Now that Trump has won...

[Gromdor]

1 hour ago, Glockornothing said:

Using our taxes to pay for natural world cycles that are now being categorized as man-made to justify the spending = crazy by the right.  Trying to make people prove they are actually a citizen when voting by showing an ID = crazy by the right. Making people earn citizenship the legal way instead of breaking the law = crazy by the right.  Making people get an education or look for jobs instead of perpetuating generational welfare entitlements =  crazy by the right. Sorry got off on a soap box, but some of these qualify as the bolded text above indicates.

 

10 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

You are preaching to the choir.  It's the Grand Hypocrisy of the Left in action.

Well, this time around we should have a Republican controlled house and senate, presidency, right leaning supreme court, and a majority of Republican controlled States.  The Grand Hypocrisy would be if they didn't do anything about it.  

[Thorvir]

8 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Well, this time around we should have a Republican controlled house and senate, presidency, right leaning supreme court, and a majority of Republican controlled States.  The Grand Hypocrisy would be if they didn't do anything about it.  

I agree.  We'll see if they actually enact change for once and fix this county, now that they've been given the power to do so.  If they don't, they'll lose their jobs just like the Democrats did and things will get even worse.

[Glockornothing]

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

 

Well, this time around we should have a Republican controlled house and senate, presidency, right leaning supreme court, and a majority of Republican controlled States.  The Grand Hypocrisy would be if they didn't do anything about it.  

We can only hope, imagine the riots that would ensue if there were limits put on welfare, if illegals were classified as actual illegals instead of undocumented and had to become legal according to the law, if voters had to prove who they were to actually vote, and low and behold if they actually determine no matter how much of my tax money is spent to try and change a natural world climate cycle it won't help. If this does actually happen because we have a Republican controlled house and senate, presidency, right leaning supreme court, and a majority of Republican controlled State, then we might want to ammo up, the left crazies will think it is the apocalypse.

[Thorvir]

2 minutes ago, Glockornothing said:

If this does actually happen because we have a Republican controlled house and senate, presidency, right leaning supreme court, and a majority of Republican controlled State, then we might want to ammo up, the left crazies will think it is the apocalypse.

For the longest time I have refuted this...we're all Americans and this country won't go that route.

However, after seeing the protesters and their rioting cousins, the threats, the hatred and the intolerance, I'm beginning to think that when I say "we're all Americans" it no longer applies to those people, and perhaps taking precautions like you mentioned might not be as far-fetched as I thought.

[Glockornothing]

4 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

For the longest time I have refuted this...we're all Americans and this country won't go that route.

However, after seeing the protesters and their rioting cousins, the threats, the hatred and the intolerance, I'm beginning to think that when I say "we're all Americans" it no longer applies to those people, and perhaps taking precautions like you mentioned might not be as far-fetched as I thought.

If we change their world as much as was promised by Trump, they will freak out worse than him beating Killary.  I foresee either they except the change (not likely), Trump backpedals (a possibility), or all hell will break loose and there will be a time period of chaos ( most likely) where its American against American, ideology vs ideology, left vs right, whatever the circumstance it will probably be violent.  Just being prepared is the only advice I can give, hopefully it turns out to be a totally different outcome that every American can live happily with. 

[Yamato]

2 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

Just giving away a multi million dollar career playing a game to risk putting ones life on the line on a battlefield was pretty damn brave,heroic,and courageous!

Unlike that sickening lil ceremony Obama had yesterday handing out "freedom medals" to hollywood elites ...

I mean those being the highest civilians awards shouldn't that go to doctors fighting the world menace known as cancer?scientist working on projects to make our world more clean and livable?The list goes on and on of much more deserving people for that award than Tom Hanks,Robert de Niro,and the rest of those ass clown hollywood stars!

Anyone wondering why Hillary didn't win look no further than that ceremony,Dems have become delusional when preaching about inequality and the 1% all the while strutting multi millionare hollywood stars to tell average people how they should vote...

It depends on what the troops are doing in the jungle, what the doctors are doing with the cancer, and so forth. 

If they're fighting communism in a midget country that has nothing to do with "national security", and if they're spreading the same old archaic and toxic treatments for cancer around like chemotherapy, radiation and drugs, or when too many "Leftists" are working to make our world more clean, then no, these might not be worthy candidates either.

You're right though, schmoozing with Hollywood elites does look petty and gross.   It's just politics though.   It's something for people who pay attention to politics to pay attention to.   He's trying to secure his legacy.  Playing to his base might give his fingerprints more staying power.

Who to give awards to.   I'd give a medal to Sully.   I think he already got one, but I'd give him a 2nd one before I'd give one to Tom Hanks.   What'd Tom Hanks really do himself in his own life?  Tom got Type 2 diabetes, and I hope he's smart enough to cure his own diabetes than take drugs prescribed by his doctor and have diabetes for-ever.  Heck I'd give him a sugar-free cupcake with a candle on it if he did that.  

I wouldn't turn my back on the arts though.   I'd give a real award to someone who wrote a story or created an original movie about something inspiring, informative, encouraging, uplifting, example setting, or morality raising.   Not the actors in the movie though, no matter how good the acting.

The best thing about Donald Trump winning is that Hillary Clinton isn't going to be President.   I see very few positive reasons to like him though, unfortunately.

 

[Glockornothing]

2 minutes ago, Yamato said:

It depends on what the troops are doing in the jungle, what the doctors are doing with the cancer, and so forth. 

If they're fighting communism in a midget country that has nothing to do with "national security", and if they're spreading the same old archaic and toxic treatments for cancer around like chemotherapy, radiation and drugs, or when too many "Leftists" are working to make our world more clean, then no, these might not be worthy candidates either.

You're right though, schmoozing with Hollywood elites does look petty and gross.   It's just politics though.   It's something for people who pay attention to politics to pay attention to.   He's trying to secure his legacy.  Playing to his base might give his fingerprints more staying power.

Who to give awards to.   I'd give a medal to Sully.   I think he already got one, but I'd give him a 2nd one before I'd give one to Tom Hanks.   What'd Tom Hanks really do himself in his own life?  Tom got Type 2 diabetes, and I hope he's smart enough to cure his own diabetes than take drugs prescribed by his doctor and have diabetes for-ever.  Heck I'd give him a sugar-free cupcake with a candle on it if he did that.  

I wouldn't turn my back on the arts though.   I'd give a real award to someone who wrote a story or created an original movie about something inspiring, informative, encouraging, uplifting, example setting, or morality raising.   Not the actors in the movie though, no matter how good the acting.

The best thing about Donald Trump winning is that Hillary Clinton isn't going to be President.   I see very few positive reasons to like him though, unfortunately.

 

AMEN to the bolded.

[CrimsonKing]

6 minutes ago, Yamato said:

It depends on what the troops are doing in the jungle, what the doctors are doing with the cancer, and so forth. 

If they're fighting communism in a midget country that has nothing to do with "national security", and if they're spreading the same old archaic and toxic treatments for cancer around like chemotherapy, radiation and drugs, or when too many "Leftists" are working to make our world more clean, then no, these might not be worthy candidates either.

You're right though, schmoozing with Hollywood elites does look petty and gross.   It's just politics though.   It's something for people who pay attention to politics to pay attention to.   He's trying to secure his legacy.  Playing to his base might give his fingerprints more staying power.

Who to give awards to.   I'd give a medal to Sully.   I think he already got one, but I'd give him a 2nd one before I'd give one to Tom Hanks.   What'd Tom Hanks really do himself in his own life?  Tom got Type 2 diabetes, and I hope he's smart enough to cure his own diabetes than take drugs prescribed by his doctor and have diabetes for-ever.  Heck I'd give him a sugar-free cupcake with a candle on it if he did that.  

I wouldn't turn my back on the arts though.   I'd give a real award to someone who wrote a story or created an original movie about something inspiring, informative, encouraging, uplifting, example setting, or morality raising.   Not the actors in the movie though, no matter how good the acting.

The best thing about Donald Trump winning is that Hillary Clinton isn't going to be President.   I see very few positive reasons to like him though, unfortunately.

 

I actually agree on all of that 

 

ETA

Except the part about what the troops are doing in the jungles...I always put that on the higher ups in charge,me and you have had that battle before and both know where we stand.Not far apart after a lengthy discussion lol

Edited November 24, 2016 by CrimsonKing
addition

[Glockornothing]

13 minutes ago, Yamato said:

It depends on what the troops are doing in the jungle, what the doctors are doing with the cancer, and so forth. 

If they're fighting communism in a midget country that has nothing to do with "national security", and if they're spreading the same old archaic and toxic treatments for cancer around like chemotherapy, radiation and drugs, or when too many "Leftists" are working to make our world more clean, then no, these might not be worthy candidates either.

You're right though, schmoozing with Hollywood elites does look petty and gross.   It's just politics though.   It's something for people who pay attention to politics to pay attention to.   He's trying to secure his legacy.  Playing to his base might give his fingerprints more staying power.

Who to give awards to.   I'd give a medal to Sully.   I think he already got one, but I'd give him a 2nd one before I'd give one to Tom Hanks.   What'd Tom Hanks really do himself in his own life?  Tom got Type 2 diabetes, and I hope he's smart enough to cure his own diabetes than take drugs prescribed by his doctor and have diabetes for-ever.  Heck I'd give him a sugar-free cupcake with a candle on it if he did that.  

I wouldn't turn my back on the arts though.   I'd give a real award to someone who wrote a story or created an original movie about something inspiring, informative, encouraging, uplifting, example setting, or morality raising.   Not the actors in the movie though, no matter how good the acting.

The best thing about Donald Trump winning is that Hillary Clinton isn't going to be President.   I see very few positive reasons to like him though, unfortunately.

 

Like Hillary’s America.  The creator Dinesh D’Souza should receive a lot of awards.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Glockornothing

[.ZZ.]

2 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I get your anger, but Trump might do better if he concentrated on unifying issues like the economy and the infrastructure instead of the wedge issues that divide us. That's not to say that he should ignore his campaign pledges. He can keep those promises in a pragmatic way. Concentrate on illegal immigrants who are criminals while not focusing on families who contribute. Vet refugees from locations with terrorist ties, but don't put all of them on a national registry. Restore our military and weapons to Cold War levels while seeking a *much* better relationship with Russia. Compromises likely have to be made due to a sense of priorities. That aside, my biggest disappointment is with the lack of focus on the Constitution.

I think we all have posted things late at night that look somewhat different the next day.

You and I are of a different generation and I've had more time to become bitter.

[Frank Merton]

2 minutes ago, -ZZ- said:

You wouldn't know a sincere thank you if it bit you in the butt.

A Communist preaching to me about propaganda, now that  is condescension.

You people are weird -- you would think after I just showed how attaching labels is propaganda, that you would find some other tactic, but you don't even do that.

[Yamato]

1 hour ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

For the longest time I have refuted this...we're all Americans and this country won't go that route.

However, after seeing the protesters and their rioting cousins, the threats, the hatred and the intolerance, I'm beginning to think that when I say "we're all Americans" it no longer applies to those people

There's a lot of hatred to go around and the They-hate-We-hate model isn't working.  

Now that Trump has won it boils down to whether we choose to hate and whether we let someone else's hatred determine our next move.   By focusing on hate it leads to a lot more hate, and that leads to a divided people which leads to a dysfunctional country, then a criminal, militant and violent country, and at the end of the big dumb rainbow, a tyrannical state.  

 

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Enough with the personal insults please folks - attack the argument, not the person making it.

There's far too much of this going on at the moment in the US politics board and it needs to stop.

[Harte]

10 hours ago, seax said:

Hello Harte,

Every time I come to this site you got someone ticked off with you...lol...and it is easy to do these days on this particular topic.  I have noticed here lately that when the left deems necessary it embraces religion and patriotism.  When they want to bring in more entitlement recipients to buy votes with...all of a sudden they are for human rights and tolerant ....the christian thing to do...or when someone is deferred and didn't have to go to Vietnam they are not patriotic...all the while ....they are burning the flag.  I'm loving it ...did you hear the new symbol for the Democrat party is a diaper safety pin?  Most around here prefer the pink little bear.

Hope you been well Harte...

seax

Very glad to see you again seax!  However, I don't think anyone's ticked off at me - at least not yet (and not in this thread!)

Sorry to disappoint.

Hope you hang around for a while this time.

Harte

[SHaYap]

I for one wants to officially thank PE Donald Trump and the AMerican people for giving the world more laughs and comedy for the next two to three decades at the very least ...

~

[Baz Dane]

1 hour ago, third_eye said:

I for one wants to officially thank PE Donald Trump and the AMerican people for giving the world more laughs and comedy for the next two to three decades at the very least ...

~

 

Agreed. Let's hope.

Because that is certainly much better than the wars, "regime changes", death and destruction for the next two to three decades that likely would have begun under a Hillary Clinton regime... at the very least.

[bee]

.

I said to my friend only last night -- 'imagine how BORING it would have been if Clinton had won' ... 

.

 

 

[Lilly]

1 hour ago, Lemieux said:

 

Agreed. Let's hope.

Because that is certainly much better than the wars, "regime changes", death and destruction for the next two to three decades that likely would have begun under a Hillary Clinton regime... at the very least.

People do tend to overlook the fact that Mrs Clinton is really not all that Liberal when it comes to international relations...she's very Hawkish actually. Despite the claims that 'Trump is dangerous' there's far more evidence to indicate that Clinton would have been much more likely to embroil us in 'regime changes' and out right war.

[aztek]

14 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

It was sarcasm. I'm not surprised that you missed it.

lol, yea i did miss it, but i'm glad i missed it, rather them you mean it.

[seax]

4 hours ago, Harte said:

Very glad to see you again seax!  However, I don't think anyone's ticked off at me - at least not yet (and not in this thread!)

Sorry to disappoint.

Hope you hang around for a while this time.

Harte

Sorry I should have read more of the post, I just figured someone was nitpicking Trump about deferment. I can't believe some of the stuff I'm hearing and do hope it is 'fake news' but some of this stuff going on you can't make it up.  I live in a Democrat cess pool county here...but Trump won here overwhelmingly in this county.  The news media (fake news media, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and sometimes FOX) have done a pretty good job making the majority the minority and vice versa.  Some of the companies have subsided to political cronyism and are really exceeding the envelope.  It's going to take a while to get this mess fixed and then won't entirely go away.  I'm afraid we are in for a rough ride....but we have had rough  rides before.  

Good to hear from you Harte, gonna stick around for a while and see if I can contribute to the cause.  Have a good Thanksgiving and give that new grandson of yours a turkey leg.  He can pound it on the table while taking a bite every now and then....Thanksgiving should be fun too.

seax

[aquatus1]

15 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

It was sarcasm. I'm not surprised that you missed it.

Poe's Law.

[aquatus1]

15 hours ago, Merc14 said:

You do agree he was born in 1941 I assume so do the math.  The height of Vietnam was 1967-1971, figure it out yourself and then explain how he was to old and BTW, being drafted wasn't the only way to get into the military.  

I haven't found a single article that claims that he wasn't too old for the draft when his number came up.  If you have found an article that claims he was, please present it.

Quote

This was YOUR argument/insult of Trump, not mine and it is a very old one in this day an age given that we haven't had a president since Reagan who served on active duty (Bush flew in the reserves).  *snip*

Argument, insult, pointing out of hypocrisy, yes, that is what it was, and you have not refuted it.  If a person is a star athlete in three sports in a military school, and they get a draft notice, pretending to suddenly come down with bone spurs after 4 deferments is hypocrisy.  I completely understand him not wanting to go to war, but that doesn't make what he did not hypocrisy.

Bernie never pretended he was anything other than a pacifist, he never pretended he needed to finish his schooling, he never pretended to be injured.  He straight up told the military expressly why he had no intention of being drafted, prior to his number being called.  That is not hypocrisy.

Quote

*snip* Reservists have been serving in combat regularly since 9/11 and account for a large number of our troops in hot spots around the world. *snip*

Yes, they have, and since they are not whom I specifically talked about, they have nothing to do with this.

Edited November 24, 2016 by aquatus1

[aquatus1]

12 hours ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

For the longest time I have refuted this...we're all Americans and this country won't go that route.

However, after seeing the protesters and their rioting cousins, the threats, the hatred and the intolerance, I'm beginning to think that when I say "we're all Americans" it no longer applies to those people, and perhaps taking precautions like you mentioned might not be as far-fetched as I thought.

And the slide down the slope continues...

[+DieChecker]

4 minutes ago, aquatus1 said:

And the slide down the slope continues...

I thought the "Slippery Slope" argument was a Fallacy....

Why, yes.... Yes it is...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Quote

This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fear mongering, in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience. 

 

[aquatus1]

32 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I thought the "Slippery Slope" argument was a Fallacy....

Why, yes.... Yes it is...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

A cliche is a cliche for a reason.  Just because something is sometimes used as a fallacy doesn't meant it is always a fallacy (such thought is a fallacy in and of itself).

What makes something a fallacy isn't its use, but rather how it is used.  When a pattern emerges, pointing out the pattern is hardly a fallacy.  This is all explained in the two sentences prior to the one you quoted from the wiki page ("Cherrypicking" is also a logical fallacy).

So, can you see a pattern here?

Edited November 24, 2016 by aquatus1