m308gunner

15 hours ago, Californication said:

Here is a breakdown of the money Ukraine was supposed to receive.

This is not an opinion piece these are facts.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/role-omb-withholding-ukrainian-aid

Facts don't care abouy your feelings.

Do people still listen to Ben Shapiro?

Welcome to VGS Jaden! Glad to have you.

2 minutes ago, Californication said:

Look,  I like Joe Rogan. I had the News Radio DVD set for years and rewatched all the old episodes, his newer stand up routines are solid, and who doesn't like him ring side.

Now as a political commentator, Joe Rogan is not up to par. His ratio of scumbag, loser political commentator guests to good political commentator guests is terrible. 

On top of that, this video is basically two millionaires many times over that want to protect their wealth and therefore a part of the republican party. Their goal is to convince Joe Rogans viewers why that is an acceptable thing to do.

 

Well to be fair Joe Rogan does not pretend to be a political commentator. He just invites people onto his show that he thinks would be interesting to talk to. I still think he's kind of a meat head, to be honest, but he does keep conversations going.

  Neither Scott nor Joe are republicans though. They're both residents of California and espouse some pretty far left policies. They've just made enough "F#@& You Money" (their words, not mine) in their entertainment careers that they feel more free to not adhere to a more easily defined political ideology/agendas. 

6 minutes ago, Californication said:

Thank you. That's all I ask.

Well played

Oh God, not until you mentioned it! Good times...

Just now, Californication said:

That guy definitely sniffs his own farts. 

Joe Rogan? Now I know why you are so confused.

  Truly your level of analysis is leaps and bounds beyond the common man. With such a well laid out argument I humbly prostrate myself before your considerable intellect and beg for mercy. 

19 hours ago, Californication said:

Tanooki, lets stay on point, you don't think it is a crime for the president to hold back money congress has appropriated, so he could use it as a negotiating chip, to get a personal benefit from a foreign country?

Really?

  I thought we already covered this point? A quick google search turned up a BBC article that seems pertinent to the subject at hand .

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42557818

 As to the "personal benefit", *shrugs* I've addressed that point multiple times, though obviously not to everyone's satisfaction.

On 12/26/2019 at 9:01 PM, Link said:

Ok, maybe I have misunderstood you after all. Sorry. 

Can you explain what you mean by this? I do agree that his own trolling, and needling and bullying are successful to his ends. I wouldn’t guess that he is convincing anyone or changing their mind, which is what I think persuasion is. (of course, we’ll never know about that for sure. since we can’t read them... ) 

Sorry, was busy with real life stuff for a few days there.

If you have 20 minutes of free time check out the video. Mr. Adams describes the persuasion game of Trump much better than I. 

Collect? No. But use? All the dang time. I will add that proper pre-heating is key to an effortless cleanup, depending on the meal being prepared. I cook eggs in mine all the time with no muss or fuss. It's practically non-stick at this point.

10 hours ago, Link said:

I’m not the arbiter of all humor. I am, however, the arbiter of what kind of debate I will engage in. And that does not include an opponent who wants to raise a point, but simultaneously discount that point by claiming he is only trolling. Trolling, announced or not, is not legitimate discussion, and to make a statement and also say ‘but ignore my statement’ is bad faith, intentional distraction, not respectable, or at best, wasting everyone’s time. That is why I said it’s not acceptable. If we are going to discuss then let’s do so. If you are going to poison the well, I won’t drink from it. 

It’s not prediction. It’s not speculation. It’s past, and numbers, and facts. Speaking of, nobody is trying to read The Donald’s mind here, no matter how many times you use that phrase. Most criticism of Teh President is response based on statements he has made and actions he has taken. 

 Then perhaps we should find a way to retroactively label this thread a debate, since for the most part it looks more like a conversation, to me at least. And considering the subject at hand (Trump) unless you want to have an aneurysm it is vital that one maintains some level of humor (which the left ironically has lost for all intents and purposes). I contest your characterization of my clearly labeled troll comment, especially now that I have explained it's point and meaning.

  I'll read the article again. It looks like I may not have understood it the first time.

  And there's PLENTY of evidence that Democrats (and a fair number of people in this thread) continue to try to read Trump's mind (and mine apparently). Go back and read some of my posts for context. Also, again, keep in mind that the way to read Trump is through the lens of persuasion. Until the Democrats stop treating Trump like the Republicans of old they will continue to hit the same wall, to their most likely 2020 decimation.

2 hours ago, Californication said:

This thread is starting to scare me. How many other Republicans in key states feel the same as M308, confident and energetic while being almost completely devoid of facts and reasoning. To think that his vote and others like them are allowed to vote ia frightening.

Republicans, Moderates and a few Democrats (if Scott Adams is to be believed). And your sophistic hand waving and poor characterization of the sum and total of what I have said in this thread is below the level of discourse we have been enjoying so far, Link's one point not withstanding.

19 hours ago, Lincoln said:

Friend got an early copy and he said I could share some pics. The package is super nice. I wasn't planning on getting myself but now I'm considering it.

 

*runs out to mailbox in vain hope that maybe Santa came late...*

Little Mermaid CIB, Mega Man 3 CIB, and TMNT CIB (admittedly after the newest Cinemasacre video :P).

What's old is new again. Welcome to VGS!

Wow! Welcome back. I always thought the second guy in from the front looked like Mr.Bean (Rowan Atkinson) with an afro

11 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:

What don't you get about me saying that no context makes this ok? Yes, context matters. Let me say again, no context makes this ok. This line of thinking is why women who are abused don't come forward. Men using their stature and status, like Harvey Weinstein for example. It's sickening. I'm glad you don't condone it, but for fucks sake, don't try to excuse it then. 

  Perhaps I am less inclined to an emotional state of mind, but from an objective standpoint if two adults engage in certain behaviors that may raise the eyebrows of the common man or woman, and neither party raises a red flag, we literally have no room to make a value judgement on it (depending on what kind of authoritarian or libertarian worldview one uses as their reference point). That would be scenario A, which is what Trump seems to be alluding to. You can claim that "no context makes this ok", but it is your subjective opinion and assumption that the situation matches a perceived model you seem to already be holding to. If one of them does raise the red flag (scenario B), then that is when people should start to take notice and move though the proper channels of law enforcement and the courts (of which Link was kind enough to provide a list of). No line of thinking another person holds is responsible for people coming or not coming forward. If you think I'm trying to excuse any behavior you would have to deliberately misinterpret my statements. Human interactions and psychology are far too complex for pat answers and mind reading.

16 hours ago, Link said:

I was re-reading posts to quote the passage relevant to above (regarding whether or not The President’s Rape Victims would or wouldn’t or should or couldn’t come forward).  It’s not quite brief enough of a back and forth to bother quoting each relevant line building to the question, but I think it’s plain enough for anyone who cares to do the same.

However, I did re-encounter this tidbit that I meant to respond to earlier, but lost in the morass: 

Which monstrosity is THAT to which you refer? And, please list some scandals and blunders of the last administration. If you choose the Affordable Care Act, explain what the problem is with the intent of the legislation.

And, yes, speaking as a humanist, punk, theoretical anarchist, I do trust the concept of government as it is structured in this country. God (who I don’t believe in) forgive me. I never did, until I noticed that the tea party in 2007 (and henceback the Republicans from Reagan on) were actively trying to destroy it in the name of “freedom” for pollution, industry, anti-worker, union-busting, privatizing, tycoons and stockbrokers and anybody they can buy off. That’s who is fucking everything up for the little guy, and the right wing is part and parcel of it, too happy to play along. And they are pulling the Democratic party in the same direction, not encountering a whole lot of resistance. 

BACK on topic (or not), I forget what I was watching recently, but I saw that one of the Eisenhower-Nixon campaign slogans promised to “clean up the mess in Washington.” I have mixed feelings about Ike. But it’s funny how people who say they’re gonna “drain the swamp” tend to get impeached. 

As much as I hate referencing Wikipedia, search for "List of federal political scandals in the United States". It gives a breakdown by administration and branch for all the scandals dating back to George Washington.

  The Affordable Care act's intention may have been decent. I say may, because I don't have the time and energy at the moment (with all the Christmas prep work) to delve into that subject in detail. The one issue I didn't appreciate was the mandate, but again, time is a factor.

  As far as the ideologies you follow... man that's a book's worth of posts to address. Not all bad, but not all good either (but that depends on how you define good and bad, or even if you subscribe to the notion that either exist ).

  As for draining the swamp and impeachment, I'm sure there are correlations, but it would require more in-depth analysis. Right off the bat though, the circumstances surrounding both impeachments are rather different, though the common factor you mentioned does lend one to think there's something to the swamp biting back.

18 hours ago, Link said:

I absolutely did not miss it, and I will not accept such hedging as a cue to ignore statements that I feel merit response. If you say something in a discussion of serious nature, I expect you to mean it. If you don’t mean it, don’t say it. Nothing in this thread implies it’s not serious. Disclaimers do not apply. “Jokes” don’t fly in this conversation. Not acceptable.

Are you saying he can persuade people he is improving the economy? Well, he can’t persuade me. Call it persuading if you want to. I think I will call it fooling. I see what’s going on. People struggle with health care, work 60+ hour weeks, depend on shit gig work. Meanwhile, the largest private employer in the country undermines economic structures across the country until they are the only game in town. The second largest works toward same, and forces conditions amounting to human rights abuse. I do deal in facts. I know some people are happy with what’s going on, and they’re either already extremely rich and/or powerful, or they ignore long term consequences, are shortsighted, and have no concern for future generations. Stock market is doing well, sure. It has chaotic, wild swings from time to time due to the president’s wacky behavior (this is not a good thing, fyi) but overall it’s well. That is but one aspect of the economy. Defense spending is up. That is another aspect. It is very good for defense contractors. Again, good for the rich and powerful. Not so good for others. And there are many other aspects of the economy which are not doing well. So how do you measure it? I look at numbers and facts. Did you read what I linked, or do you just want to get in a pissing contest that you could find contradicting statements if you felt like it? Read it. It’s not really assailable. Unless you throw all established standards in the garbage, which is, I suppose, again, standard M.O. for our very own Dear Leader, but it’s really fucking weird that conservatives are so happy to do exactly that. Just goes to show the true nature of their convictions, hey!

Good economies do not include opioid crises, mass incarceration, or gofundme campaigns just to pay the bills. We have all of those in good ol’ U.S.A. and they are not on the decline. I’ll forward you the memo.

I didn’t say you said they wouldn’t. I said you said they WOULD. And I said they DID. I’m pretty sure I do not misunderstand you at all. You might be misunderstanding me. 

 I wasn't aware you were the arbiter of humor, but just to be clear, you're not. If I want to inject some frivolity into the preceding that is my prerogative, just as apparently it's other people's prerogative to impose their own interpretations of my statements that do not reflect what I actually said. But I digress.

  And yes, Trump's main strength is in the art of persuasion, though one could characterize it as fooling. He seems to intuitively know what to say when and to whom for whatever effect he desires, for good or ill.

  I did read the article you linked to. And sure, things could turn out just as that article purports. Truth be told the intricacies of the economy are not in my wheel house. But you know what? Experts have been spelling out doom for the economy since before Trump took office, before his tax plan was signed, so color me cautious. 

  I'm not sure it's a good idea to lump all conservatives into a single group and characterize them the way you have, unless you're talking about "conservative" politicians, in which case, yeah, I'd say your closer to the truth than not.

  Regarding whether or not good economies include the things you mentioned, I think you'd first have to define what you consider a "good economy" and then pinpoint how you believe those issues are caused solely by economic factors and not societal/psychological/biological factors.

  Ok, so we're both saying the same thing. Good. Issue cleared up.

+1 on the scotch. Happy Birthday!

Just now, arch_8ngel said:

I saw your troll mode comment.  I am just taking the opportunity to clearly state the tragic level of cognitive dissonance that is in play when genuine whataboutism pops up in reference to Trump.

 

Ah, yes, point taken.

14 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

I am certainly not painting all Trump supporters with the brush of parroting the talking points, but there is undeniably a sizeable portion of his base that fall into that.

But do you honestly believe that your "viciously smart" coworkers are representative of the average Trump supporter?

 

That said, I agree that it is challenging to offer meaningful criticism of the guy that doesn't just seem to galvanize his base, that for whatever reason believe the man can do no wrong.

It is a pretty disturbing cult of personality that is in play, when you get down to it.

No, I don't believe my coworkers are representative of the average but I don't pretend to know if there is an "average Trump supporter" as it were. How do you even measure that?

  The cult of personality is one of Trumps most effective persuasion techniques, and I had hoped the Democrats and media would have learned that by now. They are literally making him stronger almost every day. As I mentioned early in this thread, they seriously dropped the ball by starting things out at "11". There's just nowhere to go after that, but since Trump keeps getting them (the media) clicks I'm not sure they care or are thinking ahead all that much.

6 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

Everytime I see a bullshit whataboutism pop up, I can't help but chuckle at the irony of knowing that the same people that apologize for Trump's behavior would have been apoplectic of Obama ever did anything remotely similar.

They made a whole thing out of the guy wearing a tan suit or using Dijon mustard.  Could you imagine what they would have done if he'd paid $100k to a pornstar as a cover-up during an election?

As I told Link, please refer to the *enters troll* notification. Maybe that means something different than I assumed it does?...

4 minutes ago, Link said:

What? You said if women don’t like his advances, surely they would have come forward by now, in the sharks-in-the-water environment, and I’m telling you they have indeed come forward. Many of them. 

1. I don’t give a shit about Clinton. I don’t like either one of them. Although I will say, Billy-boy did truly preside over a good economy, unlike The Donald whose assertions to that end are flat-out false. Here are some figures you can look at explaining this: https://www.pressreader.com/usa/chicago-tribune-sunday/20191222/281822875703281

2. Whatabout-ism is bullshit. Noting one person is guilty of same doesn’t mitigate the issues with the former. As long as went there, though, his count is 4. I think the donald is up to 26. Yes, compare sizes. He has the best numbers! 

3. You can stop shifting the goalposts any time now.

 I never said they wouldn't or couldn't or shouldn't. I'm not sure why you think I did. It seems like we're constantly misunderstanding each other. Not mad, just puzzled.

  I think you missed my *engage troll* notification at the beginning and end of that line. It was meant as tongue in cheek. 

  I'm sure I could dig up an article or two as well, but it seems like different people measure a good economy different ways. Keep in mind that Trump doesn't deal so much with facts as persuasion, and his persuasion game is strong economically. 

  As for whataboutism, I agree, it is bullshit. Now refer back to the "troll" notification.

  You can stop assuming facts not in evidence now.

2 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

If you don't think Trump (and the likes of Limbaugh) don't have influence over their supporters you should catch the call ins to right wing radio shows or read online comment sections....

There are legions of people that eat up whatever garbage these guys spew and repeat it verbatim.  

If they didn't have that kind of influence the wording would at least change a little bit to reflect more nuanced opinions.  But catch Rush on any given day and then watch Trump supporters online parrot the guy, word for word.

 

 

In terms of "we hired", that is a pretty bad misrepresentation of reality.  A fairly small subset of the country picked this guy in their primaries and he was set up against an abysmal candidate in the general election, leading more people to hold their nose and elect him.  But even then, by no stretch of the imagination did he ever have popular support.  So "we" didn't hire him. A strongly positioned minority hired him in the face of the worst second option that has ever graced a general election.

Some portion of that minority definitely hired him to be outrageous.

A much larger portion hired him out of spite for Hillary, and just hoped he would behave himself.

But most of us wished we had better options and didn't vote for him.

 

All I can say is I work for and with viciously smart people who are Trump supporters who hear opinions much like the ones I've seen in this thread and say "Boy they must really want to see a second term for Trump". 

  I thought I was being general enough with the "we hired" that you wouldn't feel the need to be so specific, but yes, what you said.

  And I LOLed at the bolded part.