be trivial.
@X-27 Your gambling with the future of our country. You don't just get to screw things up for four years then walk out of it. People will die. People will suffer. People will loose their futures. This matters. There is no gambling.
@GiantCowFilms I am not pro-Trump, I am anti-Hillary. I believe that even if everything you mentioned is true, it's still better. Just chill dude. Everyone has an opinion, and we are all wrong to some extent. I don;t mind how much you disagree, but keep it out of here.
it should be. if Trump turns out as bad as your suggesting, then it should be a piece of cake. Remember, the media was against him from day one, and is continuing to demonize him at every point they can. I happen to think that regardless of how well he does, his re-election chances are slim.
@GiantCowFilms but believe it or not, I actually have other things I should be doing now -
@veryRandomMe I noticed that. Someone very clever pointed out to me that Classical republicanism has stopped being a set of beliefs and values and has started to become a matter of sabotaging and going against the democrats at all costs, and going against them at every turn, not matter what common sense dictates.
@veryRandomMe which would have been to elect Hillary. But no, you hate democrats so much you convince yourself that a dishonest, filthy man that will not admit to what he owns or who he deals with, who has a track record of doing people in, and who attacks anyone who criticizes him on twitter would be a better choice.
A man who Putin sees as opportune, and who is manipulated by a hungry circle of children-in-laws and descendants.
They are in a way Mirrored. Except one is unflappably professional anti-Kremlin while the other is brash, rude, thin-skinned (have you ever read his twitter) pro-Kremlin.
@GiantCowFilms have you ever read more then a few Brietbart articles? (me either) - but the ones that I have he Always lists plenty of other "reliable" sources to back up his claims.
There are people I have met in real life who feel that violence can be banned from movies. You know someone is really for censorship when I'm shocked by the extent of their views.
@X-27 Huh? Not sure where you get that stereotype from.
@GiantCowFilms a guy on a town board who is really arrogant - demands to be called Dr, and generally comes across as thinking of himself as smarter than everyone else.
@X-27 a gun is way more dangerous than a pair of scissors. You can run away from a killer with scissors and have a good shot at getting away. Not the same story with a gun.
@GiantCowFilms Oooohhhh no. I wouldn't trust a vehicle that I have no control over what it actually does. That would be (actually very close) to taking a ride in a stranger's vehicle, and just completely trusting them that they take you where you want.
My biggest problem with guns is that unlike most other equivalently dangerous things (e.g. cars, and as we have tragically seen as of late, trucks), they simply don't have a benefit that outweighs to risk/
@X-27 You'd be allowed to set where on the map it is supposed to go. Even how it should get there.
@GiantCowFilms they do. they had a HUGE benefit when our little colonies originally decided to be free from the British.
if the colonists had thought that guns were super deadly and decided that it would be in the best interest of everyone to simple surrender them to the British, this country wouldn't exist.
@GiantCowFilms your assuming that everyone in the military would by loyal to the (by then, irrecoverably corrupt) govrenment, and not the people who they are sworn to protect.
@X-27 Well, I think Trumps third term could come sooner than that ;)
and that is forgetting is illegitimate 2nd term.
@X-27 Yeah. lol. Then he will have been worse than Hillary, and you'd have to admit the democrats were right.
@X-27 Either way, the only real use for guns outside entertainment (which does not factor on the scale of human life), is self protection
The statistics show that a generally disarmed nation is significantly safer.
we are in the top 3 per capita gun deaths in the world when you factor out 3rd world countries. And we even beat quite a number of those.
Also worth noting is that the UK, which took the polar opposite view on Gun control to the USA, has significantly lower per-capita gun deaths.
And that pattern carries over into the homicide rate in general. We are #1 in our class (first world countries for homicides in general), so its not like UK criminals have just resorted to knives or something.
LOL. China has less murder than us total, despite having a bazillion times more people
BSE Politics
BSE Politics