President Donald Trump

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

But, regardless, it is not the same thing for a person to ask for a place to be able to speak freely as it is for some gaggle of pussy snowflakes to demand a safe space where they won't have to hear the unpalatable ideas of those with whom they disagree.

I think it's more than a little ironic that you're defending those of "non-left persuasion" when most righties frequent the ultimate "safe space" where they "won't have to hear the unpalatable ideas of those with whom they disagree." That safe space is called the Fox News Network.

And I think that it’s more than a little ironic that you claim that these alleged rightie snowflakes complain of having to “hear the unpalatable ideas of those with whom they disagree”, yet you fail to provide any examples.

Yeah. Well that's not really "ironic" at all, but that's OK, lots of people don't understand irony.  

And did I ever mention "complaining?"  I don't think I did. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

I just gave you an example of the ultimate right wing "safe space." The Fox News Network caters to literally millions of loyal right wing viewers who watch because Fox feeds them the partisan "red meat" that they crave, free of any "unpalatable ideas of those with whom they disagree."

Scorpion wrote:

   

I just gave you an example of the ultimate right wing "safe space." The Fox News Network caters to literally millions of loyal right wing viewers who watch because Fox feeds them the partisan "red meat" that they crave, free of any "unpalatable ideas of those with whom they disagree."

As I have explained numerous times on this forum, I do not watch Fox News, so I can’t vouch first-hand as to who feeds what to whom.
To seek out and frequent a form of media that concurs with one’s own views is one thing. However, to demand that no one speak in one’s presence while putting forth views with which one disagrees is quite another, and you willfully ignore the vast difference between those who exercise a simple preference (in this case, the viewers of Fox News) and those who are whiny little fucking Play-Doh fondling bunny-petting pussies (Artie60438, for instance, in deleting the posts of others and having posters banned from a forum if they disagree with him/her) who cannot tolerate being disagreed with, and who cannot tolerate even hearing ideas from those who might challenge their worldview.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=0

In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas

Judith Shulevitz MARCH 21, 2015

………

The safe space, Ms. Byron explained, was intended to give people who might find comments “troubling” or “triggering,” a place to recuperate. The room was equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies, as well as students and staff members trained to deal with trauma. Emma Hall, a junior, rape survivor and “sexual assault peer educator” who helped set up the room and worked in it during the debate, estimates that a couple of dozen people used it. At one point she went to the lecture hall — it was packed — but after a while, she had to return to the safe space. “I was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against my dearly and closely held beliefs,” Ms. Hall said.
Safe spaces are an expression of the conviction, increasingly prevalent among college students, that their schools should keep them from being “bombarded” by discomfiting or distressing viewpoints. Think of the safe space as the live-action version of the better-known trigger warning, a notice put on top of a syllabus or an assigned reading to alert students to the presence of potentially disturbing material.

………

“Perhaps overprogrammed children engineered to the specifications of college admissions offices no longer experience the risks and challenges that breed maturity,” he wrote. But “if college students are children, then they should be protected like children.”

………



Anyone who cannot acknowledge the difference between this and watching the news program of one's choice is either being completely dishonest, or has shit for brains.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/opinion/does-racism-explain-donald-trumps-victory.html?ref=opinion

To the Editor:

Re “Bigotry Didn’t Elect Trump” (Op-Ed, Dec. 27):

David Paul Kuhn claims that bigotry didn’t elect Donald Trump, despite Mr. Trump’s vow to register Muslims, despite his use of anti-Semitic tropes, and despite the white supremacists among Mr. Trump’s advisers and supporters. Mr. Trump may not himself be a racist, and Trump voters may not believe they themselves are bigoted, but Mr. Trump used lies, racism, misogyny, xenophobia and Islamophobia to sway voters.
Every Trump voter claims to have voted for the right reasons. To those people I say, if you voted for the man who claimed that Mexican immigrants were rapists and murderers, then you are complicit when a Latino child is threatened with deportation by schoolmates.
If you voted for a man who appealed to white supremacists, who used language right out of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” then you are complicit when a racial epithet is scrawled on a schoolroom door or when a swastika is painted on a synagogue wall.
If you voted for the man who demonized Muslims, then you are complicit when a mosque is burned down.
You are responsible for and complicit in everything this narcissistic, self-serving, authoritarian, willfully ignorant demagogue does.
Yes, your motives in voting for Mr. Trump may have been beyond reproach, but, nevertheless, you are complicit. Now, you have to live with your complicity.

JOYCE DENN
Woodbury, Minn.




And if you wrote, or agree with, this letter, you are a delusional asshole.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

   

I just gave you an example of the ultimate right wing "safe space." The Fox News Network caters to literally millions of loyal right wing viewers who watch because Fox feeds them the partisan "red meat" that they crave, free of any "unpalatable ideas of those with whom they disagree."

As I have explained numerous times on this forum, I do not watch Fox News, so I can’t vouch first-hand as to who feeds what to whom.

I'm not asking you to 'vouch" for anything.  What you watch personally is irrelevant.

happy jack wrote:

To seek out and frequent a form of media that concurs with one’s own views is one thing. However, to demand that no one speak in one’s presence while putting forth views with which one disagrees is quite another, and you willfully ignore the vast difference between those who exercise a simple preference (in this case, the viewers of Fox News)...

I'm not "willfully ignoring" anything. The point that I'm trying to make is that your fixation on college students is overblown and your myopic focus on the antics of a few thousand students (who are really just overgrown children) seems to be blinding you to the reality that millions of "righties" are spectacularly misinformed by the echo chamber that is the Fox News Network.  

happy jack wrote:

...and those who are whiny little fucking Play-Doh fondling bunny-petting pussies (Artie60438, for instance, in deleting the posts of others and having posters banned from a forum if they disagree with him/her) who cannot tolerate being disagreed with, and who cannot tolerate even hearing ideas from those who might challenge their worldview.

I have no knowledge of Artie "deleting posts" or "banning posters."  What the hell are you taking about?

happy jack wrote:

Quote :

“Perhaps overprogrammed children engineered to the specifications of college admissions offices no longer experience the risks and challenges that breed maturity,” he wrote. But “if college students are children, then they should be protected like children.”

Anyone who cannot acknowledge the difference between this and watching the news program of one's choice is either being completely dishonest, or has shit for brains.

I acknowledge the difference.  I just don't think that what students do, especially in private universities, is all that relevant.

What I have a problem with is that you seem to be trying to make a larger point that involves more than just a few thousand odd college students.  If that's not the case, then please clarify... Thanks!

happy jack wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/opinion/does-racism-explain-donald-trumps-victory.html?ref=opinion


And if you wrote, or agree with, this letter, you are a delusional asshole.

Wow.  Feeling "triggered," Jack?  

I picked out a couple of statements from the letter that I do agree with...

Quote :

You are responsible for and complicit in everything this narcissistic, self-serving, authoritarian, willfully ignorant demagogue does.

Yes, your motives in voting for Mr. Trump may have been beyond reproach, but, nevertheless, you are complicit. Now, you have to live with your complicity.

Nothing wrong with those two statements. That's just the way it is when you choose to vote for a candidate for President, don't you think?  Of course, I suppose that you can object later if your choice does something that you don't like.  But you can't just wash your hands and absolve yourself of any responsibility for what he does... because after all, you voted for him.

Scorpion wrote:

   
I'm not "willfully ignoring" anything. The point that I'm trying to make is that your fixation on college students is overblown and your myopic focus on the antics of a few thousand students (who are really just overgrown children) ….  

I’m not ‘fixated’ on the students – if I’m ‘fixated’ on anything at all, it is the concept itself, and the fact that it is being embraced, sanctioned, and possibly even encouraged by the administrators of (once) respected major institutions, who should know better.

Scorpion wrote:

   
I acknowledge the difference.  I just don't think that what students do, especially in private universities, is all that relevant.

What I have a problem with is that you seem to be trying to make a larger point that involves more than just a few thousand odd college students.  If that's not the case, then please clarify... Thanks!

See above.

Scorpion wrote:

   
…. seems to be blinding you to the reality that millions of "righties" are spectacularly misinformed by the echo chamber that is the Fox News Network.  

Would you suggest that those viewers switch to MSNBC for a more legitimate and balanced view?

     

Scorpion wrote:

   
I have no knowledge of Artie "deleting posts" or "banning posters."  What the hell are you taking about

Perhaps you don’t. It occurred on the other forum, the Times forum, I think it was, the one that was ultimately dismantled. Our resident snowflake found a way, using some sort of ‘Report Offensive Posts’ button, to have any post he/she didn’t like automatically deleted by simply clicking on that button. As a matter of fact, I distinctly remember being on-line at the same time as Heretic, and we both commented to the effect that posts were disappearing as fast as they were put up. If I recall correctly, those antics earned Boy Artie a dismissal from that forum.
On this forum, I was banned for almost a year because of exchanges I had with him/her, and if you believe he/she had nothing to do with that, then perhaps you will also believe this: ‘If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Keep Your Doctor’.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

   
I picked out a couple of statements from the letter that I do agree with...

Quote :

You are responsible for and complicit in everything this narcissistic, self-serving, authoritarian, willfully ignorant demagogue does.

Yes, your motives in voting for Mr. Trump Mr. Obama may have been beyond reproach, but, nevertheless, you are complicit. Now, you have to live with your complicity.

Nothing wrong with those two statements. That's just the way it is when you choose to vote for a candidate for President, don't you think?  Of course, I suppose that you can object later if your choice does something that you don't like.  But you can't just wash your hands and absolve yourself of any responsibility for what he does... because after all, you voted for him.

OK.
So, as an Obama voter/supporter, do you consider yourself to be personally complicit in the fact that your party got its ideological ass handed to it in the election as a result of 8 years of his policies?

Your question is based upon a false premise. Clinton lost because she was a crappy candidate who ran a truly uninspired campaign.

There's certainly no evidence that she was defeated as a result of Barack's policies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dan-rather-scolds-wsj-for-refusing-to-call-a-trump-lie-a-lie_us_586b4023e4b0d9a5945c4592

Dan Rather Scolds WSJ For Refusing To Call Trump On Lies

“It is not the proper role of journalists to meet lies ... by hiding behind semantics and euphemisms,” he says.
01/03/2017 05:03 am ET | Updated 41 minutes ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

CBS News producer Mary Mapes obtained the copied documents from Burkett, a former officer in the Texas Army National Guard, while pursuing a story about the George W. Bush military service controversy. The papers, purportedly made by Bush's commander, the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, included criticisms of Bush's service in the Guard during the 1970s. In the 60 Minutes segment, anchor Dan Rather stated: "We are told [the documents] were taken from Lieutenant Colonel Killian’s personal files"[9] and incorrectly asserted that "the material" had been authenticated by experts retained by CBS.[10]
The authenticity of the documents was challenged within hours on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on alleged anachronisms in the documents' typography. Content soon spread to the mass media.[11] Although CBS and Rather defended the authenticity and usage of the documents for a two-week period, continued scrutiny from other news organizations and independent analysis of the documents obtained by USA Today and CBS raised questions about their validity and led to a public repudiation on September 20, 2004.

http://archive.mrc.org/campaign/04/rather.asp

On the September 15 60 Minutes, Dan Rather offered a sleazy new standard for journalists: Using phoney evidence is okay if “the major thrust” of the story might be true. Rather trumpeted how while the 86-year-old ex-secretary of Lt. Colonel Jerry Killian said CBS’s memos were not authentic, “she told us she believes what the documents actually say is exactly as we reported.” Later that night, Rather ludicrously boasted to the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz: “If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I’d like to break that story.”



Perhaps the statements Trump is making are not lies.
Perhaps the statements are fake but accurate.

Quote :

Trump Appears to Side With Assange Over Intelligence Agencies’ Conclusions
By SCOTT SHANE, MAGGIE HABERMAN and JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVISUPDATED 3:36 PM

Isn't wikileaks considered an enemy of the state? This is what t-rump said 6 years ago:

Quote :

Trump in 2010: WikiLeaks 'disgraceful,' there 'should be like death penalty or something'

http://www.floppingaces.net/most-wanted/lets-not-start-another-cold-war-over-the-fact-that-john-podesta-fell-for-a-phishing-scam/comment-page-1/

Let’s not start another Cold War over the fact that John Podesta fell for a phishing scam

If there’s any single statement that President Obama probably wishes he could undo, it was his mockery of Mitt Romney during the 2012 presidential debates. Referring to Romney’scharacterization of Russia as America’s greatest geopolitical foe, Obama said the 1980s are calling and they want their foreign policy back.
Now of course, Democrats are up in arms about the Russians, sounding like madcap John Birchers from the 1960s. As Twitter wag IowaHawk noted, they didn’t get upset when Russia invaded Crimea; they didn’t throw down when Russia shot down a civilian airliner over Ukraine; but stealing John Podesta’s password via a phishing scam is apparently grounds for restarting the Cold War. Well, only one of these crimes constitutes a threat to Democrats’ political power.

………

“Breaking: State Department expels 20 Nigerian diplomats after Podesta fails to receive $1 million wire transfer from nephew of General Okezi.”


http://americanmilitarynews.com/2017/01/obama-sends-u-s-special-operations-forces-to-russian-border/

Obama Sends U.S. Special Operations Forces To Russian Border

BY STAFFWRITER9 · PUBLISHED JANUARY 4, 2017

This week, reports confirmed that President Obama has sent U.S. Special Operations Troops to the Russian border to assist NATO allies against feared Russian aggression. NATO members along the border have accused their neighbor of “aggressive military posturing” as Russia has reportedly deployed anti-ship missiles in the Russian city of Kaliningrad. Fears of Putin planning for an annexation of these tiny former-Soviet Union territories has implored the Obama administration to send troops to the border to keep an eye on Moscow aggression ….



…. and to make sure Putin doesn’t hack any more e-mails of computer-challenged special-needs Democrats.



http://www.salon.com/2017/01/05/at-least-50-donald-trump-electors-were-illegally-seated-as-electoral-college-members-report_partner/


THURSDAY, JAN 5, 2017 06:30 AM CST
At least 50 Donald Trump electors were illegally seated as Electoral College members: report

More than 50 Electoral College members who voted for Donald Trump were ineligible to serve as presidential electors because they did not live in the congressional districts they represented or held elective office in states legally barring dual officeholders. That stunning finding is among the conclusions of an extensive 1,000-plus page legal briefing prepared by a bipartisan nationwide legal team for members of Congress who are being urged to object to certifying the 2016 Electoral College results on Friday.
“Trump’s ascension to the presidency is completely illegitimate,” said Ryan Clayton of Americans Take Action, who is promoting the effort. “It’s not just Russians hacking our democracy. It’s not just voter suppression at unprecedented levels. It is also [that] there are Republicans illegally casting ballots in the Electoral College, and in a sufficient number that the results of the Electoral College proceedings are illegitimate as well.”



Fucking Putin!!!!
What kind of shit is that Commie prick gonna pull next?!?!?

The repubs that voted for the tweeter-in-charge must be embarrassed as hell:

Quote :

JUST IN: Trump defends a plan to ask US taxpayers, not Mexico, to pay for the proposed border wall, saying that Mexico will reimburse America for the cost of the wall. Mexican leaders have repeatedly stated they will not pay for a wall. http://cnn.it/2jiC39d

happy jack wrote:

8 years of arrogance and condescension toward the average American bitter clingers...

This is 100% absolutely correct.  They were entirely fed up with some uppity black man telling America what's what, finally tired that he and his wife didn't know their fucking place.  That's the only "ideological ass handing" that happened - that the GOP turned out to be way more gullible, way more racist, and way more conspiratorial than anyone possibly imagined.  So, in their unfounded and irrational anger, they turned to an ignorant blowhard that's far more condescending and arrogant than the worst possible caricature of Obama, with far more problems and conflicts of interest than the worst of what they believed of Clinton, all because he promised to make America white again; not because of any rational discussion of policy or evidence based reasoning.  It was all pure emotion, pure ideological bullshit.  Boy howdy, you got us there, happy.  Did we ever learn a lesson.  We've been giving the GOP way too much credit by believing them to be a rational part of governing and discourse in this country.  So enjoy your "victory" that is a Trump presidency, a GOP that's finally embraced Alex Jones, and paying for that wall. I, for one, am very excited for what can only be the coming American Utopia and not an unmitigated disaster like the few rational members of the GOP believe it to be.  

Not sure how winning the popular vote by three million counts as an "ideological ass handing" or a "mandate", but conservative arguments didn't make sense before and they certainly don't have to now.

Seriously though, I'm looking forward to the buyers remorse even more than when all those preachers had to backpedal their Rapture predictions in 2000.

Btw, I thought you didn't believe in hate crimes?

happy jack wrote:

Perhaps my quotes around the word 'hate' didn't register with you.

If you're asking if you made any kind of sense whatsoever, then no, you haven't.  I feel I've been very clear on that point.

So you feel they're being overcharged in stark contrast to the narratives offered by Fox News and their subsidiaries, correct?  And that you disagree with all the laughable "where's the outrage?" memes making the rounds on Facebook and social media, correct?

happy jack wrote:

How many times does it need to be explained to you people that I don’t watch Fox News?

None of us believe you.  It's not our fault you don't seem to ever have an original thought or argument that doesn't pass verbatim through the network first.

So again, do you feel they're being overcharged?

happy jack wrote:

Have the election results and your subsequent Trump Derangement Syndrome really unhinged you to the point that you need to make things up...

If I suffer from TDS, I do so in the same vein that the litany of conservative papers and authors that, for the first time in ages, failed to endorse the GOP candidate for monumentally obvious reasons.  You can pretend this is the usual partisan nonsense, but you'll be lying to both yourself and us.    

That said, if you wish to distance yourself from Fox News talking points, the onus is on you to do so, not us.  It's not our fault that your arguments are identical in their lack of reason, fact, or intelligence.  

happy jack wrote:

I believe that they should be charged to the maximum for the acts they actually committed...

So that's a yes?  Either way, your at least still arguing against ever charging anyone with murder since it requires mens rea, right? Or terrorism, for that reason, since all of it is just bombs and nothing more.

Heretic wrote:

   
That said, if you wish to distance yourself from Fox News talking points, the onus is on you to do so, not us.  It's not our fault that your arguments are identical in their lack of reason, fact, or intelligence.  

 

The onus to “distance (my)self from Fox News talking points” cannot possibly be on me, mainly because I do not, and never have, taken my opinions from Fox News and, therefore, have nothing to distance myself from. As I said earlier, if the election results and your subsequent Trump Derangement Syndrome have really unhinged you to the point that you need to make things up regarding which news show someone (whom you have never met) does or does not watch, then you have problems that I cannot even begin to help you solve.

happy jack wrote:

I do not, and never have, taken my opinions from Fox News...

No one here believes you.