@Paulo I get my news from memes, bbc, cnn, fox, facebook, twitter, nyspeed, dailywire, reuters and a whole bunch of other searching. Most of the time lately I’ll see a super spicy Trump meme and go, “holy shit, is that true?” and start researching it. More often than not it is true and it’s just one more thing the MSM might have covered in an article but then failed to ever promote that article so people would actually see it without having to specifically search for it through google.
Now, how about you get back to answering @lz, with an original thought from your own mind, not some MSM headline or deflection about “Trump supports the nazis!”.
I do the same. The difference is that I just don’t care about their bias when I get into this thread. We all know it’s there so don’t let it distract from real discussion with people across the spectrum. I started this thread because I want counterbalance to that very obvious bias and I’ve certainly listened to the people in this thread before which helped me understand the true meaning of articles and stories. I want to stress this point: I actively seek out opposing views from you guys. I WANT to hear what you think. Usually when I try to provide perspective from the other side I get attacked for ‘regurgitating MSM headlines’. We have to do our research and form our own opinions. The vast majority of the country will discuss politics less in their entire lives than we have in this thread alone but this thread isn’t about that.
Now, how about you get back to answering @lz, with an original thought from your own mind, not some MSM headline or deflection about “Trump supports the nazis!”.
I’d be happy to. If you’ll listen.
Fuck no don’t limit the 1st amendment. The reason I stopped responding to him was because we went through it earlier on, so it was pointless.
Not once did I say or think that the counter-protesters showing up aggressively was a good idea. AntiFa has made it their mission to escalate things and that’s absolutely retarded. My argument was in defense of the idea of simply wanting to counter-protest. The vast majority of the counter-protesters were not bad people for wanting to provide a voice against NAZIS AND WHITE SUPREMACISTS. We already agree that the best response was a calm show of numbers (short of ignoring them completely, but since they were getting attention anyway…) I have doubts as to what sparked the escalation, but I wasn’t there.
An effective solution? Fuck if I know. No one in this thread will. But the president simply did not offer a strong opposition to groups of nazis. Despite him not actually trying to encourage them, he is. They were validated by that press conference and they even said that publicly. Do you feel differently about the press conference at Trump tower? To me, the ‘official’ statements from before were null once that happened and it was just a really strange thing to watch. I wanted Trump to take as strong a position on neo-nazis as he did with NK.
Those are my thoughts, Jay. Think you can discuss them without dismissing my viewpoint as the product of a couple brain cells from a leftist’s brain?
Paulo, i for one appreciate your perspective even though i dont agree. sometimes i look back at my post and i feel a little too far to the right.
Also, if Bannon is gone then i would say this is worrying just for continuity’s sake.
who is even left now?
flip side… man that’s a lot of savings by trimming the cabinet and not even appointing like what… 300 people to various positions that remain unfilled?
Did you actually READ the transcript, the full thing, or just the out of context parts the media reported on? I posted a link to the full thing and no I don’t have a problem with what Trump said. Basically he said there were terrible people on both sides and both sides are responsible for the violence. He condemned both sides for their actions as he should.
What I don’t know, and neither do you, is what percentage of each side was truly terrible people. There were definitely some hardcore white supremacists and hardcore antifa/blm bat swingers there because we’ve all seen the videos. There was one kid from OH who decided to ram his car into a crowd and he was definitely from the right and he’s now being handled by the criminal justice system as he should. I’m guessing there were also plenty of right wing and left wing people who weren’t racists as well but the media is only going to show us what they want us to see. I do know the first night of the protests with the torch march to the statue when the police showed up and asked the torch carrying right wingers to leave the did so and no buildings/cop cars/people were torched which is more than I can say for pretty much any BLM/Antifa protest that the police try to break up. So I don’t think those were all hardcore people in that march.
We can agree on this, Trump should have strongly condemned them the day it happened. I would have been fine with him even strongly condemning both sides. If he came out and said, “we have no place in this country for violent white supremacists, violent antifa, violent nazis or violent black lives matter” would that have been ok with you? I doubt it because you seem to think yelling, “what do went want, dead cops, when do we want it, NOW” is no where near as bad as “what do we want, dead jews/blacks, when do we want it, NOW”. For me there’s no place for either and they’re equally as bad. Actually, I shouldn’t say there’s no place because in a country with true freedom of speech there is a place for ugly racist speech. There’s also a place for speech to peacefully counter it and there’s a place for anything that moves beyond ugly ideas to specific incitement in our criminal justice system. What there’s absolutely no room for is the day our 1st Amendment only protects speech the general population at the time deems moral or politically correct. There was a time not that long ago when the majority in this country thought blacks were worth 3/5th of a white. Should we have violently shut down anyone who wanted to argue otherwise?
Replace MSM and Hillary with Trump and that entire paragraph describes yourself.
Remember when I said you don’t talk about current events. You simply talk about whatever the left-biased media wants you to talk about and you’re their little puppet? Hey puppet, how come you haven’t mentioned Russia in a week? Oh, suddenly it’s not a “current” event anymore. 2 weeks ago it was somehow big news and worthy of a discussion, lol. You’re a lemming.
I know you do. :tup: It’s apparent in the way you carry on with the discussion and add your perspective instead of attacking people for theirs. I had hoped more people on this site would be like that.
I’ll be honest, your comments have really surprised me at times but I’ve never thought to dismiss your opinions.
You’re hilarious. :lol: The difference is that talking about the sitting president is actually relevant.
Hey, remember when you got upset when I jokingly called you a snowflake? Feel free to attack me all you want, I won’t return the favor. Just try to add something to the discussion next time.
I watched the entire thing. Which gives you a lot more than reading the transcript because his demeanor really added to what pissed people off.
What I don’t know, and neither do you, is what percentage of each side was truly terrible people. There were definitely some hardcore white supremacists and hardcore antifa/blm bat swingers there because we’ve all seen the videos. There was one kid from OH who decided to ram his car into a crowd and he was definitely from the right and he’s now being handled by the criminal justice system as he should. I’m guessing there were also plenty of right wing and left wing people who weren’t racists as well but the media is only going to show us what they want us to see. I do know the first night of the protests with the torch march to the statue when the police showed up and asked the torch carrying right wingers to leave the did so and no buildings/cop cars/people were torched which is more than I can say for pretty much any BLM/Antifa protest that the police try to break up. So I don’t think those were all hardcore people in that march.
We can agree on this, Trump should have strongly condemned them the day it happened. I would have been fine with him even strongly condemning both sides. If he came out and said, “we have no place in this country for violent white supremacists, violent antifa, violent nazis or violent black lives matter” would that have been ok with you?
As a matter of fact, it would have. And he wouldn’t be riding out this this bad of a shit storm if he had at least done that. (Added ‘this bad of a’ because the media still would have went nuts, it just wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the traction or fallout as what is currently happening.) Don’t get me wrong, people would have still complained but I would have defended his statement if it were a strong condemnation instead of what he actually did.
I doubt it because you seem to think yelling, “what do went want, dead cops, when do we want it, NOW” is no where near as bad as “what do we want, dead jews/blacks, when do we want it, NOW”.
If you want to know what I think, just ask. Don’t be ridiculous. I don’t accuse you of being a white supremacist just because of the retards on the street affiliating themselves with the GOP.
For me there’s no place for either and they’re equally as bad.
The violence from either, absolutely. Can you see why counter protesters wanted to be there to provide a voice against neo-nazis, though? The thing is, and I honestly didn’t make this connection on my own, the Friday marches were done so with torches, nazi flags, racist chants, etc. There were no good people out there that day. If you showed up to a rally and saw that, would you have stayed? Would you have wanted your family to see you on TV with that group? Those were inherently shitty people and anyone who decided to stay with them was not a ‘perfectly fine’ person as the president stated. While the Saturday counter-protesters did clash with the racist nazis, we should be able to agree that a lot of those people showed up because they were against racism, not against a group of people because of their skin color, creed, etc.
Actually, I shouldn’t say there’s no place because in a country with true freedom of speech there is a place for ugly racist speech. There’s also a place for speech to peacefully counter it and there’s a place for anything that moves beyond ugly ideas to specific incitement in our criminal justice system.
I understand your logic here and agree. As much as we hate those people, I would never advocate they lose their ability to say/think what they want. However, I would say there’s no place for directed racism. People can think and believe whatever they want, but when you start yelling ‘DIE, N-----R’ at a black person should the first amendment protect you? I don’t think it does, it sounds like you don’t either, and shit like that was happening on Saturday.
What there’s absolutely no room for is the day our 1st Amendment only protects speech the general population at the time deems moral or politically correct. There was a time not that long ago when the majority in this country thought blacks were worth 3/5th of a white. Should we have violently shut down anyone who wanted to argue otherwise?
This obviously doesn’t need a response.
We got sidetracked a bit but what sparked this was the interpretation of the president’s reaction to this. No one is advocating for violence. I stated this earlier in the thread but I have my doubts on who escalated the situation in Charlottesville. Neither of us can say for sure since we weren’t there. Look at it this way; I’m not using the psycho in the car as a weapon against your arguments. Why then is it okay to use AntiFa lunatics against mine?
What I do know, is that the presence of counter protesters was due to neo-nazis and white supremacists spreading a message of absolute hate towards anything other than white people. I admire the people who showed up with the intention of peacefully protesting that message and it sucks that a positive message was tarnished by what happened. At least in that group there actually were some ‘fine people’. Trump really just seemed to look past the hate groups and that is what bothered me. This was my interpretation.
This guy gets it.
car things
:lol: We should start a car forum for that.
Updated - - -
To be fair, dollar savings here doesn’t make up for the amount of money being spent on his travel. (as one example) I keep seeing stuff about this with skepticism but it really does appear that he’s spending a shitload more on travel than normal due to the secret service having to secure and stay in Trump facilities. Anyone have a good source on that stuff?
Nah, being 300 people short and demonstrating the the government can still function while not spending all of those salaries and travel for them is a good thing. they arent doing a good job of promoting how useless most of the appointees are though.
the guys or girls that reported into those appointees are likely picking up the slack and everything is working fine.
i did read a few pieces where large government contractors had some concerns about whether their agreements would renew. in my experience these contacts typically dont come up for RFP or renegotiation when key roles are vacant. they tend to just roll along as is until something prompts the change.
@bing, you know what, I retract that. It may be true but it’s an entirely different matter. I hate when people play the ‘what about’ game so I need to make sure I don’t do it either.
If they can do what they need to with fewer people then more power to them. I don’t really see it as a significant savings in terms of government spending though. It probably doesn’t even register as a drop in the bucket.
Small rant: Why are we talking about crowd sizes again? For fuck’s sake…
Paulo, I would bet the 300 positions unfilled are easily $600k per year in salary, benefits, incentives, expenses and travel.
That’s over $150m per year in savings and probably more. Same with the diplomats in Russia that got sent home. 200+ of them right? Not the same senior roles with senior compensation but expensive to have people over there so probably another $100m+ saved per year.
Then pulling out of the Paris accord saves around $600m - $1b a year doesn’t it? I base that off a few billion said to have been given away over just a couple years.
And I was reading on reddit that a bunch of people’s lost their jobs with all the EPA cuts. Not sure if that was just forward expectations though.
The GOP needs to be do a better job of talking about all this math.
Yeah, this shit is so annoying, Fed employees on the GS scale cannot earn more than a certain amount. The SS is not the only ones who deal with this, MANY Customs officers every year get their hours cut because they’re nearing the OT cap…
The amount of serious BULLSHIT I see CNN and MSNBC spewing in regards to government operations makes me question how they are even considered a reputable news source anymore
Updated - - -
How about this AssClown to our north, Trudeau:
“Canada is an opening and welcoming society,” Trudeau said during a press conference Sunday. “But let me be clear. We are also a country of laws.”
“Entering Canada irregularly is not an advantage. There are rigorous immigration and customs rules that will be followed, make no mistake,” said Trudeau.
He gives the US shit for cracking down on illegal entries, when we deal with hundreds of thousands every year (sometimes millions), and now he’s making statements like these, because of a few thousand illegal entires? Such a Xenophobic Prime Minister.
@bing, not sure on your estimates but I get your point. I feel very differently about the EPA, though. I’m all for cutting down government spending but some things are crucial and necessary. (We don’t need to have a climate change discussion in here. :lol:)
@Onyx Z32, thanks. :tup: The more I read about it the weirder it seemed. I’m sure they’re spending more now but I just don’t see how it could be a significant amount higher than expected. The president and his family need to be protected. Perks of the job. :gotme:
He basically said they are going to follow the laws they have in place already. Not sure why that quote is controversial. What am I missing?
Yeah, I get that but the quoted statement didn’t seem controversial. I’m assuming he actually criticized the US for how they were handling ILLEGAL entry? That, I agree, would be stupid.
Same. It’s important no matter how you slice it. I truly believe that with a more involved population we would avoid a lot of the problems we end up with. People are just complacent.
