Page 137 of 137 FirstFirst ... 3787127135136137
Results 1,361 to 1,370 of 1370

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #1361
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    He didn't change the method. He changed the rate. The method was exactly the same as previous administrations. They were bound by the same laws, the Flores Act. These were put in place by congress. Changing them failed in 2016 under Obama, in the court of California.

    He has done what he legally can until the court reassess Flores.

    You don't like that fact, so you pussy foot around it like you are trying to make a point. The point is you are wrong in your assessment and you do a piss poor job carrying water for your tribe.



    The semantics argument we have been over. You lost.



    Wow, double down on semantics.

    That is all you have to hold onto. Whither a bush fire is or isn't a forest fire. Your entire point, as you repeated here, is Trump use Forest Fire instead of Brush fire, when everyone knows he is talking about the same thing. They all are. California, the federal government, Mother Jones. Friggen mother jones.

    You lost this one Gordon.
    and now comes the false declaration of victory. it would be funny if it wasn't so predictable with you.

    trump did change the method, and the rate of the enforcement. it was not exactly the same. you even admitted this about 6 pages ago. we have the DOJ documents, irony posted them stating the exact details of what trump changed, why he did it, and how he changed them back.

    neither of your other responses merit a response from me. trump used those words, when determining if he is right or not, we don't get to magically add or change words. and you just ignore everything else, lol.

    i mean, i think you've figured out, unlike other folks, you cannot tire me out repeating the same garbage shit over and over again. im just going to keep citing the exact same article i did showing you are wrong. thats how every argument has gone with you, i don't expect anything different. eventually we will somehow read the same graph, and you will insist that a rail flat TSI means the sun is causing climate change. thats why i can only conclude that either you know you are lying, and you are doing it on purpose, or you can't tell the difference. which case is worse for you, i don't know.
    "the fact is, Jack Rice and team make a paintball gun, that works, and works pretty well actually. I think that says everything that needs to be said about the state of paintball gun engineering"

  2. #1362
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,710
    Josh, given that the state passed a 1 billion spending package on fire restoration in September, what was the point behind Trump's tweet to threaten withholding funds?
    A Radiant Purple Sky Ribbon That Defies Explanation
    I work for the company building the Paragon...once we figure out a name

  3. #1363
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,234
    Please, using my or his words gordon, find where I or Irony admitted anything of the sort.

    You claimed that Trump wrote an EO that directly called for the separation of child from their parents at the border, and to put them in concentration camps. And that Trump with his magic pen can fix all of without regard to following laws or such. How about you answer these questions. Include the actual text of the order:

    Given Trumps EO, can you find any part where it said they need to remove the child from the parent?
    Can you find the point in the EO where it states all children are to be separated from their parents and held in a concentration camp?
    In Sessions directive, can you find where it states to remove children from their parent?
    In Sessions directive, can you find where it state to build child concentration camps?

    Any of those direct answers either makes or breaks your point. You dance around it, but because of that dance, and trying to argue weak semantics is why I know you have lost the argument. If you could find in the EO where it says what you say it does, my position is SLAYED. I mean, dead, killed, buried and worse. Just like you claim it is.

    But did you look for it? It should take a couple of minutes. You could point to it and say "Here!" and my position would be wrecked. Interestingly, you haven't.

    I think the truth is you looked and couldn't find it. And do not want to admit you were wrong. So, either you didn't look, or you looked and couldn't find it. Either way shows us that your position that Trump made the law that kids are separated and thrown in concentration camps is BS. It would have been so easy to prove. Should have taken one post. I even handed you the link - and I quoted all the text pertaining to children, and the related laws inside of that text I quoted and linked to.

    No where is your position upheld.

    Josh, given that the state passed a 1 billion spending package on fire restoration in September, what was the point behind Trump's tweet to threaten withholding funds?
    Good question. Not too sure what the point is. Honestly I doubt he had much knowledge of that specific bill. Or of the reduction of spending Brown did the prior year. Or of what needs to go to withholding funds. (Edit: I think he has no real control over it. Congress does, but I don't think we have line item vetoes in effect. And I don't see the house giving him that power. I might be wrong here. He is fairly limited and congress could give them more without Trump being able to do much about it besides throwing a fit on Twitter.) I think that was the typical over the top chest thumping BS he normally does to get a reaction. I would guess it is him just flexing to set people off, and the Trumpers will nod their head and go 'Stick it to 'em!' without realizing how stupid it really is. That line was pandering to the people who just want to see Orange Hulk Smash. That shit, man, if he could just stop acting like a thin skinned 5th grade bully for 2 or 3 days [shake my head].

    If somebody could edit about 1/3rd of his tweets out or down there might be the makings of something presidential, but I don't think he gives a shit about that. Maybe 2/3rds.
    Last edited by pbjosh; Yesterday at 10:42 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  4. #1364
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,710
    I think it's important to point these out since they're happening on a nearly daily basis.

    "A video shared by a blogger on Sunday showed Hyde-Smith, who's running in the special election for former Sen. Thad Cochran's (R) seat, joking that she'd be "on the front row" should a supporter she was campaigning with invite her to a "public hanging.""

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...ppi-runoff?amp
    A Radiant Purple Sky Ribbon That Defies Explanation
    I work for the company building the Paragon...once we figure out a name

  5. #1365
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,234
    Huh. Tacky and miss-thought at the best of it.

    That being said, if you want a counter point I can probably find a nice anti-semantic comment or similar to use as a counter for some classic whataboutism, but those seem to get less press...

    Our ruling class sucks, and right now we have a triggerly-puff society. Which isn't really good either. Hence the bit I posted to Ryan earlier about the Exhausted Middle. Too much of the PC lynchings like she might encounter could result in a backlash from the middle when they get fully tired of it and throw a fit.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  6. #1366
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,234
    Not Gordon here, but personally I would like to see more accountability for bad apples in both parties. That doesn't mean automatically throw out anyone for one gross statement, but more punishments in the moment that come from the body of Congress. I do not think the polarization of the voting body has the ability to throw out a bad apple (See Bob Menendez and Duncan Hunter, presently). Everyone that can be shown to be a bag of dicks by the majority should get punished and continued bad behavior should get you thrown out. The house and senate ethics panels should mean something, but they can't be under the control of partisans for the sake of scoring "my side" victories. Sadly, I don't see a clear path to punishing swamp dwellers in the current climate because everyone is trying to score for their side first.
    Sorry, missed this in the Busy.

    And it is strangely relevant to Steve's last post. Now, I am not sure if Steve is asking for judgement, but I think he plain in saying we should rush to judgement. There is no real context, there is a lot of inference, and a lot of judgement. And she might lose her seat because of it. Where as we retain some truly inept characters all over.

    Term Limits and multiple parties? We might get multiple groups on the left I think, if the Elites like Clinton and Pelosi don't let new blood into the structure of the system, like O-C and Bernie. I do wish they had some more Blue Dog Democrats - I think they could sweep the floor with everyone if that popped up. But a Social Democrats Party and a Classic Democrat party would make a good split. Tear the GOP into the Social Conservatives and Liberal Conservative Party and the Exhausted middle could pick the bits the want a lot better. The current system is under serving any but the extremes in my opinion.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  7. #1367
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,083
    Supports Inception Designs
    A third party that is capable of disrupting the stable equilibrium (in a game theoretic sense) of a 2 party system would have to draw from both parties almost equally, and therefore is definitionally either "moderate" or "disruptive". Splitting the current parties cannot happen organically for very obvious reasons - it's a poison pill to both factions. Ask Al Gore and Ralph Nader. I generally get the feeling that third parties tend in our current system tend to exist at the margins - hyper conservative (small c) libertarians, or explicit socialists.

    Because the level of current political polarization is so extreme, it's unlikely that a third party could exist as a moderate space.

    However, I think the rise of Trump actually makes the appeal of a true disruptive third party candidate for President decently high, maybe as high as 25% in the next 2 election cycles. Some megatrends influencing that estimate are the decreasing centralization of media as a distribution outlet, combined almost paradoxically with the centralization effects of fame and money. "Drain the swamp" rhetoric was hugely popular, and rightly so. It's possible that a disruptive party could run on some fairly uncontroversial planks, largely around systemic reform (I will never understand why we can't get people to care about campaign finance reform/publicly funded elections/higher pay for legislators).
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  8. #1368
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Please, using my or his words gordon, find where I or Irony admitted anything of the sort.

    You claimed that Trump wrote an EO that directly called for the separation of child from their parents at the border, and to put them in concentration camps. And that Trump with his magic pen can fix all of without regard to following laws or such. How about you answer these questions. Include the actual text of the order:

    Given Trumps EO, can you find any part where it said they need to remove the child from the parent?
    Can you find the point in the EO where it states all children are to be separated from their parents and held in a concentration camp?
    In Sessions directive, can you find where it states to remove children from their parent?
    In Sessions directive, can you find where it state to build child concentration camps?

    Any of those direct answers either makes or breaks your point. You dance around it, but because of that dance, and trying to argue weak semantics is why I know you have lost the argument. If you could find in the EO where it says what you say it does, my position is SLAYED. I mean, dead, killed, buried and worse. Just like you claim it is.

    But did you look for it? It should take a couple of minutes. You could point to it and say "Here!" and my position would be wrecked. Interestingly, you haven't.

    I think the truth is you looked and couldn't find it. And do not want to admit you were wrong. So, either you didn't look, or you looked and couldn't find it. Either way shows us that your position that Trump made the law that kids are separated and thrown in concentration camps is BS. It would have been so easy to prove. Should have taken one post. I even handed you the link - and I quoted all the text pertaining to children, and the related laws inside of that text I quoted and linked to.

    No where is your position upheld.



    Good question. Not too sure what the point is. Honestly I doubt he had much knowledge of that specific bill. Or of the reduction of spending Brown did the prior year. Or of what needs to go to withholding funds. (Edit: I think he has no real control over it. Congress does, but I don't think we have line item vetoes in effect. And I don't see the house giving him that power. I might be wrong here. He is fairly limited and congress could give them more without Trump being able to do much about it besides throwing a fit on Twitter.) I think that was the typical over the top chest thumping BS he normally does to get a reaction. I would guess it is him just flexing to set people off, and the Trumpers will nod their head and go 'Stick it to 'em!' without realizing how stupid it really is. That line was pandering to the people who just want to see Orange Hulk Smash. That shit, man, if he could just stop acting like a thin skinned 5th grade bully for 2 or 3 days [shake my head].

    If somebody could edit about 1/3rd of his tweets out or down there might be the makings of something presidential, but I don't think he gives a shit about that. Maybe 2/3rds.
    the conversation switched from if what trump was doing was the same or not, to the dodge argument of if what trump was doing was forced on him or not. hell, the links irony posted HIMSELF prove my point, and thats why the conversation had to switch. because the admitting that link was correct (crazy because it quotes trump administration officials saying exactly what i said), moved you guys to try to argue that what trump did was forced on him. ie the claim trump was not responsible, congress was. this is demonstrably false, as ironys links prove.

    i did not make any of those claims. none of them. swing and a miss.

    since you don't seem to grasp my position, i think your determination of its factualness is likely in error as well.

    but, now that we are back on the subject, would you answer my very basic question? is separating newborns from there parents, and forcing them to defend themselves in court a moral thing to do? very easy, not at all political question.


    PS: love that you gave up on trumps tweet now too. you dont get to change all the words in a tweet and then claim it was factual all along. lol.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; Today at 02:57 PM.
    "the fact is, Jack Rice and team make a paintball gun, that works, and works pretty well actually. I think that says everything that needs to be said about the state of paintball gun engineering"

  9. #1369
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker27 View Post
    A third party that is capable of disrupting the stable equilibrium (in a game theoretic sense) of a 2 party system would have to draw from both parties almost equally, and therefore is definitionally either "moderate" or "disruptive". Splitting the current parties cannot happen organically for very obvious reasons - it's a poison pill to both factions. Ask Al Gore and Ralph Nader. I generally get the feeling that third parties tend in our current system tend to exist at the margins - hyper conservative (small c) libertarians, or explicit socialists.

    Because the level of current political polarization is so extreme, it's unlikely that a third party could exist as a moderate space.

    However, I think the rise of Trump actually makes the appeal of a true disruptive third party candidate for President decently high, maybe as high as 25% in the next 2 election cycles. Some megatrends influencing that estimate are the decreasing centralization of media as a distribution outlet, combined almost paradoxically with the centralization effects of fame and money. "Drain the swamp" rhetoric was hugely popular, and rightly so. It's possible that a disruptive party could run on some fairly uncontroversial planks, largely around systemic reform (I will never understand why we can't get people to care about campaign finance reform/publicly funded elections/higher pay for legislators).

    what third party? where would it fit?

    the current democrats just being the party of the 80s and 90s republicans, and republicans being farther right than pat Buchanan, where would the third party fit?

    id argue if there is to be a thrid party, it would be an actual left party. such a party does not exist currently in the USA. the democrats continue there right wing slide, and a new left wing party come in.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; Today at 03:07 PM.
    "the fact is, Jack Rice and team make a paintball gun, that works, and works pretty well actually. I think that says everything that needs to be said about the state of paintball gun engineering"

  10. #1370
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,083
    Supports Inception Designs
    I should have been more explicit: any party that can be characterized well by a one dimensional political continuum is assured of failure in a heavily polarized 2 party system.

    A disruptive party would have to be constructed largely on policies that are orthogonal to our political axis, e.g. campaign finance reform

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •