Jumbo

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, tshile said:

To be honest, based on conversations I’ve had, I don’t think the trump supporters only care about him taunting the liberals because they hate the liberals... I have come to the conclusion they like it because they’re not capable of anything else

 

whens the last time you had an in-depth conversation with a hard right person about:

criminal justice system

education

poverty

foreign policy

taxes

general ideas in regulating capitalism

gun control

 

anything?

 

im not even asking for one where they argued nearly flawlessly using facts and real data in the correct context. I’m just asking for about having a conversation on a topic that goes into depth, that they didn’t gish gallop their way through the whole conversation jumping from topic to topic to topic. Like you ask about taxes and in the span of 5 minutes you’ve covered abortion, black lives matter movement, some Arab country, and Hillary’s emails?

 

when people aren’t capable of having substantive conversations they wind up like trump supporters. He appeals to them because no matter when or where he speaks, or to whom he speaks or speaks about, he never goes beyond their 3rd grade reading level and their kindergarten view of the world. 

 

This is exactly what happens when you have over 20 years of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, etc shoveling to the absolute lowest common denominator in "news" into the conservative trough and encouraging peoples' worst impulses and emotions.

 

We're literally almost in Idiocracy territory at this point. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, tshile said:

I’m just asking for about having a conversation on a topic that goes into depth, that they didn’t gish gallop their way through the whole conversation jumping from topic to topic to topic. Like you ask about taxes and in the span of 5 minutes you’ve covered abortion, black lives matter movement, some Arab country, and Hillary’s emails?

 

 

7 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Take that to the abortion thread and see how it flies.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

This is exactly what happens when you have over 20 years of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, etc shoveling to the absolute lowest common denominator in "news" into the conservative trough and encouraging peoples' worst impulses and emotions.

 

We're literally almost in Idiocracy territory at this point. 

 

Hell, just the perception about Trump himself. His history.  As if he is some kind of "American Dream" success story through entrepreneurship.  It is easily debunked if you are willing to spend 10-15 mins reading about his "rise to fame"  dude is a brander, not a builder.  Almost everything he has is something that was previously built/made. He used money handed to him by his daddy to take over things and just throw his name on it, and in most cases he drove the businesses into the ground after taking over.  He doesn't even match the so-called "we want a business man in there" narrative, because he isn't one.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
 
4
35 minutes ago, tshile said:

To be honest, based on conversations I’ve had, I don’t think the trump supporters only care about him taunting the liberals because they hate the liberals... I have come to the conclusion they like it because they’re not capable of anything else

 

whens the last time you had an in-depth conversation with a hard right person about:

criminal justice system

education

poverty

foreign policy

taxes

general ideas in regulating capitalism

gun control

 

anything?

 

im not even asking for one where they argued nearly flawlessly using facts and real data in the correct context. I’m just asking for about having a conversation on a topic that goes into depth, that they didn’t gish gallop their way through the whole conversation jumping from topic to topic to topic. Like you ask about taxes and in the span of 5 minutes you’ve covered abortion, black lives matter movement, some Arab country, and Hillary’s emails?

 

when people aren’t capable of having substantive conversations they wind up like trump supporters. He appeals to them because no matter when or where he speaks, or to whom he speaks or speaks about, he never goes beyond their 3rd grade reading level and their kindergarten view of the world. 

Talk to them fairly often. The Eastern Shore is very conservative.

Criminal Justice: The country needs to stop coddling criminals. The right for felons to vote is a Democratic rip-off. 

Education: Too expensive, failing government schools, vouchers and tax rebates will fix the problems caused by left-wing education unions. Almost always followed by "Unions used to have a purpose but..."

Poverty: Some people just refuse to work. Kick em' off welfare and the problem will go away.

Foreign Policy: This is where I think I see some independent thinking and actual discussions happening. Range from Trump level ignorance to pretty astute.

Taxes: Less is always more, taxes are theft, taxes interfere with freedom, income taxes are unconstitutional.

General Ideas Regulating Capitalism: Adam Smith, invisible hand, Ayn Rand, excessive regulation, get the government out of the way and magic will happen.

Gun Control: More is better, we never had these problems when I was a kid, look at Chicago, 2nd Amendment, "you don't know what you're talking about, when guns are criminalized only criminals will have guns, you know they didn't have gun owners in Communist Russia. 

 

And then it's Hillary's emails, Obama being a Muslim, the economy is booming, fake news, etc.

 

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The country needs to stop coddling criminals. Do the crime, do the time."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.......Except when Republicans commit massive tax fraud, obstruct justice, or lie to the FBI about working with a hostile foreign nation to influence US elections. Then they're just victimless or process crimes and those poor people shouldn't have their lives destroyed over such nonsense. It's not as if they were caught with 5 grams of pot or something bad like that.

Edited by mistertim
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

God I hate low information voters.

 

Thing is that if you go onto right wing news sites and read comments sections of articles they're convinced that everyone else is a low information voter and they aren't. And absolutely no facts can sway them. If you say something they're going on about (Uranium One, Benghazi, Obama's birth certificate, etc) is factually incorrect and provide links to sources to back it up they'll simply say that you're brainwashed by the MSM and are a dumb lib. They don't just ignore facts, they're actively hostile towards them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are mixing two groups together:

 

Bad Information voters vs. Low Information. (There is some crossover) Bad information voters are the comment section trolls on those right wing websites.  Low information voters tend to be a larger group that mostly avoid the news/politics/current events except for what happens to be the top story on their daily news for the day  They are the ones who have little opinion on anything until election time, and then suddenly they will argue tooth & nail over what they have to say.  

 

The disaster is when the Bad Information voters influence the low information voters. (2016) 

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Thing is that if you go onto right wing news sites and read comments sections of articles they're convinced that everyone else is a low information voter and they aren't. And absolutely no facts can sway them. If you say something they're going on about (Uranium One, Benghazi, Obama's birth certificate, etc) is factually incorrect and provide links to sources to back it up they'll simply say that you're brainwashed by the MSM and are a dumb lib. They don't just ignore facts, they're actively hostile towards them.


That's one of many reasons why I don't waste my time arguing on the internet. At least in real life I can set people down and go through the sources with them right next to me. It's much harder to slime away and deflect in that position and it affords the opportunity to force them to state their position and reasoning. But, even that is ****ing exhausting and not worth the time, because their belief isn't based on what makes the most sense. These beliefs are part of their group identity so even if you get them to understand and admit you have valid points, they'll end up spouting the same **** all over again after they go home and hang out with their people and get inundated with the bull**** all over again.
 

 

10 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I think we are mixing two groups together:

 

Bad Information voters vs. Low Information. (There is some crossover) Bad information voters are the comment section trolls on those right wing websites.  Low information voters tend to be a larger group that mostly avoid the news/politics/current events except for what happens to be the top story on their daily news for the day  They are the ones who have little opinion on anything until election time, and then suddenly they will argue tooth & nail over what they have to say.  

 

The disaster is when the Bad Information voters influence the low information voters. (2016) 


Most bad or low quality information voters are also low information voters in my opinion, although not all low information voters are bad/low quality information voters. Why? Because I am not counting misinformation as information, it doesn't qualify. TWA is a good example of this.

 

Edited by Fresh8686

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:


TWA is a good example of this.

 

 

You still mad I won't let you eliminate me?  :ols:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, twa said:

 

You still mad I won't let you eliminate me?  :ols:

 

Quote

That's one of many reasons why I don't waste my time arguing on the internet. At least in real life I can set people down and go through the sources with them right next to me. It's much harder to slime away and deflect in that position...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, twa said:

 

You still mad I won't let you eliminate me?  :ols:

 

Back in your cage, you. 

 

DeafeningIncredibleFulmar-size_restricte

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Start jailing people who refuse to comply, charged with obstruction of justice. 

Just now, NoCalMike said:

Question: What happens if the President orders something, and they do it anyway?

 

I'd guess nothing.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Question: What happens if the President orders something, and they do it anyway?

 

If you are talking documents/testimony....Potus will file with the court to block it's use.

 

similar to admissibility in a trial, the judge will then rule if it is protected by executive privilege ect.

The Congressional committees also have legal obligations and overseers.

 

of course he could also order it to be physically prevented....but that would get into that constitutional crisis area .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, twa said:

 

If you are talking documents/testimony....Potus will file with the court to block it's use.

 

similar to admissibility in a trial, the judge will then rule if it is protected by executive privilege ect.

The Congressional committees also have legal obligations and overseers.

 

of course he could also order it to be physically prevented....but that would get into that constitutional crisis area .

 

Of course if there is national security reasons for it to be withheld then executive privilege applies, but lately it seems like this is just Trump simply not wanting any documents turned over period. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Of course if there is national security reasons for it to be withheld then executive privilege applies, but lately it seems like this is just Trump simply not wanting any documents turned over period. 

 

Executive privilege(or immunity) goes well beyond national security relevance, it is rather a separation of powers issue.

 

The judges usually just kick it back with directions for the two to reach a accommodation.

 

if you like legaleze this explains some of it.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/executive-privilege-and-compelled-testimony-presidential-advisers-don-mcgahns-dilemma

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Executive privilege(or immunity) goes well beyond national security relevance, it is rather a separation of powers issue.

 

The judges usually just kick it back with directions for the two to reach a accommodation.

 

if you like legaleze this explains some of it.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/executive-privilege-and-compelled-testimony-presidential-advisers-don-mcgahns-dilemma

 

 

You have to admit that this is a completely unprecedented situation though, right? I can't think of any other administration where they literally said they would refuse to hand over anything Congress asked for and also refuse to comply with any and all subpoenas. At some point if one branch straight up says "I recognize zero powers of this other branch" it has to be resolved by the courts because there's no "accommodation" with a stance of "**** you, I don't recognize any of your constitutionally mandated powers".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

You have to admit that this is a completely unprecedented situation though, right? I can't think of any other administration where they literally said they would refuse to hand over anything Congress asked for and also refuse to comply with any and all subpoenas. At some point if one branch straight up says "I recognize zero powers of this other branch" it has to be resolved by the courts because there's no "accommodation" with a stance of "**** you, I don't recognize any of your constitutionally mandated powers".

 

The demands are unprecedented.....some even ridiculous, such as all of the redacted parts of the Mueller report. 

 

It will all work out in time. :pint:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.