These people (billionaires) control everything, including your politicians.You forgot
- Wealthy vs Everybody Else
That is the fight I am most interested in and by a rather wide margin. We are getting our asses kicked in this fight and we are losing our country because of it.
Meanwhile you simply keep repeating how stupid they are for following Republican leadership over the years. So much better. <Sheesh>
I've read it on various sites and social media. How large a proportion of people that is I don't know, but it would not do to see it grow. Sorry I didn't write it all down for you, but you could insist it never happens if you like. I do recall a pre edit post from someone here that removal was necessary, and the law isn't important regarding it.
Would you care say that never happened?
I'm not affiliated with any party and I think the ideologies as practiced are limiting and really not all that. Seems to be a bunch of children with the Reps being far more so. If you think your side is inherently superior and infallible then hey I won't stop you from believing that. Live the dream.
He's revealing himself as a troll just here to stir the shit. He certainly doesn't reflect the sentiments of Libs & Progressives in general. He seeks to inflame conservatives, not to reason with them.
Sometimes communicating on the internet is difficult. One person can totally take another person's text in a totally wrong way, whether intentionally, unintentionally or just because he's so heavily conditioned. That's like speaking a foreign language and therefore, communication comes to a halt.
He's revealing himself as a troll just here to stir the shit. He certainly doesn't reflect the sentiments of Libs & Progressives in general. He seeks to inflame conservatives, not to reason with them.
I don't know what's so hard about this. If you want to talk about something that someone said, how can we do that without some kind of direct quote or link? You come on here saying that the left is going tea party crazy, and you don't post anything to support it.
Probably somewhere someone said something like what you're suggesting they might have said, but if it's that hard to dig up a link or a story, maybe not enough of people are saying it to make it worth discussing.
You're intellectually stunted and afraid to stand up for what you think is right. So you try to sell yourself as a neutral observer. A critic who views the battlefield from above with clinical, dispassionate analysis. You think this makes you sound savvy and wise, but it makes you sound phony and ridiculous. It's the laziest approach available since it's not necessary to evaluate the quality of the arguments being made, you just need to find something objectionable about the views or actions of a group and they can be dismissed as 'no better than all the other groups'.
You've been doing this act for a while. It's quite tiresome.
No, I agree that his travel ban, if that is what you mean by "EO," is not grounds for impeachment. However, you should read up on what constitutes grounds for impeachment. Unfortunately, it's practically anything, and quite vague. That leaves open the door for political opponents to bandy about the idea of impeachment before there is arguably enough evidence to make it appropriate.
However, most of those assertions stem from serious concerns about what we've already learned. There is much reason in this case to suspect unethical and criminal misconduct here. You should read up on his known business conflicts, like his hotel renting property from the federal government, making him simultaneously landlord and tenant. Trump could divest himself, but hasn't. There are many other issues with his business interests, too numerous to catalogue them all here.
Most serious in my opinion are his tries with Russia and Putin. They are increasingly difficult to ignore with each new revelation. First we have him taking the unprecedented position of praising a hostile foreign dictator with US approval ratings of about 10%, meaning he took this position to his political disadvantage. A surprising and bizarre position for him to take which has never been adequately explained. Then we find out Russia has hacked democratic organizations and seeded fake news into US social media to help Trump win. Then we have Trump dishonestly denying that they have done this. Then we see this dossier compiled by a respected MI-6 operative which contains numerous specific allegations about Trump being blackmailed by Putin and of colluding with the Kremlin during his campaign. Then we hear Trump defending Putin in response to a softball question from a fellow conservative asking him to condemn Putin's assassination of political opponents. All he had to do was condemn these killings and it might have reassured people, but he just couldn't do it. Then we hear that at least part of the Steele dossier has been verified by the CIA through analysis of intercepted communiques. Now we discover that his National Security Adviser, before Trump took office, promised the Russian ambassador that Obama's sanctions against Russia for the hacking would be rescinded. Forget about the fact that Flynn lied about it. Why was this promise made at all?
We aren't quite there with impeachment yet, but we could be there soon. It isn't premature to start discussing it now. I don't say this lightly, and it has nothing to do with disagreeing with Trump's policies. I disagreed with nearly all of Bush's policies, and never thought for one second that impeachment was appropriate.
Nah, I like agent00f. He may be snarky and passive-aggressive, but underneath that he actually makes real arguments, something the "John Oliver said so, case closed" Reddit/upvote-tier crowd isn't even capable of. One of the better left-wing posters on this forum.
You my friend, finally nailed his act.I don't know what's so hard about this. If you want to talk about something that someone said, how can we do that without some kind of direct quote or link? You come on here saying that the left is going tea party crazy, and you don't post anything to support it.
Probably somewhere someone said something like what you're suggesting they might have said, but if it's that hard to dig up a link or a story, maybe not enough of people are saying it to make it worth discussing.
You're intellectually stunted and afraid to stand up for what you think is right. So you try to sell yourself as a neutral observer. A critic who views the battlefield from above with clinical, dispassionate analysis. You think this makes you sound savvy and wise, but it makes you sound phony and ridiculous. It's the laziest approach available since it's not necessary to evaluate the quality of the arguments being made, you just need to find something objectionable about the views or actions of a group and they can be dismissed as 'no better than all the other groups'.
You've been doing this act for a while. It's quite tiresome.
What argument(s) do you think he has made? I see him disagree a lot, but I do not see arguments made.
He does two things most of the time.
If he is not responding to someone, he will make claims based on assumptions that group x is filled with stupid people. From that presupposition he will say that people like that are beyond help and should be marginalized.
If he is responding to someone, he will label them as something, and summarily dismiss all arguments made as undeserving because of label x. If challenged he will also do the aforementioned and claim that the person challenging him is beyond help because of label x or label y.
Its possible I have missed the times he has made real arguments.
We live in a "gonzo" age. Nothing is good enough just as it is. So people feel they have to exaggerate everything as far as they can to have any impact. Of course people don't realize it has exactly the opposite effect.
I was sitting in a waiting room the other day and some lady was blathering about Trump to other people sitting nearby. I could tell the other people were pretty fairly in agreement with the usual "Trump is not presidential, blah blah" stuff. Very few actually dispute this.
But, typical 'gonzo' age: she continues with Trump is Hitler blah blah blah and I just see the others turn their heads and tune her out almost immediately.
People that resort to taking everything to lame extremes don't realize that what they are really saying is they think their audience is stupid. Their fellow diehard liberals that eat such shit up granted, probably are. But it says "You're too stupid to understand what I'm saying as bad, so I've got to make it BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD for you to *REALLY* get how BAAAAA.... D this is.
So the gotos are just anything that already has that level of bad, and of course Hitler is the easiest go-to of all.
I think a lot of people (well I hope MOST people, but not so sure these days) instantly spot when people go gonzo and dismiss them. Anything said after you've played the extreme nutter card can just be dismissed. But people still think it's an effective way of presenting a case against their political foes.
Good luck, OP but you're just going to get a lot of 'NUH-UHS!" and "B-b-but the other side.." from your observations. The good news is, if one tunes out the 8-9 or so carbon copy leftloons on this forum that spout a lot of volume here, but very little actual substance, you realize that many other people are thankfully more stable and rational.
We live in a "gonzo" age. Nothing is good enough just as it is. So people feel they have to exaggerate everything as far as they can to have any impact. Of course people don't realize it has exactly the opposite effect.
I was sitting in a waiting room the other day and some lady was blathering about Trump to other people sitting nearby. I could tell the other people were pretty fairly in agreement with the usual "Trump is not presidential, blah blah" stuff. Very few actually dispute this.
But, typical 'gonzo' age: she continues with Trump is Hitler blah blah blah and I just see the others turn their heads and tune her out almost immediately.
People that resort to taking everything to lame extremes don't realize that what they are really saying is they think their audience is stupid. Their fellow diehard liberals that eat such shit up granted, probably are. But it says "You're too stupid to understand what I'm saying as bad, so I've got to make it BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD for you to *REALLY* get how BAAAAA.... D this is.
So the gotos are just anything that already has that level of bad, and of course Hitler is the easiest go-to of all.
I think a lot of people (well I hope MOST people, but not so sure these days) instantly spot when people go gonzo and dismiss them. Anything said after you've played the extreme nutter card can just be dismissed. But people still think it's an effective way of presenting a case against their political foes.
Good luck, OP but you're just going to get a lot of 'NUH-UHS!" and "B-b-but the other side.." from your observations. The good news is, if one tunes out the 8-9 or so carbon copy leftloons on this forum that spout a lot of volume here, but very little actual substance, you realize that many other people are thankfully more stable and rational.
Things are similar in some ways to Hitler's time. We have an increasing nationalistic population that only wants to hear what it wants to hear. We have opportunistic leaders backed by war mongering corporations. We have a total moral decline in every single way. We have countries grouping together into little blocks. So things are crazy in this crazy world.I hear what you are saying and I agree, hyperbole doesn't do anyone any favors. However, I do wonder how people would review and criticize Hitler's actions before he started killing people and if they weren't aware of what the future was going to be with him in power. That is, how do people discuss a Hitler in the making without referencing Hitler?
Things are similar in some ways to Hitler's time. We have an increasing nationalistic population that only wants to hear what it wants to hear. We have opportunistic leaders backed by war mongering corporations. We have a total moral decline in every single way. We have countries grouping together into little blocks. So things are crazy in this crazy world.
Without even comparing things to Hitler, one can see that there has been a certain narrative being pushed down on society ever since 9/11. We've been shown that a certain boogeyman is out there and we must arm ourselves and fight this boogeyman. That we need to secure ourselves, etc. This sort of thinking automatically puts a barrier between humans and leads to all sorts of problems. The thing is, these problems are manufactured for the most part. Probably just like times of WW2 and Hitler. The ruling class's interests don't align with the average person's. Just like there was propaganda during Hitler's time against certain groups, we have it today as well.When do comparisons become foreshadowing?
Without even comparing things to Hitler, one can see that there has been a certain narrative being pushed down on society ever since 9/11. We've been shown that a certain boogeyman is out there and we must arm ourselves and fight this boogeyman. That we need to secure ourselves, etc. This sort of thinking automatically puts a barrier between humans and leads to all sorts of problems. The thing is, these problems are manufactured for the most part. Probably just like times of WW2 and Hitler. The ruling class's interests don't align with the average person's. Just like there was propaganda during Hitler's time against certain groups, we have it today as well.
People like Milo, Alex Jones and many others (alt-right media, etc) are constantly pushing fear propaganda. They want you to be scared of your fellow man. And of course this creates mistrust and thus even anger among people. That leads to rise of powerful ruling class elites in various forms - military, corporations, politics, etc.
All of that is happening right now.
We're talking about authoritarian power and the way that certain groups are treated rather than the other things that Hitler did.
The way the guy was signing these "Executive Orders" was like he was the ruler of the land and that was all there was to it. He didn't waste any time in showing his power.
Yeah, that's pretty standard MO for the U.S. since its inception. We've been demonizing those that aren't like use forever, not once has it lead to a Hitler moment.
Yes, first give the people the sense that there is a problem - whether real or not - and then offer them a way out of that problem.We haven't had quite the convergence of circumstance, propaganda & personality to make it possible. When we needed a charismatic personality at the top we got FDR. Other countries weren't so lucky.
Authoritarians generally exploit crisis. Without one they sputter like the Klan in the 20's. What's different about today is the well cultivated sense of crisis when there really isn't one. Trumpsters seem convinced that America is going to Hell in a hand basket when that's not really true at all. So they're willing to grant extraordinary leeway to the guy who convinced them that there is a crisis, Donald Trump.
Yes, first give the people the sense that there is a problem - whether real or not - and then offer them a way out of that problem.
The gullible sheep are then further frightened by the media which works together with the government/elites. This way, they look to leaders like Bush and Trump to solve their problems. Whether that means going to war or not, they want that problem solved and only their great leader will do that.
We need to remember that the media has played a key part in spreading the fear propaganda ever since 9/11.
Here's an argument I made concerning the sampling limitations of a study: http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...far-leftist-shot.2497550/page-8#post-38702259
Notice you predictably didn't understand it, predictable due to insufficient cognitive facilities plus insufficient recognition of the previous fact, then resorted to worthless blustering about some irrelevance. In fairness this is not unique to you and if anything rather ubiquitous among unlearned & incurious people. Facts and reason are evidently beyond them.
It's one of these facts that such people have been through a battery of educators who've suffered their traits, and therefore I have zero confidence that they can be taught, nor the inclination to in any case.