TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 91 of 170
I hope you don't want a point by point agreement from me for all your facts.
second, I USED to look for a reasonable, fact-based discussion from you. But after you had a lie forcibly stripped off of you, you immediately returned to lying in your very next post. So now I know without a shadow of a doubt, you're so inherently dishonest you're incapable of any even moderately fact-based discussion at all.
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?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, I had an interesting talk with a guy at the restaurant. We're both regulars, and in fact his wife was too, so we've run across each other now and then, and have had many discussions going back at least a decade.
A bit about Bob. He's a smart guy, Vietnam vet, with a couple decades of military service behind him. And fortunately he didn't come back so damaged he was unable to make his way in society. With a good head on his shoulders he's about as financially secure as anyone in our strata of society can be. Though, as with many people our age, he has a certain number of health issues, which have taken their toll on his energy and time, at least. Also, sadly for him, his wife passed away from a second bout of breast cancer a couple of years ago. It was unhappy to see him come in, order breakfast alone, sit with his head down, not talking to anyone, sometimes blinking away tears. He did that for almost 2 years. He was obviously grieving deeply. But he seems to have gotten re-engaged with life, which is good to see.
Anyway, he is personally libertarian, and somewhat conservative, most especially about gun rights. As far as he's concerned, he doesn't care about race, sexual orientation, religion, even drug use (he includes alcohol in that) up until you get in a car or do something that puts other people at risk. But the libertarian in him wants government to go away, while the conservative in him makes him, frankly, kind of a gun nut. As a political person, he's consistently voted secular moderate republican on account of being mostly a single-issue (gun) voter.
So we have many areas of agreement and disagreement.
We had an at length discussion about politics. He used to work at Los Alamos, and unequivocally stated that it's impossible for a president to single-handedly launch a nuclear missile just on their say-so. And he castigated hillary deeply for promoting that falsehood. He also agreed with me that she will bring us to war with Russia. He also said that when it came to internal politics, it was his belief that neither candidate as president would be able to keep their domestic promises. 'They don't have enough power. In my opinion, neither of them do.'
I asked him 'who are you going to vote for?' And to sum it up, he said 'neither'. Or, as he later reiterated, but more vehemently 'if you put a gun to my head and told me I'd have to pick one or the other I'd say 'just shoot me now.'' He also said in several different ways, 'it was different 40 years ago, but now the only difference between democrats and republicans is the spelling'. And 'they're just about listening to the big money.' And also 'I blame the people for the way things are.'
But he mentioned, more than once, how completely disgusted he was with both candidates. The word 'disgusted' came up often.
It was interesting that a lifelong republican can't vote for their candidate, while a lifelong democrat can't vote for their candidate, either.
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?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SECOND, since you seem to deal mostly in cartoons, here are a few for you
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"What has not changed is I still don't want Trump as President"
Let's look at it another way Second: Let's look at the possibility that Americans, the group that are your average Americans, don't believe that
Trump is the answer despite the "facts" about Hillary. He has not presented
his case sufficiently to convince the undecided and middle of the road voters
that he is the answer.
Trump showed his true colors and the people, the rational thinkers of this country, stood firm in their belief in the system as we have come to know it. They were not swayed by the outrageous rhetoric and pseudo reform crap of the Trumpeters. Establishment buster my ass! He was out for Number 1 and that is that; it was as plain as vanilla ice cream.
Bottom line: Hillary will win, warts and all. "Take a whiff, cause she's the shit."
There's no denying that people are angry, but it's all smoke and mirrors folks. The real deal is that this country is turning brown and people are losing their minds about the shift in power. It is inevitable and, like the immigrants that first set foot in this country and slowly took over, the "natives" must now adapt to the change in climate.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How will you feel when the US and Russia start shooting at each other directly instead of at each other's proxies?
Or are you so invested in being brown on the outside you've forgotten that everybody bleeds red from the inside?
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?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
We had an at length discussion about politics. He used to work at Los Alamos, and unequivocally stated that it's impossible for a president to single-handedly launch a nuclear missile just on their say-so. And he castigated hillary deeply for promoting that falsehood. He also agreed with me that she will bring us to war with Russia.
Quote:How do you feel when your predictions don't come true? Get beyond thankful and feelings of relief.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
How will you feel when the US and Russia start shooting at each other directly instead of at each other's proxies?
www.gocomics.com/nickanderson/2016/10/25
For 1kiki, a Lock Her Up comic:
www.gocomics.com/nickanderson/2016/09/14
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:From Scientific American:
Originally posted by G:
You really think Hillary is more of a threat in that regard than W was? Or are you just lying?
Liar, Liar: How the Brain Adapts to Telling Tall Tales
As the U.S. presidential campaign has highlighted, the more a person lies, the easier it seems to become. But politics is not the only realm where dishonesty abounds. In 1996 Bernard Bradstreet, co-chief executive of the technology company Kurzweil Applied Intelligence was sentenced to jail for fraud. His initial transgressions were relatively minor: To boost quarterly accounts he allowed sales that had not quite been closed to go on the books. But before long customers' signatures were being forged, documents altered and millions of dollars in fake sales reported—allowing the company to show profits when it was losing money while investors paid millions for company stocks. Similar tales emerged after the Enron scandal, one of the largest bankruptcy cases in U.S. history.
Anecdotal reports of dishonesty escalating over time are common, so a team of researchers from University College London (U.C.L.) and Duke University decided to investigate. “Whether it’s evading taxes, being unfaithful, doping in sports, making up data or committing financial fraud, deceivers often recall how small acts of dishonesty snowballed over time,” U.C.L. neuroscientist Tali Sharot, the work’s senior author, told members of the press during a teleconference last Friday. The team's findings, published today in Nature Neuroscience, confirm in a laboratory setting that dishonesty grows with repetition. The researchers also used brain imaging to reveal a neural mechanism that may help explain why.
www.scientificamerican.com/article/liar-liar-how-the-brain-adapts-to-t
elling-tall-tales/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Will the following Trump plan work? It is exactly the kind of story Trump voters would believe with all their hearts and souls. Make America Great Again — for Free! (Will Trump's voters read the fine print in this deal? No. Those voters will pay road tolls and bridge tolls to the extremely wealthy and Trump's children, if they go into the bridge building business, until the bridges fall down. That is what "Great" means to Trump.)
Originally posted by G:
SIGNYM: "The ability to lie convincingly is the mark of an actor ... or a sociopath. The rather disturbing conclusion I reach from this example ... and pretty much most of human history ... is that most people love to be lied to, as long as it's a story they're used to hearing."
Telling in many ways, that. Personally, I like my fiction in an easy to recognize media format, not in RL.
Donald Trump believes the United States can get $1 trillion in new roads — for free
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/27/donald-trump-believes-a
merica-can-get-1-trillion-in-new-roads-for-free/
Donald Trump has finally released a plan to pump $1 trillion of new infrastructure spending into the U.S. economy.
He says it won't cost taxpayers a dime.
http://peternavarro.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/infrastruc
turereport.pdf
Trump would push Congress to authorize $137 billion in tax credits for construction companies looking to build new toll roads, toll bridges or any other sort of infrastructure project that has a revenue stream attached to it. (The revenue is critical, in that it generates a return to the private builder of the project.)
The advisers behind the plan, Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro, calculate that the tax credits would leverage $167 billion in investment by the companies that receive them, who would in turn borrow money on the private market to finance up to $1 trillion in total spending. That spending, then, would create jobs, with wages that would be taxed, and corporate profits, which also would be taxed.
Ross and Navarro calculate the added tax revenue would be enough to pay for the total cost of the tax credits, which means the overall cost to the government would be . . . nothing. They contrast that to Democrat Hillary Clinton's infrastructure plan, which is funded in part by business tax increases.
Alan Cole, an economist at the independent Tax Foundation, said the proposal likely overrates the amount of tax revenue that would be generated by the private spending, partly because it appears to assume that every worker on the infrastructure projects was not working — or paying income taxes — previously.
Still, he said, “this is not unusually out of the mainstream, particularly for a Trump proposal.”
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The GOP has decided to not confirm anyone Hillary suggests for Supreme Court. We will see if the GOP goes through with it.
www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/us/article/White-House-pans-Cru
z-pitch-for-smaller-Supreme-10418399.php
Campaigning in Colorado this week, Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz road-tested the idea of a shrunken Supreme Court - effectively blocking any justice picked by Democrat Hillary Clinton should she win the presidential election.
The idea has picked up steam in conservative circles as Donald Trump's campaign has fallen behind in the polls, alarming Republicans who fear the first liberal Supreme Court majority since the 1970s.
It also signals that the GOP blockade on nominee Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's pick to replace the late Antonin Scalia, will continue past the Nov. 8 election.
Cruz, campaigning Wednesday for a Republican Senate candidate in Colorado, stirred the political pot by suggesting that Republicans could block a Democratic president from filling a Supreme Court vacancy indefinitely.
"There will be plenty of time for debate on that issue," Cruz said. "There is long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. … That's a debate that we are going to have."
"I just want the people to remember: United States Supreme Court," Trump told Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network in a transcript released Thursday. "Whether they love me or like me or don't like me, we're going to put great justices, pro-life justices, we're going to put Second Amendment justices and I think for the evangelicals it's so important that they get out and vote."
But with Clinton leading in most major polls, and time running out for a Trump comeback, Republicans have begun to talk about ways to stop her from appointing a ninth justice who could tip the ideological balance of the court.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott joined the fray Thursday, praising Cruz on Twitter: "@SenTedCruz: GOP may block Supreme Court nominees indefinitely," he tweeted. "This may be only way to save the Constitution."
Cruz's rhetorical shot across the bow follows that of Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain, who said earlier this month that Republicans would be "united" in blocking any Clinton nomination. He later backed off those remarks, but the issue has taken on a life of its own.
Cruz's position takes on added significance because he is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which gets first crack at Supreme Court nominations. The committee's chairman, Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, has taken a softer tone, telling reporters last week that "we can't simply stonewall" Clinton judicial appointments.
Texas U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, also sits on the judiciary panel. He has said nothing about any prospective Clinton nominees. He has made it clear only that there is no chance the Senate will consider Garland's nomination in the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress.
The impasse over Garland and the possibility of future gridlock if Clinton gains the White House also is likely to spark a new partisan battle over the super-majority requirement for approving judges or overriding a filibuster, which currently stands at 60 votes.
Diminished activism
As questions about the Supreme Court have intensified in the presidential election, a number of conservative analysts have laid out the theoretical underpinnings for a GOP blockade. Michael Paulsen, a professor at the University of St. Thomas Law School in Minneapolis, argued in a National Review article last week that Congress could pass a law reducing the Supreme Court from nine to six seats. "A smaller court means diminished judicial activism," he wrote.
Ilya Shapiro, a legal scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, wrote an essay in the Federalist this week arguing that Republicans would be in their rights to ignore or vote down any Clinton a
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why it is so many republicans claim they love the constitution while they go about trying to destroy this republic? Ted Cruz thinks it is OK to suggest he is right in blocking Supreme Court nominees. It is something we have been doing in this country for hundreds of years. If Clinton wins then Clinton wins. She picks and the Senate advises and confirms. Cruz conveniently forgets that a Clinton win means the people voted for her to make the choice. He also forgets that he made his pitch to the American people and they said no thanks. His own party said no thanks.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME