Skip to content

The Politics Thread

1414415417419420694

Comments

  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited January 2020
    TakisMegas wrote: »
    So is it ok for a hollywood starlet to lecture people about immigration and human rights from their Malibu mansion in a White Neighbourhood or from the Hamptons while working for companies that promote Chinese child slave labour?

    mister-gotcha-3-34a18b.png?auto=compress,format&cs=srgb&_=34a18bbaee4df7f83997ee505367217f

    It is not okay for people to lecture others about politics while supporting a pedophile draft dodging fake religious scumbag who lies about everything too.
  • TakisMegasTakisMegas Member Posts: 835

    Are you talking about Obama?
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    TakisMegas wrote: »
    Are you talking about Obama?

    Nope, he's a good Christian ideal of a happily married family man married for 27 to the same woman with a couple kids.

    I'm talking about the guy who cheated on every wife he ever had including sleeping with a porn star a couple months after his son from his third marriage was born and has credible sexual assault accusations against him from 22 women including his first wife and a separate incident with a 13 year old tied to Jeffrey Epstein.
  • TakisMegasTakisMegas Member Posts: 835

    This person you are describing reminds me of an Anarchist Antifa member.
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    @TakisMegas: I know you're trying to spin this around, but I really don't see how any of the words previously used (pedophile, draft dodger, pretends to be religious, cheats on his wife with a porn star a couple marriage after his son from his third marriage was born, credibly accused of assault by 22 women including his first wife, implicated in a specific incident with a child connected to Epstein) have anything to do with Obama. And my guess is that you don't have a specific "Anarchist Antifa member" in mind.

    I've asked you in the past to please be specific when you make arguments, which is Rule 6 of this thread. I don't know what kind of argument you're trying to express here besides "no, you."
  • TakisMegasTakisMegas Member Posts: 835

    I was being sarcastic. Forgot how wound tight people are in here especially when the Lord and saviour Obama is used. I don't give a fuck about trump or Obama or anyone else.

    Also, why would you have to come to tell me what I and @smeagolheart are ribbing each other about. I don't need to be mansplained about what Obama is, or isn't. I think you guys should chillax abit, not everything is an attack on your beliefs.
  • TakisMegasTakisMegas Member Posts: 835

    I hold no ill will for anyone in life or this thread. I've noticed that every time I touch a nerve about something, I come under attack by the same usual suspects. It's cool though, some of you are buddies, but ganging up on someone over the internet where there are no repercussions because they challenge your beliefs or attack your saviours is a sign of extremism. Whether you like it or not, it is extremism.

    I've had enough. I actually thought that this thread had level headed intellectuals that wanted to be challenged. Holy fuck was I wrong.

    Have fun in your echo chamber boys, it's been nice.

  • GundanRTOGundanRTO Member Posts: 81
    edited January 2020
    ...That escalated quickly.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    jjstraka34 wrote: »

    Who says 'tens'? Does that mean more than 14 but less than 95???
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    @Balrog99: I say "tens" pretty often. I'd say the range would be 21-199, enough to be more than just two tens but not big enough to be in the hundreds. It's basically like saying "dozens," for which the range would be 25-199.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited January 2020
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »

    Who says 'tens'? Does that mean more than 14 but less than 95???

    I would say more than 20 and less than 100

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    Well now they're saying ten, not tens...
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    It's disconcerting to see active hostilities start. It's not a full-blown war, but it's either a demonstration of intent ("we're not afraid to blow stuff up") or a deliberate attempt to encourage the Trump administration to escalate further so that Iran could blame someone else for the resulting full-blown war. If the attack was intended to result in casualties rather than just make noise, I'm guessing it's an attempt to escalate.

    It's the sort of bait I would expect the Trump administration to take. War is seeming more realistic at this point.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited January 2020
    I'll also leave this here because it's true. We invaded illegally, we've occupied, we've now been told to leave, we refused. Our soldiers and bases are completely legitimate targets:

  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    Hopefully, dear god hopefully, the US will be smart and this will be the end of it.

    Iran retaliated in the same manner the US has in the past against Syria. If there is no casualties there would be no reason to strike back. Hell, the US was asked to leave those bases by the Iraqi government anyway, there really is no loss. Iran gets to say they did something, to save face, the US doesn't lose anything they haven't lost already. Let it end.

    But this is the Trump administration and being smart about things isn't really their forte. All that's needed is Trump to gloat about the killing to set off Iran again.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    edited January 2020
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    I'll also leave this here because it's true. We invaded illegally, we've occupied, we've been now now been told to leave, we refused. Our soldiers and bases are completely legitimate targets:


    Legitimacy is a sham. What nation so far has actually cared about 'legitimacy'? Iran and their proxies were hitting us 'illegitimately' for years so why is this any more significant? The whole point of terrorism is that the folks involved can't win 'legitimately' to begin with. Are they supposed to fight 'legitimately' and be slaughtered?

    Btw: Even if the US agreed to leave Iraq yesterday there's no way we'd have been out today...
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited January 2020
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    I'll also leave this here because it's true. We invaded illegally, we've occupied, we've been now now been told to leave, we refused. Our soldiers and bases are completely legitimate targets:


    Legitimacy is a sham. What nation so far has actually cared about 'legitamacy'? Iran and their proxies were hitting us 'illegitimately' for years so why is this any more significant? The whole point of terrorism is that the folks involved can't win 'legitimately' to begin with. Are they supposed to fight 'legitimately' and be slaughtered?

    Btw: Even if the US agreed to leave Iraq yesterday there's no way we'd have been out today...

    This is not terrorism. You know what terrorism is?? Killing 100s of thousands of civilians with US bombs in a war based on lies. We should have never been there, and this shouldn't be happening. Trump ripped up the Iran deal for NO reason, sanctioned them, and assassinated their top militiary commander over a meaninglessness storming of an embassy. We deserve everything we get, just like we did in the aftermath in 2003. I'm not gonna pretend there is a legitimate argument on the other side anymore. People like me were 110% right about Iraq. This isn't even a separate conflict, it's a direct result of the first one, with the same bloodthirsty maniacs selling it. Republicans have done it to us again. The "imminent threat" to this country is the GOP.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited January 2020
    deltago wrote: »
    Hopefully, dear god hopefully, the US will be smart and this will be the end of it.

    Iran retaliated in the same manner the US has in the past against Syria. If there is no casualties there would be no reason to strike back. Hell, the US was asked to leave those bases by the Iraqi government anyway, there really is no loss. Iran gets to say they did something, to save face, the US doesn't lose anything they haven't lost already. Let it end.

    But this is the Trump administration and being smart about things isn't really their forte. All that's needed is Trump to gloat about the killing to set off Iran again.

    Are we seriously operating under the assumption that a guy who threatened to bomb civilian targets over the weekend is going to act measured and not take the bait??
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    I'll also leave this here because it's true. We invaded illegally, we've occupied, we've been now now been told to leave, we refused. Our soldiers and bases are completely legitimate targets:


    Legitimacy is a sham. What nation so far has actually cared about 'legitamacy'? Iran and their proxies were hitting us 'illegitimately' for years so why is this any more significant? The whole point of terrorism is that the folks involved can't win 'legitimately' to begin with. Are they supposed to fight 'legitimately' and be slaughtered?

    Btw: Even if the US agreed to leave Iraq yesterday there's no way we'd have been out today...

    This is not terrorism. You know what terrorism is?? Killing 100s of thousands of civilians with US bombs in a war based on lies. We should have never been there, and this shouldn't be happening. Trump ripped up the Iran deal for NO reason, sanctioned them, and assassinated their top militiary commander over a meaninglessness storming of an embassy. We deserve everything we get, just like we did in the aftermath in 2003. I'm not gonna pretend there is a legitimate argument on the other side anymore. People like me were 110% right about Iraq. This isn't even a separate conflict, it's a direct result of the first one. Republicans have done it to us again.

    You're right, it's not terrorism. That was kind of my point. Terrorism is blowing up civilian targets, not attacking military bases. I was trying to say that it doesn't really matter if it's 'legitimate' or not. It's legitimate to the people doing it.

    I wonder if Trump is going to draw a couple of cards out of a deck to pick our next targets? (Am I the only one who noticed that 52 is also the number of cards in a poker deck?) I could just see Trump proclaiming, "We're hitting, let's see", pulls out a couple cards, "the Queen of Hearts and the 9 of Diamonds!"
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited January 2020
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    I'll also leave this here because it's true. We invaded illegally, we've occupied, we've been now now been told to leave, we refused. Our soldiers and bases are completely legitimate targets:


    Legitimacy is a sham. What nation so far has actually cared about 'legitamacy'? Iran and their proxies were hitting us 'illegitimately' for years so why is this any more significant? The whole point of terrorism is that the folks involved can't win 'legitimately' to begin with. Are they supposed to fight 'legitimately' and be slaughtered?

    Btw: Even if the US agreed to leave Iraq yesterday there's no way we'd have been out today...

    This is not terrorism. You know what terrorism is?? Killing 100s of thousands of civilians with US bombs in a war based on lies. We should have never been there, and this shouldn't be happening. Trump ripped up the Iran deal for NO reason, sanctioned them, and assassinated their top militiary commander over a meaninglessness storming of an embassy. We deserve everything we get, just like we did in the aftermath in 2003. I'm not gonna pretend there is a legitimate argument on the other side anymore. People like me were 110% right about Iraq. This isn't even a separate conflict, it's a direct result of the first one. Republicans have done it to us again.

    You're right, it's not terrorism. That was kind of my point. Terrorism is blowing up civilian targets, not attacking military bases. I was trying to say that it doesn't really matter if it's 'legitimate' or not. It's legitimate to the people doing it.

    I wonder if Trump is going to draw a couple of cards out of a deck to pick our next targets? (Am I the only one who noticed that 52 is also the number of cards in a poker deck?) I could just see Trump proclaiming, "We're hitting, let's see", pulls out a couple cards, "the Queen of Hearts and the 9 of Diamonds!"

    Yeah, he probably will. Why not?? There were literal CARD DECKS of insurgent leaders in the Iraq War. Remember "freedom fries" and shitty jingoistic Toby Keith songs??. This guy does......
  • GundanRTOGundanRTO Member Posts: 81
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    I'll also leave this here because it's true. We invaded illegally, we've occupied, we've been now now been told to leave, we refused. Our soldiers and bases are completely legitimate targets:


    Legitimacy is a sham. What nation so far has actually cared about 'legitimacy'? Iran and their proxies were hitting us 'illegitimately' for years so why is this any more significant? The whole point of terrorism is that the folks involved can't win 'legitimately' to begin with. Are they supposed to fight 'legitimately' and be slaughtered?

    Btw: Even if the US agreed to leave Iraq yesterday there's no way we'd have been out today...

    While it's true that the US wouldn't have been able to leave entirely, a promise to abide by Iraq's decision likely would have prevented or at the very least postponed the retaliation and provided a bit of time for cooler heads to attempt negotiation.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    deltago wrote: »
    Hopefully, dear god hopefully, the US will be smart and this will be the end of it.

    Iran retaliated in the same manner the US has in the past against Syria. If there is no casualties there would be no reason to strike back. Hell, the US was asked to leave those bases by the Iraqi government anyway, there really is no loss. Iran gets to say they did something, to save face, the US doesn't lose anything they haven't lost already. Let it end.

    But this is the Trump administration and being smart about things isn't really their forte. All that's needed is Trump to gloat about the killing to set off Iran again.

    Ugghhh, it's looking like these were ballistic missiles fired from Iran proper. I hope I'm wrong but the genie might be out of the bottle now.
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    deltago wrote: »
    Hopefully, dear god hopefully, the US will be smart and this will be the end of it.

    Iran retaliated in the same manner the US has in the past against Syria. If there is no casualties there would be no reason to strike back. Hell, the US was asked to leave those bases by the Iraqi government anyway, there really is no loss. Iran gets to say they did something, to save face, the US doesn't lose anything they haven't lost already. Let it end.

    But this is the Trump administration and being smart about things isn't really their forte. All that's needed is Trump to gloat about the killing to set off Iran again.

    Are we seriously operating under the assumption that a guy who threatened to bomb civilian targets over the weekend is going to act measured and not take the bait??

    What I am saying is that Iran isn't looking to escalate things. This minor attack proves that.

    I am hoping someone will get in his ear and say it was just like the time you fired rockets at a Syrian Airbase. A message was sent, no reply is needed.

    The ball is in Trump's court. He can walk away and take the win (hell, go ahead and downplay the rocket attack saying the bases are struck with rocket attacks all the time, that's what started this whole mess with the killing of the contractor) or he can be the feckless idiot everyone claims he is and do another stupid thing thinking Iran won't retaliate harder.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    I can't believe we are doing this shit again. I mean, we learn NOTHING. Watching the same movie play out at 37 the same as I did at 23 is enough to make me want to scream. How can our collective memory of how this turns out be this bad??
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    I'll also leave this here because it's true. We invaded illegally, we've occupied, we've been now now been told to leave, we refused. Our soldiers and bases are completely legitimate targets:


    Legitimacy is a sham. What nation so far has actually cared about 'legitamacy'? Iran and their proxies were hitting us 'illegitimately' for years so why is this any more significant? The whole point of terrorism is that the folks involved can't win 'legitimately' to begin with. Are they supposed to fight 'legitimately' and be slaughtered?

    Btw: Even if the US agreed to leave Iraq yesterday there's no way we'd have been out today...

    This is not terrorism. You know what terrorism is?? Killing 100s of thousands of civilians with US bombs in a war based on lies. We should have never been there, and this shouldn't be happening. Trump ripped up the Iran deal for NO reason, sanctioned them, and assassinated their top militiary commander over a meaninglessness storming of an embassy. We deserve everything we get, just like we did in the aftermath in 2003. I'm not gonna pretend there is a legitimate argument on the other side anymore. People like me were 110% right about Iraq. This isn't even a separate conflict, it's a direct result of the first one. Republicans have done it to us again.

    You're right, it's not terrorism. That was kind of my point. Terrorism is blowing up civilian targets, not attacking military bases. I was trying to say that it doesn't really matter if it's 'legitimate' or not. It's legitimate to the people doing it.

    I wonder if Trump is going to draw a couple of cards out of a deck to pick our next targets? (Am I the only one who noticed that 52 is also the number of cards in a poker deck?) I could just see Trump proclaiming, "We're hitting, let's see", pulls out a couple cards, "the Queen of Hearts and the 9 of Diamonds!"

    If he pulls a joker, does he hit Don Jr instead?
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    deltago wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    I'll also leave this here because it's true. We invaded illegally, we've occupied, we've been now now been told to leave, we refused. Our soldiers and bases are completely legitimate targets:


    Legitimacy is a sham. What nation so far has actually cared about 'legitamacy'? Iran and their proxies were hitting us 'illegitimately' for years so why is this any more significant? The whole point of terrorism is that the folks involved can't win 'legitimately' to begin with. Are they supposed to fight 'legitimately' and be slaughtered?

    Btw: Even if the US agreed to leave Iraq yesterday there's no way we'd have been out today...

    This is not terrorism. You know what terrorism is?? Killing 100s of thousands of civilians with US bombs in a war based on lies. We should have never been there, and this shouldn't be happening. Trump ripped up the Iran deal for NO reason, sanctioned them, and assassinated their top militiary commander over a meaninglessness storming of an embassy. We deserve everything we get, just like we did in the aftermath in 2003. I'm not gonna pretend there is a legitimate argument on the other side anymore. People like me were 110% right about Iraq. This isn't even a separate conflict, it's a direct result of the first one. Republicans have done it to us again.

    You're right, it's not terrorism. That was kind of my point. Terrorism is blowing up civilian targets, not attacking military bases. I was trying to say that it doesn't really matter if it's 'legitimate' or not. It's legitimate to the people doing it.

    I wonder if Trump is going to draw a couple of cards out of a deck to pick our next targets? (Am I the only one who noticed that 52 is also the number of cards in a poker deck?) I could just see Trump proclaiming, "We're hitting, let's see", pulls out a couple cards, "the Queen of Hearts and the 9 of Diamonds!"

    If he pulls a joker, does he hit Don Jr instead?

    No, that would be Rudi Guilliani... ;)
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited January 2020
    deltago wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    deltago wrote: »
    Hopefully, dear god hopefully, the US will be smart and this will be the end of it.

    Iran retaliated in the same manner the US has in the past against Syria. If there is no casualties there would be no reason to strike back. Hell, the US was asked to leave those bases by the Iraqi government anyway, there really is no loss. Iran gets to say they did something, to save face, the US doesn't lose anything they haven't lost already. Let it end.

    But this is the Trump administration and being smart about things isn't really their forte. All that's needed is Trump to gloat about the killing to set off Iran again.

    Are we seriously operating under the assumption that a guy who threatened to bomb civilian targets over the weekend is going to act measured and not take the bait??

    What I am saying is that Iran isn't looking to escalate things. This minor attack proves that.

    I am hoping someone will get in his ear and say it was just like the time you fired rockets at a Syrian Airbase. A message was sent, no reply is needed.

    The ball is in Trump's court. He can walk away and take the win (hell, go ahead and downplay the rocket attack saying the bases are struck with rocket attacks all the time, that's what started this whole mess with the killing of the contractor) or he can be the feckless idiot everyone claims he is and do another stupid thing thinking Iran won't retaliate harder.

    It's been revealed through reporting that it was Pompeo who got in Trump's ear to greenlight the assassination. Pompeo is absolutely in the camp of people who have wanted this conflict for 15 years and who believe they are waging a holy war. There ARE no grown-ups left. They all went home. Pompeo is the new Rumsfeld/Cheney rolled into one.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    I can't believe we are doing this shit again. I mean, we learn NOTHING. Watching the same movie play out at 37 the same as I did at 23 is enough to make me want to scream. How can our collective memory of how this turns out be this bad??

    Hmmm, let's see if I remember. Country X proclaims they will destroy us. We'll get to hear on CNN and MSNBC how horrible the war will be for our forces. We kick the shit out of the 10th biggest (or 7th biggest, 12th biggest, whatever the hell it is) military in the world while losing 100 casualties (mostly, to friendly fire). We force a surrender and fuck up the occupation so we can do the same thing again 10-20 years later. Sound about right?
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    deltago wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    deltago wrote: »
    Hopefully, dear god hopefully, the US will be smart and this will be the end of it.

    Iran retaliated in the same manner the US has in the past against Syria. If there is no casualties there would be no reason to strike back. Hell, the US was asked to leave those bases by the Iraqi government anyway, there really is no loss. Iran gets to say they did something, to save face, the US doesn't lose anything they haven't lost already. Let it end.

    But this is the Trump administration and being smart about things isn't really their forte. All that's needed is Trump to gloat about the killing to set off Iran again.

    Are we seriously operating under the assumption that a guy who threatened to bomb civilian targets over the weekend is going to act measured and not take the bait??

    What I am saying is that Iran isn't looking to escalate things. This minor attack proves that.

    I am hoping someone will get in his ear and say it was just like the time you fired rockets at a Syrian Airbase. A message was sent, no reply is needed.

    The ball is in Trump's court. He can walk away and take the win (hell, go ahead and downplay the rocket attack saying the bases are struck with rocket attacks all the time, that's what started this whole mess with the killing of the contractor) or he can be the feckless idiot everyone claims he is and do another stupid thing thinking Iran won't retaliate harder.

    It's been revealed through reporting that it was Pompeo who got in Trump's ear to greenlight the assassination. Pompeo is absolutely in the camp of people who have wanted this conflict for 15 years and who believe they are waging a holy war. There ARE no grown-ups left. They all went home. Pompeo is the new Rumsfeld/Cheney rolled into one.

    Well he listens to Fox more than any of his advisors. What is Fox telling him to do? I know Tucker was mocking him, what are the rest saying except killing terrorist are a good thing?
Sign In or Register to comment.