Jpowors

Not the new Donald Trump Presidency thread

56,819 posts in this topic

Just now, Carl Showalter said:

I mean, have you ever looked through Trump's twitter?  It is just a nonstop barrage of **** he sees or feels, every ******* day.  He tweets about what he sees on Fox.  He tweets anything somewhat glorifying him.  He tweets in anger whenever anything negative is approaching or reported on.  It is impulsive and obsessive.  It doesn't have to be anything more than that.  It doesn't mean he's trying to "make the left accuse Pelosi of siding with Republicans in the week before the hearing" as opposed to just impulsively tweeting as he has done for years and years.

Why does tweeting impulsively so much of the time make him incapable of tweeting with intent? I don't know anyone on the internet that posts impulsively 100% or 0% of the time, although I know a lot of trolls that don't want people to ever know to what extent any comment is meant to be genuine. You essentially have to assume he's incapable of meaningful effort on Twitter because most of the time he's bull****ting. Maybe he likes to ******** on Twitter, and also he's a functional human consciousness capable of learning and applying basic information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Serge said:

Why does tweeting impulsively so much of the time make him incapable of tweeting with intent? I don't know anyone on the internet that posts impulsively 100% or 0% of the time, although I know a lot of trolls that don't want people to ever know to what extent any comment is meant to be genuine. You essentially have to assume he's incapable of meaningful effort on Twitter because most of the time he's bull****ting. Maybe he likes to ******** on Twitter, and also he's a functional human consciousness capable of learning and applying basic information.

I'm not saying he's never capable of tweeting with intent.  I just think given his history and personality, it is always safer to assume (1) that he is tweeting impulsively and (2) that if he's tweeting with intent, it's likely a lot more simplistic intent than you are giving him credit for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mdrake34 said:

Remember the other day when you said a California couple was inspired by Northam to murder their newborn? 

No, I said they used the "Northam Option" which was tongue-in-cheek to make my infanticide point, which is basically what the couple did with their newborn. I want to believe Northam in no was supports couples murdering their babies.

But I love when you pop in and try to defend another Lemming from me. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

God you guys are so dishonest to make you false equivalency points.

Yes, and they cut jobs and or hours to do it. But you know for the Dems it's about appearance, not jobs.

Sanders said the campaign will limit the number of hours staffers work to 42 or 43 each week to ensure they're making the equivalent of $15 an hour.

Many campaign workers are salaried, so the problem lies in the fact that total campaign salaries, when calculated on a per-hour-worked basis, come out to less than $15 per hour. Many employees work around 60 hours per week — as is often typical for full-time workers on a presidential campaign.

For a staffer working 40 hours a week, [the typical campaign salary] comes out to about $17 an hour. But 40-hour workweeks on presidential campaigns are rare.

That Fox News article you quoted doesn't say they cut campaign jobs. Probably shouldn't accuse others of being dishonest when you're blatantly making **** up again. Also seems weird that your complaint here is that other campaigns don't do this since Sanders' staffers are paid more and have protected themselves from being overworked.

Likewise, the original CBA was $36,000 for 40 hours per week so they'd qualify for the campaign paying for 100% of their healthcare benefits. Various factors led that to not being the case, namely too many hours being worked, so they renegotiated the deal. The weekly hours were increased but capped, pay bumped up, and campaign will still pay for 100% of healthcare benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Carl Showalter said:

I'm not saying he's never capable of tweeting with intent.  I just think given his history and personality, it is always safer to assume (1) that he is tweeting impulsively and (2) that if he's tweeting with intent, it's likely a lot more simplistic intent than you are giving him credit for.

What's complicated about what I'm saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Psychic Gibbon said:

That Fox News article you quoted doesn't say they cut campaign jobs. Probably shouldn't accuse others of being dishonest when you're blatantly making **** up again. Also seems weird that your complaint here is that other campaigns don't do this since Sanders' staffers are paid more and have protected themselves from being overworked.

Likewise, the original CBA was to $36,000 for 40 hours per week so they'd qualify for the campaign paying for 100% of healthcare benefits. Various factors led that to not being the case, namely too many hours being worked, so they renegotiated the deal. The weekly hours were increased but capped, pay bumped up, and campaign will still pay for 100% of healthcare benefits.

Being dishonest again  That was the Mises Institute quoting a WaPo article.

Keep dreaming about unicorns and rainbows though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

No, I said they used the "Northam Option" which was tongue-in-cheek to make my infanticide point, which is basically what the couple did with their newborn. I want to believe Northam in no was supports couples murdering their babies.

But I love when you pop in and try to defend another Lemming from me. :D

Your "point" is perpetuating a false and dangerous story that doctors and nurses are murdering full term infants after they are born. All as a "tongue in cheek" jest to further you political beliefs. Even for you it's shameful and disgusting. 

If you ever get a break from spreading obvious lies here, I reccomend you visit the local neonatal ICU in your area where doctors and staff work around the clock to save infants, some weighing less than a pound. Observe them, then tell me if you think those same people would murder a full term infant. 

Better yet, tell them personally your "tongue in cheek" thoughts and see what they do. 

lostone, mdrake34, Carter and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Trump did or could have done this part entirely on purpose, but he's nourished a terrible instinct on the left to make something more complicated than it is so that Trump himself couldn't have thought of it. Now he's got to be either the biggest idiot in the world, or a genius whose every political move is driven by unknowable intent with a 5D chess move in mind. I don't think it's a coincidence that we learned to call that theory of his behavior "5D chess" instead of something that sounds more serious and believable about someone that doesn't appear to want people to think he's capable of thinking that far ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Serge said:

I don't think Trump did or could have done this part on purpose, but he's nourished a terrible instinct on the left to make something more complicated than it is so that Trump himself couldn't have thought of it. Now he's got to be either the biggest idiot in the world, or a genius whose every political move is driven by unknowable intent with a 5D chess move in mind. I don't think it's a coincidence that we learned to call that theory of his behavior "5D chess" instead of something that sounds more serious and believable about someone that doesn't appear to want people to think he's capable of thinking that far ahead.

I think Trump is the first president to truly understand our awful media and it's cycles in conjunction with social media. He was a reality TV star that's been tabloid fodder since the early 80s. He's very well versed in how trash media works and he's exploiting it. 

Billy Ocean and Serge like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

Your "point" is perpetuating a false and dangerous story that doctors and nurses are murdering full term infants after they are born. All as a "tongue in cheek" jest to further you political beliefs. Even for you it's shameful and disgusting. 

If you ever get a break from spreading obvious lies here, I reccomend you visit the local neonatal ICU in your area where doctors and staff work around the clock to save infants, some weighing less than a pound. Observe them, then tell me if you think those same people would murder a full term infant. 

Better yet, tell them personally your "tongue in cheek" thoughts and see what they do. 

No serious argument is comparing non-abortion clinic NICU staff to murderers.  But...

"What is the MORAL distinction between this and late-term abortion? 

It's a valid question since every single Democrat candidate supports late term abortion, right up to the moment of birth. 

I understand the legal, physical, and medical distinctions. What is the MORAL distinction?"

https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/politics/california-couple-kill-their-baby-in-the-hospital-right-after-its-born--question/84491808/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

I think Trump is the first president to truly understand our awful media and it's cycles in conjunction with social media. He was a reality TV star that's been tabloid fodder since the early 80s. He's very well versed in how trash media works and he's exploiting it. 

I was thinking he is just an *******.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

I think Trump is the first president to truly understand our awful media and it's cycles in conjunction with social media. He was a reality TV star that's been tabloid fodder since the early 80s. He's very well versed in how trash media works and he's exploiting it. 

That's what I'm saying. He wouldn't need to be a genius; he'd need to be someone that's lived and breathed American media for most of his adult life.

Gritzblitz 2.0 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Red&Black said:

No serious argument is comparing non-abortion clinic NICU staff to murderers.  But...

"What is the MORAL distinction between this and late-term abortion? 

It's a valid question since every single Democrat candidate supports late term abortion, right up to the moment of birth. 

I understand the legal, physical, and medical distinctions. What is the MORAL distinction?"

https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/politics/california-couple-kill-their-baby-in-the-hospital-right-after-its-born--question/84491808/

The number of physicians that will perform an elective late term abortion is virtually non-existent. I have been a healthcare professional for 20 years and I have yet to meet one. 

But it's being promoted by some as a routine thing, which it certainly is not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

The number of physicians that will perform an elective late term abortion is virtually non-existent. I have been a healthcare professional for 20 years and I have yet to meet one. 

But it's being promoted by some as a routine thing, which it certainly is not. 

Well I am relieved that this isn't routine, and will now view media commentary as scare tactics.  But much of the time the questions asked of Dems are hypothetical, and they dive into it with agreement.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

Your "point" is perpetuating a false and dangerous story that doctors and nurses are murdering full term infants after they are born. All as a "tongue in cheek" jest to further you political beliefs. Even for you it's shameful and disgusting. 

If you ever get a break from spreading obvious lies here, I reccomend you visit the local neonatal ICU in your area where doctors and staff work around the clock to save infants, some weighing less than a pound. Observe them, then tell me if you think those same people would murder a full term infant. 

Better yet, tell them personally your "tongue in cheek" thoughts and see what they do. 

This entire statement is s false equivalency/bad/faith and addressing it properly dies not fall within my purview.

Also, I never said doctor's or nurses were doing this...nice lie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Being dishonest again  That was the Mises Institute quoting a WaPo article.

Keep dreaming about unicorns and rainbows though.

First thing that popped up when I googled it was a Fox News article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Red&Black said:

No serious argument is comparing non-abortion clinic NICU staff to murderers.  But...

"What is the MORAL distinction between this and late-term abortion? 

It's a valid question since every single Democrat candidate supports late term abortion, right up to the moment of birth. 

I understand the legal, physical, and medical distinctions. What is the MORAL distinction?"

https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/politics/california-couple-kill-their-baby-in-the-hospital-right-after-its-born--question/84491808/

... You're citing an LSU forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Red&Black said:

Well I am relieved that this isn't routine, and will now view media commentary as scare tactics.  But much of the time the questions asked of Dems are hypothetical, and they dive into it with agreement.  

It's much the same as gun rights supporters look at any form of gun control. They are afraid of the slippery slope that making any concessions could cause, which I think is dumb. 

Democrats could come out against third trimester abortions and most would have little problem with it, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

First thing that popped up when I googled it was a Fox News article.

That's your problem, not mine, but you know let's keep up that Fox is the enemy therefore it must be them who said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

This entire statement is s false equivalency/bad/faith and addressing it properly dies not fall within my purview.

Also, I never said doctor's or nurses were doing this...nice lie

Says the guy who makes "tongue in cheek" remarks about newborns being strangled just to advance his political football a yard down the field. 

mdrake34 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

That's your problem, not mine, but you know let's keep up that Fox is the enemy therefore it must be them who said it.

Didn't say Fox was the enemy. Said you were a dumb*** for posting something that contradicts your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

Says the guy who makes "tongue in cheek" remarks about newborns being strangled just to advance his political football a yard down the field. 

Yeah, after that, no one should take him seriously anymore.

I've already written him off as a cheerleading kook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now