Current Events > It's almost a year later. What are some Hitler-ish things Trump did?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Mal_Fet 01/15/18 8:21:27 PM #101:	FigureOfSpeech posted... Ah okay, so the demographic is "people who say Trump is a fascist." Thank you for clarifying after telling me not to ask for clarification. So that's somewhere in between. I undershot thinking you just meant anti-Trump people and you overshot by talking about people who say Trump is as bad as Hitler. I guess we meet in the middle somewhere. Do I think Trump is a fascist? I'm not sure, TBD, already said your cited public figures don't speak for me (this is the 4th time I think) so do I count myself as them or are you extrapolating, considering I myself did not use the word fascist before you did just now, claimed only to be anti-Trump? I am now saying for the 5th time that your "Trump is Hitler" folks do not speak for me, in case you missed that. From the OP: Mal_Fet posted... Everyone said Trump was the new coming of Hitler, that he was fascist, that he is authoritarian etc etc. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:894128057] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>FigureOfSpeech posted...</cite> <quote>Ah okay, so the demographic is "people who say Trump is a fascist." Thank you for clarifying after telling me not to ask for clarification. So that's somewhere in between. I undershot thinking you just meant anti-Trump people and you overshot by talking about people who say Trump is as bad as Hitler. I guess we meet in the middle somewhere. Do I think Trump is a fascist? I'm not sure, TBD, already said your cited public figures don't speak for me (this is the 4th time I think) so do I count myself as them or are you extrapolating, considering I myself did not use the word fascist before you did just now, claimed only to be anti-Trump? I am now saying for the 5th time that your "Trump is Hitler" folks do not speak for me, in case you missed that.</quote> From the OP: <cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Everyone said Trump was the new coming of Hitler, that he was fascist, that he is authoritarian etc etc. </quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dark_SilverX 01/15/18 8:21:45 PM #102:	Nothing. Trump is a hero. He's trying to create a utopia for all of us to be in peace and harmony. --- cuckle doodle dooo!!! <cite>Dark_SilverX posted [p:894128080] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote>Nothing. Trump is a hero. He's trying to create a utopia for all of us to be in peace and harmony.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FigureOfSpeech 01/15/18 8:24:36 PM #103:	Mal_Fet posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Mal_Fet posted... FigureOfSpeech posted... Mal_Fet posted... FigureOfSpeech posted... I wasn't even asking about "them." I asked for citations of liberal CE users because you quoted a CE user and suggested that "we all" did something. Question: why would you count yourself among those I accused of likening Trump to a fascist? Isn't that a tacit admission on your part that you HAVE done such a thing? I'm anti-Trump. Were you talking about a more specific group than "anti-Trump"/"liberal"/"progressive" and neglected to clarify the demographic? Don't ask me to clarify my post now after it's become apparent to you that you fucked up. You counted yourself among those who say Trump is a fascist. Why? Sounds like you're putting words in his mouth. Reading his posts, he simply responded to "you all" as if you were criticizing all left leaning CEmen He's the one insisting that I meant the hyperbolic comment absolutely literally. I referenced no specific group because it's just that: hyperbolic. So now I'm asking why he assumed I was talking about him, because it seems like he's on the defensive because of that and I'd like to know why. The hyperbolic comment was "Trump is as bad as Hitler." Did you say that? I didn't accuse you of being hyperbolic. Why are you counting yourself among people who say Trump is as bad as Hitler? Is that a tacit admission? Post 81. "I've never believed Trump to be as bad as Hitler because that's just hyperbolic." --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>FigureOfSpeech posted [p:894128270] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FigureOfSpeech posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FigureOfSpeech posted...</cite> <quote> I wasn't even asking about "them." I asked for citations of liberal CE users because you quoted a CE user and suggested that "we all" did something. </quote> Question: why would you count yourself among those I accused of likening Trump to a fascist? Isn't that a tacit admission on your part that you HAVE done such a thing?</quote> I'm anti-Trump. Were you talking about a more specific group than "anti-Trump"/"liberal"/"progressive" and neglected to clarify the demographic?</quote> Don't ask me to clarify my post now after it's become apparent to you that you fucked up. You counted yourself among those who say Trump is a fascist. Why?</quote> Sounds like you're putting words in his mouth. Reading his posts, he simply responded to "you all" as if you were criticizing all left leaning CEmen</quote> He's the one insisting that I meant the hyperbolic comment absolutely literally. I referenced no specific group because it's just that: hyperbolic. So now I'm asking why he assumed I was talking about him, because it seems like he's on the defensive because of that and I'd like to know why.</quote> The hyperbolic comment was "Trump is as bad as Hitler." Did you say that? I didn't accuse you of being hyperbolic. Why are you counting yourself among people who say Trump is as bad as Hitler? Is that a tacit admission? Post 81. "I've never believed Trump to be as bad as Hitler because that's just hyperbolic."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 8:25:37 PM #104:	Mal_Fet posted... The fact that you need to add "the White House having the government-run national park provide them with admissions data" into this list of "terrible things Trump has done" really seems to drive home that Trump hasn't done anything that bad. "Having the government-run national park provide them with admissions data" does not equate to "pressuring the national park service to find evidence that doesn't exist just because you're insecure about your inauguration crowd being smaller than Obama's." The latter is what Trump did. Mal_Fet posted... Who has several decades of experience in the school system and who's biggest crime, according to the left, is gasp having schools treat criminal cases with due process rather than with a kangaroo court-style preponderance of evidence. LOL, she has zero experience in the public school system. She never attended public school, never taught in a public school, never sent her kids to a public school, doesn't have a degree in education, never worked in a school environment... She went to private schools her whole life and was obviously ignorant of basic things in relation to public schools in her Senate interview. Mal_Fet posted... Ever notice how the only things you guys have to b**** about is things Trump says? What has he actually done that's bad? Policy-wise? Pressuring a private organization to fire its players is an unethical action that he did. Not a hard concept. You do know ethics laws exist, right? And he blatantly broke them in this regard? --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894128337] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>The fact that you need to add "the White House having the government-run national park provide them with admissions data" into this list of "terrible things Trump has done" really seems to drive home that Trump hasn't done anything that bad. </quote> "Having the government-run national park provide them with admissions data" does not equate to "pressuring the national park service to find evidence that doesn't exist just because you're insecure about your inauguration crowd being smaller than Obama's." The latter is what Trump did. <cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Who has several decades of experience in the school system and who's biggest crime, according to the left, is gasp having schools treat criminal cases with due process rather than with a kangaroo court-style preponderance of evidence. </quote> LOL, she has zero experience in the public school system. She never attended public school, never taught in a public school, never sent her kids to a public school, doesn't have a degree in education, never worked in a school environment... She went to private schools her whole life and was obviously ignorant of basic things in relation to public schools in her Senate interview. <cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Ever notice how the only things you guys have to b**** about is things Trump says? What has he actually done that's bad? Policy-wise?</quote> Pressuring a private organization to fire its players is an unethical action that he did. Not a hard concept. You do know ethics laws exist, right? And he blatantly broke them in this regard?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FigureOfSpeech 01/15/18 8:27:47 PM #105:	Mal_Fet posted... FigureOfSpeech posted... Ah okay, so the demographic is "people who say Trump is a fascist." Thank you for clarifying after telling me not to ask for clarification. So that's somewhere in between. I undershot thinking you just meant anti-Trump people and you overshot by talking about people who say Trump is as bad as Hitler. I guess we meet in the middle somewhere. Do I think Trump is a fascist? I'm not sure, TBD, already said your cited public figures don't speak for me (this is the 4th time I think) so do I count myself as them or are you extrapolating, considering I myself did not use the word fascist before you did just now, claimed only to be anti-Trump? I am now saying for the 5th time that your "Trump is Hitler" folks do not speak for me, in case you missed that. From the OP: Mal_Fet posted... Everyone said Trump was the new coming of Hitler, that he was fascist, that he is authoritarian etc etc. Is he Hitler? No. Is he fascist? Maybe. Is he authoritarian? Yes. A no, a maybe and a yes, all in the OP. The burden of clarity was on you you. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>FigureOfSpeech posted [p:894128483] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FigureOfSpeech posted...</cite> <quote>Ah okay, so the demographic is "people who say Trump is a fascist." Thank you for clarifying after telling me not to ask for clarification. So that's somewhere in between. I undershot thinking you just meant anti-Trump people and you overshot by talking about people who say Trump is as bad as Hitler. I guess we meet in the middle somewhere. Do I think Trump is a fascist? I'm not sure, TBD, already said your cited public figures don't speak for me (this is the 4th time I think) so do I count myself as them or are you extrapolating, considering I myself did not use the word fascist before you did just now, claimed only to be anti-Trump? I am now saying for the 5th time that your "Trump is Hitler" folks do not speak for me, in case you missed that.</quote> From the OP: <cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Everyone said Trump was the new coming of Hitler, that he was fascist, that he is authoritarian etc etc. </quote></quote> Is he Hitler? No. Is he fascist? Maybe. Is he authoritarian? Yes. A no, a maybe and a yes, all in the OP. The burden of clarity was on you you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FigureOfSpeech 01/15/18 8:28:58 PM #106:	Mal_Fet posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Mal_Fet posted... FigureOfSpeech posted... Mal_Fet posted... FigureOfSpeech posted... I wasn't even asking about "them." I asked for citations of liberal CE users because you quoted a CE user and suggested that "we all" did something. Question: why would you count yourself among those I accused of likening Trump to a fascist? Isn't that a tacit admission on your part that you HAVE done such a thing? I'm anti-Trump. Were you talking about a more specific group than "anti-Trump"/"liberal"/"progressive" and neglected to clarify the demographic? Don't ask me to clarify my post now after it's become apparent to you that you fucked up. You counted yourself among those who say Trump is a fascist. Why? Sounds like you're putting words in his mouth. Reading his posts, he simply responded to "you all" as if you were criticizing all left leaning CEmen He's the one insisting that I meant the hyperbolic comment absolutely literally. I referenced no specific group because it's just that: hyperbolic. So now I'm asking why he assumed I was talking about him, because it seems like he's on the defensive because of that and I'd like to know why. I never said that anything you said was hyperbolic. You are not reading correctly. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>FigureOfSpeech posted [p:894128559] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FigureOfSpeech posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FigureOfSpeech posted...</cite> <quote> I wasn't even asking about "them." I asked for citations of liberal CE users because you quoted a CE user and suggested that "we all" did something. </quote> Question: why would you count yourself among those I accused of likening Trump to a fascist? Isn't that a tacit admission on your part that you HAVE done such a thing?</quote> I'm anti-Trump. Were you talking about a more specific group than "anti-Trump"/"liberal"/"progressive" and neglected to clarify the demographic?</quote> Don't ask me to clarify my post now after it's become apparent to you that you fucked up. You counted yourself among those who say Trump is a fascist. Why?</quote> Sounds like you're putting words in his mouth. Reading his posts, he simply responded to "you all" as if you were criticizing all left leaning CEmen</quote> He's the one insisting that I meant the hyperbolic comment absolutely literally. I referenced no specific group because it's just that: hyperbolic. So now I'm asking why he assumed I was talking about him, because it seems like he's on the defensive because of that and I'd like to know why.</quote> I never said that anything you said was hyperbolic. You are not reading correctly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 01/15/18 8:35:32 PM #107:	CableZL posted... "Having the government-run national park provide them with admissions data" does not equate to "pressuring the national park service to find evidence that doesn't exist just because you're insecure about your inauguration crowd being smaller than Obama's." The latter is what Trump did. You're just restating an entirely innocuous action with some dumbass motive. He did not pressure them to lie about any crowd sizes. CableZL posted... LOL, she has zero experience in the public school system. She never attended public school, never taught in a public school, never sent her kids to a public school, doesn't have a degree in education, never worked in a school environment... She went to private schools her whole life and was obviously ignorant of basic things in relation to public schools in her Senate interview. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_DeVos DeVos is a Republican known for her support for school choice, school voucher programs, and charter schools.[1][2][3][4] She was Republican National Committeewoman for Michigan from 1992 to 1997 and served as chair of the Michigan Republican Party from 1996 to 2000, with reelection to the post in 2003. DeVos has been an advocate of the Detroit charter school system[5][6] and she is a member of the board of the Foundation for Excellence in Education. She has served as chair of the board of the Alliance for School Choice and the Acton Institute and headed the All Children Matter PAC. Who cares if she herself attended public school? That would, if anything, make her LESS qualified to run things thanks to how much the DoE fucked up public schools. CableZL posted... Pressuring a private organization to fire its players is an unethical action that he did. Not a hard concept. You do know ethics laws exist, right? And he blatantly broke them in this regard? How'd he pressure them? Threaten their bosses? Use the espionage act to silence them like Obama did to his critics? --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:894129021] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>"Having the government-run national park provide them with admissions data" does not equate to "pressuring the national park service to find evidence that doesn't exist just because you're insecure about your inauguration crowd being smaller than Obama's." The latter is what Trump did.</quote> You're just restating an entirely innocuous action with some dumbass motive. He did not pressure them to lie about any crowd sizes. <cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>LOL, she has zero experience in the public school system. She never attended public school, never taught in a public school, never sent her kids to a public school, doesn't have a degree in education, never worked in a school environment... She went to private schools her whole life and was obviously ignorant of basic things in relation to public schools in her Senate interview.</quote> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_DeVos <quote>DeVos is a Republican known for her support for school choice, school voucher programs, and charter schools.[1][2][3][4] She was Republican National Committeewoman for Michigan from 1992 to 1997 and served as chair of the Michigan Republican Party from 1996 to 2000, with reelection to the post in 2003. DeVos has been an advocate of the Detroit charter school system[5][6] and she is a member of the board of the Foundation for Excellence in Education. She has served as chair of the board of the Alliance for School Choice and the Acton Institute and headed the All Children Matter PAC.</quote> Who cares if she herself attended public school? That would, if anything, make her LESS qualified to run things thanks to how much the DoE fucked up public schools. <cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>Pressuring a private organization to fire its players is an unethical action that he did. Not a hard concept. You do know ethics laws exist, right? And he blatantly broke them in this regard?</quote> How'd he pressure them? Threaten their bosses? Use the espionage act to silence them like Obama did to his critics?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 8:35:54 PM #108:	Mal_Fet posted... Yeah, only a total scumbag would support an investigation based on no substantive evidence or truth............................................right? And what you seem to be unable to understand: 1. There is zero evidence of widespread voter fraud in the US. Multiple investigations on voter fraud have been done in the past and they have, at best, only turned up a handful of possibly-fraudulent votes. 2. The investigation into Trump's Russia ties was spurred by actual admissions from members of his campaign staff, not some flimsy reasoning that was just pulled out of thin air. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894129043] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah, only a total scumbag would support an investigation based on no substantive evidence or truth............................................right? </quote> And what you seem to be unable to understand: 1. There is zero evidence of widespread voter fraud in the US. Multiple investigations on voter fraud have been done in the past and they have, at best, only turned up a handful of possibly-fraudulent votes. 2. The investigation into Trump's Russia ties was spurred by actual admissions from members of his campaign staff, not some flimsy reasoning that was just pulled out of thin air.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 01/15/18 8:40:16 PM #109:	FigureOfSpeech posted... Is he Hitler? No. Is he fascist? Maybe. Is he authoritarian? Yes. Ok, on the fascist question, in what way is he akin to a collectivist who views the individual and the state as one unit? And as for the authoritarian question, how many authoritarian leaders can you name who deregulate 22x more often than they impose new regulations, support and expand the private ownership of firearms, lower taxes across the board, and remove individual mandates to buy products? --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:894129355] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>FigureOfSpeech posted...</cite> <quote> Is he Hitler? No. Is he fascist? Maybe. Is he authoritarian? Yes.</quote> Ok, on the fascist question, in what way is he akin to a collectivist who views the individual and the state as one unit? And as for the authoritarian question, how many authoritarian leaders can you name who deregulate 22x more often than they impose new regulations, support and expand the private ownership of firearms, lower taxes across the board, and remove individual mandates to buy products?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 8:40:26 PM #110:	Mal_Fet posted... You're just restating an entirely innocuous action with some dumbass motive. He did not pressure them to lie about any crowd sizes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-pressured-park-service-to-back-up-his-claims-about-inauguration-crowd/ 2017/01/26/12a38cb8-e3fc-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html?utm_term=.fb3b1056eb7e (remove spaces) In a Saturday phone call, Trump personally ordered Reynolds to produce additional photographs of the previous days crowds on the Mall, according to three individuals who have knowledge of the conversation. The president believed that the photos might prove that the media had lied in reporting that attendance had been no better than average. Trump also expressed anger over a retweet sent from the agencys account, in which side-by-side photographs showed far fewer people at his swearing-in than had shown up to see Barack Obamas inauguration in 2009. Yes he did. Mal_Fet posted... How'd he pressure them? Threaten their bosses? Use the espionage act to silence them like Obama did to his critics? https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/ dallas-cowboys/cowboys/2017/10/10/ jerry-jones-just-admitted-president-trump-forced- hand-anthem-protest-stance (remove spaces) Jerry Jones admitted Tuesday what most of us had already surmised: President Trump drew him into taking a hardline stance on national anthem protests, as it pertains to the Dallas Cowboys. That Jones is now suggesting he's actually doing his players a favor by threatening to withhold playing time is one of the most Jerry things he could possibly do. "I'm a friend of the President, we don't agree on many, many matters," Jones said. "I'm really in practice, apolitical. But I really can't afford to be when it comes to the Dallas Cowboys and my No. 1 job. We're addressing the issue in part because [Trump] been very active in the issue. In part, that stirred it up. And because it is stirred up is one of the reasons I've drawn a bright line." --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894129363] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>You're just restating an entirely innocuous action with some dumbass motive. He did not pressure them to lie about any crowd sizes. </quote> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-pressured-park-service-to-back-up-his-claims-about-inauguration-crowd/ 2017/01/26/12a38cb8-e3fc-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html?utm_term=.fb3b1056eb7e (remove spaces) In a Saturday phone call, Trump personally ordered Reynolds to produce additional photographs of the previous days crowds on the Mall, according to three individuals who have knowledge of the conversation. The president believed that the photos might prove that the media had lied in reporting that attendance had been no better than average. Trump also expressed anger over a retweet sent from the agencys account, in which side-by-side photographs showed far fewer people at his swearing-in than had shown up to see Barack Obamas inauguration in 2009. Yes he did. <cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>How'd he pressure them? Threaten their bosses? Use the espionage act to silence them like Obama did to his critics? </quote> https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/ dallas-cowboys/cowboys/2017/10/10/ jerry-jones-just-admitted-president-trump-forced- hand-anthem-protest-stance (remove spaces) Jerry Jones admitted Tuesday what most of us had already surmised: President Trump drew him into taking a hardline stance on national anthem protests, as it pertains to the Dallas Cowboys. That Jones is now suggesting he's actually doing his players a favor by threatening to withhold playing time is one of the most Jerry things he could possibly do. "I'm a friend of the President, we don't agree on many, many matters," Jones said. "I'm really in practice, apolitical. But I really can't afford to be when it comes to the Dallas Cowboys and my No. 1 job. We're addressing the issue in part because [Trump] been very active in the issue. In part, that stirred it up. And because it is stirred up is one of the reasons I've drawn a bright line."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 01/15/18 8:41:46 PM #111:	CableZL posted... 1. There is zero evidence of widespread voter fraud in the US. Largely thanks to there being no good voter ID system. You can't count what you can't track. CableZL posted... 2. The investigation into Trump's Russia ties was spurred by actual admissions from members of his campaign staff, Talking to a Russian person =/= a Russian tie. Not even CNN talks about the Russia conspiracy anymore. Give it up. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:894129457] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>1. There is zero evidence of widespread voter fraud in the US.</quote> Largely thanks to there being no good voter ID system. You can't count what you can't track. <cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>2. The investigation into Trump's Russia ties was spurred by actual admissions from members of his campaign staff,</quote> Talking to a Russian person =/= a Russian tie. Not even CNN talks about the Russia conspiracy anymore. Give it up.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FigureOfSpeech 01/15/18 8:41:52 PM #112:	Shit, I hope Mal doesn't stop responding now that he's accused me of fucking up in my interpretation of him but has also himself fucked up in his interpretation of me. Would be a convenient time to go silent and direct discussion in another direction so that he didn't have to answer for not reading post 81 properly. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>FigureOfSpeech posted [p:894129465] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote>Shit, I hope Mal doesn't stop responding now that he's accused me of fucking up in my interpretation of him but has also himself fucked up in his interpretation of me. Would be a convenient time to go silent and direct discussion in another direction so that he didn't have to answer for not reading post 81 properly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
creativerealms 01/15/18 8:42:44 PM #113:	Only idiots said that. You just pretend it was everyone. --- No sig. <cite>creativerealms posted [p:894129526] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote>Only idiots said that. You just pretend it was everyone.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 8:42:45 PM #114:	Mal_Fet posted... Who cares if she herself attended public school? That would, if anything, make her LESS qualified to run things thanks to how much the DoE f*ed up public schools. If she were qualified at all, one would think she'd be able to answer basic questions that pertain to the job. She wasn't able to do that in her Senate hearing. When I do an interview for a network engineering job, I'm asked basic network engineering questions and I'm expected to be able to answer those questions as proof that I would be qualified for the position. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894129529] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Who cares if she herself attended public school? That would, if anything, make her LESS qualified to run things thanks to how much the DoE f*ed up public schools. </quote> If she were qualified at all, one would think she'd be able to answer basic questions that pertain to the job. She wasn't able to do that in her Senate hearing. When I do an interview for a network engineering job, I'm asked basic network engineering questions and I'm expected to be able to answer those questions as proof that I would be qualified for the position.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FigureOfSpeech 01/15/18 8:43:42 PM #115:	Mal_Fet posted... FigureOfSpeech posted... Is he Hitler? No. Is he fascist? Maybe. Is he authoritarian? Yes. Ok, on the fascist question, in what way is he akin to a collectivist who views the individual and the state as one unit? And as for the authoritarian question, how many authoritarian leaders can you name who deregulate 22x more often than they impose new regulations, support and expand the private ownership of firearms, lower taxes across the board, and remove individual mandates to buy products? Just go ahead an post your juicy link about that 22x figure, you tease ;) Edit: while you're at it, post your comment that I allegedly called hyperbolic. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>FigureOfSpeech posted [p:894129586] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FigureOfSpeech posted...</cite> <quote> Is he Hitler? No. Is he fascist? Maybe. Is he authoritarian? Yes.</quote> Ok, on the fascist question, in what way is he akin to a collectivist who views the individual and the state as one unit? And as for the authoritarian question, how many authoritarian leaders can you name who deregulate 22x more often than they impose new regulations, support and expand the private ownership of firearms, lower taxes across the board, and remove individual mandates to buy products?</quote> Just go ahead an post your juicy link about that 22x figure, you tease ;) Edit: while you're at it, post your comment that I allegedly called hyperbolic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 01/15/18 8:43:59 PM #116:	CableZL posted... In a Saturday phone call, Trump personally ordered Reynolds to produce additional photographs of the previous days crowds on the Mall, according to three individuals who have knowledge of the conversation. The president believed that the photos might prove that the media had lied in reporting that attendance had been no better than average. Trump also expressed anger over a retweet sent from the agencys account, in which side-by-side photographs showed far fewer people at his swearing-in than had shown up to see Barack Obamas inauguration in 2009. Where in here does it say he told anyone to lie about crowd size? CableZL posted... Jerry Jones admitted Tuesday what most of us had already surmised: President Trump drew him into taking a hardline stance on national anthem protests, as it pertains to the Dallas Cowboys. That Jones is now suggesting he's actually doing his players a favor by threatening to withhold playing time is one of the most Jerry things he could possibly do. "I'm a friend of the President, we don't agree on many, many matters," Jones said. "I'm really in practice, apolitical. But I really can't afford to be when it comes to the Dallas Cowboys and my No. 1 job. We're addressing the issue in part because [Trump] been very active in the issue. In part, that stirred it up. And because it is stirred up is one of the reasons I've drawn a bright line." OK, so Trump did not actually pressure anyone to fire players for kneeling. Thanks for proving me right again. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:894129600] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>In a Saturday phone call, Trump personally ordered Reynolds to produce additional photographs of the previous days crowds on the Mall, according to three individuals who have knowledge of the conversation. The president believed that the photos might prove that the media had lied in reporting that attendance had been no better than average. Trump also expressed anger over a retweet sent from the agencys account, in which side-by-side photographs showed far fewer people at his swearing-in than had shown up to see Barack Obamas inauguration in 2009.</quote> Where in here does it say he told anyone to lie about crowd size? <cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>Jerry Jones admitted Tuesday what most of us had already surmised: President Trump drew him into taking a hardline stance on national anthem protests, as it pertains to the Dallas Cowboys. That Jones is now suggesting he's actually doing his players a favor by threatening to withhold playing time is one of the most Jerry things he could possibly do. "I'm a friend of the President, we don't agree on many, many matters," Jones said. "I'm really in practice, apolitical. But I really can't afford to be when it comes to the Dallas Cowboys and my No. 1 job. We're addressing the issue in part because [Trump] been very active in the issue. In part, that stirred it up. And because it is stirred up is one of the reasons I've drawn a bright line."</quote> OK, so Trump did not actually pressure anyone to fire players for kneeling. Thanks for proving me right again.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 01/15/18 8:44:53 PM #117:	FigureOfSpeech posted... Mal_Fet posted... FigureOfSpeech posted... Is he Hitler? No. Is he fascist? Maybe. Is he authoritarian? Yes. Ok, on the fascist question, in what way is he akin to a collectivist who views the individual and the state as one unit? And as for the authoritarian question, how many authoritarian leaders can you name who deregulate 22x more often than they impose new regulations, support and expand the private ownership of firearms, lower taxes across the board, and remove individual mandates to buy products? Just go ahead an post your juicy link about that 22x figure, you tease ;) https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/trump-we-achieved-regulatory-savings-by-eliminating-22-old-regulations-to-1-new/vi-BBGKAcA http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/politics/trump-deregulation-in-gifs/index.html --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:894129652] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>FigureOfSpeech posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FigureOfSpeech posted...</cite> <quote> Is he Hitler? No. Is he fascist? Maybe. Is he authoritarian? Yes.</quote> Ok, on the fascist question, in what way is he akin to a collectivist who views the individual and the state as one unit? And as for the authoritarian question, how many authoritarian leaders can you name who deregulate 22x more often than they impose new regulations, support and expand the private ownership of firearms, lower taxes across the board, and remove individual mandates to buy products?</quote> Just go ahead an post your juicy link about that 22x figure, you tease ;)</quote> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/trump-we-achieved-regulatory-savings-by-eliminating-22-old-regulations-to-1-new/vi-BBGKAcA http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/politics/trump-deregulation-in-gifs/index.html</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 01/15/18 8:47:34 PM #118:	CableZL posted... Mal_Fet posted... Yeah, only a total scumbag would support an investigation based on no substantive evidence or truth............................................right? And what you seem to be unable to understand: 1. There is zero evidence of widespread voter fraud in the US. Multiple investigations on voter fraud have been done in the past and they have, at best, only turned up a handful of possibly-fraudulent votes. 2. The investigation into Trump's Russia ties was spurred by actual admissions from members of his campaign staff, not some flimsy reasoning that was just pulled out of thin air. No, the investigation into Trump's Russia ties was based on nothing more than the fake Trump dossier and the DNC being hacked. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:894129791] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah, only a total scumbag would support an investigation based on no substantive evidence or truth............................................right? </quote> And what you seem to be unable to understand: 1. There is zero evidence of widespread voter fraud in the US. Multiple investigations on voter fraud have been done in the past and they have, at best, only turned up a handful of possibly-fraudulent votes. 2. The investigation into Trump's Russia ties was spurred by actual admissions from members of his campaign staff, not some flimsy reasoning that was just pulled out of thin air.</quote> No, the investigation into Trump's Russia ties was based on nothing more than the fake Trump dossier and the DNC being hacked.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 8:47:41 PM #119:	Mal_Fet posted... Talking to a Russian person =/= a Russian tie. collude klood/Submit verb come to a secret understanding for a harmful purpose; conspire. Donald Trump Jr. admitting to meeting with Russians in order to get dirt on Hillary Clinton is collusion according to the definition. Trump's campaign staff blabbing about Russians having dirt on Hillary Clinton is an admission of possible collusion. Not a hard concept. Not even CNN talks about the Russia conspiracy anymore. Give it up. Mueller's investigation is still ongoing. Doesn't really matter if CNN talks about it or not. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894129799] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Talking to a Russian person =/= a Russian tie.</quote> collude klood/Submit verb come to a secret understanding for a harmful purpose; conspire. Donald Trump Jr. admitting to meeting with Russians in order to get dirt on Hillary Clinton is collusion according to the definition. Trump's campaign staff blabbing about Russians having dirt on Hillary Clinton is an admission of possible collusion. Not a hard concept. <quote>Not even CNN talks about the Russia conspiracy anymore. Give it up.</quote> Mueller's investigation is still ongoing. Doesn't really matter if CNN talks about it or not.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 8:49:46 PM #120:	darkjedilink posted... No, the investigation into Trump's Russia ties was based on nothing more than the fake Trump dossier and the DNC being hacked. Uh no, it was spurred by George Papadopoulos, a then Trump campaign aide, telling an Astralian diplomat that Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton in May of 2016. Donald Trump Jr. admitting to meeting with Russians about said dirt is admitting to collusion. Again, the definition: collude klood/Submit verb come to a secret understanding for a harmful purpose; conspire. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894129936] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>No, the investigation into Trump's Russia ties was based on nothing more than the fake Trump dossier and the DNC being hacked. </quote> Uh no, it was spurred by George Papadopoulos, a then Trump campaign aide, telling an Astralian diplomat that Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton in May of 2016. Donald Trump Jr. admitting to meeting with Russians about said dirt is admitting to collusion. Again, the definition: collude klood/Submit verb come to a secret understanding for a harmful purpose; conspire.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FigureOfSpeech 01/15/18 8:50:03 PM #121:	Mal_Fet posted... FigureOfSpeech posted... Mal_Fet posted... FigureOfSpeech posted... Is he Hitler? No. Is he fascist? Maybe. Is he authoritarian? Yes. Ok, on the fascist question, in what way is he akin to a collectivist who views the individual and the state as one unit? And as for the authoritarian question, how many authoritarian leaders can you name who deregulate 22x more often than they impose new regulations, support and expand the private ownership of firearms, lower taxes across the board, and remove individual mandates to buy products? Just go ahead an post your juicy link about that 22x figure, you tease ;) https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/trump-we-achieved-regulatory-savings-by-eliminating-22-old-regulations-to-1-new/vi-BBGKAcA http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/politics/trump-deregulation-in-gifs/index.html I will address those articles in due course, but first, I need you to go back and check the edit I made to that post (you ninja'd me. That's my bad). I am just curious about what you think I was calling hyperbolic and if what acknowledgements you might offer in regard to my usage of the term in context and what context you perceived or how you may have read that post incorrectly. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>FigureOfSpeech posted [p:894129954] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FigureOfSpeech posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FigureOfSpeech posted...</cite> <quote> Is he Hitler? No. Is he fascist? Maybe. Is he authoritarian? Yes.</quote> Ok, on the fascist question, in what way is he akin to a collectivist who views the individual and the state as one unit? And as for the authoritarian question, how many authoritarian leaders can you name who deregulate 22x more often than they impose new regulations, support and expand the private ownership of firearms, lower taxes across the board, and remove individual mandates to buy products?</quote> Just go ahead an post your juicy link about that 22x figure, you tease ;)</quote> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/trump-we-achieved-regulatory-savings-by-eliminating-22-old-regulations-to-1-new/vi-BBGKAcA http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/politics/trump-deregulation-in-gifs/index.html</quote> I will address those articles in due course, but first, I need you to go back and check the edit I made to that post (you ninja'd me. That's my bad). I am just curious about what you think I was calling hyperbolic and if what acknowledgements you might offer in regard to my usage of the term in context and what context you perceived or how you may have read that post incorrectly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
creativerealms 01/15/18 8:50:24 PM #122:	If Trump ends up being a monster he will be his own monster he won't be Hitler. Only the future can tell how Trump will be remembered. Honestly its too early. Also why I hate to play this card republicans were saying the same thing about Obama. I can give you huge detailed lists about how Obama will be a worse monster then Hitler. It's dumb when ether side does it. Hitler is a singular monster. Trump will never be Hitler. --- No sig. <cite>creativerealms posted [p:894129975] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote>If Trump ends up being a monster he will be his own monster he won't be Hitler. Only the future can tell how Trump will be remembered. Honestly its too early. Also why I hate to play this card republicans were saying the same thing about Obama. I can give you huge detailed lists about how Obama will be a worse monster then Hitler. It's dumb when ether side does it. Hitler is a singular monster. Trump will never be Hitler.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 8:51:00 PM #123:	Mal_Fet posted... Where in here does it say he told anyone to lie about crowd size? Trump personally ordered Reynolds to produce additional photographs of the previous days crowds on the Mall, according to three individuals who have knowledge of the conversation. The president believed that the photos might prove that the media had lied in reporting that attendance had been no better than average. Trump personally ordered him to produce additional photographs to prove something that was obviously false. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894130007] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Where in here does it say he told anyone to lie about crowd size? </quote> Trump personally ordered Reynolds to produce additional photographs of the previous days crowds on the Mall, according to three individuals who have knowledge of the conversation. The president believed that the photos might prove that the media had lied in reporting that attendance had been no better than average. Trump personally ordered him to produce additional photographs to prove something that was obviously false.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 01/15/18 8:51:41 PM #124:	CableZL posted... Donald Trump Jr. admitting to meeting with Russians in order to get dirt on Hillary Clinton is collusion according to the definition. Trump's campaign staff blabbing about Russians having dirt on Hillary Clinton is an admission of possible collusion. Which in of itself is not under investigation, because it's not illegal in any sense. I hope you realize that the Russian dossier was acquired by the DNC through collusion with Russia yet no one involved in that is under investigation. So anyone who supports the Russia conspiracy is a scumbag just like the illegal voter investigation is, right? --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:894130051] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>Donald Trump Jr. admitting to meeting with Russians in order to get dirt on Hillary Clinton is collusion according to the definition. Trump's campaign staff blabbing about Russians having dirt on Hillary Clinton is an admission of possible collusion. </quote> Which in of itself is not under investigation, because it's not illegal in any sense. I hope you realize that the Russian dossier was acquired by the DNC through collusion with Russia yet no one involved in that is under investigation. So anyone who supports the Russia conspiracy is a scumbag just like the illegal voter investigation is, right?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FigureOfSpeech 01/15/18 8:51:46 PM #125:	creativerealms posted... If Trump ends up being a monster he will be his own monster he won't be Hitler. Only the future can tell how Trump will be remembered. Honestly its too early. Also why I hate to play this card republicans were saying the same thing about Obama. I can give you huge detailed lists about how Obama will be a worse monster then Hitler. It's dumb when ether side does it. Hitler is a singular monster. Trump will never be Hitler. Well said. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>FigureOfSpeech posted [p:894130053] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>creativerealms posted...</cite> <quote>If Trump ends up being a monster he will be his own monster he won't be Hitler. Only the future can tell how Trump will be remembered. Honestly its too early. Also why I hate to play this card republicans were saying the same thing about Obama. I can give you huge detailed lists about how Obama will be a worse monster then Hitler. It's dumb when ether side does it. Hitler is a singular monster. Trump will never be Hitler.</quote> Well said.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 01/15/18 8:52:33 PM #126:	CableZL posted... Mal_Fet posted... Where in here does it say he told anyone to ***lie *about crowd size? Trump personally ordered Reynolds to produce additional photographs of the previous days crowds on the Mall, according to three individuals who have knowledge of the conversation. The president believed that the photos might prove that the media had lied in reporting that attendance had been no better than average. Trump personally ordered him to produce additional photographs to prove something that was obviously false. Asking someone to show photos of an event....is not the same as asking them to lie about an event --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:894130111] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Where in here does it say he told anyone to lie **about crowd size? </quote> Trump personally ordered Reynolds to produce additional photographs of the previous days crowds on the Mall, according to three individuals who have knowledge of the conversation. The president believed that the photos might prove that the media had lied in reporting that attendance had been no better than average. Trump personally ordered him to produce additional photographs to prove something that was obviously false.</quote> Asking someone to show photos of an event....is not the same as asking them to lie about an event</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 8:53:35 PM #127:	Mal_Fet posted... Asking someone to show photos of an event....is not the same as asking them to lie about an event Asking someone to show photos of an event to in order to prove something that is obviously false is asking them to lie about an event. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894130196] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Asking someone to show photos of an event....is not the same as asking them to lie about an event </quote> Asking someone to show photos of an event to in order to prove something that is obviously false is asking them to lie about an event.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bio1590 01/15/18 8:55:32 PM #128:	Over 5 hours later and he's still going. When was the last time someone spent 5 hours trying to argue over and defend someone they pretend to not support? --- http://i.imgur.com/bbRWLI8.gif https://i.imgur.com/A0BErSV.jpg <cite>Bio1590 posted [p:894130333] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote>Over 5 hours later and he's still going. When was the last time someone spent 5 hours trying to argue over and defend someone they pretend to not support?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 8:56:16 PM #129:	Bio1590 posted... Over 5 hours later and he's still going. When was the last time someone spent 5 hours trying to argue over and defend someone they claim they pretend to not support? A few days ago, when Mal_Fet was doing the same thing in another case where Trump said/did something stupid. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894130383] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bio1590 posted...</cite> <quote>Over 5 hours later and he's still going. When was the last time someone spent 5 hours trying to argue over and defend someone they claim they pretend to not support?</quote> A few days ago, when Mal_Fet was doing the same thing in another case where Trump said/did something stupid.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 01/15/18 9:01:58 PM #130:	CableZL posted... Mal_Fet posted... Asking someone to show photos of an event....is not the same as asking them to lie about an event Asking someone to show photos of an event to in order to prove something that is obviously false is asking them to lie about an event. Asking someone to show photos of an event in hopes it will show a greater number of people than was reported by the media is not lying. By the way, since you stopped defending your other charges against Trump am I to assume that this is the only bad action you believe he took? --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:894130790] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Asking someone to show photos of an event....is not the same as asking them to lie about an event </quote> Asking someone to show photos of an event to in order to prove something that is obviously false is asking them to lie about an event.</quote> Asking someone to show photos of an event in hopes it will show a greater number of people than was reported by the media is not lying. By the way, since you stopped defending your other charges against Trump am I to assume that this is the only bad action you believe he took?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 9:03:55 PM #131:	Mal_Fet posted... CableZL posted... Donald Trump Jr. admitting to meeting with Russians in order to get dirt on Hillary Clinton is collusion according to the definition. Trump's campaign staff blabbing about Russians having dirt on Hillary Clinton is an admission of possible collusion. Which in of itself is not under investigation, because it's not illegal in any sense. I hope you realize that the Russian dossier was acquired by the DNC through collusion with Russia yet no one involved in that is under investigation. So anyone who supports the Russia conspiracy is a scumbag just like the illegal voter investigation is, right? Nope. Mueller's investigation has produced indictments and guilty pleas as a part of plea deals. Multiple investigations into voter fraud have shown no evidence of widespread voter fraud at all, and there is certainly no evidence of "3 million illegal votes" in the 2016 election. Trying to equate the lack of voter ID checking at the polls with widespread voter fraud just because the state didn't vote the way you wanted them to is idiotic. You're also falsely trying to assert that anyone can just walk into a polling location in California and successfully vote, when that's not the case at all. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894130937] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>Donald Trump Jr. admitting to meeting with Russians in order to get dirt on Hillary Clinton is collusion according to the definition. Trump's campaign staff blabbing about Russians having dirt on Hillary Clinton is an admission of possible collusion. </quote> Which in of itself is not under investigation, because it's not illegal in any sense. I hope you realize that the Russian dossier was acquired by the DNC through collusion with Russia yet no one involved in that is under investigation. So anyone who supports the Russia conspiracy is a scumbag just like the illegal voter investigation is, right?</quote> Nope. Mueller's investigation has produced indictments and guilty pleas as a part of plea deals. Multiple investigations into voter fraud have shown no evidence of widespread voter fraud at all, and there is certainly no evidence of "3 million illegal votes" in the 2016 election. Trying to equate the lack of voter ID checking at the polls with widespread voter fraud just because the state didn't vote the way you wanted them to is idiotic. You're also falsely trying to assert that anyone can just walk into a polling location in California and successfully vote, when that's not the case at all.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 9:05:26 PM #132:	Mal_Fet posted... Asking someone to show photos of an event in hopes it will show a greater number of people than was reported by the media is not lying. Asking someone to show photos of an event in order to prove something that is obviously false is pressuring them to lie about the event. This isn't complicated. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894131044] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Asking someone to show photos of an event in hopes it will show a greater number of people than was reported by the media is not lying. </quote> Asking someone to show photos of an event in order to prove something that is obviously false is pressuring them to lie about the event. This isn't complicated.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 01/15/18 9:07:15 PM #133:	CableZL posted... Mal_Fet posted... CableZL posted... Donald Trump Jr. admitting to meeting with Russians in order to get dirt on Hillary Clinton is collusion according to the definition. Trump's campaign staff blabbing about Russians having dirt on Hillary Clinton is an admission of possible collusion. Which in of itself is not under investigation, because it's not illegal in any sense. I hope you realize that the Russian dossier was acquired by the DNC through collusion with Russia yet no one involved in that is under investigation. So anyone who supports the Russia conspiracy is a scumbag just like the illegal voter investigation is, right? Nope. Mueller's investigation has produced indictments and guilty pleas as a part of plea deals. Multiple investigations into voter fraud have shown no evidence of widespread voter fraud at all, and there is certainly no evidence of "3 million illegal votes" in the 2016 election. Trying to equate the lack of voter ID checking at the polls with widespread voter fraud just because the state didn't vote the way you wanted them to is idiotic. You're also falsely trying to assert that anyone can just walk into a polling location in California and successfully vote, when that's not the case at all. Absolutely none of those indictments have anything to do with alleged collusion. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:894131190] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>Donald Trump Jr. admitting to meeting with Russians in order to get dirt on Hillary Clinton is collusion according to the definition. Trump's campaign staff blabbing about Russians having dirt on Hillary Clinton is an admission of possible collusion. </quote> Which in of itself is not under investigation, because it's not illegal in any sense. I hope you realize that the Russian dossier was acquired by the DNC through collusion with Russia yet no one involved in that is under investigation. So anyone who supports the Russia conspiracy is a scumbag just like the illegal voter investigation is, right?</quote> Nope. Mueller's investigation has produced indictments and guilty pleas as a part of plea deals. Multiple investigations into voter fraud have shown no evidence of widespread voter fraud at all, and there is certainly no evidence of "3 million illegal votes" in the 2016 election. Trying to equate the lack of voter ID checking at the polls with widespread voter fraud just because the state didn't vote the way you wanted them to is idiotic. You're also falsely trying to assert that anyone can just walk into a polling location in California and successfully vote, when that's not the case at all.</quote> Absolutely none of those indictments have anything to do with alleged collusion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 9:07:30 PM #134:	Mal_Fet posted... OK, so Trump did not actually pressure anyone to fire players for kneeling. Thanks for proving me right again. Do you understand that Trump broke ethics laws when he said NFL owners should fire their players? We literally have a quote from an NFL owner in which he says he's taking a hardline stance on the issue because of Donald Trump. This isn't hard. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894131204] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>OK, so Trump did not actually pressure anyone to fire players for kneeling. Thanks for proving me right again. </quote> Do you understand that Trump broke ethics laws when he said NFL owners should fire their players? We literally have a quote from an NFL owner in which he says he's taking a hardline stance on the issue because of Donald Trump. This isn't hard.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 9:11:04 PM #135:	darkjedilink posted... Absolutely none of those indictments have anything to do with alleged collusion. You seem to be incapable of understanding this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%93present) Q: What did Michael Flynn plead guilty to? A: "willfully and knowingly" making "false, fictitious and fraudulent statements" to the FBI Q: What did Michael Flynn "willingly and knowlingly" make "false, ficticious, and/or fraudulent statements" to the FBI about? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/us/politics/michael-flynn-guilty-russia-investigation.html A: Conversations with a Russian ambassador. Flynn alleges that he did so at the direction of senior members of Trump's transition team, including Jared Kushner. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894131444] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>Absolutely none of those indictments have anything to do with alleged collusion. </quote> You seem to be incapable of understanding this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%93present) Q: What did Michael Flynn plead guilty to? A: "willfully and knowingly" making "false, fictitious and fraudulent statements" to the FBI Q: What did Michael Flynn "willingly and knowlingly" make "false, ficticious, and/or fraudulent statements" to the FBI about? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/us/politics/michael-flynn-guilty-russia-investigation.html A: Conversations with a Russian ambassador. Flynn alleges that he did so at the direction of senior members of Trump's transition team, including Jared Kushner.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 01/15/18 9:12:50 PM #136:	CableZL posted... Do you understand that Trump broke ethics laws Lol ok bro, cite for me the "ethics law" that Trump broke. CableZL posted... We literally have a quote from an NFL owner in which he says he's taking a hardline stance on the issue because of Donald Trump. This isn't hard. Doing something because you agree with someone is not the same as doing something because that person pressured you. Look, can you name any terrible things that Trump did (ideally policy-wise), not things Trump just says, or can't you? Just answer me that. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:894131563] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>Do you understand that Trump broke ethics laws </quote> Lol ok bro, cite for me the "ethics law" that Trump broke. <cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>We literally have a quote from an NFL owner in which he says he's taking a hardline stance on the issue because of Donald Trump. This isn't hard.</quote> Doing something because you agree with someone is not the same as doing something because that person pressured you. Look, can you name any terrible things that Trump did (ideally policy-wise), not things Trump just says, or can't you? Just answer me that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 9:17:30 PM #137:	Mal_Fet posted... Lol ok bro, cite for me the "ethics law" that Trump broke. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227 18 U.S. Code 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entitys employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch (a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity (1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or (2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. (b) In this section, the term covered government person means (1) a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress; (2) an employee of either House of Congress; or (3) the President, Vice President, an employee of the United StatesPostal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code). --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894131886] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Lol ok bro, cite for me the "ethics law" that Trump broke. </quote> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227 18 U.S. Code 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entitys employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch (a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity (1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or (2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. (b) In this section, the term covered government person means (1) a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress; (2) an employee of either House of Congress; or (3) the President, Vice President, an employee of the United StatesPostal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 01/15/18 9:19:57 PM #138:	CableZL posted... (a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity (1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or (2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another, What act did Trump threaten to take if the players were not fired? --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:894132009] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity (1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or (2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,</quote> What act did Trump threaten to take if the players were not fired?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 9:25:16 PM #139:	Mal_Fet posted... CableZL posted... (a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity (1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or (2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another, What act did Trump threaten to take if the players were not fired? Read (2) again We have a quote from an NFL owner saying he's taking a hardline stance because of Donald Trump. Definition of influence: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/influence? verb (used with object), influenced, influencing. 7. to exercise influence on; affect; sway: to influence a person. 8. to move or impel (a person) to some action: Outside factors influenced her to resign. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894132352] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity (1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or (2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,</quote> What act did Trump threaten to take if the players were not fired?</quote> Read (2) again We have a quote from an NFL owner saying he's taking a hardline stance because of Donald Trump. Definition of influence: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/influence? verb (used with object), influenced, influencing. 7. to exercise influence on; affect; sway: to influence a person. 8. to move or impel (a person) to some action: Outside factors influenced her to resign.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 01/15/18 9:27:25 PM #140:	CableZL posted... Mal_Fet posted... CableZL posted... (a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity (1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or (2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another, What act did Trump threaten to take if the players were not fired? Read (2) again We have a quote from an NFL owner saying he's taking a hardline stance because of Donald Trump. Definition of influence: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/influence? verb (used with object), influenced, influencing. 7. to exercise influence on; affect; sway: to influence a person. 8. to move or impel (a person) to some action: Outside factors influenced her to resign. By your interpretation, if a president ever convinces anyone to do anything, they are in violation of an ethics law. Do you even understand how insane your claim sounds? --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:894132473] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity (1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or (2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,</quote> What act did Trump threaten to take if the players were not fired?</quote> Read (2) again We have a quote from an NFL owner saying he's taking a hardline stance because of Donald Trump. Definition of influence: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/influence? verb (used with object), influenced, influencing. 7. to exercise influence on; affect; sway: to influence a person. 8. to move or impel (a person) to some action: Outside factors influenced her to resign.</quote> By your interpretation, if a president ever convinces anyone to do anything, they are in violation of an ethics law. Do you even understand how insane your claim sounds?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 9:28:52 PM #141:	Mal_Fet posted... By your interpretation, if a president ever convinces anyone to do anything, they are in violation of an ethics law. Do you even understand how insane your claim sounds? No, by my interpretation (and the ethics law I quoted), if a president influences the employment practices of a private organization, they are in violation of an ethics law. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894132561] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>By your interpretation, if a president ever convinces anyone to do anything, they are in violation of an ethics law. Do you even understand how insane your claim sounds?</quote> No, by my interpretation (and the ethics law I quoted), if a president influences the employment practices of a private organization, they are in violation of an ethics law.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
butthole666 01/15/18 9:29:51 PM #142:	Why do you ask for examples and then ignore and/or deny all that are given --- "Kenan & Kel is what made me realize I wasn't racist." ~ NewportBox100s <cite>butthole666 posted [p:894132615] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote>Why do you ask for examples and then ignore and/or deny all that are given</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 01/15/18 9:32:43 PM #143:	CableZL posted... Mal_Fet posted... By your interpretation, if a president ever convinces anyone to do anything, they are in violation of an ethics law. Do you even understand how insane your claim sounds? No, by my interpretation (and the ethics law I quoted), if a president influences the employment practices of a private organization, they are in violation of an ethics law. So since Trump's tax reform influenced several companies to hire more employees and pay the ones they have more, that's also a violation of the ethics law since he influenced their employment practices? butthole666 posted... Why do you ask for examples and then ignore and/or deny all that are given Why shouldn't I criticize bogus examples --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:894132793] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>By your interpretation, if a president ever convinces anyone to do anything, they are in violation of an ethics law. Do you even understand how insane your claim sounds?</quote> No, by my interpretation (and the ethics law I quoted), if a president influences the employment practices of a private organization, they are in violation of an ethics law.</quote> So since Trump's tax reform influenced several companies to hire more employees and pay the ones they have more, that's also a violation of the ethics law since he influenced their employment practices? <cite>butthole666 posted...</cite> <quote>Why do you ask for examples and then ignore and/or deny all that are given</quote> Why shouldn't I criticize bogus examples</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 01/15/18 9:33:01 PM #144:	CableZL posted... Mal_Fet posted... Lol ok bro, cite for me the "ethics law" that Trump broke. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227 18 U.S. Code 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entitys employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch (a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity (1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or (2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. (b) In this section, the term covered government person means (1) a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress; (2) an employee of either House of Congress; or (3) the President, Vice President, an employee of the United StatesPostal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code). You should read that again, because it's specifically states that it only applies with respect to political affiliation. Trump didn't say they should be fired because they're Democrats, so it doesn't apply. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:894132811] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Lol ok bro, cite for me the "ethics law" that Trump broke. </quote> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227 18 U.S. Code 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entitys employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch (a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity (1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or (2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. (b) In this section, the term covered government person means (1) a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress; (2) an employee of either House of Congress; or (3) the President, Vice President, an employee of the United StatesPostal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).</quote> You should read that again, because it's specifically states that it only applies with respect to political affiliation. Trump didn't say they should be fired because they're Democrats, so it doesn't apply.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 01/15/18 9:34:21 PM #145:	CableZL posted... darkjedilink posted... Absolutely none of those indictments have anything to do with alleged collusion. You seem to be incapable of understanding this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%93present) Q: What did Michael Flynn plead guilty to? A: "willfully and knowingly" making "false, fictitious and fraudulent statements" to the FBI Q: What did Michael Flynn "willingly and knowlingly" make "false, ficticious, and/or fraudulent statements" to the FBI about? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/us/politics/michael-flynn-guilty-russia-investigation.html A: Conversations with a Russian ambassador. Flynn alleges that he did so at the direction of senior members of Trump's transition team, including Jared Kushner. Conversations that occurred AFTER TRUMP WON THE ELECTION. Ergo, it wasn't collusion. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:894132901] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>Absolutely none of those indictments have anything to do with alleged collusion. </quote> You seem to be incapable of understanding this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%93present) Q: What did Michael Flynn plead guilty to? A: "willfully and knowingly" making "false, fictitious and fraudulent statements" to the FBI Q: What did Michael Flynn "willingly and knowlingly" make "false, ficticious, and/or fraudulent statements" to the FBI about? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/us/politics/michael-flynn-guilty-russia-investigation.html A: Conversations with a Russian ambassador. Flynn alleges that he did so at the direction of senior members of Trump's transition team, including Jared Kushner.</quote> Conversations that occurred AFTER TRUMP WON THE ELECTION. Ergo, it wasn't collusion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 9:36:12 PM #146:	darkjedilink posted... You should read that again, because it's specifically states that it only applies with respect to political affiliation. Trump didn't say they should be fired because they're Democrats, so it doesn't apply. Democrat/Republican aren't the only political affiliations in existence. political adjective relating to the government or the public affairs of a country. "a period of political and economic stability" synonyms:governmental, government, constitutional, ministerial, parliamentary, diplomatic, legislative, administrative, bureaucratic; More relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics. "a decision taken for purely political reasons" synonyms:politically active, party; More interested in or active in politics. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894132998] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>You should read that again, because it's specifically states that it only applies with respect to political affiliation. Trump didn't say they should be fired because they're Democrats, so it doesn't apply. </quote> Democrat/Republican aren't the only political affiliations in existence. political adjective relating to the government or the public affairs of a country. "a period of political and economic stability" synonyms:governmental, government, constitutional, ministerial, parliamentary, diplomatic, legislative, administrative, bureaucratic; More relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics. "a decision taken for purely political reasons" synonyms:politically active, party; More interested in or active in politics.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 01/15/18 9:39:56 PM #147:	CableZL posted... darkjedilink posted... You should read that again, because it's specifically states that it only applies with respect to political affiliation. Trump didn't say they should be fired because they're Democrats, so it doesn't apply. Democrat/Republican aren't the only political affiliations in existence. political adjective relating to the government or the public affairs of a country. "a period of political and economic stability" synonyms:governmental, government, constitutional, ministerial, parliamentary, diplomatic, legislative, administrative, bureaucratic; More relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics. "a decision taken for purely political reasons" synonyms:politically active, party; More interested in or active in politics. "Kneeling to the National Anthem" isn't a political affiliation, though. Which is my point. It's specifically talking about telling people not to hire, or to go and fire, employees from certain political parties. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:894133240] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>You should read that again, because it's specifically states that it only applies with respect to political affiliation. Trump didn't say they should be fired because they're Democrats, so it doesn't apply. </quote> Democrat/Republican aren't the only political affiliations in existence. political adjective relating to the government or the public affairs of a country. "a period of political and economic stability" synonyms:governmental, government, constitutional, ministerial, parliamentary, diplomatic, legislative, administrative, bureaucratic; More relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics. "a decision taken for purely political reasons" synonyms:politically active, party; More interested in or active in politics.</quote> "Kneeling to the National Anthem" isn't a political affiliation, though. Which is my point. It's specifically talking about telling people not to hire, or to go and fire, employees from certain political parties.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 9:50:57 PM #148:	Mal_Fet posted... So since Trump's tax reform influenced several companies to hire more employees and pay the ones they have more, that's also a violation of the ethics law since he influenced their employment practices? He didn't influence their employment practices. Tax reform influenced their revenue. Companies then decided to use that change in revenue for things like raises and hiring. Some companies are firing more than they've hired so far, though. Some companies, no doubt, are just going to pocket the extra revenue and give little to no benefit to their employees. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894133911] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>So since Trump's tax reform influenced several companies to hire more employees and pay the ones they have more, that's also a violation of the ethics law since he influenced their employment practices? </quote> He didn't influence their employment practices. Tax reform influenced their revenue. Companies then decided to use that change in revenue for things like raises and hiring. Some companies are firing more than they've hired so far, though. Some companies, no doubt, are just going to pocket the extra revenue and give little to no benefit to their employees.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 01/15/18 9:51:52 PM #149:	cult of personality --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:894133965] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote>cult of personality</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 01/15/18 9:52:25 PM #150:	darkjedilink posted... "Kneeling to the National Anthem" isn't a political affiliation, though. Which is my point. It's specifically talking about telling people not to hire, or to go and fire, employees from certain political parties. "Kneeling to the national anthem" isn't a political affiliation, but one can definitely be affiliated to one side or the other on the reasons why they're kneeling. Those reasons would be considered political. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:894133995] in It's almos... [t:76205099]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>"Kneeling to the National Anthem" isn't a political affiliation, though. Which is my point. It's specifically talking about telling people not to hire, or to go and fire, employees from certain political parties. </quote> "Kneeling to the national anthem" isn't a political affiliation, but one can definitely be affiliated to one side or the other on the reasons why they're kneeling. Those reasons would be considered political.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Current Events > It's almost a year later. What are some Hitler-ish things Trump did? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > It's almost a year later. What are some Hitler-ish things Trump did?