Qs for Trump Supporters

[countingbeans]

@Aragorn

PS–hope the life changes are good ones mate.

Short term, it really isn’t, by any stretch of the imagination.
But long term it will be.

Thanks though.

@pfury

Trump left off Saudi Arabia because Obama didn’t have them on there,

He likely left them off for the same reason every POTUS before him (and everyone after him will) kiss their ass even though they are dicks. They need to keep using the dollar, and have us by the balls. We facilitate them keeping their people pacified, and they facilitate helping (substantially) the dollar being the world’s standard.

@smh_23

I do get the feeling, though, that if he is forced to choose between Priebus & Bannon, Trump chooses the latter.

Of course he would. It’s just dancing with the bitch that brought him to the dance.

@pfury

The ban clearly didn’t target terror countries, the ban clearly (whether accidentally or not) didn’t ban any country Trump has dealings in, the ban rollout was a complete and utter failure by any metric, etcetcetc.

It’s a temporary travel stay, not a ban. Jesus H Christ.

But yes, it’s a disaster.

[pfury]

“Ban” or “Travel Stay” is semantics. People were previously allowed into the country, they are now not allowed into the country. I’m not an extremist leftist using hot button words to drum up a crowd. I call it like I see it. The phrasing doesn’t matter in the slightest to me.

People allowed in → people no longer allowed in. “These people are currently banned from entering.” Please find the flaw with this statement.

I’m not trying to argue the point for the sake of argument. I just don’t understand why everyone is afraid to call it a ban. POTUS banned people from entering. If you’re in support of the ban, own it.

[smh_23]

@countingbeans

Maybe we shouldn’t have made fun of Romney for knowing all this you’ve obsessively posted about for months now then?

Last time I brought this up you poo-pooed it as “scoring political points”, but in reality it isn’t.

No, I didn’t. I explained this – and much else – to you here:

Hacking the Election

No, smh said that Obama was winning “cheap political points” – cheap political points being just about the only prize on offer in modern presidential debates – by turning the exchange into a precooked one-liner. The salient point being that a line played for laughs in a debate is not a policy, and – more to the present state of affairs – that sarcastic regurgitation of such a line is not a substitute for a basic command of the facts. Your fantasy in which Putin turns on a presidential debate, h…

Feel free to read that if you’re curious, but we can add you nesciently whining about Mitt Romney to the list of things on which I don’t plan on spending my time.

[Quote]

Smh_23:

Or maybe you want to pretend that a person can be a subliterate buffoon but if he accepts, dull-eyed and without contributing a single ounce of the strategic thought that goes into planning such a transaction, the aid of foreign agents for whom it is their professional trade to communicate in secret (and often with dimwitted shitbags like pimps and fortune tellers), then he must possess some secret intelligence?[/quote]

That’s not collusion, that’s a patsy. Two very different situations, and the difference between both a civil war and hot war with Russia, or just a hot war with Russia.

So, after all these wasted words, we learn that the entire thing was predicated on your not knowing what collusion is.

Google will do: “collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.”

Accepting the aid or money of foreign spies as a presidential candidate – this is the allegation under investigation by not only the IC task force but also the SSCI and House Intelligence Committee – is the very definition of illegal cooperation in order to cheat. QED.

I’ve already covered whether or not such collusion requires some kind of impressive feat of intelligence: it doesn’t. Or maybe, per your ludicrously low standard for “intelligence,” it does. I don’t care, because that isn’t what the rest of us mean when we use the word.

[Alrightmiami19c]

@pfury

I don’t think it’s possible to dispute that the ban is clearly targeted at Muslim countries.

Well it would make sense considering radical islamist are usually muslim.

@pfury

If you want to dispute whether or not the ONLY reason to select those countries is due to religion, that’s fine.

That has been the entirety of the debate and the Constitutional challenge. If it’s not a religious test, then it’s not a religious test.

[sufiandy]

If its temporary its not necessarily a bad thing if the ban caused a bunch of problems. This will put more pressure on congress to come up with a permanent solution that is at least better than the current situation. The democrats wanted to grant all illegals citizenship then come up with new immigration policies maybe, eventually, who knows. Trump is just doing the opposite. The bottom line is millions get into the country illegally and even dems agree its not ideal but doing nothing is closer to their preferred solution than a bipartisan solution so its in their best interest to not do anything. This is kind of like republicans with healthcare, repeal obamacare with no alternative. Dems allow immigration with no alternative.

[pfury]

Which I agree with. What I have a problem with (not directed at you) are all the whackadoodles on my Facebook feed that swear up and down it’s not a ban targeted at Muslims because X country isn’t banned. Nobody is saying this ban is targetted at ALL Muslims, but people need to at least accept that religion played a large factor in which countries to ban.

It’s up to everyone else to decide whether or not that sits alright with them personally, but acting like religion didn’t play a role is silly.

[countingbeans]

@pfury

Please find the flaw with this statement.

It lacks the word “temporary” which is in fact a very important aspect of the EO.

@pfury

I just don’t understand why everyone is afraid to call it a ban.

It’s not fear, it is more likely than not trying to be accurate in description. Ban has an implication of permanency. This isn’t permanent.

@pfury

If you’re in support of the ban, own it.

I have absolutely zero problem with a travel stay with such a specific time table. None.

I’m not 100% sold on it’s rollout, optics, or reasons for the listed nations not including others, but I’m not upset by on the list either.

@smh_23

but we can add you nesciently whining about Mitt Romney to the list of things on which I don’t plan on spending my time.

No doubt you won’t, because that would necessitate you admitting you were wrong, which you wont’ ever do. lol

So of course you’ll down play the entire thing, and pretend it doesn’t matter.

But I know, deep down, you aren’t that deluded, and you know the implications of not electing a man that would have, by sheer happenstance of being elected, prevented all the clear and grave danger we’re in right now. But instead we elected an official that has lead us directly into this issue because his focus was on Climate Change… Oh and where people can take a piss.

@smh_23

we learn that the entire thing was predicated on your not knowing what collusion is.

Utter horse shit and you know it. Literally a dumb, cheap post that does nothing but undermine anything else you’ve said here.

Sigh… I expect so much better from you.

[pfury]

A temporary ban IS by definition, still a ban. You said “It’s a temporary travel stay, not a ban.” It’s 100% a ban. The simplest definition of what’s going on is people are banned from entering the country. Is it temporary? Sure. Is it X Y or Z? Sure. Is it 100% a “ban.” Yes

[smh_23]

@countingbeans

Sigh… I expect so much better from you.

And I could say the same for you, particularly in light of the dictionary’s having settled the heart of the dispute for us. Arguments that could have been avoided with a simple look at Webster’s are not arguments worth having.

However, I will add here that there is some measure of comfort to be had in the fact that we are inclined, by years’ worth of good dust-ups, to say we expect better from each other. You’re a good dude and smart, and whatever the nature & intention of the changes you referred to above, you deserve every advantage of fortune and expedience. I’d have emailed that to you but I can’t remember my password to that old burner account.

[countingbeans]

@smh_23

And I could say the same for you, particularly in light of the dictionary’s having settled the heart of the dispute for us. Arguments that could have been avoided with a simple look at Webster’s are not arguments worth having.

I’m saying “cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.” requires a level of general intelligence well above “moron”. And that is important because:

If he colluded then there indeed, no hyperbole, needs to be armed marches on Washington, and things will be getting rather bloody, rather quickly, but first and foremost we need a non-political hack as a leader for once we over throw the cheeto. This is leading us into military dictatorship. This is ugly, and this is the end of the US as we know it.

Now, if we’re talking patsy “a person who is easily taken advantage of, especially by being cheated or blamed for something.” which a moron is quite capable of being, then we hang him in the town square like the good ol days and the country doesn’t fall into ruin. (Even though the result will be democrat dominance of our political landscape for the next 40 years, and I’m not sure that is a brightest future either…)

It seems to me with everything you post you intend to imply patsy, but use collude in order to impress the gravity of the situation. I understand the full gravity of the situation, but don’t like the direction of the rhetoric.

@smh_23

However, I will add here that there is some measure of comfort to be had in the fact that we are inclined, by years’ worth of good dust-ups, to say we expect better from each other.

agreed

@smh_23

You’re a good dude and smart, and whatever the nature & intention of the changes you referred to above, you deserve every advantage of fortune and expedience.

This goes for you as well.

If you find the email, I’ll give you the details, but that isn’t for the general public’s consumption lol.

[countingbeans]

@pfury

A temporary ban IS by definition, still a ban. You said “It’s a temporary travel stay, not a ban.” It’s 100% a ban. The simplest definition of what’s going on is people are banned from entering the country. Is it temporary? Sure. Is it X Y or Z? Sure. Is it 100% a “ban.” Yes

Again:

@countingbeans

Ban has an implication of permanency. This isn’t permanent.

[pfury]

Ban has an implication of permanency to you, not to me. A ban is a ban is a ban. Arguing that it should be called “this” instead of “that” because “that” isn’t specific enough only serves the purpose of distracting from the real conversation.

[countingbeans]

@pfury

Arguing that it should be called “this” instead of “that” because “that” isn’t specific enough only serves the purpose of distracting from the real conversation.

lmao.

This is the literal opposite of reality, but okay.

[pfury]

What it’s called is ultimately arbitrary. What it DOES is what matters.

[Tyler23]

@countingbeans

b) making fun of Romney for bringing up the threat from Russia wasn’t a meme

In hindsight, Romney was right about Russia. However, Putin’s power plays on Crimea and the Ukraine happened after the 2012 election, so things have changed dramatically since (Obama’s “reset” having failed).

Regarding Trump-as-moron…I think you and SMH are both right. I think Trump is brilliant in some areas (sales, marketing/branding and media manipulation) and an utter buffoon in others (politics, presidency).

@countingbeans

Now to us silly and craven people this entire line of reason “a moron so stupid he literally must be a savant because he stole the biggest and most powerful prize in the history of human civilization, right out from under the entire world’s nose… via collusion” has me putting the entire argument further and further into pizzagate territory.

Considering the time, effort and money that went into investigating Benghazi, I find it difficult to equate an absurd 4chan conspiracy that led to no investigations with a scenario that is being actively investigated by our IC and congress.

[pat]

You and I have a lot in common with our youthful experience in Nuclear power…

[countingbeans]

@pfury

What it’s called is ultimately arbitrary. What it DOES is what matters.

Therefore calling it by accurate descriptors that aren’t misleading and taken as talking points by “the other team” is very, very important.

For a bunch of people that like to jump on every and any statement made by a POTUS (myself included here, I’ve done it) the fact semantics are important sure gets lost a lot. This is a politics board after all[quote=“Tyler23, post:236, topic:225882”]
In hindsight, Romney was right about Russia. However, Putin’s power plays on Crimea and the Ukraine happened after the 2012 election, so things have changed dramatically since (Obama’s “reset” having failed).
[/quote]

Right. And my intended implication is Putin took Obama’s limp wristed “climate change” answer, and then the subsequent ridicule of Romney’s answer as “wow, Obama doesn’t respect my ability to be a global player? Nice… Ripe for the taking”.

With 43, Clinton, 41 or Regan as POTUS does anyone think Putin does what he does? I don’t know, maybe, but I’m not so sure to be honest.

I thought that whole thing was a big deal then, and still do now. Obama’s non-answer more of an issue than any of it. If you are a ruthless aggressor who seeks to regain dominance and a strong footing on the world stage, does the complete and total pussy answer of “climate change” not send you the clear signal that the CiC of your biggest rival is ultimately a weak, spineless politician first, who won’t stand up if you punch him in the mouth?

It’s not like this is the only time Obama looked and spoke like a little bitch, just a very obvious, public and fitting example along the lines of the original argument. If Putin is who you all say he is… This projection of weakness isn’t a good thing.

Now we have Trump who has no political skill, and the only fucking hope we have is he ISN’T acting like an appeasing pussy in direct communication unlike how he comes off in the press.

Again, not fucking up and electing Romney would have saved us from all this shit.

@Tyler23

I find it difficult to equate an absurd 4chan conspiracy that led to no investigations with a scenario that is being actively investigated by our IC and congress.

The absurdity is on purpose. I’m taking cheap shots at SMH.

[smh_23]

@countingbeans

With 43, Clinton, 41 or Regan as POTUS does anyone think Putin does what he does? I don’t know, maybe, but I’m not so sure to be honest

There is no need to guess:

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balance_power

“Russia is not our enemy” – George W. Bush, months earlier.

Sanctions imposed in reponse: zero. Robert Kagan, a neocon whose ideas continue to recall the best and worst of the Bush era, just yesterday put out a piece in Foreign Policy describing this reponse as “anemic.”

So one important difference is that Obama punished Putin for his revanchism.

[smh_23]

@countingbeans

I’m saying “cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.” requires a level of general intelligence well above “moron”.

The cheating requires intelligence and competence, but you’re missing the fact that nobody believes Trump masterminded or planned or executed any of it. The people who did have many, many years’ worth of institutional experience in disinformation campaigns and secret money transfers. They were Russian spies for God’s sake.

These are separate questions: what happened, and what did Trump know about. The distinction between stoogery and collusion lies in the answer to the latter question, but nowhere is it necessary for Trump to have performed any feat of intellect in order to have known, e.g., that the campaign had been offered, via Carter Page, money and information by the GRU. There are plenty of other possibilities amounting to the same thing, which I’ll call unimpressive collusion on Trump’s part.

Most of us think Trump is incredibly stupid, but nobody is saying he’s literally Arnie Grape. He is still morally responsible for his actions. Thus, when he assaulted those women (I use “when” instead of “if” in cases where there are more than ten separate accusers), he deserved to go to prison in a way that wouldn’t be true if he were intellectually disabled to the point of being incapable of moral choice.

Anyway, we could get into what Tyler mentioned, too, about different forms of competence and so on. But it doesn’t seem useful to litigate how impressive an intellectual feat Trump’s Russia connection is before we understand precisely what happened and why. As I’ve described in other posts, there is good reason to believe more information is forthcoming. In none of the existing credible allegations do I see a single reason to believe Trump acted intelligently or competently. But if the SSCI, e.g., makes more information public, we might be able to say more and in better detail.

As for taking to the streets, if all of the evidence is made public (we know that there is more being kept from the public at the moment), and it settles the matter in the favor of a Steele-memoish conclusion, and Congress refuses to act…then yes, it will have come to that.

[FlatsFarmer]

Was Putin more motivated by Pres. Obama’s words, or by the whole world talking shit about the Sochi Olympics and what a shit-hole host counrty Russia was?