*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Jack Sawyer]

People like Poop might be surprised to hear this because they think that anyone to the right of Lenin is an alt-right confederate flag waving gun-toting Trump-apostle. But I actually find the notion of a Trump presidency pretty disgusting. I'm not exactly proud that a sleazy celebrity holds that office. I wish Trump weren't president.

But we need him, because the thought of a Hillary presidency is much more intimidating. Trump is president because of the grotesque social overreaches and pitiful economic failures of the Democrat party. Turns out that most of the country doesn't share the same progressive openness that they have in New York and Los Angeles. It turns out that most people don't like being told that their opinions don't matter because they're tainted by 'privilege'. It turns out that most people prefer NOT to engage in a game if identity politics that seeks to label victims and oppressors. It turns out that some people actually care about preserving the ideals of individual rights, freedoms, responsibilities, and opportunities. And it turns out that they'd rather not sacrifice all of that in favor of bullshit equity doctrines.

The democrats went form 0 to 100 mph after 2008, and they had to be stopped. The republicans sent out Mitt friggen Romney dude. Do you remember what happened? They knew that a highly qualified, massively intelligent, impeccably moral person would destroy Obama in a fight over policy. They knew they couldn't engage him on issues. So they took this choir boy who's probably hasn't said the F word since the turn of the century and made him out to be tax-cheating hitler who just wanted to fire everybody and outsource all the jobs.

What did you think was gonna happen after that? If the overwhelmingly qualified and eloquent Mr. Romney couldn't get the country's attention on the republican party, how do you think the GOP would have done with Jeb Bush???? Cmon man. Use your brain.

Trump didn't get where he is because his supporters are stupid and think he's a "very stable genius". We put Trump there because HE IS THE MURDER WEAPON. Dems wouldn't pay attention to Mitt, but we got their fucking attention now don't we?

Now this can go two ways

A) Democrats can own their own baggage and say "whoa! maybe we pushed the social justice stuff a little too hard. maybe we should just embrace a more moderate stance and focus on advocating for the legitimate causes of the working class"

or

B) Democrats can double down on the demagogue rhetoric about privilege, patriarchy, hate, racism, fascism, and all those other words the angry college kids like to use but don't actually know what they mean.

Only one of those strategies will win in November, and in 2020. If your'e against Presdient Trump, fine...I get it. But your problem isn't with Trump, or the republicans. Your problem is with the out-of-control leftists who are doing everything possible to cram a post-modern interpretation of the world down your throat and make you believe that society is nothing but a power-driven hierarchy designed to oppress certain groups.

Engage on the issues, and stop with the divisive, tribalistic demagoguery.

either that............or get ready to salute President Hannity in 2024

Democrats are fucking pieces of shit

[MadMojoMonkey]

If the designated regulator doesn't regulate, this problem arises.

Regulation is awesome. What matters is how regulation is decided. Do we use principles that create more robust regulation or ones that don't?

People all over the world have independently chosen (are actively independently choosing) to designate gov'ts as regulator when private regulation fails to do what they think is right.

Your gripes against gov't are not the same as your gripes against regulation, I get that. You seem to refuse to accept that people choose gov't (as their best self-interested solution) to step in when private solutions fail.

Is it lost on you that people everywhere have gov'ts because they choose to have them? You seem hyper-insistent that gov'ts are things that happen to unwitting people, but how does that hold up to any view of the world being chock-full of gov'ts?

[BananaStand]

Democrats are fucking pieces of shit

Amen

[oskar]

We're not discussing empiricism. We're discussing economics, which is models of logic and math based on desires and constraints.

There is NO conclusive empirical evidence for any position on any of this.

If there is no conclusive empirical evidence about any of those things by now, it would mean that both regulations and lack of regulations have no measurable effect. So how could you have a strong opinion either way?

We end up talking about two vastly different things. You're discussing things that happen in isolated circumstances and posit cherry picked ones as conclusive evidence. I'm discussing comprehensive economic theory about what happens across all relevant domains.

Those weren't cherry picked. Those were examples of the market being unsuccessful in self regulating. How do you account for the market not self regulating in those cases?

[oskar]

Trump is president because of the grotesque social overreaches and pitiful economic failures of the Democrat party.

Except that the US are the wealthiest country in the world by a decent margin. The reasons it might not feel like it have nothing to do with the strength of the economy.

[Jack Sawyer]

[Jack Sawyer]

I should add, no matter if it actually kills you, the consumer. In this case, it actually literally could. There will always be other/more consumers for them to dupe

I'm Nostradamus motherfucker

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...hemical-again/

The Montreal Protocol—a 1987 international agreement to end production of ozone-destroying chemicals like freon—seems miraculous compared to the long struggle to achieve meaningful action on climate change. Even more astonishing is that the agreement has worked. Those chemicals (known as CFCs) take a long time to flush out of the atmosphere, but monitoring has shown that the flushing is proceeding largely according to plan.

That keeps the hole in the ozone layer on track to shrink over the coming decades. However, a new study shows that someone has been cheating in the last few years.

A group of researchers led by Stephen Montzka of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had been tracking the progress of CFCs and noticed something off with CFC-11. This chemical has been used as a refrigerant, solvent, and propellant for aerosol spray cans, as well as in the production of styrofoam. As with the other CFCs, nations agreed to end production of CFC-11 entirely. While there may still be some older machines leaking CFC-11, these sources should gradually disappear over time, allowing the decline of its atmospheric concentration to accelerate.

So you know full well that what you do DESTROYS THE THING THAT KEEPS THE SUN FROM KILLING YOU AND US ALL, and yet you do it anyway to make a buck.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...tion-in-china/

The EIA started with a simple Internet search, which turned up a few companies that were apparently advertising sales of the banned chemical, known as CFC-11. Like other CFCs, 11 can be used as a refrigerant or a propellant in aerosol spray cans. But it was also widely use to “inflate” foam insulation, and that seems to be the market where at least some of its illicit use has continued.

The EIA team contacted 25 companies that manufacture foam insulation or the chemical mixtures used in the process. Of those, 21 responded, and 18 said they use CFC-11. (It’s not clear how the EIA team represented its inquiries.) In fact, the companies indicated that they thought just about everyone in their industry was using it except for the largest and most accountable companies that might handle about 10 percent of total production.

These chemicals were banned on an international scale because they are bad for that spaceship we are on going through space, as in it would leave us without a hull and in a VERY BAD SITUATION, LIKE, YOU KNOW, MARS, and yet a ton of companies simply chose to use it anyway because of making a buck.

Yeah, I can trust these fuckers to do the right thing on their own. Invisible motherfucking hand.

[Jack Sawyer]

Amen

Hahaha we agree on something

[Jack Sawyer]

LOL

Baby want a cookie?

[BananaStand]

LOL

Baby want a cookie?

Dude...I just got through explaining this to you. People don't like being called deplorable epithets. The guy was clearly trying to engage on some kind of factual, policy-based, discussion. Instead the leftist guy turned around and called him a sharia-monger. That guy had no intention of discussing anything relevant, or cogent to anything. He just wanted to slap an evil-sounding label on the guy so he could put him in a box and remove him from the discussion. Fuck that!

This is where the left goes too far. This is why Donald Trump is president. You can't just throw around words like fascist, racist, misogynist, sexist, etc. You can't just go around calling people nazis because they voted republican. But it's prominent and shockingly effective tactic employed by the left. We catch you not holding a door for a black person....you're a racist and we can put everything you say in a box and remove it from the discussion. We find out you got handsy Gina from accounting at the office christmas party...you're a pig and we can put everything you say in a box and remove it from the discussion.

This guy knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he used the word "sharia". He could have used any number of terms or phrases to challenge Deace for having religiously motivated policy positions. He could have made a compelling constitutional argument for separations of church and state. Instead.....ZOMG SHARIA!! "This guy's one offensive jesus cartoon from hijacking a plane! Let's put him in a box and remove him from the discussion"

Have we talked about what demagoguery means?

What do you think would have been a better result here? Deace was BEGGING for someone to engage with him on concrete matters of policy. Instead they tried to put him in a box. There is no defense for that. They won't meet him on the issues....what else could he do? He could sit there, and try and whine about how they're not being fair to him, or just take it and end up in a box.

instead, by leaving he got the hosts making his point for him. "Maybe 'sharia' was too much". Then with a classic political jujitsue move, the leftist then claims to have his own special definition of 'sharia' that makes it entirely appropriate and not incendiary at all. Come on...who believes that?

So he got the hosts making his point. He refused to let the leftist put him in a box. He's made it so that these deranged left wingers won't be able to get conservative guests to come on their shows. Instead, they'll just have to talk to themselves shrinking into a smaller and smaller echo chamber.

They'll be put in a fucking box!

Well played Deace.

I didn't even know who Deace was before today. Now I do.

Well played indeed.

[Jack Sawyer]

People don't like being called deplorable epithets. The guy was clearly trying to engage on some kind of factual, policy-based, discussion. Instead the leftist guy turned around and called him a sharia-monger.

Well he is a "sharia-monger", how would you call him instead?

[BananaStand]

Well he is a "sharia-monger", how would you call him instead?

Something less turban-ish

[BananaStand]

You're kinda making my point now Jack. What is the goal of the show? Discussion? Or to trap Mr. Deace in a box? How are they going to get conservatives on the show if it's just a setup? "Hey come on our show...we say it's for debate, but we're really gonna confront you on your most controversial positions out of nowhere, for no reason....and trap you in a fucking box!!! ha ha ha "

You call him a "Sharia-monger" as if it's an objective fact. Did Deace ever advocate for something he himself called "sharia"? Did that ever actually happen? I'm genuinely asking. I'm open to changing my mind about this clip if you find me a clip of Deace saying "Christian-Sharia is the way to go". And he actually has to say the word Sharia, and it can't be in a sarcastic context.

The guy was talking about judicial activism. And they tried to put him in a box Jack.

[Jack Sawyer]

You call him a "Sharia-monger" as if it's an objective fact. Did Deace ever advocate for something he himself called "sharia"? Did that ever actually happen? I'm genuinely asking. I'm open to changing my mind about this clip if you find me a clip of Deace saying "Christian-Sharia is the way to go".

First of all, YOU called him a Sharia-monger. I only repeated your words. However, if he is that, should we not call him that?(I should have had "if" in my original response now I see, but fuck it)

However, try not to strawman, ok?

As all the discussions in this video were about other things. During the HLN part they were talking about Mike Huckabee's comments, which were:



And also rick santorum's, as examples of right wingers wanting to turn the country into the Christian version of Saudi Arabia. Assuming you understand what Sharia is. And also assuming you understand about the separation of church and state proviso of the first amendment, you should have some semblance of a notion as to why this is ridiculous. And also why it is a horrible idea that people with this kind of ideology get someone up on the highest Court of your land.

No one gives a shit about who the fuck this dude is, because as you yourself reiterated, you have no idea who he is.

Then the host of this particular youtube video goes on to give his opinion as to why this is straight from the playbook of far rightwingers,

What he was called during this video was a far right wing christian fundamentalist. Which is not really a stretch when you have him saying things like this

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2...y-based/203481

https://omny.fm/shows/steve-deace-sh...e-show!podcast

And I'm done researching him cuz I don't give a shit about him either. It's not about what they called him, it's about how to turn into a triggered snowflake to avoid having to defend your viewpoints.

Oh, and speaking of Christian Sharia ... Hobby Lobby.

[Jack Sawyer]

We should trust companies to do the right thing (offtopic from all the #MAGA crap)

[CoccoBill]

Regulation is awesome. What matters is how regulation is decided.

Since for years you were staunchly against all regulations, may I ask you to elaborate and say what made you change your mind?

[oskar]

We should trust companies to do the right thing (offtopic from all the #MAGA crap)

Last year I replaced a faulty macbook battery for a friend. The battery is $50 off ebay. The apple store quoted him $850 for the repair, listing a series of parts that were clearly not broken... including the keyboard and the screen... on a machine that turned on and worked fine when connected to a power supply. I guess if you're paying a 300% markup on hardware to participate in the glorious apple ecosystem, this isn't much of a deterrent.

[Savy]

It's funny that people buy over-priced cult shit such as apple products and then are amazed that they sell over-priced cult shit repairs.

Apple shouldn't be banned from doing any of this stuff. It's great that they come up with all of these awful ideas which make their products worse like headphone jacks that require an adaptor to use with normal headphones so they can shill you that shit. What should happen is people stop buying their products, but they seemingly don't so it's your own fault.

[Poopadoop]

Looks like Apple has adopted the crooked mechanic model of product repair.

[OngBonga]

Well he is a "sharia-monger", how would you call him instead?

If someone on the right used the term "sharia-monger" to describe an opponent it would be viewed as racist.

[BananaStand]

First of all, YOU called him a Sharia-monger. I only repeated your words.

No I didn't. It was that faggy short-haired libtard in the video.

However, if he is that, should we not call him that?(I should have had "if" in my original response now I see, but fuck it)

IF he is that.....then there would be evidence. Find me a quote of Deace using the word "sharia".

However, try not to strawman, ok?

Pot...have you met kettle? Deace's whole point was that no one is willing to actually talk about facts and issues. They just want to strawman the republicans into oblivion. And then IT HAPPENED RIGHT THERE. Don't talk to me about strawmen bro.

As all the discussions in this video were about other things. During the HLN part they were talking about Mike Huckabee's comments, which were: And also rick santorum's, as examples of right wingers wanting to turn the country into the Christian version of Saudi Arabia.

Not gonna watch teh Huckabee video. I know what he's about, and it's not "sharia". Invoking the name "Saudi Arabia" is a STRAWMAN Jack. What the fucking hell man???????

And talking about Huckabee's comments would have been entirely appropriate had Huckabee been a guest on the show. HE WASN'T. Deace talked at length about judicial activism. And the rest of the people on the show said..

"oh that's nice, but hey, here's a clip of Huckabee saying something religious. That sounds Saudi Arabian. that sounds like Sharia. We don't like that so we can put Huckabee in a box and remove him from the conversation. Oh and Mr. Deace, since you're from teh same political leanings and religious affiliation as Huckabee.....we can put you in a box too along with everyone else who shares your group identity. No debate. No discussion. No facts. No issues. Just get in the box."

Assuming you understand what Sharia is.

Doesn't matter what my understanding of Sharia is. What matters is what Deace said about sharia. Can you tell me what that was again?

And also assuming you understand about the separation of church and state proviso of the first amendment,

I'm confused now. Do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the first amendment? Do they appear anywhere in the constitution? What are you reading?

you should have some semblance of a notion as to why this is ridiculous. And also why it is a horrible idea that people with this kind of ideology get someone up on the highest Court of your land.

THERE YOU GO AGAIN!!! Deace isn't picking anyone, for any court. Neither is Huckabee. LOL, "People with this kind of ideology". There you go again man. Trying to homogenize entire populations of people based on group identity so you can play 'guilt by association' and put people in boxes. Just because Trump and Deace both claim to worship the same God as Huckabee....doesn't mean that they all think the same, and they all want "sharia"

You know what I think is a horrible idea......anyone with a progressive ideology getting to appoint someone to the highest court in the land. I think that's a horrible idea. You know what we should do.....we should have an election. And whoever wins, gets to appoint the judges.

No one gives a shit about who the fuck this dude is, because as you yourself reiterated, you have no idea who he is.

So it's ok to slander and strawman him on TV?

Then the host of this particular youtube video goes on to give his opinion as to why this is straight from the playbook of far rightwingers

He's allowed to have an opinion Jack. He's a fucking radio host. If you don't like his policy ideas....DEBATE HIM. Don't just slap the word "sharia" on him so everyone watching gasps and writes the guy off as an eastern-religious nutjob. You know EXACTLY why the word "sharia" was used, and it wasn't to further any kind of civil debate.

What he was called during this video was a far right wing christian fundamentalist.

OMG fuck you. Seriously....wake the fuck up.

It's not about what they called him, it's about how to turn into a triggered snowflake to avoid having to defend your viewpoints.

He was obviously extremely happy to defend his viewpoints. They made that impossible. What video were you watching. They guy was BEGGING for the chance to defend his viewpoints. All he wanted was someone to actually listen to him and engage in a conversation. The libtards on the show just wanted to scream past him and tell the audience what a sharia-monger he is.

Oh, and speaking of Christian Sharia ... Hobby Lobby.

God you're just.....just so damn stupid Jack.

[BananaStand]

WHAT KIND OF SELF-ABSORBED SNOWFLAKE WIMP CLAIMS THAT NOT GETTING FREE CONTRACEPTION = DISCRIMINATION

That's not Sharia, not even close.

The law is the that gov't cant' compel people to take actions that conflict with their religious convictions. That's what the supreme court upheld.

If you are somehow equating that to "Christianity makes the laws", then I would suggest you do less drugs.

[oskar]

If someone on the right used the term "sharia-monger" to describe an opponent it would be viewed as racist.

That is a very sad story.


On an unrelated note... having some trouble what to call this guy currently running for congress:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki2Zn7vD6Ds


edit: Fitzgerald claims the robocall was a smear campaign, but he's still pretty sure that everything we know about the holocaust is a lie.

[Poopadoop]

That is a very sad story.


On an unrelated note... having some trouble what to call this guy currently running for congress:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki2Zn7vD6Ds


edit: Fitzgerald claims the robocall was a smear campaign, but he's still pretty sure that everything we know about the holocaust is a lie.

Any surprise that's happening in the Live Free or Die state of New Hampshire.

Background music should have been dueling banjos.

[BananaStand]

actually yeah, it would be a surprise if it were happening in New Hampshire

Unsurprisingly, its happening in the socialist republic of Drug-afornia

Theres more than one Concord in the US bud.

[BananaStand]

I'll lay 10 to 1 that says Trump had nothing to do with this.

I'll lay 1000 to 1 that says the media will say he did anyway.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/12...motivated.html

This really just reeks of a rogue, over-zealous, stick-in-the-mud sheriff who decided to make a sacrificial offering to Lord Don.

It is funny as fuck though.

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/12...dismissed.html

Damn, I was really hoping she was gonna get dragged through hell for this.

Funny follow up....

Police said two other women, Miranda Panda and Brittany Walters, were arrested along with Daniels.

They should have also arrested her parents.

[Insane_Homer]

whoa, is that fat mccain

[oskar]

https://youtu.be/kkpeqIHwWsM?t=5m5s
"May I answer the question"
"I rather you not" ... "you can answer briefly" ... "I'd like you to stop answering that question"

Fox and Breitbard readers might have missed it, but Trump basically threatened to pull out of NATO unless agreed upon and ongoing commitment agreements are re-negotiated and Germany stops trade with russia in favor of trade with the US. Most of those talks were going on behind closed doors, but here's a taste of stable minded diplomat Donald Trump in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXqZf72pAhk

[oskar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANohtXQhkQw
I'd love a Rick and Morty reenactment of this.

[MadMojoMonkey]

https://youtu.be/kkpeqIHwWsM?t=5m5s
"May I answer the question"
"I rather you not" ... "you can answer briefly" ... "I'd like you to stop answering that question"

Funny

Fox and Breitbard readers might have missed it, but Trump basically threatened to pull out of NATO unless agreed upon and ongoing commitment agreements are re-negotiated and Germany stops trade with russia in favor of trade with the US. Most of those talks were going on behind closed doors, but here's a taste of stable minded diplomat Donald Trump in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXqZf72pAhk

He's speaking in sentences and making coherent points. He may be overstating some points, like "Germany is a captive of Russia," but I can't be bothered to get my feathers ruffled over a politician being hyperbolic.

I wonder if he sees that the fact that the US pays so much more to NATO means that we can give them the finger and invade Iraq without their consent or facing any consequences, though.
I'm not in favor of any single nation having that kind of unilateral power, but it seems like the kind of thing Trump would appreciate.

(I'm pretty sure I'm crossing NATO with the UN, upon further reflection, but I'm also pretty sure the point stands.)

[BananaStand]

He's speaking in sentences and making coherent points. He may be overstating some points, like "Germany is a captive of Russia," but I can't be bothered to get my feathers ruffled over a politician being hyperbolic.

Yeah! Honestly Oskar....tell us what's so friggen bad about this?? Seriously man....TDS.

I wonder if he sees that the fact that the US pays so much more to NATO means that we can give them the finger and invade Iraq without their consent or facing any consequences, though.

Actually it's the other way around. The NATO treaty commits all the member country's armies to each other. "An attack on one is an attack on all". So it's not a question of consent. It's more a question of where is our friggen backup? Like when we were fighting ISIS and we were like "Hey France!! Put down the fromage and get your frog ass over here!". And France was like "Mais non mon ami! We'll just sit here with baguettes up our buttholes and hope nothing bad happens in our country"

So France sat out that conflict. I wonder if they'll be at the next one hmmm?

ok, bad joke.

But yeah, that's how NATO works. And if you recall a couple of years ago, a NATO member (ukraine) was invaded by Russia, and Obama didn't lift a finger. So Barry kinda lost a lot of negotiating leverage when it comes to money. Trump, has no such problem. He happily armed the Ukraine and Russia has backed off. Now seems like a great time for Trump to go in there and say "See....I saved your fucking asses, now pay me!"

I'm not in favor of any single nation having that kind of unilateral power, but it seems like the kind of thing Trump would appreciate.

Despite your uselessness here, I thought you were one of the sensible ones resisting the Trump Derangement Syndrome. Yet here you are spouting the same old "Trump wants to be a dictator!" demagoguery.

(I'm pretty sure I'm crossing NATO with the UN, upon further reflection, but I'm also pretty sure the point stands.)

Meh...lucky thing I'm around to correct you.

[Poopadoop]

Wait, did Trump just explode Brexit? I'm starting to like this guy.

[Poopadoop]

Hahahahahaha.

[Poopadoop]

omg...i'm dying

https://mashable.com/2018/07/13/zdf-...e#3tCU69VoIZqb

[oskar]

Funny


He's speaking in sentences and making coherent points. He may be overstating some points, like "Germany is a captive of Russia," but I can't be bothered to get my feathers ruffled over a politician being hyperbolic.

I wonder if he sees that the fact that the US pays so much more to NATO means that we can give them the finger and invade Iraq without their consent or facing any consequences, though.
I'm not in favor of any single nation having that kind of unilateral power, but it seems like the kind of thing Trump would appreciate.

(I'm pretty sure I'm crossing NATO with the UN, upon further reflection, but I'm also pretty sure the point stands.)

Nobody pays shit "to NATO." Almost everything he says is either retarded or a lie.

Germany is not a captive of russia even if you divide the hyperbole by 10 I hate to dignify his speech by trying to interpret it, but I guess what he's talking about is energy dependence. You can bet your ass germany is not energy dependent on russia. They buy russian gas, but they're not depending on it.

Yeah! Honestly Oskar....tell us what's so friggen bad about this?? Seriously man....TDS.

I never said it was bad, in fact it's absolutely fantastic if your name starts with V and ends with ladimir Putin.

[wufwugy]

People all over the world have independently chosen (are actively independently choosing) to designate gov'ts as regulator when private regulation fails to do what they think is right.

Your gripes against gov't are not the same as your gripes against regulation, I get that. You seem to refuse to accept that people choose gov't (as their best self-interested solution) to step in when private solutions fail.

Is it lost on you that people everywhere have gov'ts because they choose to have them? You seem hyper-insistent that gov'ts are things that happen to unwitting people, but how does that hold up to any view of the world being chock-full of gov'ts?

I recall discussing with you how the people of today (but perhaps not in the future) want government for several different domains. It isn't unless people want freedom to choose that they don't want government to choose for them.

When the choice is government, the result is a market of limited choice.

[wufwugy]

If there is no conclusive empirical evidence about any of those things by now, it would mean that both regulations and lack of regulations have no measurable effect. So how could you have a strong opinion either way?

Effects are measurable; humans' ability to measure are lacking.

Those weren't cherry picked. Those were examples of the market being unsuccessful in self regulating. How do you account for the market not self regulating in those cases?

I don't say the market would self-regulate in those situations.

Markets are an aggregation, like a mathematical average. Also, our markets are impacted by government monopoly factors, so that can turn what would be a seasoned and robust market that serves all well to a primitive one that serves only select individuals well.

[wufwugy]

We should trust companies to do the right thing

Companies DO NOT individually have incentive to do the right thing.

My claims are antipodal to what it seems some interpretations of my claims are.

[wufwugy]

Since for years you were staunchly against all regulations, may I ask you to elaborate and say what made you change your mind?

At that time I was using "regulation" to mean "tax-based monopoly regulation" exclusively. I have since learned that is ambiguous because it sounds like I am not for rules.

I love rules and laws and regulations more than just about anybody. I want them to best reflect the desires of the people affected by them. That doesn't come when decided by a monopoly backed by mandated revenues.

[BananaStand]

Nobody pays shit "to NATO." Almost everything he says is either retarded or a lie

Trump: Nobody pays shit to NATO! What gives?

Oskar: Trump's lying; nobody pays shit to NATO



SMH....you can't make this stuff up

[Poopadoop]

Nobody pays shit "to NATO." Almost everything he says is either retarded or a lie.

Yeah, wtf is that about? They have targets for what they are meant to spend on defense; just because America wants to sells arms to the world doesn't mean Trump should try to bully and shame his allies into an arms race. It's fucking idiotic for an alliance which already has a 10:1 power ratio over its only significant rival to spend more. Next he'll be telling them they need to join his space force.

Trudeau already told Trump to gfh with his 2% or 4% or whatever his plan is. I hope the rest of NATO does too. My guess is most of them are just waiting him out and looking forward to dealing with President Oprah or whoever replaces Agent Orange.

Germany is not a captive of russia even if you divide the hyperbole by 10 I hate to dignify his speech by trying to interpret it, but I guess what he's talking about is energy dependence. You can bet your ass germany is not energy dependent on russia. They buy russian gas, but they're not depending on it.


I never said it was bad, in fact it's absolutely fantastic if your name starts with V and ends with ladimir Putin.

Mojo for some reason feels the need to defend Trump's idiocy; I don't really understand it. I guess it's embarrassment. But yeah, it's a false argument to say trading with another country makes you their 'captive' ldo.

[OngBonga]

You can bet your ass germany is not energy dependent on russia. They buy russian gas, but they're not depending on it.

It depends what you consider "dependance"... Germany (the world's largest importer of natural gas) buys around half it gas from Russia (the world's largest exporter). The question begs, can they find an alternative source, and at what cost? There's your measure of dependance.

Trump is basically saying to Germany "Hey you, we're supposed to be allies, buy your gas off us instead of our economic rivals". This is economics, not diplomacy.

[Poopadoop]

Trump is basically saying to Germany "Hey you, we're supposed to be allies, buy your gas off us instead of our economic rivals". This is economics, not diplomacy.

Why should Germany not trade with Russia? Why should they pay a whole lot more to buy gas from the US, after Trump slaps big tariffs on them, berates them and generally treats them like shit for 18 months? Is that part of his 3D chess negotating tactics lol?

[oskar]

It depends what you consider "dependance"... Germany (the world's largest importer of natural gas) buys around half it gas from Russia (the world's largest exporter). The question begs, can they find an alternative source, and at what cost? There's your measure of dependance.

Trump is basically saying to Germany "Hey you, we're supposed to be allies, buy your gas off us instead of our economic rivals". This is economics, not diplomacy.

It's silly to get into it, but very basically... not that I know much more than the basics: germany used to generate a lot of it's electricity through coal and nuclear power. Both are being phased out in favor of renuables, which means there's a large amount of redundancy in the system. When it comes to wind and solar, that's a redundancy that you need. The point is that russia could blow up all their pipelines and there wouldn't be as much as a dip in power.
It is absolutely unthinkable, given its fairly recent history, that germany would make deals that make them dependent on the goodwill of the kremlin.

Effects are measurable; humans' ability to measure are lacking.

That is the wokest thing I have ever read.

I don't say the market would self-regulate in those situations.

Markets are an aggregation, like a mathematical average. Also, our markets are impacted by government monopoly factors, so that can turn what would be a seasoned and robust market that serves all well to a primitive one that serves only select individuals well.

Don't make me interpret what you're saying. When you're replying to something specific, be specific in your reply. I have given you the migrant worker crisis as an example of a lack of regulations having disastrous results, I forgot what example Poop gave, but whatever that was... Don't weasel your way out by being as vague as possible.

[oskar]

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...e_12_russians/

The FBI didn't disclose that they were investigating russian interference into the election to help Trump and discredit Hilary, but did make the investigation into Hilaries e-mail stuff public, BECAUSE ... brace yourselves ... "they wanted Hillary to win and they rigged absolutely everything against Trump."

[OngBonga]

Why should Germany not trade with Russia?

idk, perhaps because they are members of an anti-Russia defence pact.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Mojo for some reason feels the need to defend Trump's idiocy; I don't really understand it. I guess it's embarrassment. But yeah, it's a false argument to say trading with another country makes you their 'captive' ldo.

All I defended was his ability to speak English.
What are you talking about? Quote, please.

IDK what embarrassment. Nothing Trump does is a reflection of me or my values except by happenstance. I have no personal or emotional investment in whether he's competent or not. I've lived long enough to see multiple P'sOTUS be vilified by half the country and the country to somehow miraculously not explode in a fiery death. Funny how that works out. My grandparents fought WWII, and their parents lived through the depression. Shit's just not that bad these days. Whatever the hated presidents of the past or present, they have limited power over what change they can actually enact. Almost none of what they say they want to do or are accused of wanting to do ever happens.

I'm more interested in why people take sides and make irrational assumptions and predictions than what their actual political view is.

If people are going to accuse Trump of being unable to string a sentence together, then I make a note of him showing that ability, that's more about me noting a counter-example to my friend's suggestion than me saying anything about Trump.

[Poopadoop]

idk, perhaps because they are members of an anti-Russia defence pact.

Every country in NATO trades with Russia, including the U.S.

Next.

[OngBonga]

Yep. We do too. But we're pretty much the only country in Europe that isn't heavily reliant on Russian gas.

I mean the point of NATO is to say "Russia is our enemy and needs its power to be countered". So why would a NATO member state buy such a critical resource off their de facto enemy?

Either Germany (and others) are stupid, or NATO is redundant and should be abolished. I actually subscribe to the latter, it creates more problems than it solves. Replace it with a bloc that involves Russia.

[OngBonga]

The point is, if not for NATO, then Germany would be perfectly within its rights to say "with all due respect, Mr Trump, fuck off".

But since Germany are a NATO member state, and since gas is a critical resource, Trump is right in saying that Germany is under Russian influence. And that is a problem for NATO. What's the point of NATO if member states are going to support the enemy's economy while being energy dependant on them? That kind of relationship means political influence.

Germany should be seeking an alternative source, even if it costs more.

[Poopadoop]

Yep. We do too.
But we're pretty much the only country in Europe that isn't heavily reliant on Russian gas.

Where do you suggest Europe should get its gas from? Should they pay extra to have to liquefied and shipped in from overseas? There simply is no good reason short of war or sanctions not to buy it from the cheapest source.

And it's not Trump's place to publicly scold other countries on how they do trade, unless it's breaking some agreement with the U.S. Since it's not, it's up to those countries to decide where to buy their fucking gas. They've obviously considered the issue that it's dangerous to buy it from Russia because Russia might one day go to war and cut it off, and decided it's worth the risk. And that's their internal business to decide for themselves, not Trump's. If he does want to make a suggestion in private that's fine. But being a dick to your allies in front of the world is not a smart move - they're your fucking allies, why treat them worse than your enemies.

Importing goods from a potential enemy is also arguably a good way to keep them at peace. If they go to war, they lose the sales.

I mean the point of NATO is to say "Russia is our enemy and needs its power to be countered".

That's not the "point" of NATO. The whole idea behind NATO is its members share certain ideological principles such as democracy and freedom from tyranny, and are only committed to support each other in defensive wars. It's point is not to try to ruin countries that aren't its members, or refuse trade with them.

Either Germany (and others) are stupid, or NATO is redundant and should be abolished.

No single current member of NATO is stronger with it than outside of it, so not sure what it's meant to be redundant with. It's basically just a nice insurance policy.

I actually subscribe to the latter, it creates more problems than it solves. Replace it with a bloc that involves Russia.

Who is NATO creating problems for? Russia does not fit into the mold of a democracy, unfortunately. You might as well argue NATO should be replaced with a bloc that includes N. Korea, Iran, and China.

[Poopadoop]

The point is, if not for NATO, then Germany would be perfectly within its rights to say "with all due respect, Mr Trump, fuck off".

They're still perfectly within their rights to say that. It's a defensive military alliance, not an economic trade agreement about who buys what from whom.

But since Germany are a NATO member state, and since gas is a critical resource, Trump is right in saying that Germany is under Russian influence. And that is a problem for NATO. What's the point of NATO if member states are going to support the enemy's economy while being energy dependant on them? That kind of relationship means political influence.

Haha, the Russian influence on Trump is much stronger than their influence on NATO.

[OngBonga]

There simply is no good reason short of war or sanctions not to buy it from the cheapest source.

Sure there is. National security. If Russia are the de facto enemy (they are, that's why NATO still exists), then energy dependance on them to save a few euros is stupid.

And it's not Trump's place to publicly scold other countries on how they do trade

It isn't? But it is every other leader's place to meddle in American politics by critisising Trump? Trump's job is to do what's best for USA, and if he thinks scolding other countries is one method of going about that job, then good for him. I'm glad he's putting pressure on May. We voted OUT, and the bitch is not delivering. Someone needs to meddle, because democracy isn't working.

Since it's not, it's up to those countries to decide where to buy their fucking gas.

Yep. But if Germany wish to say "hey, Russia aren't so bad, we're buying gas off them and they're not squeezing our balls", then why the fuck don't they leave that anti-Russia defence alliance they are a part of?

My problem isn't with Germany buying gas off Russia, my problem is NATO and the fact we're paying ridiculous amounts of money to prop up a redundant defence pact. The fact Germany are energy dependant on Russia exposes NATO for the crock of shit it is.

That's not the "point" of NATO. The whole idea behind NATO is its members share certain ideological principles such as democracy and freedom from tyranny, and are only committed to support each other in defensive wars.

You should be a politician. You have an amazing ability to turn an anti-Russian defence alliance into a beacon for democracy and freedom.

It's point is not to try to ruin countries that aren't its members, or refuse trade with them

Are you pretending to not know how NATO came to be? It was formed to counter the growing threat of the Soviet Union. It's very existence owes itself to the beginning of the Cold War.

The point of NATO is simple... it is a defence alliance. There's no "common principles", otherwise what the fuck are Turkey doing in NATO? The common principle is fear of Russia.

So it's not about refusing to trade with non-member states. It's about refusing to be energy dependant on the very nation you de facto declare as the enemy by virtue of membership of NATO.

It's basically just a nice insurance policy.

Insurance against Russian aggression.

Who is NATO creating problems for? Russia does not fit into the mold of a democracy, unfortunately. You might as well argue NATO should be replaced with a bloc that includes N. Korea, Iran, and China.

It should be open to anyone who wants to be friends when it comes to military. Economics and politics should have fuck all to do with it.

Turkey are a member state. Turkey. Did you see that recent purge? They're as democratic as the contents of my arse.

Haha, the Russian influence on Trump is much stronger than their influence on NATO.

Oh yeah I forgot he's having a homosexual affair with Putin.

[OngBonga]

What problems does NATO create?

I would argue that it creates a climate of fear amongst populations, while lining the pockets of military businesses and politicians. How much does Trident cost us? A fuck ton. Why do we need Trident? Russia.

NATO creates the problems it was created to solve. It creates tension with Russia, which then means we need a military alliance to stand up against Russia. It is a very expensive vicious circle.

[Poopadoop]

Sure there is. National security. If Russia are the de facto enemy (they are, that's why NATO still exists), then energy dependance on them to save a few euros is stupid.

I get what you're saying, but Germany would only weaken itself by spending more money on gas than they do now. If they go to war with Russia they're going to have to find their gas somewhere else. That's kinda how these things work - you do the best deal you can get at the time and if things turn to shit you look for alternatives.

It isn't? But it is every other leader's place to meddle in American politics by critisising Trump? Trump's job is to do what's best for USA, and if he thinks scolding other countries is one method of going about that job, then good for him. I'm glad he's putting pressure on May. We voted OUT, and the bitch is not delivering. Someone needs to meddle, because democracy isn't working.

What other leaders have criticized Trump publicly for trading with another country other than them? Name one.

Yep. But if Germany wish to say "hey, Russia aren't so bad, we're buying gas off them and they're not squeezing our balls", then why the fuck don't they leave that anti-Russia defence alliance they are a part of?

They're not saying that. They're saying let's get this cheap Russian gas while we can, it's good for us to buy cheap gas. And if the day comes we can't get it anymore,we'll have stockpiles and we'll find it somewhere else more expensive.

My problem isn't with Germany buying gas off Russia, my problem is NATO and the fact we're paying ridiculous amounts of money to prop up a redundant defence pact. The fact Germany are energy dependant on Russia exposes NATO for the crock of shit it is.

If by 'we' you mean the UK, I'm pretty sure we're not spending any more money than we otherwise would because we're in NATO. On the contrary, we'd probably spend more if we didn't have allies.

You should be a politician. You have an amazing ability to turn an anti-Russian defence alliance into a beacon for democracy and freedom.

That's nice, thanks.

Are you pretending to not know how NATO came to be? It was formed to counter the growing threat of the Soviet Union. It's very existence owes itself to the beginning of the Cold War.

It began as an alliance of democratic nations to counter an alliance of communist nations. It's still an alliance of democratic nations (apart from Turkey I guess and to some extent now America lol)

The point of NATO is simple... it is a defence alliance. There's no "common principles", otherwise what the fuck are Turkey doing in NATO? The common principle is fear of Russia.

Meanwhile Russia has been behaving so well in the past couple of decades - have only invaded two neighboring countries lately. So yeah, let's trust them.

So it's not about refusing to trade with non-member states. It's about refusing to be energy dependant on the very nation you de facto declare as the enemy by virtue of membership of NATO.

There are enemies and there are potential enemies. Lots of Allied countries traded with Germany and Italy right up until the start of WWII. US traded with Japan up until Pearl Harbor. I don't see how you can take the position that your prescient enough to know war is inevitable with country X, and so better not trade with them, even if it's in a country's best interests at the moment. I can see not giving them free arms or other aid, but not trading? Come on.

Insurance against Russian aggression.

There's no "Russia only" clause in NATO. NATO countries came to America's aid after 9/11, for example.

It should be open to anyone who wants to be friends when it comes to military. Economics and politics should have fuck all to do with it.

This is so naive that it's cute. And what evidence is there that Putin wants to be "friends" with the rest of Europe? Did he ever ask to join NATO?

Turkey are a member state. Turkey. Did you see that recent purge? They're as democratic as the contents of my arse.

Ya, true.

Oh yeah I forgot he's having a homosexual affair with Putin.

Don't worry I'm sure we'll hear all about it eventually.

[BananaStand]

Look at you guys arguing Banana-style

DANCE PUPPETS!!

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/ShutUpAndrosky/s...05822622126080

Time to go home, america.

[BananaStand]

https://twitter.com/ShutUpAndrosky/s...05822622126080

Time to go home, america.

I'll watch the video when I get home tonight. But let me just say that the guy who tweeted this is a complete fucking retard.

josh androsky
@ShutUpAndrosky

honestly the crips and bloods are way nicer dudes. same with the avenues and even MS13.

I seriously hope this guy falls down some stairs.

[oskar]

Discredited fool and cultural marxist Bernie Sanders DESTROYED by free thinking free market capitalist MUST SEE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiGEh7UoMYg

[wufwugy]

Discredited fool and cultural marxist Bernie Sanders DESTROYED by free thinking free market capitalist MUST SEE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiGEh7UoMYg

I LOL'd. Cohen is funny.

[wufwugy]

If a politician was wrong about a fact that he states as fact, what would be a persuasive way to convince a person who believes the wrong fact otherwise?

[oskar]

Here's the whole thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwxqOoIyWm0
Stormy Daniels gets dragged out in handcuffs for motorboating her fans at a strip club, but Trump gets to suck off Putin for 40 minutes straight and no one bats an eye?

[oskar]

I LOL'd. Cohen is funny.

And he echoes all your views on how to solve the gun crisis:

If a politician was wrong about a fact that he states as fact, what would be a persuasive way to convince a person who believes the wrong fact otherwise?

Nobody knows what you're talking about.

[BananaStand]

Here's the whole thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwxqOoIyWm0
Stormy Daniels gets dragged out in handcuffs for motorboating her fans at a strip club, but Trump gets to suck off Putin for 40 minutes straight and no one bats an eye?

I watched the video. I didn't see anything fellatious.

But honestly, what do you suggest he do? Should we have contentious, adversarial, vitriolic relations with Russia? Are democrats really that sore about some chincy facebook ads run by Russian bots? They want war now? WTF?

Maybe Trump should arm one of Russia's pissed off bordering countries. Or maybe Trump should bomb some Russian allies. And then hold a press conference where he stands a foot taller than Putin and rubs in the media's face how they lost the fucking election because theyre stupid.

oh wait....

[BananaStand]

https://youtu.be/xQ5vbQfbsWg

Til now I had only known about TYT peripherally. I knew they existed but that's about it.

now I understand.....

It's run by a guy with brain damage.

[boost]

MAGA: Mock Allies; Grovel for Adversaries

Wuf, what do you make of this? Seems flat out pathetic. What are we in the libubble missing?

[Poopadoop]

What are we in the libubble missing?

Isn't it obvious that failing to challenge Russia on their election meddling and the resulting fake news witch hunt pales in comparison with Hillary's emails?

[BananaStand]

What are we in the libubble missing?

What you're missing is that there's no fucking way that Trump is going to go halfway across the world, on a diplomatic mission to improve relations with the world's #2 nuclear super-power, and then stand up in a press conference and shit all over said nuclear super power.

The questions asked contained words like "denounce" and "warn". It's like the libtards WANT WAR!???

Trump's point in this whole press conference is that he won the election fairly, without colluding with a foreign power. That's the only allegation he cares about. If the media wants to start a hubbub about hackers stealing Podesta's emails....fuck them. Trump probably cares, but he isn't gonna throw a tantrum about it in a press conference.

The PROPER diplomatic response is to say "That was unfortunate, we have our people working on it to make sure it never happens again, and we're looking forward to more friendly relations under this new administration". That's it. Whatever preventative or retaliatory measures are taken would be a clandestine counter-intelligence operation that you would/should never hear about.

And as far as Trump saying stuff along the lines of "both sides are to blame"....again, what do you expect? Do you want him to get up there and say "Fuck Russia, they're ass holes, we're the good guys, we don't meddle in foreign governments, we never try to rig elections in other countries, we mind our own business, and all the facebook stories made by Americans are real"

Honestly, the guy can't win. If he did go out there in rampage-mode, they'd be calling him a war monger, comparing him to Dick Cheney, and demanding to know how much Halliburton stock he owns.

All I saw in that press conference was
1) Trump saying that frosty relations with Russia is something he inherited. When he says "America shares some of the blame", he's talking about Obama
2) Trump feels quite strongly, and enjoys stating emphatically, that he won the election fair and square
3) A better relationship with Russia would not be a terrible thing.

[BananaStand]

BTW, who was bitching about Hobby Lobby???

So it's a problem when a company says "I'm not paying for that because it's against my beliefs". Was that the argument?

Then the left should be positively outraged at this shit.

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/20...ning-meat.html

Now if the company doesn't want to serve meat at it's in-office cafeteria, that's fine.

If the company doesn't want to serve meat at company-catered events. That's fine too.

But if I'm trying to close a deal, and take a customer out to lunch, and he wants a Reuben, I shouldn't have to pay for that out of my own pocket. But the way I'm reading this story, that's the case at WeWork.

Also, when one travels for business, its customary (and maybe required by law, not sure?) to be provided expense reimbursements for meals and other travel-related costs. The way I read this story, that's no longer WeWork's policy....unless you maintain a vegetarian diet.

[boost]

Remember how big of a deal it was for Obama to offer an apology and take a share of the blame for anything? 'Merica doesn't apologize!

What happened to that GOP? Somehow I miss those guys... where'd they go?

[BananaStand]

Remember how big of a deal it was for Obama to offer an apology and take a share of the blame for anything? 'Merica doesn't apologize!

What happened to that GOP? Somehow I miss those guys... where'd they go?

Apologizing to the Arab world, while we have troops there, actively engaged in combat against a hostile insurgency is NOT the same thing as refusing to escalate things to the level of hostility over some sour grapes about email hacks

[boost]

I actually think you have a point regarding apologizing while our troops are in combat there. It can be inferred that Obama was throwing our troops under the bus. With Trump no inference is needed. No two ways about it, he threw our intelligence community under the bus. These civil servants and their assets are putting their lives on the line too-- they're doing it to keep our officials informed, and Trump openly denigrates the work they do, the sacrifices they've made.

On the one hand, Obama's comments can be interpreted in a way that seems disrespectful to our armed forces. On the other hand, Trump flat out disrespects our intelligence community routinely. #MAGA

[wufwugy]

Wuf, what do you make of this?

What happened?

[BananaStand]

With Trump no inference is needed. No two ways about it, he threw our intelligence community under the bus.

Really?

I mean....cmon.....really?

the intelligence community didn't provoke him?

Starting an investigation based on a dossier of information compiled by a partisan who is paid the opposition seems like kind of a dick move. Heads were gonna roll.

And the intelligence community broke laws. They belong under the bus.

And why do you say "under the bus" like it's a bad thing? Compare Andrew McCabe's gofundme page to Michael Flynn's. McCabe is an actual criminal, Flynn is just an accidental one.