They do both. The degree to which they're a disincentive, nobody knows. What we do know is that we have seen the incentives on having babies change drastically in the western world.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Printable View
They do both. The degree to which they're a disincentive, nobody knows. What we do know is that we have seen the incentives on having babies change drastically in the western world.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
When it's not a baby. I don't know when that is. I'm open to all sorts of ideas on this, like at certain stages of development.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
When it is a baby, then when the abortion is to save the life of the mother.
Where it gets really tricky and I have no answer for is when the fetus has a deformity. According to the ideas on murder, that shouldn't matter, but I have a real hard time saying it shouldn't matter. Not aborting a fetus with a serious deformity seems wrong. I'm not sure there's an answer here.
The law should probably be that the fetus can be aborted for any reason up to a point (three-five months or something), and then after that point only to save the mother. Even though this isn't perfect, it's the most sensible thing I can think of.
No they don't do both all they do is make it their choice. I don't get how you can believe in free markets where forcing the hand of business to do things is a negative but when you apply the exact same thing to women the logic goes out of the window because family.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Why to save the mother? Always find that a bit of a weird argument. It's also never anywhere near as clear cut as you make out.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Why when a baby has birth defects? Are you saying we should massacre the disabled? You sick fuck.
What conservatives are asking for is to make abortion illegal in almost every instance. The left rarely says abortion is okay after 6 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Not even close.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
What you're describing there is the extreme fringe of conservatives. And it's only coincidence that they are predominantly politically conservative. Really their motivation is religious.
As I cited earlier, some 90% of the country (conservatives included) supports a woman's right to choose, even if they themselves would always choose life.
What conservatives have a problem with, is an over-reaching national policy that forces taxpayer dollars towards such a divisive issue. They see it as a symptom of an oppressive totalitarian government.
There is a myth going around that if the supreme court overturns Roe v Wade, then abortion will become illegal. That's monumentally untrue.
What would happen in that instance, is that the determination of legality would fall on the states. Conservatism embraces the idea that the role of the federal government is limited to things like national security and infrastructure. They believe all other determinations of law fall on the individual communities of people who must live with those laws.
Ironically, it's the "conservatives" who are really the ones who want the gov't out of women's vaginas.
They believe that despite a nationwide pro-choice majority, if 99% of people in Missouri believe that abortion is murder, then they should be allowed to operate their community according to their beliefs. They may even still support an individual woman's right to choose, while at the same time, refusing to allow facilities that perform this procedure, into their community. Or, if they are allowed, the community as a whole can decide how much taxpayer funding to provide to them, rather than have that directed by a federal government that does not necessarily represent that particular community.
Even though I am ardently pro-choice, I would prefer a system where individual states are allowed to govern themselves according to the will of their citizens. And if that means abortions are illegal in Iowa, then that's ok. If you don't like it, don't live in Iowa.
Choice changes the incentives.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Good news, I'm not doing this.Quote:
I don't get how you can believe in free markets where forcing the hand of business to do things is a negative but when you apply the exact same thing to women the logic goes out of the window because family.
I have observed effects on the family, yet I do not propose any policy based on that. The policy I propose is exclusively based on the established rationale and norms regarding murder. Determine when the fetus is a human baby and move on from there. My free market ideals are fully consistent with this, as they include protecting humans from the initiation of violence.
This is one reason why I think we'll never find an answer. While it is probably possible to develop policies that are consistent with the value that killing innocent human life is wrong, this is its own unique situation. I think that in the case of the mother's life in danger, the mother's life takes precedence. The logic here is somewhat practical, but also theoretical in that the mother is a more fully autonomous person than the fetus. Regardless, this is one of those conundrums that go back to ancient times that has never been answered.Quote:
Why to save the mother? Always find that a bit of a weird argument. It's also never anywhere near as clear cut as you make out.
I didn't make that claim within the context that the fetus is assumed to be a baby. Even so, I do think there is merit to the idea due to the complexity and the uniqueness of what a fetus is.Quote:
Why when a baby has birth defects? Are you saying we should massacre the disabled? You sick fuck.
I have no answers. My intention is to establish that at some point the fetus is a human baby. The most vocal pro-abortion crowd doesn't acknowledge this even though the vast majority of people believe it. This is probably due to hardliners being the loudest, so you end up having a bunch of Democrat politicians who have a very hard time pushing back against what looks very close to murder. Even at 8.5 months, the hardliners still say "my baby my body," though by that point it is most likely murder, and Democrats can't go against it and get reelected that easily.
Yeah most people are on the five-six month wagon. But those who care the most are not. One side says life begins at conception, the other says only after delivery.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I am more sympathetic towards the right-wing one because it is less ridiculous and less evil. But I don't support either when it comes to policy.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone support abortion anywhere near as late as you are implying.
If people want to group together and not pay taxes for something then that's their choice. I don't see how you can get behind abortion being illegal period. Telling people what they can and can't do with their own bodies is ridiculous, not wanting to pay for it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Here's part of the logic regarding abortion when deformed: I believe euthanasia should be a right. People should be allowed to choose to die, at least when there is demonstrable and unsolvable suffering. But a baby can't choose. The parents should be able to choose. If there is enough predicted suffering in the future life of a fetus due to a deformity, it is probably right to abort. This is totally consistent with nature too.
But, this is also something I don't see people coming to an agreement on.
I think you just inadvertently enlightened yourself. Especially when we go back to 'ancient times', it's easy to see that this issue has been debated, and policies have been set, for the most part, by people without wombs.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So that sounds like a nice compromise when you cite "the life of the mother". The problem is, that can be interpreted an infinite number of ways. Hillary's position was pretty much the same as yours. Decide early, but we'll allow a late one if it impacts the health of the mother.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The health of the mother could be anything. Maybe she broke up with her boyfriend at 8.5 months and now decides that raising his child would be an emotional burden, a source of depression, or some other touchy-feely thing that can't really be substantiated. It doesn't matter if 99 out of 100 doctors think that's crazy....she only needs one to perform the abortion.
So the solution here really has to come from the medical community and NOT the legislature. The government really has no dog in this fight, so I don't know why it's even a political issue. Those 99 doctors need to make sure that 1 doctor ends up with a severe competitive disadvantage if he chooses to do procedures that the majority of doctors would consider unethical, or even insane.
There are countless professional organizations that give accreditations, licenses, and ratings to Doctors. Those things can easily be used to justify varying rates of medical malpractice insurance. Those organizations could easily get together and use their expert knowledge to define what they consider ethical and non-ethical abortions. They could inform the public, and let the free market (the ultimate judge of right and wrong) take over.
Instead, the politicians have made this such a hot button issue, I don't blame the medical community for not wanting to touch it with a ten foot pole.
While I agree with the bolded statement, it remains an opinion. It isn't any more factual just because it's a very popular opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I simply choose to acknowledge that there are some people who espouse an opposite opinion. And I acknowledge that it's plausible that lots of those people might living within a single municipality. I respect their right to govern themselves according to their own values. I don't have to like it, but I respect democracy.
There's a town not too far from me where people seem to wish it was the 1800's. That opinion is so popular in that town that they have enacted ordinances that require business to only have carved or painted wooden signs. No neon, nothing that lights up at night, nothing with interchangeable letters, just old fashioned wood.
I don't really agree with the government telling business what they can and can't have on their own private property, or how they can and can't market their business in a public forum. But I totally respect the authority of a democratically elected representative government.
But that logic breaks down because you can just keep getting smaller and smaller groups. What if there was a little part in the state that said they wanted abortions so that little part kept them but in that little part there was a little part who...
No you don't. We start with the country, it has a constitution which spells out what powers the federal government does and doesn't have.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
After that, we have states. They all have constitutions, and they all spell out what is and isn't under the state government purview.
After that we have counties, and eventually towns. All of these things have legislative bodies, and mandates on what is and isn't within their power. Individual neighborhoods, boroughs, or districts don't. So that's where it stops.
So it's completely arbitrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Are we saying new legislative bodies should now never be created and their power should never be altered?
How is it arbitrary? There exists layers of government, all with their own constitutions and charters that outline their powers and responsibilities. Of course these things can be changed. But changing them is anything but arbitrary. There are checks and balances across all three branches of government that must be satisfied for changes to be enacted.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
It's a robust system of government that I think has shown to be the best in the world for over 200 years.
What's arbitrary about it?
200 years is a nothingth of time in human history.
Anthropological finds and various dating methods place the human genome back something like 492,000 years.
Genetically modern humans are old hat.
The first cities (or precursors to cities) are about 12,000 years old.
***
Saying that the thing you do is the best thing ever is so passe'.
The number and scale of layers is arbitrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The system of checks and balances within each layer is a separate issue, I think, but still arbitrary
So? Recent history >>> Ancient historyQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It's like if we were talking about who the best QB of all time is. You're nuts if you don't automatically throw out everyone who played before 1980.
The truth does get old sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
No it isn't. Each level of government represents a defined, not arbitrary, population of people. And their scope of powers is limited by clearly defined geographic boundaries. Why are we still using the word "arbitrary"? I mean, it's not like groups of people are sprouting up and saying "We're claiming this land, and we're gonna make our own laws".Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Each of the three branches has the power to overrule the other two. It's like rock paper scissors, each is equally powerful and equally vulnerable. Those powers and vulnerabilities were carefully thought out to ensure democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
What is "arbitrary" about it? Why are we insisting on using that word? That seems to be the only arbitrary thing in this whole discussion.
They are arbitrary, since there isn't any underlying clearly defined logic, formula or system behind them. They've just been "decided". Also, I'm sure you've heard of gerrymandering.
I was referring to the age old question "do you kill one to save two?"Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Regarding abortion as an ancient question, I don't think it was that big of a deal. Modern times seem to have made it a bigger deal, partly due to religion and partly due to science. Also probably because in times of great abundance, there is not nearly as great of reason to abort.
I meant to add that the idea that people who don't have wombs should not have as much of an opinion about wombs is not a persuasive argument to me. Reason is reason, regardless of where it comes from. The idea that a demographic has a better say on policy due to being in that demographic is a logical fallacy, and I think the idea has contributed to problems in other areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Besides, if we go down that route, then guess what, the only person who should have a say is the baby. That game can be played however one cherry picks.
The number of men, throughout the entirety of history, who know what it's like to have a person growing inside of you and make a monumental decision over it's life or death, is exactly zero. Not one. So the idea that you can empathize based on "reason" is a very ignorant point of view. It's not just a matter of reason. It's an emotional and spiritual decision as well. And on those fronts, if you're not a woman, you have no friggen idea what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What baby? I thought you and I were in agreement about drawing a line on when it's a baby, and when it's not. If we're before that line, there is no baby. Just a woman with a womb who probably doesn't want direction, or even advice, from a man with a dick.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't accept the argument to ignore 99% of the history of humans when considering the success of any system of governance.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What I understand is that various forms of governance have different strengths and weaknesses. Each varies in how it performs as the size of the governed population changes.
This ad hominem is not compelling me to see reason in your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I admire your confidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
All of these definitions are made up by nations (people), who had to bully, bribe, and coerce other nations (people) to agree. There is no objective reason that the lines on the map are where they are. It's just the current result of the path of political greed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The current set of governed people are, by and large, people who happen to have been born in that place. It is quite arbitrary who is governed by each nation.
Ummm... how do you think nations/states/counties/cities are formed?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What's not arbitrary about the number 3?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Why not 5? Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock is a perfectly balanced game, too, where each choice is equally strong and vulnerable. Any odd number will do.
USA is not a democracy, anyway. It's a democratic republic. You're talking about the republic aspects.
If not for the representative system, is there a need for a system of checks and balances?
I don't know how it works in practice on a national scale.
You're conflating things quite a bit. There is quite a difference between arbitrarily staking out land and people, and creating governments within them. It's an entirely different thing to have a mature nation, with long established boundaries and robust governmental procedures.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The original question here was in regards to who should be making laws about abortions. The options are to allow individual states make laws that reflect the culture of their constituents, or to have the federal government make over-reaching, one-size-fits-all, regulations that often stand in stark contrast to the values of large groups of people.
It's pretty glib to just say "aaaahhh, those state lines were drawn arbitrarily centuries ago, so their sovereignty is invalid now"
You could use that argument to strip the states of any power at all, and you'll end up with one big super government running everything and telling everyone what to do.
Why should one culture be able to tell the other, equally large culture, that they can't get an abortion?
Fixed your post. Yeah states' rights!!Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Good news, empathy is irrelevant. Knowing what it's like to be pregnant or not doesn't change whether or not aborting a fetus is murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You're changing the terms on me. My comment was in the context of the mother or baby dilemma.Quote:
What baby? I thought you and I were in agreement about drawing a line on when it's a baby, and when it's not. If we're before that line, there is no baby. Just a woman with a womb who probably doesn't want direction, or even advice, from a man with a dick.
I tend to think the states' rights argument is misapplied here. If we're dealing with things that are not initiation of violence, then yeah, states' rights away. But if we're dealing with initiation of violence -- something murder falls under -- then it is probably right to use force to stop it.
However, since it isn't clear at what point a fetus is a baby, it should be left up to smaller bodies to institute policy. Granted, this raises the question of what happens when a powerful body "determines" that fetus=baby at a certain point and then marches in with swords to stop other bodies from murdering babies.
I'm left in a spot, again, where I just don't know.
Not even close to true. If hard black and white logic were able to be used in every debate, legislation, or litigation of law, then there would be no such thing as juries.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You're right. If enough parents think killing their five year olds isn't murder, they're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Using words like "murder" and "violence" here imply something you know you don't mean. We're talking about a medical procedure, administered privately, by a licensed professional, after careful consideration and a weighing of all options. The way you're talking, landscapers shouldn't be pulling weeds out of the ground. The way you seem to be defining it, that's murder too.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What do you mean, 'what happens'? It's in the constitution. First of all, that big powerful body is actually made up of representatives from the individual smaller bodies. So there are safeguards that keep the big body's agenda from deviating too much from any one of those smaller bodies. However, when it does, it does. And the constitution clearly spells out what the powers of the federal government are, and where they stop. All three branches of government have the ability to challenge the interpretations of the other. And if all three agree that the fed has precedence over the states on any single issue, then the states lose. Boo hoo.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
In regards to this issue, the current situation is so very much the opposite of what you're hypothesizing, that your hypothesis seems totally irrelevant, and disconnected from reality. One side of the argument says "the fed should make sure abortions stay legal nationwide". The other side says "it's none of the fed's business". That's the debate. There's only a tiny minority who support a nationwide ban.
Clearly the context is initiation of violence against people.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm talking core philosophy here.Quote:
What do you mean, 'what happens'? It's in the constitution. First of all, that big powerful body is actually made up of representatives from the individual smaller bodies. So there are safeguards that keep the big body's agenda from deviating too much from any one of those smaller bodies. However, when it does, it does. And the constitution clearly spells out what the powers of the federal government are, and where they stop. All three branches of government have the ability to challenge the interpretations of the other. And if all three agree that the fed has precedence over the states on any single issue, then the states lose. Boo hoo.
In regards to this issue, the current situation is so very much the opposite of what you're hypothesizing, that your hypothesis seems totally irrelevant, and disconnected from reality. One side of the argument says "the fed should make sure abortions stay legal nationwide". The other side says "it's none of the fed's business". That's the debate. There's only a tiny minority who support a nationwide ban.
Once again, you're choosing to support your argument with a nonsense hypothesis that has no basis in reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
We have a core philosophy. It says there are three branches of government with limited powers, and they all have the ability to challenge each other on the usage or definition of those powers.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
When they all agree, the fed rules. When they don't, it falls on the states.
I get it, analogies are not persuasive. Neither is logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Many people, the smartest people, say that women are not better at determining when a fetus is a baby than men are. Believe me.
It's not a matter of being "better". Someone who has had a fetus physically attached to their insides, certainly has a different perspective and experience than someone who hasn't. Surely you agree that perspective is unique and valuable.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
And if you do agree, then you must also agree that historically that perspective has been largely shut out of policy making decisions.
If the topic was something other than determining when a fetus is a baby, it might matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I don't agree with this narrative. It has been pushed by radical feminists and adopted by millions of well meaning men and women alike. Women held a tremendous amount of behind the scenes power in the past. One could argue that women used to be more powerful than they are today. Feminism has been stripping them of their most effective power roles.Quote:
And if you do agree, then you must also agree that historically that perspective has been largely shut out of policy making decisions.
Hold on....getting popcornQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ok go....
Wives tend to control the majority of household cash flows. Given that most expenditures in the economy are filtered through the household, this is women having a more profound effect on the economy than men in this significant regard. Wives also tend to have far greater control of the home and the family than husbands. Even though husbands do play an integral role in the upbringing of children, the upbringing is still mostly formed by wives. Wives design the future more than husbands do, when put in this context.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Feminism has denied all this. It attempts to turn women into men. It pulls women out of the roles they're good at and tells them to compete with men in what men are good at. It doesn't work. Results include there being far fewer wives today and women have less say over the economy and the future generations than they used to.
When it comes to something like policymaking, I think that women end up having more of a say when the policymakers are mostly men than when they are not. The reason is that these men all have wives (and most have daughters). Their wives have an incredible amount of influence over what the husbands believe. Indeed, a man simply being a husband and father tends to change the way he views the world. Nothing new is being brought to the table by making more policymakers women. In fact, it's probably harmful since it pits women against men in an arena where women tend to not excel and men tend to excel.
None of this is to say that policy should be that men and women can't play certain roles. People should be free to do what they want. That's different than what I see as a narrative that pushes women to do things they don't actually want.
I know a good deal of men whose opinions are basically their wives opinions. And they don't realize it.
Mexico will pay for the wall. 100%.
https://i.imgur.com/B8qBYq8.png
Even if they realize he's setting a trap for them, they have no choice but to jump in.
This sounds like conjecture. Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'll help you out. Here's one
http://www.businessinsider.com/infog...america-2012-2
The article definitely seems a little "spun" considering they cite sources like "she-conomics" and "girlpowermarketing.com". But wouldn't debate the fact that women manage more than 50% of the day to day household spending. I'll stipulate for now.
Though I will say that I flat out don't believe 68% of car purchases are decided by women. I'm not sure a man turning to his wife saying "you ok with this honey" and her nodding out of indifference makes her the "decider".
This is where we disagree. A woman buying groceries, taking the kids for haircuts, and buying little Jimmy new soccer cleats is not enough to make up "most expenditures" in the economy. Women spending is certainly more prevalent on the arena of day to day retail, but I don't believe that represents "most of the economy"Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
When it comes to major financial decisions like estate planning, taxes, and investing, men rule. Companies get their money for hiring, expansion, and innovation through investments. Those expenditures dominate the economy, and they are handily dominated by men.
http://www.fa-mag.com/news/study--wo...ead-25347.html
As for the rest of your post....jesus man.....have you ever met a girl?
it blows my mind that this was ever in doubt. Any thinking person knew that Mexico wasn't just gonna hand over a suitcase full of cash marked "wall". We always knew that NAFTA and the trade deficit would be re-negotiated in a way that sends enough money back to our side to pay for the wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Folks who insisted that mexico had to physically write a check for this explicit purpose were just trying to embarass, discredit, and de-legitimize Trump
This is true when it's not filtered through the household.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I know many women better than they know themselves. At least that's what they tell me.Quote:
As for the rest of your post....jesus man.....have you ever met a girl?
Still, we might actually get a check. It's crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Trump holds all the cards. A ton of Democrats want out of NAFTA. Trump can say "pay for the wall or you're out of renegotiations." And Mexico would write the check. And I would die from loling so hard.
Bitchez lieQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
That they do.
I love how a couple of tweets from Trump is all the proof you guys need that Mexico is going to pay for the Wall. Why limit yourselves to alternative facts when you can also have alternative concrete evidence...
It's fun how Trump's adversaries are the ones who keep getting surprised by him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Best thing I've seen in a long time -- paraphrasing Nassim Taleb: A real IQ test is one where an ancient Greek peasant and Voltaire would pass, and Paul Krugman would fail.
Delicious. Spot on.
"a couple of tweets"? C'mon man, the guy has been beating that drum for like 20 months now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Same goes for renegotiating NAFTA and the trade deficit. None of this is news.
And the meeting was actually cancelled. That's action, not just tweets. Putting public pressure on Mexico like that is evidence of an active negotiation, and evidence of a commitment to results by Trump.
And these "couple of tweets" knocked down the peso by another 1% today. Mexico can only stand that for so long before they have to give up something. Their loss is our gain.
I'd say Trump is up by 3 touchdowns late in the third quarter here. It's not over, but c'mon, he's definitely winning this fight, and bigtime.
Soon enough it will look like Trump has scored 15 safeties with 10 seconds left in the 4th.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Don't recall ever being surprised by Trump. He just keeps on talking a big game over and over and having a hissy fit whenever he gets criticised. We'll have to wait and see what he actually manages to do before he gets thrown out.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So far, he's just keepin' promisesQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ve-orders.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The peso has been going down steadily for 4 years now...so I guess Obama is mostly to thank.
Easy to keep some promises, harder to keep others. Haven't seen Hillary arrested yet or the swamp being drained yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I mean really though, for people who don't like him, him keeping some of those promises is about the worst thing he can do.
You guys really are delusional if you think you can get Mexico to just voluntarily give you $10b because your president acts like a bully, cancelling meetings and talking shit on twitter.
By Nieto, not Trump. Or did Spicer give you the alternative facts on that story?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
C'mon man. The numbers don't lieQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Peso to USD
1/16/09 = .07172
7/10/15 = .06365
change during first 6.5 years of Obama's = -10.9%. Look at a chart, most of that decrease came in the last few months of that time period. For the vast majority of Obama's presidency, the peso held steady in the mid to low .07's.
During the last 1.5 years of Obama (or the duration of the Trump campaign) the peso has dropped to .04589. That's a 28% decrease in just those 18 months.
You're saying that's all Barry?? Really?
I believe it was the liberal deity Barry O. himself who said "elections have consequences"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
yo bstand i recommend getting an avatar
I'm aware of who cancelled what.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You don't see Trump on the winning side of that?
Plus, you're the one giving alternative facts. if Trump dictates conditions of the meeting via an ultimatum, and they succumb to that ultimatum....isn't Trump driving the agenda?
you too poopy. found one for you
http://i.imgur.com/MSt51MI.jpg
First, you clearly don't understand how many different factors cause a currency to fluctuate. It certainly can't all be put down to the words of one man.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Second, i repeat what i said above: If you think you can bully Mexico into giving you money for nothing, you're delusional.
I would but my dick is too big to fit in a 300 x 300 pixel imageQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
no this is more poopy's style
http://i.imgur.com/2DHJ6iV.jpg
He's not 'succumbing to an ultimatum'. He's saying 'fuck you, i'm not going on those terms. Meeting's off.' Big difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You clearly don't understand what succumbing means either. It means 'giving in and accepting the other's terms.' He didn't do that, he said (i paraphrase) 'fuck off then I'm not coming'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
close enough?
http://i.imgur.com/n9yacWP.jpg
That new avatar perfectly reflects your degree of connection with reality, I have to say.
I'd put money on Trump getting impeached or assassinated before the end of this year.
Jesus man really? He's a 70 year old man, who is far from the picture of fitness, and is probably at least moderately medicated on a day to day basis. And now he's entering what is commonly known as the most stressful job in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Waste your money if you want, but the smart bet is on heart attack/stroke.
http://i.imgur.com/B6nqHpb.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Either way, I like the odds.
https://www.dougstanhopescelebritydeathpool.com/
Mice don't run the lion's den.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Alternative facts: Trump says "pay or fuck off", Nieto says "ok I'll fuck off".Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Sounds like he "gave in and accepted Trump's terms"
It was a lose-lose for Nieto. Masterful negotiation by Trump
Congresspeople are scared shitless of getting a twitter nickname.
No, but the house of representatives does.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Knee bent.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...cutive-orders/
If the first week is any indication, a Trump administration is going to be very well liked by the job-creators, aka republican donors. I don't see the a republican controlled congress getting anywhere near the "I" word.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
He'd have to be caught in the Lincoln bedroom with three 14 year old Filipino boys he smuggled in a shipping container for them to even start considering it.
At least one, you mean, way to go with your alternative facts!Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
https://i.imgur.com/HhHq0bYl.jpg
Nothing is inconceivable apparently
I think we know that poster is a fake. I thought it was common knowledge that Arnold aborted when he found out the mother was his ugly-ass housekeeper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I do remember an episode of the cosby show with a bunch of pregnant men. If I recall, they gave birth to sandwiches, not babies.
I guess those Quaaludes really mess up your shit!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Told ya
From our favorite fake news website that isn't breitbart news
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/25/po...obal-gag-rule/
Strong shit man. Did you see how they fucked up Leo in wolf of wallstreet? Like thatQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
BTW that poster is 100% real, apparently too much steroids can lead to male pregnancy
You didn't hear his doctor say he was going to be the healthiest man ever elected president?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Uppers stopped being called medicine a long time ago afaik.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Like with the Vox article, those guys don't really understand how things work.
That can't be true. Otherwise there would be no such thing as psychiatrists. You think people go seem them to "talk about their problems"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Let me walk you through your logic fail here.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Chamberlain accepting Hitler's demand to annex the Sudetenland was 'succumbing' to an ultimatum.
Poland refusing Hitler's demand to cede the Polish corridor was 'not succumbing' to an ultimatum.
See the difference yet? If not, then maybe the dictionary can help you out:
succumb
verb
gerund or present participle: succumbing
fail to resist pressure, temptation, or some other negative force.
You see, when you give in to the pressure, that's succumbing. But when you resist the pressure, that's the opposite of succumbing.
But in your world, Nieto was going to either succumb by agreeing to discuss paying for the wall, or succumb by not agreeing to discuss the wall. So either way Trump was going to win. That's pretty much the level we're on here I think.
It was a joke, calm down.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Does announcing things and then just implying they happened actually work as well as it seems to for Trump? If so I really need to start doing this in real life. Or does it require an absurd starting position in life?
It certainly helps make them actually happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Ohh they already have.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Fuckin' AQuote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I don't like this comparison nor should you. Rick is about the most alpha character ever created. None of those things are consistent with his thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Totally agree. I just think the superficial characterization is funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Even if Mexico "pays" for the wall by US Congress instituting tariff on goods coming from Mexico or tax on remittances or whatever, I suspect it would still result in Mexico writing a check. Trump will accept on the White House front lawn. The more Mexico fights it, the more Mexico will lose in the short term. To their benefit, after these problems for Mexico have been solved by Trump, things will begin getting better for Mexico than otherwise.
NoQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Also noQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Here we go:
I wonder where the Sargon of akkad’s of the world are right now
For reference:
Really got find a source who has an understanding of basic things. The very first line of the video shows that he is neck deep up the ass of the indoctrinated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer