A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 144 of 725
Quote:WRONG AGAIN!!!
Originally posted by SECONAL:
You Republicans have always been bitching about the Democrats.
You crack me up! Your trolling is always so cartoonishly wrong! Please, try something else. I can hardly wait!
SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:1kiki, you are up very early in California or late in Moscow, but you are always a lying sack of shit and you do it in so few words. The nicest interpretation is you don't know Texas Republicans. If you did, you won't be writing "wrong again".
Originally posted by 1kiki:Quote:WRONG AGAIN!!!
Originally posted by SECONAL:
You Republicans have always been bitching about the Democrats.
You crack me up! Your trolling is always so cartoonishly wrong! Please, try something else. I can hardly wait!
America's closest allies are furious about Trump's tariffs, and now an unorthodox idea to go after him is gaining steam
Op-eds in The Houston Chronicle and the Canadian news magazine Maclean's suggested the only way to quell the rising trade tensions is to strike at Trump's businesses.
"I propose that instead of taxing the import of American serviettes, we tax Trump," Gilmore said. "In the spirit of the Magnitsky Act, Canada and the western allies come together to collectively pressure the only pain point that matters to this President: his family and their assets." https://goo.gl/v654RC
Specifically, Gillmore suggested the use of Canada's Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the Magnitsky Act. The law was designed to punish foreign officials engaged in corruption by allowing the Canadian government to crack down on their businesses.
Gilmore's suggestion picked up enough steam to gain the attention of Canada's lawmakers. Canadian Foreign Minster Chrystia Freeland — the country's chief trade negotiator — was asked about the use of the Magnitsky Act by Erin Weir, a member of the Canadian parliament, during a question-and-answer session.
"We are now in a consultation period, we welcome ideas from all Canadians on what should and what should not be in our retaliation list," Freeland said.
Brett Bruen, a former US diplomat and the president of the consulting firm Global Situation Room, told Business Insider that he doesn't expect such "non-traditional responses" to Trump's trade actions "to be widespread." But he said there "may well be efforts to scrutinize or tighten the screws on President Trump's companies."
More at www.businessinsider.com/canada-france-trump-organization-tariffs-trade
-response-2018-6
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
SECONDRATE, resorting to lying, again.
Quote:And then you go off on some irrelevant rant about Canadian papers? YOUR ERROR, SECONDRATE, was referring to us as a "republican", and then you compounded your mistake by insinuating that Kiki is Russian. So, KIKI is a Republican Russian? What the hell is wrong with you? You're so confused you can't even keep your own trolling straight?
You Republicans [referring to KIKI] have always been bitching about the Democrats.- SECONDRATE
WRONG AGAIN!!! You crack me up! Your trolling is always so cartoonishly wrong! Please, try something else. I can hardly wait! - KIKI
1kiki, you are up very early in California or late in Moscow - SECONDRATE
Here's a suggestion: Try the truth. It always stays the same, so it's less confusing. That might help.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Pretty sure that Trump is getting re-elected in 2 years.
I'm hoping in the mid-terms that the Dems take either the house or senate still. Never a good thing when either side holds all the cards.
What people need to remember is that most Democrats aren't as off the reservation as the ones that post here. The equal and opposite can also be said.
You are so out of touch. I am not a Dem but I will vote straight Dem with Trump in the WH and the Reps in congress like Ryan, McConnell, etc. Those f*ckers are just as bad as Trump. The people you think are Dems are bringing truth - you just don't like their tone. SIGNYM scratches under your chin, "Hahaha funny 6!" and you roll right over. Classic salesman 101 manipulation and you buy it with an extra bag of sh*t.
Whatever - I do think you are right about Trump in 2020. The Dems have no one and don't appear to be trying. Every time Warren opens her mouth she racks up new voters for Trump. Don't me wrong, she is on a higher evolutionary plane than Trump and has a heart 20 times larger than Trump's, but she's not going to win any Trump voters over - just the opposite. Bernie? Booker? Bueller? No one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And yet, you have not demonstrated me to be wrong in one single instance.
Signym and Trump in particular are lying sacks of shit- SECONDRATE
But hey! Feel free! Just bring up a few instances where you thought I was "lying" to validate your point, and we can debate. I'll bet that you can't. So that makes WHO the liar, again?
That's a funny thing ... when you (not just you, SECONDRATE, but also GSTRING, THUGR, KRAPO, and our latest addition to the troll farm: REAVERFAN) read something that you "don't like", you call it a "lie". It's your first go-to response, and it leaves you terribly unprepared for reality.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Long ago I decided you were either a Russian troll or nuts. Reasons don't work on either. I am not wasting my time explaining to you, unless I could get my hands on you. I would like to get my hands on U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley. She needs physical help to understand something she does not wish to understand: The U.N. says 18.5 million Americans are in ‘extreme poverty.’ Trump’s team says just 250,000 are.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:And yet, you have not demonstrated me to be wrong in one single instance.
Signym and Trump in particular are lying sacks of shit- SECONDRATE
But hey! Feel free! Just bring up a few instances where you thought I was "lying" to validate your point, and we can debate. I'll bet that you can't. So that makes WHO the liar, again?
That's a funny thing ... when you (not just you, SECONDRATE, but also GSTRING, THUGR, KRAPO, and our latest addition to the troll farm: REAVERFAN) read something that you "don't like", you call it a "lie". It's your first go-to response, and it leaves you terribly unprepared for reality.
The U.N. has nothing to gain by lying. Trump has much to gain by lying. Who is the liar?
The U.N.'s numbers come from the official Census definition that has been kept for decades by the U.S. government, defining extreme poverty as having an income lower than half the official poverty rate. (For 2016, that was about $12,000 a year for a family of four.) Trump’s numbers come from nowhere, a conservative "think tank". Again, who is the liar?
The Census in 2009 created a “supplemental” poverty rate that accounts for government benefits like food stamps. That number shows about 15.7 million Americans are in “deep poverty” in 2016. Trump is still quoting 250,000. Who is the liar?
Princeton University economist Angus Deaton found about 5.3 million Americans live on less than $4 a day, including government transfers. Trump is not changing his number of 250,000. So, who do you think is lying? How do you get a deliberate liar to stop lying? Reason cannot change a liar. More facts cannot force a liar into admitting they lied.
More at www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/25/trump-team-rebukes-u-n-
saying-it-overestimates-extreme-poverty-in-america-by-18-million-people/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f30b173107ba
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So, in other words, you won't (or can't) find any single instance where you can show me to be "lying".
Long ago I decided you were either a Russian troll or nuts. Reasons don't work on either.
You can't disprove, for example, that our illegal immigration crisis is at least partly caused by our continuous "interventions" south of the border.
You can't disprove that we funded jihadists in the Middle East, and left mountains of bodies and great swathes of smoking, cluster-fucked, jihadist-filled failed states in our wake
You can't disprove that the wealth gap under Obama continued to widen at the SAME RATE as under Bush, or that Obama destroyed just as many nations (He just did it less expen$ively), or that he illegally surveilled more Americans than Bush.
You can't disprove that banks get to create money out of thin air (Money that ordinary people have to sweat for) through the magic of fractional reserve banking, that "rentier" capitalism is a zero sum model, and that the worst form of "rentier" capitalism is "renting" money that you can make up out of thin air.
You can't disprove that "free trade" agreements have cost us most of our manufacturing jobs and slowly stripped us of our national decision-making capacity, and that this has left our economy in a weakened state and worked counter to our national security and prosperity.
You can't demonstrate that the person who HATES democracy or who is working against our "democratic institutions" is me and NOT YOU, because you clearly hate free speech, you hate the vote, and you hate about half of the United States.
You can't even disprove that Elon Musk is nuts.
And the reason WHY you can't disprove any of these statements is because they are FACTS. FACTS, which- in your biased mind- are anathema because they don't fit into your virtue-signaling and yet oh-so-hate-filled world.
Quote:And so, because facts and logic fail you and because you're so immutably wedded to your hate-filled biased POV that you can't POSSIBLY change your mind about anything, you resort to threats.
I am not wasting my time explaining to you, unless I could get my hands on you.
The person who's incapable of discussion, SECONDRATE, is you, not me. If KIKI ever decides to go forward with her lawsuit, I'll be PMing her to add my name to the lawsuit. Maybe we can go for double damages.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Americans felt bad about their economic future at least three times over the centuries.
1) Most recently, when America ran out of jobs that require a college education. How do you get richer without a degree? Where do you use it when all the jobs already have somebody with a college degree who got there before you?
2) A little back in time when the frontier was declared closed in 1890. There was no more free land from the Federal government for Americans to exploit. Where is that new forest waiting for its first logger? Where is that new pasture that has never had cattle grazing? Where is that new land that no farmer ever plowed and planted?
3) What happens to ambitious Americans who wants to be rich but cannot find a slave to do the work?
I’ve got three examples of those three economic crises to entertain you:
#1) Running out of new jobs requiring College. There is already an American in every one of those high status jobs that you wanted so much:
For those of us at the top, one of the founding myths of America’s meritocracy is that our success has nothing to do with other people’s failure. It’s a pleasant idea. But around the world and throughout history, the wealthy have advanced the crystallization process in a straightforward way. They have taken their money out of productive activities and put it into walls. Throughout history, moreover, one social group above all others has assumed responsibility for maintaining and defending these walls. Its members used to be called aristocrats. Now we’re the 9.9 percent. The main difference is that we have figured out how to use the pretense of being part of the middle as one of our strategies for remaining on top. . . .
It’s one of the delusions of our meritocratic class to assume that if our actions are individually blameless, then the sum of our actions will be good for society. We may have studied Shakespeare on the way to law school, but we have little sense for the tragic possibilities of life. The fact of the matter is that we have silently and collectively opted for inequality, and this is what inequality does. It turns marriage into a luxury good, and a stable family life into a privilege that the moneyed elite can pass along to their children. How do we think that’s going to work out? . . .
Consider the all-consuming difference between “good” schools and the rest. Ten years after starting college, according to data from the Department of Education, the top decile of earners from all schools had a median salary of $68,000. But the top decile from the 10 highest-earning colleges raked in $220,000—make that $250,000 for No. 1, Harvard—and the top decile at the next 30 colleges took home $157,000. (Not surprisingly, the top 10 had an average acceptance rate of 9 percent, and the next 30 were at 19 percent.)
It is entirely possible to get a good education at the many schools that don’t count as “good” in our brand-obsessed system. But the “bad” ones really are bad for you. For those who made the mistake of being born to the wrong parents, our society offers a kind of virtual education system. It has places that look like colleges—but aren’t really. It has debt—and that, unfortunately, is real. The people who enter into this class hologram do not collect a college premium; they wind up in something more like indentured servitude.
More at The Birth of a New American Aristocracy
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-americ
an-aristocracy/559130/
#2) Running out of land to exploit. Where do you start your new farm when all the free farmland has been taken?
The new managerial and professional elites have a heavy investment in the notion of social mobility, the only kind of equality they understand. They would like to believe that Americans have always equated opportunity with upward mobility, that “the opportunity for social mobility for everyone is the very fabric of the ‘American Dream,’ ” as Lloyd Warner wrote in 1953. But a careful look at the historical record shows that the promise
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mitt, a proto-Trump nativist and shameless opportunist
Mitt Romney was a quintessential New England moderate when I voted for him back in the 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, promising to protect a woman’s right to choose and in office signing a bill that became a model for what eventually became Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act.
Then after Massachusetts’s Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, Romney reinvented himself as a fire-breathing social conservative and champion of traditional values — discovering a newfound faith-based opposition to abortion rights that had somehow gone missing over the previous decade to stand alongside his commitment to the then-traditional definition of marriage.
That persona didn’t secure the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, but four years later Romney bested Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich with a proto-Trump nativist message. As the Republican nominee, he broke with his party’s free trade consensus to slam Obama for going too soft on Chinese imports.
Romney didn’t run in the 2016 cycle but did briefly audition as a spokesperson for the #NeverTrump movement — slamming nativism and protectionism as inauthentic to the conservative movement. He pegged Trump himself as a fraud, though of course when it came time for the general election Romney couldn’t bring himself to endorse actually voting for the one candidate who could stop the fraud from becoming president.
Tuesday night, he wrapped up the GOP nomination to run for Senate in Utah (where I guess he moved at some point?) which makes his elevation to Congress all-but-certain. Romney fans like McKay Coppins say that possession of such a safe seat will make Romney “free — perhaps for the first time in his political career — to be unabashedly who he is, without any serious threat of electoral blowback.” Coppins continued, “That could lead him to hold the president accountable in ways that other Capitol Hill Republicans have shied away from.”
In truth, the best hope for these fantasies would have been for Romney to bow out of running at the last minute, leaving people free to dream of what Sen. Romney might have been. As an actual elected official, Romney will inevitably end up being unabashedly who he is — one of the most shameless opportunists in the history of American public life, who invariably ends up disappointing people who expect him to stick to anything for long.
www.vox.com/2018/6/26/17503028/election-results-south-carolina-new-yor
k-utah-and-colorado
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
Democratic voters sat out the 2014 midterms and lost the Supreme Court for a generation.
This year, many Supreme Court rulings are 5 to 4, the Democrats always the 4, which is to say they’re not triumphs of legal reasoning, they’re triumphs of political power. These cases were decided not during oral arguments but during the 2014 midterms.
Four weeks before the 2014 election, the Pew Research Center released a report detailing the American public’s disinterest in the campaign. Pew called it the “Meh Midterm,” and they were proven right: When the votes were counted, weeks later, turnout was 36.3 percent — the lowest it had been in 72 years. Some commentators argued that there was no such thing as a dull election when both the Senate and the Supreme Court were so closely divided, but such arguments fell on deaf ears.
The absence of enthusiasm favored Republicans: They picked up nine Senate seats, ripping control of the chamber away from the Democrats for the first time since 2006. And did it matter? It did. Republican Antonin Scalia unexpectedly died, choking on fried chicken during a late night snack, opening a vacancy that could have swung the Supreme Court to the Democrats for a generation.
Liberals will forever loathe Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for denying Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland so much as a hearing for the vacant seat. McConnell insisted that a Supreme Court vacancy could never and should never be filled in an election year. No Senate had ever before refused to vote on a Supreme Court justice.
It was a ridiculous argument, and everyone knew it. Here’s the test: 2018 is an election year. The election is 130 days from now. Raise your hand if you believe McConnell and the Senate Republicans will refuse to consider any replacement candidates until after the election, to make sure the people get to weigh in.
Anyone? I didn’t think so. https://howmanydaystill.com/its/election-day-2018
McConnell’s 2016 gambit wasn’t about principle, it was about power: He wanted a conservative Supreme Court, and he had the votes to protect that preference. McConnell could stop Obama from picking a Supreme Court justice because Democrats sat out the 2014 election, letting Republicans amass the majority needed to block Obama’s appointees.
More at www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/26/17506054/anthony-kennedy-ret
irement-supreme-court
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