**** Elections thread *****

[BananaStand]

I wasn't aware Bannon had published his playbook.

Actually from what I heard, Bannon gets his playbook from Baghdadi

[Jack Sawyer]

Actually from what I heard, Bannon gets his playbook from Baghdadi

Hahahaha

Attachment 933

https://giphy.com/gifs/n5NtisNKVzXWg/html5

Is it a conspiracy?

[Jack Sawyer]

LOL CNN barking, courtesy of Jake Tapper

Hahahaha

Maybe the fake news thing did get to them, but I doubt they read the memo still

[Jack Sawyer]

The terrorist group ISIS has reportedly branded President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration "the Blessed Ban" as it seemingly proves that the West is at war with Islam.New York Times terrorism correspondent Rukmini Callimachi reported from Iraq that ISIS has been talking about Trump's travel ban, which bars refugees and citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries — identified as hot spots for terrorism — from entering the US.
"I reported here in Nov/Dec of last year," Callimachi tweeted on Wednesday. "Guess what's different on this trip? Everywhere I go, Iraqis want to ask about the visa ban."

https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...-ban/21709973/

[Poopadoop]

Every day it's something else:



Yup, he's definitely focused on running the country here.

[BananaStand]

as it seemingly proves that the West is at war with Islam.

In more urgent news, the sky is blue.

They think their version of Islam is the only version that counts, and everybody else needs their head chopped off. In other words, ISIS thinks that they ARE Islam. War on them, and targeting the countries where they set up shop, is equal to a war on Islam, at least from where they sit.

But "blessed ban", that sure is catchy. Headline catchy. Run it.

[Jack Sawyer]

Price of a drug to treat opioid overdose rose from $690 in '14 to $4500 currently per dose.

A list of senators wrote a letter to ask why this happened.

Here is a list of those senators:

Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Angus King (I-Maine), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Tim Kaine (D-Va), Mark Warner, (D-Va.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Cory Booker (D-NJ).

Notice something? (And yes, that corny twofaced shill booker is in there as well.)

Story:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/kaleos-opioid-overdose-drug-went-from-690-to-4500-and-senators-want-answers/?comments=1

[Savy]

In more urgent news, the sky is blue.

Inb4 MMM

So Trump lost the appeal to reinstate the ban? Or did he really win his "real" goal?

[BananaStand]

Inb4 MMM

So Trump lost the appeal to reinstate the ban? Or did he really win his "real" goal?

What's MMM?

The court didn't rule against the ban, it ruled to sustain the restraining order until another court can rule on the constitutional merits of the case. Basically using the justification that no one is irreparably harmed by delaying the travel ban. What gets lost in all of this is the legalese and details that actually do matter, as well as the fact that the 9th circuit has such a reputation for liberal bias that they are known among lawyers as a punchline. Unfortunately, the media, and most consumers of it, can really only digest "win/lose".

It's not really about the ban anymore. It's about whether or not Trump is within his powers as president to do this. And on that, the law is explicitly on his side. The fight really has nothing to do with immigration, refugees, or national security anymore. It's about Trump establishing his right to run the country. And for Dems, it's about coloring the Supreme Court nomination as a referendum on the travel ban. And on that front, the media is on their side. Every time it's called a "muslim" ban, or someone accuses Trump of playing favorites for business reasons (not just poop, I saw it on TV last night), they turn a little bit more of the public to their side. And eventually, that might turn a senator....some of them want to be re-elected in 2018.

[BananaStand]

Here is a list of those senators:

[a bunch of cheap headline-grabbing democrats]

Notice something?

None of them can read?

For the more than 200 million Americans with commercial insurance and a prescription, they can get EVZIO for $0 out-of-pocket.
For patients who do not have government or commercial insurance, and have a household income of less than $100,000, they can also receive EVZIO for $0 out-of-pocket.
For those paying cash, the price is $360.

[BananaStand]

Yup, he's definitely focused on running the country here:

You're definitely not hopelessly bias either. I mean, you gotta have a real hate on to categorize 5 seconds of tweeting on a week-old story as a "lack of focus"

Why would this guy show you his taxes?

[MadMojoMonkey]

In more urgent news, the sky is blue.

IDK why people insist this to be true, when it's obviously not true at least half the time.

It is a statistical expectation that it is sometimes blue or blue with white bits, and other times gray or black with white spots, or some combination thereof. Sometimes, it's even rainbow colored, but I hear that's usually only twice a day, except when it's not.

Inb4 MMM

I didn't know it counts if you don't say the thing I was gonna say, but OK.

What's MMM?

That would be me.

[MadMojoMonkey]

On the taxes:

I remember a certain now President making a big fuss over another ex-President's birth certificate or something like that.

It was a demand for the public show of paperwork which no other President had been demanded to show.

[BananaStand]

On the taxes:

I remember a certain now President making a big fuss over another ex-President's birth certificate or something like that.

It was a demand for the public show of paperwork which no other President had been demanded to show.

Well, you can't justify bad behavior with more bad behavior. Trump was wrong on the birther stuff. He's admitted that, publicly. He's stated, many times now, that he believes Obama was born in the U.S.

What's the likelihood of someone looking at Trump's taxes and saying "oh ok, this all looks good. We were wrong to suspect you of wrongdoing".

that's the difference. It's not like Trump can show his taxes and suddenly be absolved the way Obama could by showing his birth certificate. Birth certificates don't contain sensitive proprietary information. Birth certificates are not nearly as complex. Trump's taxes will be torn apart by detractors looking for a comma out of place. If you go digging, you find dirt. Obama didn't have that risk by showing his Birth Certificate. Big difference.

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ipes-back.html

I feel like Kellyanne got the better of that exchange, lol. Good for her. It's a tough job being the public doormat that Trump sends out to get trampled by the media. She deserved a win.

[Poopadoop]

You're definitely not hopelessly bias either. I mean, you gotta have a real hate on to categorize 5 seconds of tweeting on a week-old story as a "lack of focus"

Why would this guy show you his taxes?

I would criticize any world leader who was tweeting about his daughter's business when he's supposed to be in a security briefing as 'unfocused'. Wouldn't you?

[Poopadoop]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ipes-back.html

I feel like Kellyanne got the better of that exchange, lol. Good for her. It's a tough job being the public doormat that Trump sends out to get trampled by the media. She deserved a win.

Hillary should just stfu and go live in the country or something. It's basically her fault the world got saddled with this mango twat and the idea that anything that happens can possibly be a 'win' for her after that campaign she ran is just ridiculous.

[BananaStand]

.... when he's supposed to be in a security briefing....

I didn't catch that bit of information in the video you linked. Fake news?

I see a man, using his personal account to support for a family member with a tweet that took maybe 3 seconds to compose and send. I also see a vicious media spend 3 minutes calling it a "slam", advertising for the #grabyourwallet campaign, and assuring us that even though it was in and out of Trump's mind in a flash, we should not expect this to end anytime soon. Why not? Who's keeping it going??

[BananaStand]

Hillary should just stfu .....It's basically her fault.

Boy, if we're assigning blame here.....Hillary would be pretty low on the list for me.

At the top would be Barack Obama, followed by the combined efforts of a litany of smug-faced social-justice warriors in the media. Or what about the plethora of republican donors who put all of the GOP's resources behind Jeb instead of someone good?

I really feel like Hillary was just a wind up doll that spat out liberal talking points. She stood where she was supposed to stand, said what she was supposed to say, smiled when she was supposed to smile, and went along for a ride she seemingly had little control over.

[Poopadoop]

I didn't catch that bit of information in the video you linked. Fake news?

That information wasn't included in the video I linked, which explains why you didn't see it. The security briefing started at 10.30, according to the WH. Trump tweeted around 10.50. Either that was the shortest briefing ever or he didn't go or he left early cause he's like smart and doesn't need to get intel.

I see a man, using his personal account to support for a family member with a tweet that took maybe 3 seconds to compose and send. I also see a vicious media spend 3 minutes calling it a "slam", advertising for the #grabyourwallet campaign, and assuring us that even though it was in and out of Trump's mind in a flash, we should not expect this to end anytime soon. Why not? Who's keeping it going??

Of course you do.

The rest of us see a man who can't stop being a businessman even when he's the president.

Also, if I'm in a meeting (or skip a meeting) at work and tweet about some personal business interest of mine not related to my job, I get in shit. But if Trump does it and gets called on it, you get outraged. Funny that.

[Poopadoop]

Boy, if we're assigning blame here.....Hillary would be pretty low on the list for me.

At the top would be Barack Obama, followed by the combined efforts of a litany of smug-faced social-justice warriors in the media. Or what about the plethora of republican donors who put all of the GOP's resources behind Jeb instead of someone good?

I really feel like Hillary was just a wind up doll that spat out liberal talking points. She stood where she was supposed to stand, said what she was supposed to say, smiled when she was supposed to smile, and went along for a ride she seemingly had little control over.

Literally anyone could have ran a better campaign than her. She disappeared for days at a time, went to fundraisers instead of holding rallies, and basically had no message apart from 'I'm not as bad as him'. It's amazing she got any votes at all - at least until you remember who she was running against.

[BananaStand]

That information wasn't included in the video I linked, which explains why you didn't see it. The security briefing started at 10.30, according to the WH. Trump tweeted around 10.50.

So you really have no idea what else was going on when he tweeted. You're just inferring. But before you were challenged, you presented the inference that Trump was prioritizing a tweet above national security as a fact. It was also clear that contributed significantly to your opinion.

If you were a journalist, and you presented your inference as fact, lots of people would read it and believe you. It would contribute significantly to their opinion of events. That's not only dishonest, it's dangerous! Are you starting to see why Trump MUST defend himself against the media? Do you get now why he hits back every time they hit him?

Either that was the shortest briefing ever

It could have been. Maybe they sat him down and said "Bad guys are coming, judges won't let you stop them. End of briefing"

or he didn't go

Also a possibility. He's not been shy about his frustration with being told repeat information.

or he left early cause he's like smart and doesn't need to get intel.

Again, totally possible. Or, maybe they took a coffee break. Or maybe the guy with the powerpoint slides was having technical difficulties that stopped the meeting for a few minutes.

Your implication that he was doing something he wasn't supposed to do when he should have been doing something else is fake news.

The rest of us see a man who can't stop being a businessman even when he's the president.

.
Jesus man, we're not talking about a spat with Mark Cuban or something. Ivanka is his daughter, and his tweet was expressing frustration at what he perceived to be unfair treatment. Is he supposed to stop being a father when he's president? Sheesh.

Also, if I'm in a meeting (or skip a meeting) at work and tweet about some personal business interest of mine not related to my job, I get in shit.

Sucks for you. When you run the company, you can dictate your own schedule.

But if Trump does it and gets called on it, you get outraged. Funny that.

I'm not outraged. But if you want to see outrage, try telling your own boss how he should be spending his time. Next time you see him sending a text, ask "is that business related?" See how he reacts.

I do think it's funny that you equate this to him "doing business" or this tweet is about "some personal business". Jesus, can you imagine if you saw the guy's tax returns and saw that he owned some stock in Macy's. Foil hats around the world would all spontaneously combust!!

[Poopadoop]

Being president isn't the same as owning a company. He doesn't own the country and can't just do wtf he wants. He is an employee of the people. Big difference there; stop talking shit.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with the notion that people want their president to focus on being president and not trash talking some company for canceling his daughter's line of clothing, or more generally just tweeting whatever random shit comes into his head. Surely he has more important things to do.

And just for fun let's assume one of your scenarios is true- the meeting ended early or Trump decided he's like a smart person and doesn't need to go the meetings. So, what would a GOOD president do then? Would he maybe pick up the phone and talk to someone somewhere in gov't about some issue that's important? Or would he tweet about whatever happens to be on his mind, like his hot daughter's clothing line, or maybe SNL.

And what about that tweet? You said it's totally unfair that people assume he's going to use his office to promote his and his family's businesses just because he can. But what is that tweet doing if not that? And now you're crying 'cause the media and his opponents report and comment on this bad behavior? At the very least you have to agree that it's unbecoming of a president to be doing that. And yet he does it again and again. Shouldn't that bother people? Should they not be concerned that the world is seeing their leader as a narcissistic retard, and it's hurting their image as a country? I would be.

You continually act shocked that people set out reasonable criticisms of Trump and his administration, and call him out on his bad behavior. If that's genuine amazement on your part and not just trolling, then I really feel sorry for you because I think you are in for four years of being completely confused about how so many people see him.

[BananaStand]

And what about that tweet? You said it's totally unfair that people assume he's going to use his office to promote his and his family's businesses just because he can. But what is that tweet doing if not that?

He's not 'promoting' anything. He's expressing a feeling of frustration that he has as a human being. He's not using his office. The tweet came from his personal account.

That's WAY different than KAC, in her capacity as a spokesperson, going on TV and saying "it's a great brand, I own some myself". Those statements are completely offsides. She knows that. She fucked up. People make mistakes. She apologized. From what I read, she was "counseled", which I gather is a nice way of saying 'reprimanded and retrained'. Ok then. She did something bad, she was held accountable, measures were taken, problems were remedied, the system worked.

I would challenge you to think critically on the difference between that, and playing 'gotchya'. Because there is an awful lot of the latter going around and it's poisonous to substantive discourse.

And now you're crying 'cause the media and his opponents report and comment on this bad behavior?

First of all, I'm not 'crying'. But I do have a problem with a 3 minute report on a 3 second tweet where the other 2:57 is spent blowing it out of proportion, and having a bunch of liberal nobodies fear monger about how scary and dangerous this is. Beyond that, there are even people stating factually that Trump shirked his presidential duty to make time for this, a paranoid inference wholly unsupported by facts. And at the end of that 3 minutes, we were....I guess the word is "warned"......that there's no end to this in sight.

I have no problem with the media "reporting or commenting" on anything the president does. But this was a hatchet job, a smear. Surely you see that.

At the very least you have to agree that it's unbecoming of a president to be doing that. And yet he does it again and again. Shouldn't that bother people? Should they not be concerned that the world is seeing their leader as a narcissistic retard, and it's hurting their image as a country? I would be.

I think it's unbecoming for a president to have neon hair, dress like a cartoon character, and be married to a woman half his age. So what? It's concerning, sure. But the time to express that concern was the election. I take issue with people being outraged over Trump doing things that are already known about him, and totally consistent with his character. He is who he is. And he got elected president. Work with it.

You continually act shocked that people set out reasonable criticisms of Trump and his administration, and call him out on his bad behavior. If that's genuine amazement on your part and not just trolling, then I really feel sorry for you because I think you are in for four years of being completely confused about how so many people see him.

It's not a reasonable criticism. Let's just focus on you for a minute. Your objection stemmed from the idea that he was supplanting a national security briefing with twitter-time, when in fact, that is something you imagined. That's NOT a reasonable criticism.

Again, I challenge you to think critically about how you might differentiate between reasonable criticism, and a petty game of "gotchya".

[Poopadoop]

He's not 'promoting' anything. He's expressing a feeling of frustration that he has as a human being. He's not using his office.

Just mentioning it is promoting it. You don't need to be a marketing major to understand that.

The tweet came from his personal account.

Well that's the account he uses, so...everything he says on there is ok now? If he tweets 'all jews must die', we should go, 'oh it's ok just his personal account, nothing official'.

That's WAY different than KAC, in her capacity as a spokesperson, going on TV and saying "it's a great brand, I own some myself". Those statements are completely offsides. She knows that. She fucked up. People make mistakes. She apologized. From what I read, she was "counseled", which I gather is a nice way of saying 'reprimanded and retrained'. Ok then. She did something bad, she was held accountable, measures were taken, problems were remedied, the system worked.

Rumor has it there's a lot of people in the WH trying to 'retrain' Trump but he doesn't take to it. Sad.

I would challenge you to think critically on the difference between that, and playing 'gotchya'. Because there is an awful lot of the latter going around and it's poisonous to substantive discourse.

There may be some of that, but there's just as much of denying anything he does wrong is actually wrong.

I do have a problem with a 3 minute report on a 3 second tweet where the other 2:57 is spent blowing it out of proportion, and having a bunch of liberal nobodies fear monger about how scary and dangerous this is. Beyond that, there are even people stating factually that Trump shirked his presidential duty to make time for this, a paranoid inference wholly unsupported by facts. And at the end of that 3 minutes, we were....I guess the word is "warned"......that there's no end to this in sight.

It's not exactly paranoid to assume Trump shirks his duty when it's on record that he's done the same thing already numerous times (or at the very least decided for himself what is or isn't his 'duty' - like going to security briefings or using his time to tweet stupid shit).

But the time to express that concern was the election. I take issue with people being outraged over Trump doing things that are already known about him, and totally consistent with his character. He is who he is. And he got elected president. Work with it.

So you just accept all the bullshit because he won the election? On what planet does that work? I guess then if Trump shoots someone on 5th avenue we should accept it 'cause people had their chance to stop him by not electing him. Get. Fucking. Real.

It's not a reasonable criticism. Let's just focus on you for a minute. Your objection stemmed from the idea that he was supplanting a national security briefing with twitter-time, when in fact, that is something you imagined. That's NOT a reasonable criticism.

It's not unreasonable to think he left or zoned out of the security meeting and, instead of doing something useful with that time, chose to use it to promote his daughter's business. There's nothing imagined about it, as much as you'd like to put your Spinner Spicer take on it.

Again, I challenge you to think critically about how you might differentiate between reasonable criticism, and a petty game of "gotchya".

A petty game of 'gotchya' would be pointing out that 63% is not the same as 2/3, then ... you know the rest.

Do I believe the media is hypersensitive to finding fault with Trump? Yes. Do I believe they often overblow things? Yes. But that's the media, they're not objective and never have been.

Do I think that means it's ok for Trump to promote his daughter's clothing line when he could be doing something for the country instead, like maybe be in a security briefing that was scheduled for the same time, or maybe doing God knows how many other things need doing by the president? Nope.

[BananaStand]

Just mentioning it is promoting it. You don't need to be a marketing major to understand that.

No, it's not the same thing. Maybe you should ask a marketing major. He didn't even mention her brand or her business. He said "my daughter has been treated unfairly by nordstroms". Then he said something nice, personally, about his daughter. Then he described the whole situation as "terrible".

That's a completely different animal than what Kellyanne did. SURELY you see the difference.

Well that's the account he uses, so...everything he says on there is ok now? If he tweets 'all jews must die', we should go, 'oh it's ok just his personal account, nothing official'.

He uses both accounts. If he says something personal, about someone he knows personally, on his personal account, that's not him "using his office to promote" something. And statements like you suggested would be concerning. But he's said nothing on that level. You're arguing against your own absurd hypothesis. Have fun, I'm not getting involved with that.

Rumor has it there's a lot of people in the WH trying to 'retrain' Trump but he doesn't take to it. Sad.

You're not getting it. It's only sad to people like you, who think EVERYTHING trump does is sad. The rest of us, already know he's a bombastic blowhard. We knew that before he was elected. If you expected him to change, that's dumb, and that's on you!

There may be some of that, but there's just as much of denying anything he does wrong is actually wrong.

No, you just perceive there to be 'just as much' because you're constantly putting yourself on the side of "trump is wrong". You're in the minority there. Polls show majorities and pluralities of Americans agreeing with Trump's policies. He's clearly and demonstrably getting alot more right than he is wrong. So there's no way that entire networks can run non-stop negative coverage unless they're full of shit.

It's not exactly paranoid to assume Trump shirks his duty when it's on record that he's done the same thing already numerous times (or at the very least decided for himself what is or isn't his 'duty' - like going to security briefings or using his time to tweet stupid shit).

It's really at the president's discretion what meetings he takes and when. Criticizing that is just you looking for a fight.

So you just accept all the bullshit because he won the election? On what planet does that work? I guess then if Trump shoots someone on 5th avenue we should accept it 'cause people had their chance to stop him by not electing him. Get. Fucking. Real.

No, I accept some of the bullshit. Specifically the bullshit that was there before he won the Election. You have to be trolling here, because your'e not even in the same galaxy as my point. If trump actually murdered someone, that would be a new character trait that we can use to develop new judgments about. He wasn't a murderer before the election.

Making bombastic statements and being a twitter troll are not new. He's been doing that forever. If it mattered, he would not have been elected. He got elected, that means it doesn't matter. Or at least, doesn't matter to enough people to make a difference. If you find yourself in that minority, that's unfortunate for you. You're free to be unhappy about it, but I would remind you of the analogy about peeing your pants. It feels good, but you look foolish.

It's not unreasonable to think he left or zoned out of the security meeting and, instead of doing something useful with that time, chose to use it to promote his daughter's business. There's nothing imagined about it, as much as you'd like to put your Spinner Spicer take on it.

It's not unreasonable to think that he tweeted it during a scheduled break in the meeting, during which he went to the can to pinch a loaf.

What IS unreasonable is assuming you're better at micro-managing the President's schedule than he, or anyone in the white-house, is.

A petty game of 'gotchya' would be pointing out that 63% is not the same as 2/3, then ... you know the rest.

That's not what I was doing. You're being a dick.

Do I believe the media is hypersensitive to finding fault with Trump? Yes. Do I believe they often overblow things? Yes. But that's the media, they're not objective and never have been.

And you are objective?

Do I think that means it's ok for Trump to promote his daughter's clothing line when he could be doing something for the country instead, like maybe be in a security briefing that was scheduled for the same time, or maybe doing God knows how many other things need doing by the president? Nope.

If he starts his day at 06:30 and ends it at 20:30 without using twitter, or starts his day at 06:30 and ends it at 20:32 while using twitter for two minutes during the day, what's the fucking difference?

Your assumption that his tweets supplant more pressing matters is imagined, demonstrably false, and petty.

[Savy]

Has wuf died?

[Poopadoop]

Good question. I wish he'd come back so we could have a civil conversation again.

[Poopadoop]

lol "let me go you orange fuck"

[wufwugy]

Has wuf died?

maybe

[wufwugy]

Good question. I wish he'd come back so we could have a civil conversation again.

still bulimic on red pills i see

[Poopadoop]

still bulimic on red pills i see

Yup, keeps me nice and thin.

How about you - tired of winning yet?

[wufwugy]

is the democratic party hanging itself? yes. not tired of winning.

is public education dismantled? no. could use some more of that winning.

[Poopadoop]

is the democratic party hanging itself? yes. not tired of winning.

Most of the country would like to hang itself right about now...

is public education dismantled? no. could use some more of that winning.

"Let her in, she might learn something."

[OngBonga]

The sky is not blue. It's fucking grey.

[Jack Sawyer]

[Jack Sawyer]

None of them can read?

For the more than 200 million Americans with commercial insurance and a prescription, they can get EVZIO for $0 out-of-pocket.
For patients who do not have government or commercial insurance, and have a household income of less than $100,000, they can also receive EVZIO for $0 out-of-pocket.
For those paying cash, the price is $360.

Hahahahahahaha the naiveté in this post

I can't help but think you are a troll account, indicated by your join date (Americans joining an online poker forum in november of 2016? That's a unicorn. Also, november of 2016? What a coincidence), your avatar (notice the red tie), your staunch refusal of any kind of logic that isn't completely pro-Trump, your quoting of only Fox News as if they are the only source of information in the world, and many other tells.

Whose troll account might you be? Spoonitnow? Euph? Wuf himself? I haven't really been on here for a couple of years, so I don't know what went down in this thread earlier

But anyways, I will be making you a short post within the next two days time-permitting showing you exactly how it goes down in healthcare in the US because of these practices. Spoiler alert: those official words are bullshit, cow poop. Next spoiler alert: everyone's insurance goes up because of these.

[Poopadoop]

In b4 bananarama is exposed as Sean Spicer.

[BananaStand]

I can't help but think you are a troll account, indicated by your join date (Americans joining an online poker forum in november of 2016? That's a unicorn. Also, november of 2016? What a coincidence),

It actually is just a coincedence. My joining here coincides with my luckboxing in to a bankroll by cashing in an online tournament that I played on a whim. I sought to 'get into' online poker (i had only just dabbled in nano stakes before) with this money and found myself here. Since then I've confirmed my previous feeling that I'm happier putting my poker hours into a live game. Sidebar: if anyone wants a transfer on ACR, I'm your guy.

I found the discussion in this thread interesting, so here I am. I'm really not sure what your problem is with me. Things have been pretty civil here. Me and Poop had a good back and forth, and sure there was some frustration, but I don't feel like there are any hard feelings.

your avatar (notice the red tie),

What's your point? Yes, the picture is fuzzy, but I snapped it at 30mph. It is indeed a man dressed as trump holding a sign that says "free gropes". Not exactly the most flattering image of our President. I was content to have no avatar, but peer pressure form wuf led me to post one. A satirical jab at a President that I support should show you that I am not some militant troll

your staunch refusal of any kind of logic that isn't completely pro-Trump,

Fake news. I've been critical of the president when he's wrong, and supportive of him when he's right. Just because I believe he's doing more right than he does wrong doesn't mean I am 'staunchly' in support of the man. My debate opponent has been staunchly refusing to believe anything that isn't staunchly anti-trump. He's gone so far as to imagine arguments and assume they are true because the President won't take the time to refute them.

I've been debating a serial Trump opponent, it's not surprising that many of my counter arguments are pro-trump. But if "staunch refusal" is evidence of Troll-ish behavior....you should talk to Poop. I get that you know him, and he's been here longer than I have, and he agrees with you on many of these issues. That doesn't mean he's not doing the exact same things you're criticizing me for.

If you want evidence, then start a discussion about the wall, or how the travel ban was implemented, or whether or not KellyAnn Conway is retarded....and see which side of the argument I favor.

your quoting of only Fox News as if they are the only source of information in the world,

Fake news. I've posted information from a variety of sources. Also, if there is information out there that helps me refute an anti-trump argument in a debate.....I doubt I'll find it on CNN. that's not my fault. That's not evidence of any 'echo chamber' bias from me.

But anyways, I will be making you a short post within the next two days time-permitting showing you exactly how it goes down in healthcare in the US because of these practices.

Don't bother, I already know what your'e going to say.

everyone's insurance goes up because of these.

Whoa! Shocker!! What's hilariously ironic here is that this is exactly what the liberals wanted. That's the entire premise of Obamacare. Give free shit to poor people, and make everyone in the middle pay for it. That's what they did with healthcare, thats what they did with entitlement spending, that's the mantra of the democratic party! So when all of those democratic senators write a letter.....

those words are bullshit, cow poop.

I'm not sure if it's ignorance on behalf of the democratic party, or if they are exploiting the ignorance of their constituents. Really hard to tell. They never have an answer for "who pays". They just want more free stuff, and don't really care where it comes from. That was the giant flaw in obamacare. That's why I don't believe Obama was lying when he said "if you like your plan, you can keep it". I think he REALLY believed that the private sector (drug and insurance companies), would sacrifice profits in order to support the implementation of his ideals.

He said, "give free stuff to poor people, and we'd really like it if you folks at the top could just pay for all of it yourselves"

And the folks at the top said "Why should we? Fuck that, everybody pays" And rates went up

That's capitalism. That's what drives innovation and investment in our country. Without that, our economy goes stale. What these democrats want, is for the drug company to make some kind of socialist exception. And they probably want the drug company to refuse, so that they can have a villain to fight in their re-election campaigns. They are essentially trolling here. Maybe republicans just decided that they were better than that..

You can't just selectively apply the rules just because it dis-proportionally affects your voting base. No one ever said Capitalism was going to be all gumdrops and rainbows. Sometimes a small amount of people make too much money. . There's no fucking way you can tell me that playing baseball is worth $10 million a year. But you don't seen these senators lining up to condemn pro sports

Meanwhile Republicans probably didn't sign it because they were busy working on new legislation that fixes this problem for everybody. Republicans have been quite vocal about 'transparency' as a major part of whatever healthcare legislation they propose. Nothing gets prices in line like a heavy does of free market competition.

In my lifetime, it's been the republicans who have proven best at running the economy. And all this letter does is confirm that to me. Because it seems like the best idea democrats have is to simply whine. "Whaaa, why can't I have what I want at a price I like"

[Jack Sawyer]

[wufwugy]

The first major flaw of the Trump administration emerges. The Deep State got Flynn's head on a stake. Trump may be losing the war.

It would be nice if all the liberals and Democrats who claimed to despise all the lies and corruption of the Deep State and the CIA yet turned 180 degrees once Sanders lost would get their shit together. We could sure use the help.

[Savy]

Is it too late to get Hillary in?

[BananaStand]

The first major flaw of the Trump administration emerges. The Deep State got Flynn's head on a stake. Trump may be losing the war.

Pretty bold leap there I think. Flynn fucked up, so they bounced him. How is that a "flaw" in the administration?

What war?

[Poopadoop]

He's not losing, he's just really, really tired of winning. So much winning.

[Poopadoop]

What war?

You have to go to reddit r/thedonald to find out wat Wuf is talking about half the time. To everyone else its a non-sequitur.

[wufwugy]

Pretty bold leap there I think. Flynn fucked up, so they bounced him. How is that a "flaw" in the administration?

What war?

The mistake was in giving the media this victory. Even if it isn't true, Flynn's resignation confirms for the media that they have some power over the administration. In theory, that is actually a good thing, but this media is a wing of the state, so it's not a good thing. It also "confirms" their "Russia did it" theories.

If Flynn did wrong, Trump should have set him on the sideline until his name was out of importance and then canned him. It may be the case that the intel community won this battle over Trump since they may have used Flynn as leverage to not brief Trump and his staff appropriately. Flynn's head likely has nothing to do with anything right or wrong he did but about how he went after the CIA earlier.

This could be a sign of a big loss against the swamp.

[BananaStand]

In Miller's defense, he's not totally wrong about Massachussetts voters being bussed to NH polling locations. That shit definitely happens. Can't prove it obviously, but having lived in NH my whole life, and followed NH politics for most of that time, I can confirm that Miller isn't pulling stuff completely out of his ass here.

Though, it seems preposterous that kind of stuff would have affected the Presidential election.

Typically, these complaints are raised in tiny local elections where 50-100 votes can actually affect the outcome. Folks seem to be criticizing Miller by asking "wouldn't someone notice busloads of people showing up?". The answer is no. It doesn't have to be a bus, you can rent a 15 or 20 passenger van that fits in a regular parking space. No one suspects a dozen senior citizens who all shared a ride from the nursing home to go vote. And no one would ever be the wiser if that van then went to a half dozen more polling locations. Again, I have no evidence, but I do believe that practice occurs with a significant non-zero frequency. Not enough to turn the whole state blue though, that's a real stretch.

However, to think that NH's same-day registration policy is not being abused is also a stretch.

[BananaStand]

The mistake was in giving the media this victory.

C'mon man, you can't win them all. I think Flynn's biggest mistake was not telling Pence the whole story before he went on TV. That embarrasses Pence, and thus the administration, bigtime. Flynn might have had more support had he not made that mistake.

The guy made the bosses look bad, and he got fired. You really can't pin that one on the media.

KellyAnn Conway is on borrowed time for pretty much the same reason. Though she's really good at catching the shit that gets thrown at Trump. They'll probably just wait until she's totally saturated with filth before they bring in a new sponge.

[Poopadoop]

That shit definitely happens. Can't prove it obviously,

...

[BananaStand]

...

If you have some insight into local elections in New Hampshire that I don't, please share it.

Can't prove Michael Jackson diddled any kids....but there's no way people say the same shit about you for 30 years and it's not at least a little bit true.

[Poopadoop]

If you have some insight into local elections in New Hampshire that I don't, please share it.
.

No, your insight is all the proof I need. It's definitely true, just no evidence for it. Just like the other 3 million people who voted illegally.

[BananaStand]

No, your insight is all the proof I need. It's definitely true, just no evidence for it. Just like the other 3 million people who voted illegally.

You're being extra-trolly here. You're obviously choosing to ignore every other sentiment in my post to play this pathetic game of 'gotchya'

Though, it seems preposterous that kind of stuff would have affected the Presidential election

Typically, these complaints are raised in tiny local elections where 50-100 votes can actually affect the outcome.

Not enough to turn the whole state blue though, that's a real stretch.

[Poopadoop]

You're being extra-trolly here. You're obviously choosing to ignore every other sentiment in my post to play this pathetic game of 'gotchya'

You're not a lawyer are you.

[BananaStand]

You're not a lawyer are you.

No, why?

Do you have something you want to contribute to this discussion, or are you just here to shit on me?

[Poopadoop]

No, why?

Do you have something you want to contribute to this discussion, or are you just here to shit on me?

I was simply pointing out the contradiction in your words. Sorry if you took it personally.

Rumors and speculation don't prove anything. You need evidence. Saying 'it's definitely true- there's just no evidence' is not a credible argument.

[BananaStand]

I was simply pointing out the contradiction in your words. Sorry if you took it personally.

Rumors and speculation don't prove anything. You need evidence. Saying 'it's definitely true- there's just no evidence' is not a credible argument.

I don't know what to tell you buddy. I live here, and the feeling is real. It can't be ALL lies.

If you're telling me that you don't believe anything without concrete facts that go beyond any reasonable doubt, then I guess you're admitting alot of what you've posted over the last two weeks is 'not a credible argument'.

"the travel ban targets muslims"
"Trump should have been in a security meeting when he tweeted"
"trump targeted those 7 countries to help his business"
"Trump's taxes...blah blah blah"

ALL of it is rumors and speculation, which according you, proves nothing.

[Poopadoop]

I don't know what to tell you buddy. I live here, and the feeling is real.

Don't know what to tell you either fella. Your feelings aren't proof either.

[Poopadoop]

It can't be ALL lies..

This is a feeling too? Or do you have some proof?

[Poopadoop]

Old news, but apparently you've repressed it.

Relevant bit starts at 3:00

[BananaStand]

Old news, but apparently you've repressed it.

Relevant bit starts at 3:00

So Rudy confirms that the order has no religious component. He said that explicitly. What are you missing?

[Poopadoop]

It's obvious to anyone Guiliani hired a team of lawyers to try to make the Muslim ban look legit.

If you want to go all Sean Spicer on the truth then that's your problem.

[BananaStand]

It's obvious to anyone Guiliani hired a team of lawyers to try to make the Muslim ban look legit.

How is that obvious?

In case you missed it, here's the timeline:
1) Candidate Trump proposed a ban on Muslim immigration
2) Candidate Trump walked that back and later proposed extreme vetting from known problem areas
3) President Trump charged the mayor with "making it legal".

If you're skipping a step in the timeline in order to equate "it" with a ban specifically on muslims, you're playing with alternative facts.

Even if you're right, it's obvious that the idea of a religious test was abandoned within about two nanoseconds. The resulting policy contains no religious component whatsoever.

Furthermore, do you not see the dangerous and chaotic precedent that would be set if the legality of official acts could be challenged based on statements made during a campaign?

[wufwugy]

C'mon man, you can't win them all. I think Flynn's biggest mistake was not telling Pence the whole story before he went on TV. That embarrasses Pence, and thus the administration, bigtime. Flynn might have had more support had he not made that mistake.

The guy made the bosses look bad, and he got fired. You really can't pin that one on the media.

I hope you're right.

It's not so much that I pin this on the media, but on Intel espionage. If it was just the media, I think Flynn stays in and laughs about it. I don't like any signs that the deep state is getting their way, and I don't like giving the media ammo. I extra don't like that it appears that what Flynn did was par-for-the-course acceptable when done by a Democrat or by anybody who doesn't target Intel.

KellyAnn Conway is on borrowed time for pretty much the same reason. Though she's really good at catching the shit that gets thrown at Trump. They'll probably just wait until she's totally saturated with filth before they bring in a new sponge.

I wonder. I think the "massacre" thing was deliberate. It went a long way to trick the media into covering terrorism and thereby getting more citizen support for Trump.

[Poopadoop]

How is that obvious?

He says it himself?

Google 'Guiliani muslim ban'. The first fifty results are about how he admitted in that interview it was intended as a muslim ban from the beginning, and the EO was just crafted in a way so as to give the appearance of being based on something else.

here's the timeline:
1) Candidate Trump proposed a ban on Muslim immigration
2) Candidate Trump walked that back and later proposed extreme vetting from known problem areas
3) President Trump charged the mayor with "making it legal".

If you're skipping a step in the timeline in order to equate "it" with a ban specifically on muslims, you're playing with alternative facts.

You're the only one dishing out alternative facts here. Watch the video. The jump from 1 to 2 happened when Trump asked Guiliani and his team of lawyers for advice. Unfortunately for Trump, Guiliani is so stupid he gloated on tape about how they did it. Judge sees it, ban gets suspended tout de suite.

Even if you're right, it's obvious that the idea of a religious test was abandoned within about two nanoseconds. The resulting policy contains no religious component whatsoever.

You don't need a degree in rocket science to see what happened there.

Furthermore, do you not see the dangerous and chaotic precedent that would be set if the legality of official acts could be challenged based on statements made during a campaign?

The legality was not challenged based solely on his campaign statements. It was the fact that Guiliani himself admitted that Trump approached him with how to make the muslim ban stick. This very interview was shown in court and the judge said (I paraphrase), 'hey, wtf'. So unless you think that judge is making up chaotic and dangerous new law then you'll just have to deal.

[wufwugy]

It's looking like this might turn out to be a big, big mistake by Trump. The one that sticks and totally undermines any further movement towards draining the swamp. This was a takedown by Intel. Priebus very likely the infiltrator into the Trump camp. He got Trump to try to make friends with Intel elites instead of immediate mass purging (what should have happened).

Let's hope this read is completely wrong.

[BananaStand]

Judge sees it, ban gets suspended tout de suite..

Jesus man, you are so wildly misinformed about what the judges actually ruled.

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ravel-ban.html

2 out of 3 people feel that "muslim ban" is an inaccurate description of Trumps executive order

[BananaStand]

So unless you think that judge is making up chaotic and dangerous new law then you'll just have to deal.

The executive order is 100 percent completely legal. It is explicitly within the President's power to do exactly what Trump has done. It's not even close. Trump has been quoting the actual text of the law left and right, and it's so obviously on his side.

Opponents found the softest judge in a district that's known as a punchline. All they asked him for was a temporary restraining order. The only standard there, is that no one will be harmed by issuing the restraining order. That hardly impugns the legality of the order.

After that, the three judge panel had to rule on whether or not the restraining order was legal, NOT Trump's executive order. The only ruling they made was to uphold the restraining order. The only requirement for that is that upholding the restraining order doesn't harm anyone. Again, there was no ruling on the legality of the order. They just punted to another court.

It's the opinion of most legal experts I've heard from, that when this actually gets adjudicated as a matter of law....the law will be on Trump's side.

The only way it wouldn't be legal, is if it was provable that Trump's motivation was religious prejudice. That would be a violation of the first amendment, and hence illegal. However, not only is obviously not true, it is HARDLY provable.

If a court were to uphold campaign statements as proof of motivation.....that would be a disaster.

That doesn't allow for the possibilities of...
A) Campaign statements can be bold, brash, and not totally sincere
B) Campaign statements are usually made to appeal to a narrow audience
C) It's plausible that a candidate, once elected, could change his position based on new information learned
D) It's plausible that he could decide that a different policy serves the entire country, and not just his voting base, better. (aka...good president-ing)

I could go on, but you should see the point by now. Judges aren't mind readers. You shouldn't let them try to be.

[Poopadoop]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ravel-ban.html

2 out of 3 people feel that "muslim ban" is an inaccurate description of Trumps executive order

Feelings aren't proof, not sure why you keep trying to use them as arguments.

[BananaStand]

Feelings aren't proof, not sure why you keep trying to use them as arguments.

Are you kidding me? You've been doing exactly that for weeks now!!

[Poopadoop]

[MadMojoMonkey]

*yawn*

This conversation is boring.

For a while there, it was a fruitful discussion about people who wanted to learn from each other.

Now it's just a couple of entrenched ideologues talking past each other.

Trump is not a saint. He is a fallible man. He will make mistakes. He will make poorly informed and sometimes selfish decisions. This isn't reason to vilify him, but it is reason to demand that his actions and motivations are understood by the people who are affected by him, specifically his constituency, which is all Americans, not just the ones who voted for him.

He is in a position of great power to affect change in millions of people's lives. If he doesn't like the public scrutiny that comes with the job, then he shouldn't have asked for the job.

***
The defense of his every action w/o nuance is childish, insincere and ultimately propaganda driven.

The criticism of his every action w/o nuance is equally childish, insincere and propaganda driven.

Until and unless this returns to an adult conversation between people who are openly and honestly describing what they understand, I'm really not interested in participating.

***
I hope this isn't just some haughty, stuck-up slam. I honestly don't mean to come off high-and-mighty, here.
I'm just feeling like the tone in this conversation is not what we usually enjoy on FTR, and while I'm happy to let 2 people discuss whatever they fancy, it'd be better for us all if the tone weren't so entrenched in the, "I'm right; you're wrong" perspectives. The tone, as is, makes it extremely unlikely that anyone is going to change their position on anything discussed, here.

It's only when I force myself to see the dignity of my opponent that I have any hope of understanding them or preventing them from making me look like a tool by easily outsmarting me. After all, I've underestimated their intelligence, so it's bound to happen sooner than later.

***
Carry on.

I don't need to be part of every discussion.

[BananaStand]

This conversation is boring.

So don't read it.

Until and unless this returns to an adult conversation between people who are openly and honestly describing what they understand, I'm really not interested in participating.

I would encourage you to participate anyway. Not sure who you think is being 'dishonest', or who isn't acting like an adult. If you see something, say something.

The tone, as is, makes it extremely unlikely that anyone is going to change their position on anything discussed, here.

Why would you think that could, would, or should happen? Why is a changing of positions the measure of success here? There's been a robust debate where ideas have been presented and rebutted in what I think has been mostly a civil exchange. There hasn't been a whole lot of all-caps screaming, or blatant name calling. Just because there isn't a definitive winner and loser doesn't mean that the conversation is not productive.

[Savy]

All you should worry about is that it slightly kills the thread and thus future more fruitful discussion.

[wufwugy]

Is it wrong for Obama to undermine the safety and prosperity of the country by operating his shadow government out of DC?