Yes, we can agree on that.
Which is why nowadays I limit myself to expressing my contempt.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Which is why nowadays I limit myself to expressing my contempt.
@McUnited What do you think of Bannon being on the national security council, a man who has professed his aim is to destroy the state?
So the country that most of the 9/11 hijackers (and bin laden) are from doesn't get placed on the no fly list.... Makes sense to me!
Saudi Arabia is the cause of a great deal of unrest in the middle easr but they bride their way out of everything... feck them.
Populists generally have stupid policies or plans, it's not what makes them populists. Blochers plan all along was to gain mass appeal through typical right wing anti-immigration, anti-welfare and anti-EU paroles while at the same time making deals for big corporation and rich peoples such as himself. With Blocher nearly everything is there. The anti-establishment talking, the allegation of lying liberal media (despite owing at least two national media outlets), the cultivation but not solving of problems.
Ok then. I thought you were referring to a discussion you participated, and as I read the recent 20-30 pages and couldn't rememeber you, it must've been really deep in the jungle.
It appears to be a feature of online forums that some posters, emboldened by anonymity, communicate in a way that would be entirely unacceptable away from the computer screen. Unfortunately, the tone they take is one that is counterproductive to discussion, since antagonising someone with an opposing view steels their mind to any valid points one may be making.
What about de Vos for secretary of education who's never seen the inside of a public school? Or Tillerson... Does anyone think he has America's best interests at heart? Trumps cabinet picks are crazier than I thought possible.
Why even bother doing that? What's the purpose - to make you feel better? Because, as you say, it won't do anything to change the mind of the person you direct your contempt towards. In fact, it will merely serve to stoke their fires.
Have you ever participated in political discussion and politics before? You will encounter worse.
I'm not ignoring you, Cheesy. I'm just waiting to see if there's any acknowledgement of my few previous remarks about the way people communicate here. Otherwise, there's no point.
Tillerson is actually one of the more levelheaded of the appointees, not that that is a very high bar...
That may be true. But that in no way justifies mimicking such behaviour when partaking in similar discussions.
That was the Cologne New Year's Eve thread, discussion about this year (starting from post #259).
Wait what? The only one with alternative facts in that thread was the dude rambling about "racial profiling" and how it was all deeply unjust.
The matter as such is and was pretty clear and has since been proven in various ways.
I bother because they bother me. I bother because politics isn't some game, I bother because their actions affect my life, possibly my future children's lives, and the lives of billions around the world. America is one of the birthplaces of the modern free world, and if that completes it's collapse into a totalitarian state I will not leave it uncommentated. But reason doesn't work with people who feel other's "stole their job", as if a job was a god given right dependent on ones place of birth. Reason doesn't work with people who choose to simplify everything into monocausal relationships in which their hardships are caused by someone else's lack of character. Reason doesn't work with those who think a difference in perception changes the nature of that which is perceived or even creates an alternate version of the perceived as valid as the original. (The truth is philosophically speaking that which we all can agree on that it is. Currently we're having trouble agreeing... They now claim that this disagreement means there is no truth anymore, or rather 2 versions, there's and everyone else's, which is beyond bizarre).
Believe me, if I thought I could change their minds,i'd be working my behind off trying to do so. I've given up on it, so at the very least I want them to know what I perceive them to be. If i'm having a better day I might attempt reason with them yet again. But today is not the day.
Nope. But fighting this out in here would crash the thread. If anyone is actually arsed (I doubt it), they can read for themselves.
If they do, they can find out I was right. No racial profiling, general consensus on it being the right course of action. Well apart from some parts of the greens (obviously).
Our Representatives - both democrats and republicans 
How on earth did he advance to be majority leader? He always mumbles and can't understand a word he says.
Have you heard the story about the tortoise and the hare?
On the contrary, but let's leave it at that.
I would actually really like to let you search any reasonable qoutes condemning the police action that day
Seems amazing this stuff is legal. They seem to be ripping up the rule book at the moment.
I would actually really like to let you search any reasonable qoutes condemning the police action that day
This isn't relevant to this thread.
Democrats should refuse to confirm any SC nominee other than Garland. But they won't, because they don't have the balls.
That's not how it works. The Dems are in the minority.
Exactly. Also, the guy Trump nominated might actually work in the favour of the democrats as long as he is in power. Not sure why Trump has chosen him tbh.
They could filibuster
They can block it if they have the will to do so.
Filibuster. But they wouldn't even if they were the majority.
State rights go both ways and the main reason for this pick is for social conservatives. He delivers their promise to get a pro life judge and also a firm believer in state rights so that they can go back to do writing own laws on killing abortion and gay marriage legalization.
Seems petty to wait for that. Why not just ignore the poster(s) being condescending to you and communicate with those who will have a more fruitful discussion?
They can't use the filibuster since if they did, the GOP could remove it for future use and the Dems would be fecked during Trump's next Scotus nominee (the one that will actually matter) where the GOP can make it a simple majority vote. There's a lot more tactical nuance at work here than is plainly visible to the public.
They should take the risk and do it. Let Republicans go for the nuclear option. In 4 years time, it'll be bite them back in the ass. Obstructionism works and it's the only way to counter a mad man President.
If they remove the filibuster they would be setting a very dangerous precedent for themselves. The filibuster is what allowed them to sabotage Obama.
Democrats can't allow the Republicans to continually change the rules and move the goalposts. They need to have the courage to put their foot down somewhere. Might as well be here. Garland should have been confirmed, and everyone knows it. If they allow the Republicans to always get away with this stuff they'll just keep doing it.
This makes no sense. According to your own logic, the GOP will just nuke it next time round instead, and will have still got everything they want. Where is the tactical nuance here?
They don't care. They are in the majority and can do as they please, including amend the rules.
If Trump is still in power in 4 years time we'll have 8 years of him Fishy. Election will be rigged, I guarantee it. What you've witnessed over the last week has been a complete disregard for democracy and rules.
Got a question.
Lets say the dems do filibuster and the gop use the nuclear option. Does that mean the dems wont be able to use the filibuster again?
If so would the filibuster ban be temporary?
Lets say the dems do filibuster and the gop use the nuclear option. Does that mean the dems wont be able to use the filibuster again?
If so would the filibuster ban be temporary?
- Status