TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!

POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 7 of 170

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

SHINYGOODGUY

Sunday, May 29, 2016 12:24 PM

As opposed to.......................gee, I wondering if I say what I want to say,
would it be factual, after all I did promise. Gee, you got me there Siggy! Touche!

A factual statement and you didn't even devolve into name-calling, truly Bravo.
You have mind-boggling skills, yes you do.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Agreed. He's a pathological sleaze - a million times worse than anyone on this planet - and when people press him for answers he caves and tries to "shrug" it away. The housing bubble thing - "Oh, I'm a business man, I'm supposed to make money."

What he leaves out is "I'm a sleaze bag, I'm supposed to step on people's necks when they are down to take advantage of them - because I'm rich. Poor people
suck and are losers." He says he loves the un-educated. There is a reason; he
takes advantage of them as well.

FUCK Donald and anyone who believes this scumbag has anyone else in mind but Donald Drumpf. How about that? Hilary is rich, but at least she's not a scumbag, degenerate sleaze-bag fuck who uses women like so much toilet paper.

Hilary for POTUS!!!!!!!!!!! Fuck anyone else!
Hillary would probably provoke WWIII thru unmitigated hubris. I'm not kidding. She's a neocon-in-drag.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SHINYGOODGUY

Sunday, May 29, 2016 12:40 PM

Well said second, good reply. Strong, to the point and as factual as any I have seen posted here. The humor in the un-flattering pictures escapes some, I have seen
similar pictures and memes of Hilary and, I must admit, they make me laugh. I could
appreciate a good joke. But that's me.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So SECOND, in reply you offer a unflattering picture and a made-up video? You've descended to THUGR-levels, who offers "raspberry wars" in lieu of a relevant reply.

You're normally lucid and on-target. So, are you one of those Hillary-voters who can't explain their vote?

I'll just pick editorial that was published today in the Houston Chronicle. But you could have looked around too, if you would just bother yourself a little bit and try rather than quote empty nonsense. You wrote:
Quote:
One of the interesting things that I heard in that extended video of the Left Forum, in which Chris Hedges speaks, was Hedges' decrying of the flabby left (my words) In essence, what he said was that

if the right wing becomes powerful, it's because the left has offered no alternative to people who are suffering.
You Are Wrong, signym.

Assessing Obama’s war on inequality
www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Krugman-Assessing-Oba
ma-s-war-on-inequality-7938947.php

Paul Krugman says president’s new rules on OT pay will do more than most people realize to fight income imbalance.

There were two big economic policy stories this week that you may have missed if you were distracted by Trumpian bombast and the yelling of the Sanders dead-enders. Each tells you a lot about both what President Barack Obama has accomplished and the stakes in this year’s election.

One of those stories, I’m sorry to say, did involve Donald Trump: The presumptive Republican nominee — who has already declared that he will, in fact, slash taxes on the rich, whatever he may have said in the recent past — once again declared his intention to do away with Dodd-Frank, the financial reform passed during Democrats’ brief window of congressional control. Just for the record, while Trump is sometimes described as a “populist,” almost every substantive policy he has announced would make the rich richer at workers’ expense.

The other story was about a policy change achieved through executive action: The Obama administration issued new guidelines on overtime pay, which will benefit an estimated 12.5 million workers.

What both stories tell us is that the Obama administration has done much more than most people realize to fight extreme economic inequality. That fight will continue if Hillary Clinton wins the election; it will go into sharp reverse if Trump wins.

Step back for a minute and ask, what can policy do to limit inequality? The answer is, it can operate on two fronts. It can engage in redistribution, taxing high incomes and aiding families with lower incomes . It can also engage in what is sometimes called “predistribution,” strengthening the bargaining power of lower-paid workers and limiting the opportunities for a handful of people to make giant sums. In practice, governments that succeed in limiting inequality generally do both.

We can see this in our own history. The middle-class society that baby boomers like me grew up in didn’t happen by accident; it was created by the New Deal, which engineered what economists call the “Great Compression,” a sharp reduction in income gaps. On one side, pro-labor policies led to a striking expansion of unions, which, along with the establishment of a fairly high minimum wage, helped raise wages, especially at the bottom. On the other side, taxes on the wealthy went up sharply, while major programs like Social Security aided working families.

We can also see this in cross-country comparisons. Among advanced countries, the U.S. has the highest level of inequality, Denmark the lowest. How does Denmark do it? Partly with higher taxes and

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

1KIKI

Sunday, May 29, 2016 12:57 PM

Meanwhile, you've avoided mentioning her illustrious history called Libya/Ukraine/Syria or her foreign policy platform posted on the Internet or her speeches.

For someone who's pretending to be for Hillary you sure seem awfully reluctant to discuss the facts about her.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

1KIKI

Sunday, May 29, 2016 1:23 PM

Seeing as how you're busy posting everywhere else sgg, you wouldn't happen to be running away from discussing this,

Meanwhile, you've avoided mentioning her illustrious history called Libya/Ukraine/Syria or her foreign policy platform posted on the Internet or her speeches.

would you?

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

SECOND

Sunday, May 29, 2016 8:50 PM

I have to say that these OED folks are remarkably up to date. Very impressive.
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/05/word-day-apophasis

Donald Trump is in the Oxford English Dictionary because he is an excellent example for a definition of Apophasis
Late Latin < Greek
denial < apophania to speak off, deny < from apo- + phanai to say.

Rhetoric the artful mention of something by denying that it will be mentioned.

1952 R. NIXON Checkers Speech 21:24 http://bit.ly/1XFW7hV And as far as Mr. Sparkman is concerned...He's had his wife on the payroll. I don't condemn him for that, but I think that he should come before the American people and indicate what outside sources of income he has had.

2016 D. TRUMP Wash. Post http://wapo.st/22mE5lC On Vince Foster's suicide: I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they think it was absolutely a murder. I don’t do that because I don’t think it’s fair.

2016 D. TRUMP NY Times http://nyti.ms/24ejJKx On Bill Weld: I don’t talk about his alcoholism.

2016 D. TRUMP PolitiFact: Pants On Fire http://bit.ly/1sj7UXR On a National Enquirer report that Ted Cruz’s father may have been involved in JFK's assassination: I was on a show...And I just asked, what was that all about?

2016 D. TRUMP Meet the Press http://nbcnews.to/1TG1nBI On retweeting a hoax video claiming that a guy who rushed the stage at one of his rallies was an ISIS sympathizer: Now, I don’t know. What do I know about it? All I know is what's on the internet.

2016 D. TRUMP Wash. Times http://bit.ly/1RcrcFM On George Bush lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: Well, a lot of people agree with what I said. And I'm not talking about lying, I'm not talking about not lying. Nobody really knows why we went into Iraq.

REAVERFAN

Monday, May 30, 2016 9:12 AM

He really is frightening. It shows how sick our country has become.

1KIKI

Monday, May 30, 2016 12:18 PM

But then, who's more frightening - a confabulating blowhard - or a person bent on provoking nuclear war with Russia?

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

SIGNYM

Monday, May 30, 2016 9:31 PM

This belongs in the Hillary thread. But I'm going to post it here since this is where it came up:

It was written by a former Swiss military analyst who calls himself the Saker. (Saker is a large falcon.) I'll just jump right into the article:

Quote:
So let us now examine the Russian reaction to Empire’s stance.

First, the Russians want to make darn sure that the Americans do not give in into the illusion that a full-scale war in Europe would be like WWII which saw the US homeland only suffer a few, tiny, almost symbolic, attacks by the enemy. Since a full scale war in Europe would threaten the very existence of the Russian state and nation, the Russians are now taking measures to make darn sure that, should that happen, the US would pay an immense price for such an attack.

The only attack that Russia could bring to the USA would be nuclear. He goes on in the article to say... (and I've edited it for brevity)

Quote:
The Russian effort is a vast and a complex one, and it covers almost every aspect of Russian force planning, but there are four examples which, I think, best illustrate the Russian determination not to allow a 22 June 1941 to happen again: ....

The deployment of the Sarmat ICBM
.... Russia thus needed some kind of weapon which would truly strike fear into the Pentagon and White House in the way the famous RS-36 Voevoda (aka SS-18 “Satan” in US classification) did during the Cold War. The SS-18, the most powerful ICBM ever developed, was scary enough. The RS-28 “Sarmat” (SS-X-30 by NATO classification) brings the terror to a totally new level.

The Sarmat is nothing short of amazing. It will be capable of carrying 10-15 MIRVed warheads which will be delivered in a so-called “depressed” (suborbital) trajectory and which will remain maneuverable at hypersonic speeds. The missile will not have to use the typical trajectory over the North Pole but will be capable of reaching any target anywhere on the planet from any trajectory. All these elements combined will make the Sarmat itself and its warheads completely impossible to intercept.

The Sarmat will also be capable of delivering conventional Iu-71 hypersonic warheads capable of a “kinetic strike” which could be used to strike a fortified enemy target in a non-nuclear conflict. This will be made possible by the amazing accuracy of the Sarmat’s warheads which, courtesy of a recent Russian leak, we now know have a CEP

circular error probable

Quote:
of 10 meters

The Sarmat’s silos will be protected by a unique “active protection measures” which will include 100 guns capable of firing a “metallic cloud” of forty thousand 30mm “bullets” to an altitude of up to 6km. The Russians are also planning to protect the Sarmat with their new S-500 air defense systems. Finally, the Sarmat’s preparation to start time will be under 60 seconds thanks a highly automated launch system.

Great. We're going to have to think about automated nuclear missiles. That makes a perfect "dead-man's trigger"

Quote:
What this all means is that the Sarmat missile will be invulnerable in its silo, during its flight and on re-entry in the lower parts of the atmosphere.

The deployment of the Status-6 strategic torpedo
Do you remember the carefully staged “leak” in November of last year when the Russians ‘inadvertently’ showed a super dooper secret strategic torpedo on prime time news? Here is this (in)famous slide:

What is shown here is an “autonomous underwater vehicle”

Another automated nuclear weapon

Quote:
which has advanced navigational capabilities but which can also be remote controlled and steered from a specialized command module. This vehicle can dive as deep as 1000m, at a speed up to 185km/h and it has a range of up to 10’000km. It is delivered by specially configured submarines.

The Status-6 system can be used to target aircraft carrier battle groups, US navy bases (especially SSBN b

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SHINYGOODGUY

Wednesday, June 1, 2016 4:16 PM

Perhaps you wish to enlighten me, Oh Factual One. Both you and Sig know so much, and me, I'm but a mere mortal, a peon, with a pea of a brain failing to understand the intricacies of the world around me.

I bow down at the enormity of your wisdom and kneel before you ever at the ready to
attempt to learn at your feet. I bow and scrape..............teach me!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Seeing as how you're busy posting everywhere else sgg, you wouldn't happen to be running away from discussing this,

Meanwhile, you've avoided mentioning her illustrious history called Libya/Ukraine/Syria or her foreign policy platform posted on the Internet or her speeches.

would you?

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE