You got a lot of built up anger man relax. Hard to get through many of your posts without hostility at other people’s viewpoints or passive aggressiveness.
My point is in now way possible would any of those people be the same as Trump. Despite the ill feelings I have towards many of them not a single one would be near the embarrassment of Trump. Hell you may be hard pressed to find many Americans who would be that embarrassing when they got that position.
I’m certainly not going to argue that the above fits with the notion of “all-in”.
That person is a moron and shouldn’t be in office, but it certainly is all in.
You’re confusing me not understanding how a sentence that ended in “everyone” fit into the point you were trying to make, therefore I asked for clarification of what you meant by everyone, because nothing you wrote made sense to me.
Was it my inability to understand a basic sentence? Maybe. Was it your inability to clearly get your point across? Probably not, no one cares about what words mean around here unless the wrong person is saying them.
Thanks. Happy to have your support.
You’re reading things that aren’t there, but I sincerely apologize if my replies are abrasive and hurt people.
Great. I tend to agree. Still has nothing to do with what MY point was.
Would you then agree that anyone that read the bill isn’t all in? If “all in” represents a pure absolute I can’t think of anything more absolute than not even reading it. Everyone else just thinks they’re all in.
edit: I promise there’s a point here
Not sure what it is, because saying a person is “all in” when that person clearly described why they weren’t all-in on a bill is a blatant lie.
That someone’s reasons to not be all in may very well be the correct, and better option than being all in, doesn’t change what all in is.
Then going on to clearly outline why the individual wasn’t all in, followed by “mic” drop and circle jerk “likes” of a post is, quite frankly, the dumbest thing I’ve seen around here. Then to have two other people come to your defense?
…
…
There was a day on this board I would never second guess defending free speech and civil discourse. Today, (and I’m hesitant to even post this as an example) I hesitate to even say something like “punching people for saying words you don’t like is wrong, and yes even Nazi’s have the right to free speech”. Because I know I’d have three of four of you reply with “Nazi enabler” and other horseshit like “oh so you support Nazi’s now”.
But…
I point out someone using words in a specific way to try and make their point, and that those words actually invalidate their point, and I’m wrong. I get stupid shit like “mic drop” thrown at me, then lectured on “be courteous”?
I should have just clicked “x” on the tab when I saw people in-ironically defending antifa…
Oh, sorry, I’m ranting. I’ll try and get my “retardspeak” translator out for you later incase anyone else wants to completely ignore the points I’m trying to make in order to say whatever it is they need to.
I suspect that you and I are very different, just a hunch.
I don’t think anyone’s getting hurt but most of your posts are some type of level of Jesus fucking Christ dude how could you think that or stop it with this shit.
It’s not helping an argument and is just likely to get some type of pissy response back.
Probably because we see it 24/7 from our world leader that I’m just over it. And I fully admit I have been 100% guilty of this before. Just my .02 no need to respond.
All good. Good to see you posting more again. Disagree on some things full agreements on others but always good
That’s because I hadn’t made the point yet.
most people are very different from each other, yes.
But it depends on your perspective. We’re both people. We both likely have 2 arms and 2 legs. Probably both have hair. Lungs, brains, ability to speak.
We both have internet access, and are both on this webpage.
Both in this forum. Neither likely voted for trump. Both probably voted for Clinton in the primary. Both probably voted for Obama in 08.
Both probably have a place to live, cloths to wear and the ability to put food in our mouths.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say we are both citizens of the same country, love our spouse/partner. Care about kids, poor people. We both probably care about our friends, co-workers (some at least) and fellow countrymen.
We both probably would like to see the continuation of a “more perfect union”, both probably want to see less bombs dropped, less violence, less poverty. Both probably have empathy for victims of atrocity and for victims evil people.
We both probably fear for the future we’re leaving our kids, care about clean air and water, maintaining higher and higher standards of living. We’re both probably at least interested in technology, learning new things, challenging ourselves and others to be better than we were yesterday.
We’re both probably sad sometimes, happy others. We both probably donate time and money to charity, have a hobby or two. We both probably have a job/career, goals, ambitions.
But we most certainly look different, smell different, think different thoughts. Voices are different, might enjoy different music. We’re different ages, come from different parents. Maybe a different fashion sense. Probably have different names, drive different models of cars. Are you a bath person? I like showers. I’m not big on saunas or massages either.
I don’t know man… I don’t know.
I don’t have much a ledge to argue from. I’m not here to circle jerk, and trying to find a break in the Phalanx to get someone to respond with anything other than “I hates me some trump” is tough. (Certainly is awesome that people are now assuming I must like the guy because I’ll actually discuss ANYTHING other than how awful he is.)
But let’s not throw this all on me, okay? I’m not the only one who needs a lecture around here in this case.
I only speak “retard” and apparently don’t know what everyone means.
Just spit it out already. Type it slow for me please. Maybe use crayon too.
Nah I’m good. You seem especially pissed by my choice of the word “retardspeak” yesterday (to describe people that you hopefully don’t fall into the same category with).
Have a good one.
Not pissed at all.
Just waiting for you to get a lecture about it…
So, I figure I’ll keep reminding everyone that labeling someone as “retardspeak” for asking questions is #courtesy
mic drow
bumper sticker
10 million dollar bypass
MAGA hat!
Wasn’t attempting to be a lecture nor act like you were the only one, just saying you seem agitated!
Circle jerks on this forum come and go. Massive right wing circle jerks when Obama was in office over everything. Zeb, Push, conservative dog, others. Opposite to an extent when Bush was. It’s pretty typical of PWI historically in regards to Presidents.
We don’t have a lot of people on here right now defending Trump because on a lot of things it’s really hard to do. Not sure it’s possible to defend the President when he tweets about the apprentice or attacks his own cabinet members on Twitter. I would be way less critical if he could act like an adult at some point. This is supposed to be a calm, rational, leader who behaves publicly like someone people can look up to. He missed the mark there like crazy
I feel your pain. During your hiatus, I was the biggest closet Clinton support in America. At least, that’s what’d you think from what was said on here.
Oh, and I was called out for voting for Gary Johnson. That was especially hilarious.
I voted for him as well!
You’re clearly very intelligent 
Getting back to this:
It’s been eating away at me since you posted it, because I disagree with your premise, but can’t put my finger on exactly why.
I want to run down the reasons why I think out particular time is what is preventing a real leader, but then as I start to drift back though American history, there has been a lot of strife and arguing, a lot of painful reminders of our far from perfect past.
So then I’m thinking, have we ever really had a “great leader” in modern times? A lot of famous names pop up, Teddy, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK dare I include Ronnie? Well, were these really “great men” and “great leaders” or has our view of them been softened through history. I know for sure my views on 43 have softened an incredible amount, and my views on Obama started to soften before he even left office.
Then that leads me to thinking: who WAS a great leader then? First name that popped into my head was Dr King Jr. Talk about the quintessential American. A very imperfect man, just like the founders, in a very imperfect time, just like the founders, who did and said some pretty wild things, just like the founders, and gave his life, all for the simple and undeniable truth that is humanity. That he didn’t have to pick up a rifle to accomplish so much is a true testament to “the more prefect union”, in my opinion.
So now I’m here, no clue if I disagree with you or not on this statement, but still leaning towards I do. Which leads me to:
Do you see anyone (i’m not going to bash the party they are in, so be honest) anywhere near a national stage that could hold a candle to MLK?
Do we need a crisis as significant as segregation in order for that woman or man to blossom?
I made a thread a couple years ago about the great experiment being over, and caught some shit for it. I’m still leaning towards this is the end times for our republic, even without trump being elected. But please, take this post serious and give me someone to look to that could unite even 60% of the country right now.
There are a handful of things that one could certainly defend and be happy about, SCOTUS pick being one.
I mean, that might make his 4 years in office 110% worth it alone.
But yes, he is difficult to defend, and trying to salvage rational conversation about the situation is near impossible to, unless you want to circle jerk, and I don’t want to.
I too voted for the only person in American national politics I could stomach. And while I think he’d be a vast improvement over trump, I don’t think he would be a particularly good POTUS.
I think there are very few people in history that can hold a candle to MLK. He’s like the GOAT of leadership, lol…
As it stands, I don’t think there are many at the national stage that are or would be *great leaders. I tend to think great leaders only really emerge at times of great crisis and I don’t think we’re in the middle of one. I’ve gotten and I probably will continue to get quite a bit of flack for my support of Dubya. I think his response to 9/11 was nothing short of great leadership. When I hear stories from guys like @thefourthruffian on how he treated Vets at places like Walter Reed it only re-enforcing that stance.
Did he royally screw up by not having even an outline of how to get out of Iraq and Afganistan? Yes, he very clearly failed here. Did he have 100 other mistakes and flaw? Yes, he did, but never once for even one second did I think he didn’t have the best interest of the country in mind when he made his decisions.
That said, the only person I can really think of on the national stage now is General Mattis. I don’t know about great, but I think John Kasich would have made a good President. He’s a RHINO, he’s precarious, and he’s about as dry as the Sahara, but he has a solid record of leadership in Ohio. At least from what I know about it. Perhaps others can shed light there.
I also have quite a bit of respect for Leon Panetta and, if he were younger, I think he could have made a very good POTUS.
*Depends on how you define great leader
I think he would have been okay as well.
On a side note, it completely flew under the radar that the Administration’s policy towards the ME collapsed, if there ever was a coherent policy.
Tillerson doesn’t seem to know what he’s doing in the ME and his breathtakingly naive statements demonstrate this to all regional players. But I guess there’s Jared to sort this out.
I can’t believe Bolton is making sense on most points: