Your Preferred Presidential Candidate for 2020?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bowser, Feb 27, 2017.

  1. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,874
    Uhm... no?

    https://thinkprogress.org/on-his-first-day-in-office-trump-broke-34-promises-683c957286dc#.1jb4luwq4

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...use-immigration-drain-the-swamp-a7542706.html

    and plenty more:

    https://www.google.com/#q=what promises has trump broken

    So... no, Wellwisher, you are, once again, LYING... do you not recall that dishonesty is against forum rules?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,149
    Well, he is a Trump-supporting conservative; lying sort of comes with the territory.

    Nowadays to support Trump you have to believe things that have nothing to do with reality, like all terrorism in the US comes from the countries listed in the travel ban, or that vaccines cause autism, or that his inauguration had the largest crowds ever, or that Russia had nothing to do with Trump's success. After doing that for a while your ability to tell fact from fiction becomes pretty damaged.
     
    Kittamaru and exchemist like this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,874
    I had hoped to give people the benefit of the doubt... but the few Trump supporters I've run into seem utterly brainwashed, to the point that I'd recommend they be committed for their own safety if nothing else...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,882
    Yes you have, and you have been played by those con artists for decades.

    Please for once, to that.

    Well for starters, no one has said everything thing Trump does is wrong. I'm sure he can toilet himself and eat well.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You are making a blanket straw man argument, i.e. a fallacious argument.

    Fake news is all you have and after decades of right wing entertainment it has become the trademark of the American right wing. Trump has defined any media he doesn't like as fake media. Just because the American right wing doesn't like the truth and the media outlets which report the truth, it doesn't make them fake media. The mainstream non partisan media isn't "fake media.

    For your edification:

    Fake news websites (also referred to as hoax news[1][2]) deliberately publish hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation purporting to be real news — often using social media to drive web traffic and amplify their effect.[3][4][5] Unlike news satire, fake news websites seek to mislead, rather than entertain, readers for financial, political, or other gain.[6][4] Such sites have promoted political falsehoods[when?] in Germany,[7][8] Indonesia and the Philippines,[9] Sweden,[10][11] Myanmar,[12] and the United States.[13][14][15] Many sites originate, or are promoted, from Russia,[3][13][16] Macedonia,[17][18] Romania,[19] and the U.S.[20][21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_website

    The fact is Republicans benefited far more from fake news in the 2016 election than did Democrats.

    "known false news stories that appeared in the three months before the election, those favoring Trump were shared a total of 30 million times on Facebook, while those favoring Clinton were shared eight million times;" https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fakenews.pdf

    Unfortunately for you and your Republican cohorts just because you don't like the truth, it doesn't follow that those organizations which report the truth are "fake news".


    That's why most Americans voted for Hillary Clinton and not your man, The Donald.

    As previously noted, those on the left didn't fall for the scam. Republicans did.

    Then where are his tax returns? How does he resolve his contradictory campaign promises? Trump has promised to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure spending? He has promised a 12 trillion dollar plus tax cut over the course of 10 years. He has promised to spend an additional hundred million dollars a year on defense? He has promised to repeal Obamacare, which that alone will add 300 billion dollars to the debt. And he has promised to cut the debt. His numbers don't add up. Even a grade school student can see his numbers don't add up.

    If you take Trump at his word, he will add 2.5 trillion dollars in annual spending without raising revenues and cut the debt at the same time. Now who is gullible to believe that nonsense? Republicans are; Democrats, to their credit, aren't buying it.

    And then there are all the other campaign promises Trump reneged on day one. His wall has become maybe a fence. His promise to label China a currency manipulator on day one has been forgotten.

    Trump's promise to use the "One China Policy" as a negotiating tool to get better trade deals with China quickly faded away. Trump has since recognized the "One China Policy" without getting a single concession from China on anything. There are a host of campaign promises Trump broke on day one and continues to break. But you have to have your eyes and ears open to see them. You have to venture outside your right wing entertainment bubble to hear and see them.

    Trump is the least honest president we have seen since the dawn of the nation. That's what the data shows. That's what the facts prove.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2017
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,334
    You are leaving out one of the best: that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to damage the US economy.

    By the way, I chuckled to see that Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has surfaced again, after almost a decade, with this new conspiracy theory. I still recall the incredulity with which his BBC interviewer reacted, when Ebell solemnly told him that climate change was a hoax perpetrated by the EU to damage the US economy.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,887
    Yoda is not a muppet. I've never seen Tulsi Gabbard, even on screen.
     
  10. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,874
    In the original Star Wars, Yoda was, in fact, a creature, not a muppet (as is commonly thought) -

    http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Yoda
    TIL!
     
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,260
    Background: Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) is a twice-deployed combat veteran who has served as the United States Representative for Hawaiʻi's 2nd congressional district since 2013. As a member of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard was invited by former Congressman and Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich to travel to Lebanon and Syria on a fact-finding trip organized by the Arab American Community Center for Economic and Social Services (AACCESS)–Ohio. The 7-day trip was approved by the House Ethics Committee, as required by House rules, and was not taxpayer funded. The trip included visits to Aleppo, Damascus, and Beirut from January 14-22, 2017. Other members of the delegation included Dennis Kucinich's wife, longtime peace advocates Elie and Bassam Khawam, and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's husband, Abraham Williams.

    Earlier this year, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act (H.R.608), legislation that would prohibit U.S. government funds from being used to support al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups. In the same way that Congress passed the Boland Amendment to prohibit the funding and support to CIA backed-Nicaraguan Contras during the 1980’s, this bill would stop CIA or other Federal government activities in places like Syria by ensuring U.S. funds are not used to support al-Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, ISIS, or other terrorist groups working with them. It would also prohibit the Federal government from funding assistance to countries that are directly or indirectly supporting those terrorist groups. The bill achieves this by:

    1. Making it illegal for any U.S. Federal government funds to be used to provide assistance covered in this bill to terrorists. The assistance covered includes weapons, munitions, weapons platforms, intelligence, logistics, training, and cash.
    2. Making it illegal for the U.S. government to provide assistance covered in the bill to any nation that has given or continues to give such assistance to terrorists.
    3. Requiring the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to determine the individual and groups that should be considered terrorists, for the purposes of this bill, by determining: (a) the individuals and groups that are associated with, affiliated with, adherents to or cooperating with al-Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, or ISIS; (b) the countries that are providing assistance covered in this bill to those individuals or groups.
    4. Requiring the DNI to review and update the list of countries and groups to which assistance is prohibited every six months, in consultation with the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees, as well as the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
    5. Requiring the DNI to brief Congress on the determinations.
     
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,260
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,882
    Do you have any experience the US is supporting terrorists groups today?
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,887
    The bill would make it illegal for the US to provide any money, military training, or weapons to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Philippines, or its major drug war allies in Central or South America.

    Not saying I think this would be altogether bad - just saying it isn't going to happen. Especially not under a Trump administration.
     
  15. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,477
    Yeah love her, no more "nation building" she is right now trying to arrange an agreement with Assad so we can leave Syria to the Syrians so they have no one to blame but each other (and Russia).

    So obtuse, do you have a problem with her or not?
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,887
    Dunno. Doubt it - I would certainly vote for her over any Republican candidate for any political office, if that's your question.
     
  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,477
    Fair enough, could have said that the begin with.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,887
    I did. Post #2 in this thread.
     
  19. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,260
    I suspect that the libertarian wing of the republican party would support this bill.
    Your thoughts?
     
  20. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,477
    There is no libertarian wing, all republicans are clones of Reagan, don't you know?

    Part of the reason trump won was he claimed to not be a warhawk and openly attacked previous republican support for iraq.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,887
    There is no libertarian wing of the Republican Party in Congress (bloc votes on abortion, drug laws, prison expansions, immigration, Homeland Security, ID provisions, militarized police, etc). And there is no wing of the Republican Party that would support cutting off Israel and Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Egypt and Yemen and the Philippines and Pakistan the US allies in SE Asia, SubSasharan Africa, and South or Central America, from the US military/industrial complex and its goodies.

    So support for it will depend on their not understanding its implications, sharply restricting its actual scope to the point of ineffectuality, or assuming conveniently capricious and inconsistent enforcement of a largely symbolic measure not intended to be a real law with real world effects

    - and here I think you may be right: line up the Republicans who voted to enable lawsuits against Saudi Arabia for 9/11, say,
    or came out in support of this guy http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-grand-dragon-of-tribe-that-rubs.html while seeing no implications for their anti-terrorist legislation

    and are looking for this year's fashion statement in Shitheap Toupees. That's no small number of votes. This guy's probably on board, for example - if you are curious about what happened to whatever fringe of "libertarian" ever actually existed in the Republican Party, take a look at Ron Paul's successor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Weber

    I doubt Ryan will let it out of committee without carefully hamstringing it, though - it would be attractive to him as an additional leash on Bannon, but dangerous withal.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2017
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,260
    gee darn

    .......................
    Rand Paul?

    and:
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2017
  23. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,477
    Do you want me to do further impressions of iceaura, I will need money.
     

Share This Page