Trump, Biden and Pelosi are all showing verbal signs of old age, trouble locating words, maintaining focus, etc. Actually Trump's probably a little better off so far if rambling isn't also a sign of old age. I want to see them give speeches w/o teleprompters.
Did you just, "I know you are but what am I?" me? I get your existence on this forum is as the right wing punching bag/troll, but this is truly childish. Defending every aspect of Trump with "he's just misunderstood", "he isn't guilty of the crimes he is committing right in front of you!", and "it's okay because we got judges placed and libs to cry!" is why we can't have civil discourse anymore.
Did you just, "I know you are but what am I?" me? I get your existence on this forum is as the right wing punching bag/troll, but this is truly childish. Defending every aspect of Trump with "he's just misunderstood", "he isn't guilty of the crimes he is committing right in front of you!", and "it's okay because we got judges placed and libs to cry!" is why we can't have civil discourse anymore.
If you mean, did I suggest you were only parroting party talking points, perhaps. I am not sure what the hive mind is. Maybe it's the media's tendency to sound alike on all available formats. If so I prefer herd-think to hive-think.
The rest of this is silly. Trump's not guilty of anything. What crimes has he supposedly committed that were not shot to pieces by the Mueller report? Obstruction? Give me a break. This is in contrast to Hillary Clinton where they listed crimes she had committed then refused to charger her.
Trump is not misunderstood so much as mis-credited. Gaining a dialogue with NK is a huge thing. Generally speaking his foreign policy is several cuts above Obama's. His economic policies are better than any since Reagan. The tax reform was a good thing. His Job numbers are a very good thing. Trump is not misunderstood. You are refusing to give credit where credit is due.
Com'on J, we all know neither of those are true. What is true is that republicans are unwilling to put the constitution before ideology and any means is justified to achieve their desired ends.
The Far right is building its own hate-based social media outlet and Trumpy baby is likely to join! Since they have been banned from Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, they need a new home.
Kind of. Less herd-think than 3 years ago if I had to guess. People get surprised by the fractiousness when they didn't know it was there. Boots linked some article in the runup to the last election that brushed on this. A lot of it is most media gets made in the same sort of place by the same sort of people, at least same in that they don't seem much like me in their own opinion(they look an awful lot like me to me, I've been hearing from them my whole life). So they don't really know what to do with the issues, they don't care much about the issues that aren't their issues(normal enough), and isn't food obsolete or something? So when there's a bigass shakeup of The Narrative, and 2016 really wasn't on narrative*, it's been 3 years of trying to figure out how to tell the tale of the world in Assclown Town. There's splitting. There's the same dip****sticks double-talking about rubes, there's the people getting punted from YouBoobTube, there's the people that like that Iowa soybean farmer that's mad about tariffs, there's the people that like unions that have been more positive, there's the people that realize rising China skews everything towards authoritarianism and the role tech plays in that, then there's the people that are super tired about hearing about people they didn't have to hear about for almost a decade and can't we just form our own country out of the trade-rich parts?
*My favorite bit on that was a stand-up guy talking about election night when even Trump voters were looking at the TV going, "That doesn't look right."
2016 is a great example of the media's disconnect from reality. They, and this includes right wing media, couldn't seem to figure out why Trump won the nomination. Nobody in MSM seemed to understand how Bernie was almost able to make up a ~60 point deficit against Clinton.
They're doing it again with guys like Mayor Pete and Beto who are a joke. Nearly every poll with Biden posessing a comfortable lead over samples ages 55+ and almost completely cuts out those under 40. I'm curious to see who wins but I'll make a prediction right now. It won't be Biden unless there's a runoff that allows superdelegates to choose him.
To be fair Beto is a joke. I agree that Biden would be horrible.
Yang is my #1 choice by far (even got a bumper sticker). Next Bernie (would be funny to watch the right-wing lose their **** if he won) and Warren 3rd and the rest or these *******, who can keep track. There was some very environmental guy on Bill Maher who seemed half decent.
The Far right is building its own hate-based social media outlet and Trumpy baby is likely to join! Since they have been banned from Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, they need a new home.
To be fair Beto is a joke. I agree that Biden would be horrible.
Yang is my #1 choice by far (even got a bumper sticker). Next Bernie (would be funny to watch the right-wing lose their s*** if he won) and Warren 3rd and the rest or these f***ers, who can keep track. There was some very environmental guy on Bill Maher who seemed half decent.
I'm not convinced Republican voters hate Bernie all that much... in fact when I think about it, I'd guess that if you asked a lot of them which potential Democratic nominee they liked the best (or disliked the least) most would say Bernie. Because a lot of the time, its not all about policies and such... some of it just boils down to the feels.
Com'on J, we all know neither of those are true. What is true is that republicans are unwilling to put the constitution before ideology and any means is justified to achieve their desired ends.
The NYT should put that on their masthead. It's all they do.
J
Moderator Action: This post constitutes trolling. There have been clear moderator warnings in this thread not to derail the thread by making it a discussion about the Mueller report.
Posting controversial opinions that provoke a negative reaction is not in itself rule-breaking; it is the responsibility of those who react negatively to temper their response.
However, that does not immunise a poster from a trolling infraction where it would be clear to any reasonable observer that they have made a post with the object of provoking that negative reaction.
This post has seized upon the word 'scandal' in a previous post to swiftly bring the thread back to the topic of the Mueller report, despite the previous warnings in this thread. No part of Birdjaguar's post required any reference to the Mueller report in response. Rather, the only purpose of bringing the Mueller report back into the conversation would appear to be to instigate a derailment.
The result is that any reasonable observer would conclude that this post is the deliberate embarkation upon this tangent for the purpose of provoking others into a negative reaction, and derailing the thread.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
