US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[Nola]

I'm asking because if Barack Obama is being described as a neoliberal, then the term has become so broad as to lose all practical meaning. At that point it has to include just about everyone on the ideological scale between socialism and libertarianism.

He's open to free trade deals, thinks we could lower the corporate tax rate, and isn't entirely resistant to a more expanded role for charter schools. Okay. He also raised taxes on the wealthy, gave us a huge Medicaid expansion that would be much larger if not for the 2012 Supreme Court decision, gave lower income people subsidies to buy health insurance, pushed for pretty massive direct government action to increase employment with his 2011 Jobs Bill that Boehner & friends refused to even bring to the floor, gave us the CFPB, the Credit Card Users Bill of Rights, net neutrality, public clean energy investment, tried to raise the minimum wage but was blocked, and in general does a whole lot of things that a neoliberal wouldn't do unless the definition of neoliberal includes everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders.

I'd also add that pushing for policies that have a chance in hell of passing does not make one a corporate whore. The 60th Democratic-caucusing senator in 2009 thought a fucking public option was too far left for him. And you're mad Obama didn't go for single-payer.

Purity tests are gross and completely unproductive.

No, he gave HMOs subsidies to continue screwing the American people. His jobs initiatives created part-time wage slaves and as per usual he used republicans as scapegoats to blame for everything that was too left for him. He sure didn't have a problem using the full power of the executive branch to push for neoliberal legislation but EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. legislation was too leftist he seemed almost incompetent. Gee, what a coincidence. And like I said, Democrats are careful managers of neoliberalism, their bosses need the middle class to remain stupid, subservient, to the brink of poverty but still existing because they don't want to lose their dumb consumers either or have a revolution on their hands (not talking about a violent one). So yeah, there are slight changes in taxation or the pathetic Dodd-Frank legislation that barely keep the economy stable so that they keep managing the clusterfuck.

Οn the other hand there's Trump. The establishment was clearly terrified of him even though he's their was creation. Why? Because he's a clown that will use the same policies but without restriction or careful management of the system. At this point things have become so bad that many on the left including me would rather take the chaos the idiot will bring which will lead to change than 8 more years of Democrat scumbags managing neoliberalism.

Fucking where? I'm a pretty active forums/comments sections guy, and I have never seen this derailing strategy.

Fucking everywhere. I've been asked this goddamn question a million fucking times by liberals that fit your profile perfectly.

You use a lot of words to say pretty much nothing.

I don't think I have ever heard you articulate an actual point A to point B to point C policy.

You bitch and moan about things like the TPP and NAFTA and then never bother to articulate what the ideal solution is? Trump is not for chaos for instance. He has in fact articulated his position. He thinks(I think wrongly so) that he can get better economic returns negotiating dozens of separate bi-lateral trade agreements over something like the TPP.

What is your position on that? Do you agre? Do you disagree? Why? If you prefer neither. Why? And why would your alternative be superior?

In all your ramblings I have yet to hear concrete ideas of how things should be done better or why Trump is superior to Obama in his economic ideas.

[VomKriege]

[james]

During a closed-door meeting with a group of senators from both parties on Thursday, Trump digressed from a planned discussion of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch to talk about the elections, arguing that he and Ayotte both should have won the vote in New Hampshire, according to Politico.

According to Trump, Ayotte's reelection bid was foiled by “thousands” of people from Massachusetts illegally casting ballots in the Granite State, meeting participants told Politico. One source said that the room fell silent after the remark.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/318986-trump-ayotte-would-have-won-reelection-if-not-for-voter-fraud

 

17th dimensional chess

[james]

 

US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier

 

CNN Exclusive
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html

Reached for comment this afternoon, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said, "We continue to be disgusted by CNN's fake news reporting."

Spicer later called back and said, "This is more fake news. It is about time CNN focused on the success the President has had bringing back jobs, protecting the nation, and strengthening relationships with Japan and other nations. The President won the election because of his vision and message for the nation."

 

[Joe Molotov]

If CNN reported on Trump's successes, wouldn't it be fake news, retroactively turning them into failures?

[brawndolicious]

Dubya was not a drinker but he had that appeal of being somebody you didn't think could talk down to you. Mostly because everyone kept on making fun of him. Trump is the same and also an angry entitled asshole who constantly sees himself as weak and fears nothing more than a woman or minority being better at his job than he could.

This should go in the unpopular opinions thread but the best thing right now is for Hillary to not go hide in a hole. She shouldn't attack him but just politely ask things like "Would you be willing to drop some the sanctions against Russia if they returned all of the Crimea territory back to Ukraine?" or any other extremely basic and specific questions that don't have a partisan answer.

The reason Hillary or any other high profile Democrat should do this is because Trump wants to just be viewed as someone liberals hate. The worst thing he can do is give an answer that would make Hillary go "oh that's good" while resulting in Putin having lost lives and money over absolutely nothing. Take a lesson from 2001-2008, getting angry at conservatives just scares them into thinking they're right.

[etiolate]

I don't think Hill has any political moves left. Losing to Trump is like losing an all-in at the Go Fish table.

[james]

Dubya was not a drinker but he had that appeal of being somebody you didn't think could talk down to you. Mostly because everyone kept on making fun of him. Trump is the same and also an angry entitled asshole who constantly sees himself as weak and fears nothing more than a woman or minority being better at his job than he could.

Thats a good point. These populations rally against "ivory tower liberals"  and "elite media" because they hate feeling stupid.

I mean they are stupid, but they are terrified to death of being exposed as such.

Its like that plane comic with the guy saying the pilots are out of touch.

I don't think Hill has any political moves left. Losing to Trump is like losing an all-in at the Go Fish table.

She'd do well as a Twitter troll, in the vain as her 3-0 post.

[recursivelyenumerable]

(Image removed from quote.)

Our nation is out of GDI resources ... accurate

Trump is the sort of guy I'd sit as far as possible away from at a bar.

[etiolate]

Dubya was not a drinker but he had that appeal of being somebody you didn't think could talk down to you. Mostly because everyone kept on making fun of him. Trump is the same and also an angry entitled asshole who constantly sees himself as weak and fears nothing more than a woman or minority being better at his job than he could.

Thats a good point. These populations rally against "ivory tower liberals"  and "elite media" because they hate feeling stupid.

I mean they are stupid, but they are terrified to death of being exposed as such.

Its like that plane comic with the guy saying the pilots are out of touch.

I don't think Hill has any political moves left. Losing to Trump is like losing an all-in at the Go Fish table.

She'd do well as a Twitter troll, in the vain as her 3-0 post.

They don't fear being seen as stupid. They know full well that they are seen as stupid. They also see a press proclaim Hill the winner via polling and then get everything wrong.

It is essential "don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining".

The issue being there is no "smart people". Only proud stupidity vs the stupidity of hubris. Most voters/people are outside of both and just picking a side that disgusts them less.

[Phoenix Dark]

I don't think Hill has any political moves left. Losing to Trump is like losing an all-in at the Go Fish table.

And the Clinton brand is finished too. So much of their influence revolved around the assumption that she'd be president one day. Now that the dream is dead I suspect the Foundation, Chelsea, etc will fade.

[Take My Breh Away]

https://twitter.com/xeni/status/830195497998643200

They couldn't have timed this better 

[Great Rumbler]

Dude would have been pardoned by now if he'd just gone to jail instead of Russia.

[Take My Breh Away]

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/830200565720346624

And Snowden's response.

Just never mind that some of Trumps Russian Dossier has been confirmed. This thread is about to go gold again

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedBen/status/830200771316703234 

[Rufus]

Dude would have been pardoned by now if he'd just gone to jail instead of Russia.

I'm pretty sure he cited Chelsea Manning's case as to why he didn't believe that.

[Great Rumbler]

Chelsea Manning got pardoned, though?

[Rufus]

But still in prison, no?

[Mupepe]

But still in prison, no?

Until May 17th

[Raist]

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/830200565720346624

And Snowden's response.

Just never mind that some of Trumps Russian Dossier has been confirmed. This thread is about to go gold again

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedBen/status/830200771316703234

Heh? The CNN article said it had nothing to do with Trump.

[FStop7]

All those PoliGAF YAS QUEENers wanting a whistleblower put to death because he didn't YAS QUEEN hard enough.

[curly]

Chelsea Manning got pardoned, though?

And also tried to kill herself twice while in prison (and got more time in solitary for doing so)

[studyguy]

Look all I know is Snowden dipped out and got stuck in Russia.

If you're stuck in a country where the leader takes political opponents out on the regular, my first thought would be to get the fuck out of there because chances are good I'm gonna end up dead too. Fast forward to now, what was the real endgame people expected. The US was never gonna allow this dude back in with open arms. BUH BU BHUH MUH JUSTICE!

Yeah well a fat lot of good that does you when the entire country's federal government thinks you're a criminal. Guy should have smuggled himself out of Russia when he had the chance or just turned himself in. There's no way this would have ended in a winning situation stuck with Putin and Russia vouching for you.

Yeah no shit Manning had shit treatment, the entire government hated her. No shit Snowden would have had a shit trial, the government hates him too.
Now dude's gonna be paraded around DC for shits and giggles by Trump with Pompeo asking for his head on a platter.

2017 is some rough shit.

[the freakin woz]

Look all I know is Snowden dipped out and got stuck in Russia.

If you're stuck in a country where the leader takes political opponents out on the regular, my first thought would be to get the fuck out of there because chances are good I'm gonna end up dead too. Fast forward to now, what was the real endgame people expected. The US was never gonna allow this dude back in with open arms. BUH BU BHUH MUH JUSTICE!

Yeah well a fat lot of good that does you when the entire country's federal government thinks you're a criminal. Guy should have smuggled himself out of Russia when he had the chance or just turned himself in. There's no way this would have ended in a winning situation stuck with Putin and Russia vouching for you.

Yeah no shit Manning had shit treatment, the entire government hated her. No shit Snowden would have had a shit trial, the government hates him too.
Now dude's gonna be paraded around DC for shits and giggles by Trump with Pompeo asking for his head on a platter.

he was on his way to cuba but his passport got revoked

[Joe Molotov]

F5ing pornhub to see if the piss tape is up yet

[studyguy]

Look all I know is Snowden dipped out and got stuck in Russia.

If you're stuck in a country where the leader takes political opponents out on the regular, my first thought would be to get the fuck out of there because chances are good I'm gonna end up dead too. Fast forward to now, what was the real endgame people expected. The US was never gonna allow this dude back in with open arms. BUH BU BHUH MUH JUSTICE!

Yeah well a fat lot of good that does you when the entire country's federal government thinks you're a criminal. Guy should have smuggled himself out of Russia when he had the chance or just turned himself in. There's no way this would have ended in a winning situation stuck with Putin and Russia vouching for you.

Yeah no shit Manning had shit treatment, the entire government hated her. No shit Snowden would have had a shit trial, the government hates him too.
Now dude's gonna be paraded around DC for shits and giggles by Trump with Pompeo asking for his head on a platter.

he was on his way to cuba but his passport got revoked

Well aware that's why I said got stuck. The whole Russian traitor bit some people angle is smoke. All the same getting stuck for a layover in Russia is a bad deal as any.

[recursivelyenumerable]

Another week survived
Just 205 more to go.

[Boogie]

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/830200565720346624

And Snowden's response.

Define "cooperated."  Because I seem to recall you letting yourself get paraded out for some Q&A session with Dear Leader Putin on occasion....

edit:  Also, "no country trades away spies"

Ummmm.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glienicke_Bridge#Bridge_of_Spies

2nd edit:  I will grant you that those exchanges are of captured enemy spies, not a country giving up their "own" spies, however.  I'm going to dig through some of my Intelligence history books, see if there's precedent for such a scenario.

I will say, "spy" is a vague term.  Tends to be used in the public sphere to refer to both intelligence officers, as well as informants/assets.   As much as protecting informants is paramount, the two are not equal in how they are valued/protected.  Even in the most conspiratorial light, Snowden would be in the latter category.

[Optimus]

I'm asking because if Barack Obama is being described as a neoliberal, then the term has become so broad as to lose all practical meaning. At that point it has to include just about everyone on the ideological scale between socialism and libertarianism.

He's open to free trade deals, thinks we could lower the corporate tax rate, and isn't entirely resistant to a more expanded role for charter schools. Okay. He also raised taxes on the wealthy, gave us a huge Medicaid expansion that would be much larger if not for the 2012 Supreme Court decision, gave lower income people subsidies to buy health insurance, pushed for pretty massive direct government action to increase employment with his 2011 Jobs Bill that Boehner & friends refused to even bring to the floor, gave us the CFPB, the Credit Card Users Bill of Rights, net neutrality, public clean energy investment, tried to raise the minimum wage but was blocked, and in general does a whole lot of things that a neoliberal wouldn't do unless the definition of neoliberal includes everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders.

I'd also add that pushing for policies that have a chance in hell of passing does not make one a corporate whore. The 60th Democratic-caucusing senator in 2009 thought a fucking public option was too far left for him. And you're mad Obama didn't go for single-payer.

Purity tests are gross and completely unproductive.

No, he gave HMOs subsidies to continue screwing the American people. His jobs initiatives created part-time wage slaves and as per usual he used republicans as scapegoats to blame for everything that was too left for him. He sure didn't have a problem using the full power of the executive branch to push for neoliberal legislation but EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. legislation was too leftist he seemed almost incompetent. Gee, what a coincidence. And like I said, Democrats are careful managers of neoliberalism, their bosses need the middle class to remain stupid, subservient, to the brink of poverty but still existing because they don't want to lose their dumb consumers either or have a revolution on their hands (not talking about a violent one). So yeah, there are slight changes in taxation or the pathetic Dodd-Frank legislation that barely keep the economy stable so that they keep managing the clusterfuck.

Οn the other hand there's Trump. The establishment was clearly terrified of him even though he's their was creation. Why? Because he's a clown that will use the same policies but without restriction or careful management of the system. At this point things have become so bad that many on the left including me would rather take the chaos the idiot will bring which will lead to change than 8 more years of Democrat scumbags managing neoliberalism.

Fucking where? I'm a pretty active forums/comments sections guy, and I have never seen this derailing strategy.

Fucking everywhere. I've been asked this goddamn question a million fucking times by liberals that fit your profile perfectly.

You use a lot of words to say pretty much nothing.

I don't think I have ever heard you articulate an actual point A to point B to point C policy.

You bitch and moan about things like the TPP and NAFTA and then never bother to articulate what the ideal solution is? Trump is not for chaos for instance. He has in fact articulated his position. He thinks(I think wrongly so) that he can get better economic returns negotiating dozens of separate bi-lateral trade agreements over something like the TPP.

What is your position on that? Do you agre? Do you disagree? Why? If you prefer neither. Why? And why would your alternative be superior?

In all your ramblings I have yet to hear concrete ideas of how things should be done better or why Trump is superior to Obama in his economic ideas.

Jesus Christ Nola, asking to be more specific? Again? How more specific can I get? The ideal solution to TPP and NAFTA is not have those. Trump is an idiot, my prediction is that what he'll do for the country is create chaos and he already started to. My hope is that he'll ruin NAFTA which I doubt he'll be able to renegotiate again, as for TPP good luck restarting those negotiations all over again. It won't happen, it's over, I'm 100% sure about that. The alternative is superior because like I said a million times to posts you already replied to, free trade deals always, ALWAYS hit the middle class hard while benefiting only corporations, banks and the rich who own them.

[Joe Molotov]

Another week survived
Just 205 more to go.

And then we can delete this thread.

[Trent Dole]

Snowden is the wikileaks guy right? Fuck him.

[agrajag]

Snowden is the wikileaks guy right? Fuck him.

that's Julian Assange

[Phoenix Dark]

TPP failing is not a good thing from a foreign policy perspective.

[Nola]

I'm asking because if Barack Obama is being described as a neoliberal, then the term has become so broad as to lose all practical meaning. At that point it has to include just about everyone on the ideological scale between socialism and libertarianism.

He's open to free trade deals, thinks we could lower the corporate tax rate, and isn't entirely resistant to a more expanded role for charter schools. Okay. He also raised taxes on the wealthy, gave us a huge Medicaid expansion that would be much larger if not for the 2012 Supreme Court decision, gave lower income people subsidies to buy health insurance, pushed for pretty massive direct government action to increase employment with his 2011 Jobs Bill that Boehner & friends refused to even bring to the floor, gave us the CFPB, the Credit Card Users Bill of Rights, net neutrality, public clean energy investment, tried to raise the minimum wage but was blocked, and in general does a whole lot of things that a neoliberal wouldn't do unless the definition of neoliberal includes everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders.

I'd also add that pushing for policies that have a chance in hell of passing does not make one a corporate whore. The 60th Democratic-caucusing senator in 2009 thought a fucking public option was too far left for him. And you're mad Obama didn't go for single-payer.

Purity tests are gross and completely unproductive.

No, he gave HMOs subsidies to continue screwing the American people. His jobs initiatives created part-time wage slaves and as per usual he used republicans as scapegoats to blame for everything that was too left for him. He sure didn't have a problem using the full power of the executive branch to push for neoliberal legislation but EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. legislation was too leftist he seemed almost incompetent. Gee, what a coincidence. And like I said, Democrats are careful managers of neoliberalism, their bosses need the middle class to remain stupid, subservient, to the brink of poverty but still existing because they don't want to lose their dumb consumers either or have a revolution on their hands (not talking about a violent one). So yeah, there are slight changes in taxation or the pathetic Dodd-Frank legislation that barely keep the economy stable so that they keep managing the clusterfuck.

Οn the other hand there's Trump. The establishment was clearly terrified of him even though he's their was creation. Why? Because he's a clown that will use the same policies but without restriction or careful management of the system. At this point things have become so bad that many on the left including me would rather take the chaos the idiot will bring which will lead to change than 8 more years of Democrat scumbags managing neoliberalism.

Fucking where? I'm a pretty active forums/comments sections guy, and I have never seen this derailing strategy.

Fucking everywhere. I've been asked this goddamn question a million fucking times by liberals that fit your profile perfectly.

You use a lot of words to say pretty much nothing.

I don't think I have ever heard you articulate an actual point A to point B to point C policy.

You bitch and moan about things like the TPP and NAFTA and then never bother to articulate what the ideal solution is? Trump is not for chaos for instance. He has in fact articulated his position. He thinks(I think wrongly so) that he can get better economic returns negotiating dozens of separate bi-lateral trade agreements over something like the TPP.

What is your position on that? Do you agre? Do you disagree? Why? If you prefer neither. Why? And why would your alternative be superior?

In all your ramblings I have yet to hear concrete ideas of how things should be done better or why Trump is superior to Obama in his economic ideas.

Jesus Christ Nola, asking to be more specific? Again? How more specific can I get? The ideal solution to TPP and NAFTA is not have those. Trump is an idiot, my prediction is that what he'll do for the country is create chaos and he already started to. My hope is that he'll ruin NAFTA which I doubt he'll be able to renegotiate again, as for TPP good luck restarting those negotiations all over again. It won't happen, it's over, I'm 100% sure about that. The alternative is superior because like I said a million times to posts you already replied to, free trade deals always, ALWAYS hit the middle class hard while benefiting only corporations, banks and the rich who own them.

I would like better specifics, is that so outrageous?

So do you think the current trade relationship with China is ideal? Lets start there.

TPP failing means the status quo remains until further notice. Is that your ideal? If not, what is, and why?

[Trent Dole]

Snowden is the wikileaks guy right? Fuck him.

that's Julian Assange

Oh right. Why do we hate Snowden then? He's the nsa whistleblower duder aint he. Has he done any other stupid shit?

[Optimus]

I'm asking because if Barack Obama is being described as a neoliberal, then the term has become so broad as to lose all practical meaning. At that point it has to include just about everyone on the ideological scale between socialism and libertarianism.

He's open to free trade deals, thinks we could lower the corporate tax rate, and isn't entirely resistant to a more expanded role for charter schools. Okay. He also raised taxes on the wealthy, gave us a huge Medicaid expansion that would be much larger if not for the 2012 Supreme Court decision, gave lower income people subsidies to buy health insurance, pushed for pretty massive direct government action to increase employment with his 2011 Jobs Bill that Boehner & friends refused to even bring to the floor, gave us the CFPB, the Credit Card Users Bill of Rights, net neutrality, public clean energy investment, tried to raise the minimum wage but was blocked, and in general does a whole lot of things that a neoliberal wouldn't do unless the definition of neoliberal includes everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders.

I'd also add that pushing for policies that have a chance in hell of passing does not make one a corporate whore. The 60th Democratic-caucusing senator in 2009 thought a fucking public option was too far left for him. And you're mad Obama didn't go for single-payer.

Purity tests are gross and completely unproductive.

No, he gave HMOs subsidies to continue screwing the American people. His jobs initiatives created part-time wage slaves and as per usual he used republicans as scapegoats to blame for everything that was too left for him. He sure didn't have a problem using the full power of the executive branch to push for neoliberal legislation but EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. legislation was too leftist he seemed almost incompetent. Gee, what a coincidence. And like I said, Democrats are careful managers of neoliberalism, their bosses need the middle class to remain stupid, subservient, to the brink of poverty but still existing because they don't want to lose their dumb consumers either or have a revolution on their hands (not talking about a violent one). So yeah, there are slight changes in taxation or the pathetic Dodd-Frank legislation that barely keep the economy stable so that they keep managing the clusterfuck.

Οn the other hand there's Trump. The establishment was clearly terrified of him even though he's their was creation. Why? Because he's a clown that will use the same policies but without restriction or careful management of the system. At this point things have become so bad that many on the left including me would rather take the chaos the idiot will bring which will lead to change than 8 more years of Democrat scumbags managing neoliberalism.

Fucking where? I'm a pretty active forums/comments sections guy, and I have never seen this derailing strategy.

Fucking everywhere. I've been asked this goddamn question a million fucking times by liberals that fit your profile perfectly.

You use a lot of words to say pretty much nothing.

I don't think I have ever heard you articulate an actual point A to point B to point C policy.

You bitch and moan about things like the TPP and NAFTA and then never bother to articulate what the ideal solution is? Trump is not for chaos for instance. He has in fact articulated his position. He thinks(I think wrongly so) that he can get better economic returns negotiating dozens of separate bi-lateral trade agreements over something like the TPP.

What is your position on that? Do you agre? Do you disagree? Why? If you prefer neither. Why? And why would your alternative be superior?

In all your ramblings I have yet to hear concrete ideas of how things should be done better or why Trump is superior to Obama in his economic ideas.

Jesus Christ Nola, asking to be more specific? Again? How more specific can I get? The ideal solution to TPP and NAFTA is not have those. Trump is an idiot, my prediction is that what he'll do for the country is create chaos and he already started to. My hope is that he'll ruin NAFTA which I doubt he'll be able to renegotiate again, as for TPP good luck restarting those negotiations all over again. It won't happen, it's over, I'm 100% sure about that. The alternative is superior because like I said a million times to posts you already replied to, free trade deals always, ALWAYS hit the middle class hard while benefiting only corporations, banks and the rich who own them.

I would like better specifics, is that so outrageous?

So do you think the current trade relationship with China is ideal? Lets start there.

TPP failing means the status quo remains until further notice. Is that your ideal? If not, what is, and why?

No, the TPP failing means the status quo doesn't win another big battle against the middle class. We're not talking ideals here, my ideal is some version of  libertarian socialism with decentralized government and unions replacing corporations but since this will most probably won't happen (duh) I'll settle for damage controlling the decimation of the middle class, the rise of crony capitalism and the rich hijacking our democracies worldwide.
And TPP was part of that hijacking and part of crony capitalism since most of it was written by corporations.

[Boogie]

Snowden is the wikileaks guy right? Fuck him.

that's Julian Assange

Oh right. Why do we hate Snowden then? He's the nsa whistleblower duder aint he. Has he done any other stupid shit?

[VomKriege]

Trump already looking to ditch Spicer.
The Real World : White House edition.

[benjipwns]

Chelsea Manning got pardoned, though?

Commuted sentence.

[benjipwns]

TUCKER GUESTS BEST GUESTS

[TakingBackSunday]

I can't take the hair in that preview image from both gentleturds.

[nudemacusers]

I assume anyone wearing a red shirt of that color is a sexual deviant. and not the good kind.

[Great Rumbler]

Chelsea Manning got pardoned, though?

Commuted sentence.

OKAY FINE WHATEVER

[thisismyusername]

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/830400394954211328

YASSSSS QUEEN. READ HIM DOWN:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/830426421323526145

[Great Rumbler]

https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/830265494389321728

[etiolate]

TUCKER GUESTS BEST GUESTS

"sitting on a subway in new york city" is not the ideal line for him to repeat over and over/

That lisp is next level.

[Raist]

YASSSSS QUEEN. READ HIM DOWN:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/830426421323526145

Arguably, the one really sucking up to the true biggest bully got away with a ton of shit and ended up married with kids.

[Nola]

I'm asking because if Barack Obama is being described as a neoliberal, then the term has become so broad as to lose all practical meaning. At that point it has to include just about everyone on the ideological scale between socialism and libertarianism.

He's open to free trade deals, thinks we could lower the corporate tax rate, and isn't entirely resistant to a more expanded role for charter schools. Okay. He also raised taxes on the wealthy, gave us a huge Medicaid expansion that would be much larger if not for the 2012 Supreme Court decision, gave lower income people subsidies to buy health insurance, pushed for pretty massive direct government action to increase employment with his 2011 Jobs Bill that Boehner & friends refused to even bring to the floor, gave us the CFPB, the Credit Card Users Bill of Rights, net neutrality, public clean energy investment, tried to raise the minimum wage but was blocked, and in general does a whole lot of things that a neoliberal wouldn't do unless the definition of neoliberal includes everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders.

I'd also add that pushing for policies that have a chance in hell of passing does not make one a corporate whore. The 60th Democratic-caucusing senator in 2009 thought a fucking public option was too far left for him. And you're mad Obama didn't go for single-payer.

Purity tests are gross and completely unproductive.

No, he gave HMOs subsidies to continue screwing the American people. His jobs initiatives created part-time wage slaves and as per usual he used republicans as scapegoats to blame for everything that was too left for him. He sure didn't have a problem using the full power of the executive branch to push for neoliberal legislation but EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. legislation was too leftist he seemed almost incompetent. Gee, what a coincidence. And like I said, Democrats are careful managers of neoliberalism, their bosses need the middle class to remain stupid, subservient, to the brink of poverty but still existing because they don't want to lose their dumb consumers either or have a revolution on their hands (not talking about a violent one). So yeah, there are slight changes in taxation or the pathetic Dodd-Frank legislation that barely keep the economy stable so that they keep managing the clusterfuck.

Οn the other hand there's Trump. The establishment was clearly terrified of him even though he's their was creation. Why? Because he's a clown that will use the same policies but without restriction or careful management of the system. At this point things have become so bad that many on the left including me would rather take the chaos the idiot will bring which will lead to change than 8 more years of Democrat scumbags managing neoliberalism.

Fucking where? I'm a pretty active forums/comments sections guy, and I have never seen this derailing strategy.

Fucking everywhere. I've been asked this goddamn question a million fucking times by liberals that fit your profile perfectly.

You use a lot of words to say pretty much nothing.

I don't think I have ever heard you articulate an actual point A to point B to point C policy.

You bitch and moan about things like the TPP and NAFTA and then never bother to articulate what the ideal solution is? Trump is not for chaos for instance. He has in fact articulated his position. He thinks(I think wrongly so) that he can get better economic returns negotiating dozens of separate bi-lateral trade agreements over something like the TPP.

What is your position on that? Do you agre? Do you disagree? Why? If you prefer neither. Why? And why would your alternative be superior?

In all your ramblings I have yet to hear concrete ideas of how things should be done better or why Trump is superior to Obama in his economic ideas.

Jesus Christ Nola, asking to be more specific? Again? How more specific can I get? The ideal solution to TPP and NAFTA is not have those. Trump is an idiot, my prediction is that what he'll do for the country is create chaos and he already started to. My hope is that he'll ruin NAFTA which I doubt he'll be able to renegotiate again, as for TPP good luck restarting those negotiations all over again. It won't happen, it's over, I'm 100% sure about that. The alternative is superior because like I said a million times to posts you already replied to, free trade deals always, ALWAYS hit the middle class hard while benefiting only corporations, banks and the rich who own them.

I would like better specifics, is that so outrageous?

So do you think the current trade relationship with China is ideal? Lets start there.

TPP failing means the status quo remains until further notice. Is that your ideal? If not, what is, and why?

No, the TPP failing means the status quo doesn't win another big battle against the middle class. We're not talking ideals here, my ideal is some version of  libertarian socialism with decentralized government and unions replacing corporations but since this will most probably won't happen (duh) I'll settle for damage controlling the decimation of the middle class, the rise of crony capitalism and the rich hijacking our democracies worldwide.
And TPP was part of that hijacking and part of crony capitalism since most of it was written by corporations.

You are continuing to evade answering the question.

With TPP gone, the status quo in terms of our trade relationship with China remains. That is the status quo. Is that ideal? Why is that preferred?

I am asking you specifically about trade policy. How America should move forward with China, what you define as ideal and why you think so.

You spend so much time ranting almost on a daily basis about neoliberalism and Democrats and the TPP/NAFTA with a  attitude, so I assume you have trade solutions you prefer?

[VomKriege]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/830552079240409089

We all thought it was about being POTUS but the real lesson, once you filter all the noise, is family ties. Thank you Donald !

[Great Rumbler]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/830552079240409089

[Boredfrom]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/830552079240409089

We all thought it was about being POTUS but the real lesson, once you filter all the noise, is family ties. Thank you Donald !

That tweet sounds dirty...

[recursivelyenumerable]

Isn't PPP a troll poll org...

#fakepolls

they are troll polls yet real polls nonetheless. much like trump himself is a real troll pol.

[Optimus]

I'm asking because if Barack Obama is being described as a neoliberal, then the term has become so broad as to lose all practical meaning. At that point it has to include just about everyone on the ideological scale between socialism and libertarianism.

He's open to free trade deals, thinks we could lower the corporate tax rate, and isn't entirely resistant to a more expanded role for charter schools. Okay. He also raised taxes on the wealthy, gave us a huge Medicaid expansion that would be much larger if not for the 2012 Supreme Court decision, gave lower income people subsidies to buy health insurance, pushed for pretty massive direct government action to increase employment with his 2011 Jobs Bill that Boehner & friends refused to even bring to the floor, gave us the CFPB, the Credit Card Users Bill of Rights, net neutrality, public clean energy investment, tried to raise the minimum wage but was blocked, and in general does a whole lot of things that a neoliberal wouldn't do unless the definition of neoliberal includes everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders.

I'd also add that pushing for policies that have a chance in hell of passing does not make one a corporate whore. The 60th Democratic-caucusing senator in 2009 thought a fucking public option was too far left for him. And you're mad Obama didn't go for single-payer.

Purity tests are gross and completely unproductive.

No, he gave HMOs subsidies to continue screwing the American people. His jobs initiatives created part-time wage slaves and as per usual he used republicans as scapegoats to blame for everything that was too left for him. He sure didn't have a problem using the full power of the executive branch to push for neoliberal legislation but EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. legislation was too leftist he seemed almost incompetent. Gee, what a coincidence. And like I said, Democrats are careful managers of neoliberalism, their bosses need the middle class to remain stupid, subservient, to the brink of poverty but still existing because they don't want to lose their dumb consumers either or have a revolution on their hands (not talking about a violent one). So yeah, there are slight changes in taxation or the pathetic Dodd-Frank legislation that barely keep the economy stable so that they keep managing the clusterfuck.

Οn the other hand there's Trump. The establishment was clearly terrified of him even though he's their was creation. Why? Because he's a clown that will use the same policies but without restriction or careful management of the system. At this point things have become so bad that many on the left including me would rather take the chaos the idiot will bring which will lead to change than 8 more years of Democrat scumbags managing neoliberalism.

Fucking where? I'm a pretty active forums/comments sections guy, and I have never seen this derailing strategy.

Fucking everywhere. I've been asked this goddamn question a million fucking times by liberals that fit your profile perfectly.

You use a lot of words to say pretty much nothing.

I don't think I have ever heard you articulate an actual point A to point B to point C policy.

You bitch and moan about things like the TPP and NAFTA and then never bother to articulate what the ideal solution is? Trump is not for chaos for instance. He has in fact articulated his position. He thinks(I think wrongly so) that he can get better economic returns negotiating dozens of separate bi-lateral trade agreements over something like the TPP.

What is your position on that? Do you agre? Do you disagree? Why? If you prefer neither. Why? And why would your alternative be superior?

In all your ramblings I have yet to hear concrete ideas of how things should be done better or why Trump is superior to Obama in his economic ideas.

Jesus Christ Nola, asking to be more specific? Again? How more specific can I get? The ideal solution to TPP and NAFTA is not have those. Trump is an idiot, my prediction is that what he'll do for the country is create chaos and he already started to. My hope is that he'll ruin NAFTA which I doubt he'll be able to renegotiate again, as for TPP good luck restarting those negotiations all over again. It won't happen, it's over, I'm 100% sure about that. The alternative is superior because like I said a million times to posts you already replied to, free trade deals always, ALWAYS hit the middle class hard while benefiting only corporations, banks and the rich who own them.

I would like better specifics, is that so outrageous?

So do you think the current trade relationship with China is ideal? Lets start there.

TPP failing means the status quo remains until further notice. Is that your ideal? If not, what is, and why?

No, the TPP failing means the status quo doesn't win another big battle against the middle class. We're not talking ideals here, my ideal is some version of  libertarian socialism with decentralized government and unions replacing corporations but since this will most probably won't happen (duh) I'll settle for damage controlling the decimation of the middle class, the rise of crony capitalism and the rich hijacking our democracies worldwide.
And TPP was part of that hijacking and part of crony capitalism since most of it was written by corporations.

You are continuing to evade answering the question.

With TPP gone, the status quo in terms of our trade relationship with China remains. That is the status quo. Is that ideal? Why is that preferred?

I am asking you specifically about trade policy. How America should move forward with China, what you define as ideal and why you think so.

You spend so much time ranting almost on a daily basis about neoliberalism and Democrats and the TPP/NAFTA with a  attitude, so I assume you have trade solutions you prefer?

And I'm telling you like I told you a million times that TPP would be way worse than the current situation for the reasons I stated again and again. I don't care about the details on how the US should move on with China, I'm not a fucking trade expect but I've read enough on TPP to know it's poison. Things aren't optimal but they can get worse, that's the point you keep missing, possibly on purpose. People CAN oppose a law without having the obligation to draft new legislation on the matter you know. Are you done with the "specifics" now or should we continue with this godawful circular argument?

[Freyj]

In which we discover how many nested quotes are possible.

[Raist]

42

[VomKriege]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/10/shinzo-abe-donald-trump-earpiece-translation

[chronovore]

http://www.theroot.com/frank-ancona-kkk-imperial-wizard-found-dead-in-a-miss-1792267188


Wasn't sure where to post this. Seems like the guy was tricked into showing up somewhere, and then jumped?


It reminds me of the joke: "What do you call a dozen dead racists? A good start."

[Stro]

Alex Jones, while under the influence of medical grade weed and whiskey, told me Donald Trump was legit as fuck Who am I to question that?

According to my source (super fucked up Alex Jones), Trump is the real deal who wants to make poor people rich and really cares about the average American. My source also says that the global elites believe we're in a simulation theory and they are being contacted/controlled by an interdementional force that isn't aliens (although they for sure exist according to what Buzz Aldrin told him) but is very, very, very likely Satan himself. I feel like if AJ is ever going to be at his most truthful (and he did admit he pushed Y2K on his show for financial reasons), it's when he's fucked up to the point of asking people to punch him to prove how powerful he is.

[etiolate]

Alex Jones is like the robot that gets left behind on a abandoned planet for 2000 years and then tries to tell everything to the first explorers that find it.

[Stro]

Yeah, well, how much silver do you have in your bloodstream?

[benjipwns]