DMC Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Altherion said: Actually, given that under all but the most extreme (and completely unproven) scenarios, he has not done anything at all that would warrant an impeachment LOL No. His trade policy is worthy of impeachment. His immigration policy is worthy of conviction. And his rhetoric is worthy of immolation. Plus then there's all the, ya know, actual crimes he's either being investigated, sued, or exposed for blatantly doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoodedCrow Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 How about allegedly using the Trump foundation charity to self deal, (money to his own businesses), pay for coordinated political campaign, pay legal costs for lawsuits against himself, use supposed donations to himself as tax dodges, and purchase a huge self portrait? That is all beside the treason and imposing sanctions to upset allies under the guise of national security...because Putin likes it? Should we all set up charities to avoid paying taxes, and legal fees? I guess it’s okay if Trump declares himself a sincerely held religion. Wait for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweetPea Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 10 hours ago, Relic said: I'm just going to repost this cuz i want to see how the Trump supporters here justify it. Trump Jan 30 2018 - "But no regime has oppressed its own citizens more totally or brutally than the cruel dictatorship in North Korea." Trump June 15th 2018 - Salutes North Korean general. Says Kim "loves his people". Too bad you're not the president. I'm sure your method of starting the summit by saying "Hey Kim you fucking asshole, you're abusing your own people and you're a horrrible dictator so fuck you!!!" would achieve peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 10 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said: I guess it’s okay if Trump declares himself a sincerely held religion. Wait for it. Don't give him post-office ideas. This is entirely plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Don’t forget all the sexual assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said: Don’t forget all the sexual assault. 31 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said: exposed for blatantly doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoodedCrow Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Well, GOP supporters don’t seem to mind misogynistic crimes. As for religion, have you seen the paintings done to show Trump in Christ like poses? Who buys this stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 21 minutes ago, SweetPea said: Too bad you're not the president. I'm sure your method of starting the summit by saying "Hey Kim you fucking asshole, you're abusing your own people and you're a horrrible dictator so fuck you!!!" would achieve peace. So, the answer appears to be 'a pretty terrible attempt at sarcasm'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 14 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said: Yeah my reading part of brain no work the good today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 8 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said: Well, GOP supporters don’t seem to mind misogynistic crimes. As for religion, have you seen the paintings done to show Trump in Christ like poses? Who buys this stuff? Probably the same people who think Jesus actually looked like the popular depiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 8 minutes ago, La Albearceleste said: So, the answer appears to be 'a pretty terrible attempt at sarcasm'. And the pathetic attempt ignores what the orange dumbster said about the people at the G7 in Canada -- about the prime minister of Canada,. which he ran out early from because his buddy Putin to suck up to the dictator of NK. What he's doing is corrupt, criminal and every other crime one can think of. BUT! beyond all that, what he is doing is treason. He's destroying the autonomy and law of the USA.\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Is there any chance America could be kicked from the G7? I'd cheer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoodedCrow Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Stormy Daniels was perhaps a spiritual Demi goddess wife, and Saintly Melania didn’t mind. Cohen and Manafort are prophets for the New Way to Deal. There will be The Ivanka and her cherubs as the special bloodline. By the way, has anyone seen “Going Clear”? It’s a horror/documentary movie on how it’s done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 My last post on racism, as I am sure you all remember, fell upon the board like a thunderbolt from Olympian Zeus and occasioned many squawks of liberal dismay. However, as was justly noted, the analysis was far from complete, constrained as I was by the fact no one likes an overlong post. So, in what follows, and perhaps in posts subsequent to this one, the logic of the conservative and progressive idea of racism will be explored further. We originally said that the progressive believes racism to be the display of any preference or favouritism for one’s own ethnic group but on further reflection it was revealed that this was not the full state of the case. The progressive’s opposition to ethnic preference is only a means to the destruction of what he sees as the historic and still prevailing power structure in the western world. For the progressive’s Marxist forefathers the dominant class was the bourgeoisie; for the present day liberal his foe is the white man, the purveyor of the white supremacy. In the progressive’s mind the white man sits at the apex of a hierarchy of oppression, his dominance exerted over those with different ethnicities and genders. He has oppressed the African-Americans for generations; he has oppressed females for much longer. His position of power affords economic benefits and intangible but all important ‘cultural’ advantages. I use the term ‘cultural advantages’ as the best shorthand for what follows, namely the inestimable benefit of living in a society, and among a set of institutions passed down by one’s ancestors, instinctively understood, the rules and particularities of which are adapted and even to a degree designed for one’s use. Often, when confronted with the idea that a great influx of newcomers alters the culture of a nation the progressive will plaintively bleat that he doesn’t know what this means but he clearly does understand the situation in reverse. He believes the culture and institutions of the country (in the west, anyway) are suited for the dominant ethnic (and religious) group but disadvantage (he thinks) other groups. So, the progressive pants at the thought of abolishing this supposed system of dominance and to do so he needs to uproot its foundations. The surest way of achieving this is to destroy the old ethnic and religious bloc. In the case of the United States it is best, in his view, if there are proportionately fewer white males and fewer Christians, because these represent the dominant class of the country. Mass immigration and diversity must be favoured; Christianity must be sedulously attacked. Moreover, a new administrative class, a canting priesthood, populated by liberals, must be set up and from all the universities enforce the creed that any opposition to the progressive’s identity politics arrives at unspeakable evil. It will be clear from the above that what the progressive aims at is very far removed from the classical liberalism of Locke, or even liberalism as a political creed, usually understood. The progressive is ideological, schematic, quasi-revolutionary. At some level he likely does believe in the basic presumptions of a more classical liberalism; he believes that society can be founded on a rational contract (Rawls), but he also supposes the current ethnic and religious majority are too sunken in their bigotry to behave rationally. He might also prefer to see society as a mass of atomized individuals, trading a certain amount of liberty for security and the benefits of cooperation (this maybe how he conceives himself, personally) but his belief in the need to overcome white supremacy leads him to suppose ethnic groupings are also in some sense the fundamental units of political analysis. The next post, should it be produced, will focus on the progressive's ideal end state and reveal how he conceives a future in which his ideas succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said: Is there any chance America could be kicked from the G7? I'd cheer. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 15 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said: No. Perhaps you forgot whom we have parked in the Oval Office. Saying something can't happen is extremely dangerous where that one is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 2 hours ago, DMBouazizi said: LOL No. His trade policy is worthy of impeachment. His immigration policy is worthy of conviction. And his rhetoric is worthy of immolation. Plus then there's all the, ya know, actual crimes he's either being investigated, sued, or exposed for blatantly doing. Luckily for him, neither trade policy nor immigration policy nor rhetoric is grounds for anything except outraged whining by opposing politicians and the media. Actual crimes would matter... but constantly saying that he committed them does not amount to evidence no matter how long it is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, Altherion said: Luckily for him, neither trade policy nor immigration policy nor rhetoric is grounds for anything except outraged whining by opposing politicians and the media. Actual crimes would matter... but constantly saying that he committed them does not amount to evidence no matter how long it is done. Um, yes they would. Look at the articles of impeachment for Johnson and Nixon. As usual, you're incredibly wrong and misinformed. And unless all of this turns out miraculously, there's a far better obstruction case for Trump than ever was for Clinton, let alone extortion and sexual assault (and tax evasion, emoluments violations, tax fraud with the Trump Foundation, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 12 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said: Um, yes they would. Look at the articles of impeachment for Johnson and Nixon. As usual, you're incredibly wrong and misinformed. And unless all of this turns out miraculously, there's a far better obstruction case for Trump than ever was for Clinton, let alone extortion and sexual assault (and tax evasion, emoluments violations, tax fraud with the Trump Foundation, etc.). Johnson got into a tussle with Congress over cabinet appointments and very nearly lost. Nixon actually committed a crime and there was hard evidence for this (far more than there is against Trump). The articles of impeachment tacked on a whole bunch of other stuff, but there has never been an impeachment over such stuff in and of itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoodedCrow Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 Nixon didn’t actually commit the burglary. It was the obstruction of justice that made him resign, with an immediate pardon by his chosen successor. Trump brags about his intentions to manipulate the justice system openly and publically. His PR people say he can’t have committed a crime because he is the President. Are you okay with that? Are you also okay with tax fraud? “I didn’t know what I was signing”. How about having a charity with no oversight, and money trails that lead to specific events, with witnesses, or do you think NY State officials are making it all up? Still down with Canada being a security risk, so Trump can set trade policy? A security risk is what King Trump says it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.