The Trump Presidency

[Bloodshot Scott]

I remember when he was the second coming of Hitler to liberals. Same with McCain. And Romney.

Now many of these people are now great Americans to the same "I'm leaving if they're elected" talkers.

 

[Rattrap]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas_(2013)

Smells like you don't know shit and could not elaborate, so you made a quick google search and copy/pasted some shit you found.

Supa has a subtle point - just throwing a list of cases is meaningless. Context, please? Do you agree/disagree and why?

Well, it sure was when I went to college! :1orglaugh

Ha, yeah, to be fair to you, it still is. I have a hard time calling it that having studied engineering physics.

You brought up "divisiveness" a day or two ago. This post, right here is every response to every comment you ever make about divisiveness and who is responsible for it. :nono:

This is...very true. Though to be fair to BsS, I haven't seen him deny that yet. He just asked a third party who they thought was responsible.

I remember when he was the second coming of Hitler to liberals. Same with McCain. And Romney.

This hypernormalization is super dangerous. You're quite right - Bush almost seems okay in contrast to the current disaster. But we shouldn't forget: Bush was awful.

Now many of these people are now great Americans to the same "I'm leaving if they're elected" talkers.

This sounds an awful lot like a narrative you've been given and you're running with it uncritically.

Here's an opportunity to buck that impression: Please, provide some examples of the "I'm leaving if they're elected" talkers now praising Bush, McCain, or Romney. As in specific individuals/groups who start from position A and move to position B, as opposed to some nebulous group of liberals who were at position A and some other, unconnected nebulous group of liberals who are at position B.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Supa has a subtle point - just throwing a list of cases is meaningless. Context, please? Do you agree/disagree and why?


Ha, yeah, to be fair to you, it still is. I have a hard time calling it that having studied engineering physics.


This is...very true. Though to be fair to BsS, I haven't seen him deny that yet. He just asked a third party who they thought was responsible.


This hypernormalization is super dangerous. You're quite right - Bush almost seems okay in contrast to the current disaster. But we shouldn't forget: Bush was awful.


This sounds an awful lot like a narrative you've been given and you're running with it uncritically.

Here's an opportunity to buck that impression: Please, provide some examples of the "I'm leaving if they're elected" talkers now praising Bush, McCain, or Romney. As in specific individuals/groups who start from position A and move to position B, as opposed to some nebulous group of liberals who were at position A and some other, unconnected nebulous group of liberals who are at position B.

Supafly is just mad he waltzed into a thread about homeschooling with some pompous smugness that homeschooled children are little nazis or something and that the German state would seize them for their own indoctrination camps - then I provided for him a link that proves they are more likely to succeed in school. Typical condescending "my-shit-don't-stink" liberal.


Regarding the cases I gave you, what is there to elaborate on? These cases are fairly common knowledge among Americans - at least I am familiar with them. I'm not going to sit here and rehash/write a legal brief on them.


I agree with the Heller decision (similarly I agreed with the McDonald decision - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago ) for pretty obvious reasons. I disagreed with the Fisher ruling (I think it's evil, honestly), and I was kind of indifferent to the ACA ruling.

 

[Rattrap]

Regarding the cases I gave you, what is there to elaborate on? These cases are fairly common knowledge among Americans - at least I am familiar with them. I'm not going to sit here and rehash/write a legal brief on them.

I didn't ask you to. I asked you whether you agree with them or not (which you mostly addressed) and why (which you did not).

I assumed animus when I asked him a very straightforward, direct question, would choose the non-"I'm a vile piece of shit human garbage heap" answer. He did not. I no longer assume anything. There are no 'obvious' reasons. Either state your position/case clearly, or have it be assumed instead.

Heller - you agree. Why?
Fisher - you disagree. Why?
ACA - if you're indifferent, I'm not sure why you brought it up at all. Keep in mind, the context of this question is why you would risk the catastrophe that is Donald Trump for Supreme Court picks. In essense, you're willing to cast aside any intellectual and moral consistency in the standard-bearer of the Republican party, toss aside any notions of American unity by siding with an individual because (in your own words) your political opponents hate him, and otherwise support a president who shits on any notions of conservatism - for his Supreme Court picks. That must mean they are very important to you and thusly it should be very easy for you to articulate why. You have as of yet not done so.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

I didn't ask you to. I asked you whether you agree with them or not (which you mostly addressed) and why (which you did not).

I assumed animus when I asked him a very straightforward, direct question, would choose the non-"I'm a vile piece of shit human garbage heap" answer. He did not. I no longer assume anything. There are no 'obvious' reasons. Either state your position/case clearly, or have it be assumed instead.

Heller - you agree. Why?
Fisher - you disagree. Why?
ACA - if you're indifferent, I'm not sure why you brought it up at all. Keep in mind, the context of this question is why you would risk the catastrophe that is Donald Trump for Supreme Court picks. In essense, you're willing to cast aside any intellectual and moral consistency in the standard-bearer of the Republican party, toss aside any notions of American unity by siding with an individual because (in your own words) your political opponents hate him, and otherwise support a president who shits on any notions of conservatism - for his Supreme Court picks. That must mean they are very important to you and thusly it should be very easy for you to articulate why. You have as of yet not done so.

Not every case the SC hears is going to affect me, but some cases (Heller, McDonald, Fisher) do affect me. 2nd Amendment? Why do you have to ask? Are you not familiar with how these cases effect personal protection rights? Or are you arguing these cases didn't have an affect on how personal protection rights play out in society, hence your continual rhetorical questions? Fisher - affirmative action is an inherently dubious concept, in so many obvious ways.


The ACA ruling is something I'm torn on. Therefore, I'm somewhat indifferent on it.

 

[Rattrap]

Not every case the SC hears is going to affect me, but some cases (Heller, McDonald, Fisher) do affect me. 2nd Amendment? Why do you have to ask? Are you not familiar with how these cases effect personal protection rights? Or are you arguing these cases didn't have an affect on how personal protection rights play out in society, hence your continual rhetorical questions? Fisher - affirmative action is an inherently dubious concept, in so many obvious ways.


The ACA ruling is something I'm torn on. Therefore, I'm somewhat indifferent on it.

Eh. I give up. It's taken half a dozen posts to get part of an answer, just on affirmative action. I'll just have to assume your reasons, I guess.

Let's go back to this, then:

Now many of these people are now great Americans to the same "I'm leaving if they're elected" talkers.

This sounds an awful lot like a narrative you've been given and you're running with it uncritically.

Here's an opportunity to buck that impression: Please, provide some examples of the "I'm leaving if they're elected" talkers now praising Bush, McCain, or Romney. As in specific individuals/groups who start from position A and move to position B, as opposed to some nebulous group of liberals who were at position A and some other, unconnected nebulous group of liberals who are at position B.

 

[Mayhem]

No wonder Scotty loses his mind over court appointments.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Try again after there's been eight congressional investigations.

Perhaps you should try again after the ambush in Niger is blamed on a YouTube video and H.R. McMaster goes around on the Sunday talk shows perpetrating the fraud.

Sorry to intrude on the lib group therapy thread however.

 

[Mayhem]

McCain hits Trump where it hurts, attacking ‘bone spur’ deferments in Vietnam

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...deferments-in-vietnam/?utm_term=.079295f412ef

After a week in which President Trump endured not-so-veiled criticisms from his two predecessors as president and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), McCain delivered another broadside that seems clearly aimed at Trump — in the most personal terms yet.

McCain, whose status as a war hero Trump publicly and controversially doubted as a 2016 presidential candidate, appeared to retaliate in kind against the president in a C-SPAN interview about the Vietnam War airing Sunday night. In the interview, McCain pointed to wealthy Americans who were able to get out of being drafted into service in the conflict in which he spent years as a prisoner of war. And he pointed to a very specific type of deferment which Trump just happened to use.

“One aspect of the conflict, by the way, that I will never ever countenance is that we drafted the lowest-income level of America, and the highest-income level found a doctor that would say that they had a bone spur,” McCain said. “That is wrong. That is wrong. If we are going to ask every American to serve, every American should serve.”

Trump received five deferments during Vietnam: four for his studies in college, and one for — you guessed it — bone spurs in his heel. As The Washington Post reported in July 2015:

For the previous four years, Trump had avoided the draft — and the possibility of being sent to fight in the Vietnam War — by obtaining four separate deferments so he could study at Fordham University and the University of Pennsylvania. With his diploma in hand and his college days over, he was suddenly vulnerable to conscription.

Trump’s exposure to the draft, however, didn’t last long. Two months later, on Sept. 17, 1968, he reported for an armed forces physical examination and was medically disqualified, according to the ledger from his local Selective Service System draft board in Jamaica, N.Y., now in the custody of the National Archives.

The ledger does not detail why Trump failed the exam — the Selective Service destroyed all medical records and individual files after the draft ended in 1973 and the military converted to an all-volunteer force.

In recent days, Trump, a Republican presidential candidate, and his campaign have said that he received the medical deferment because he had bone spurs in his feet. But rather than clear up all questions about why he did not serve in the military during the Vietnam era, they have given shifting accounts that are at odds with the few remaining documents in his Selective Service file.

Trump would later clarify the reason for his final deferment in a 2016 interview with the New York Times: “I had a doctor that gave me a letter — a very strong letter on the heels.” He said the condition was temporary and that it was “not a big problem, but it was enough of a problem.” His campaign continued to be cagey about providing documentation.

As with the previously mentioned criticisms of Trump, this one carries with it at least a whiff of plausible deniability. Plenty of wealthy Americans avoided being drafted into Vietnam, after all, and bone spurs (“a calcium deposit causing a bony protrusion on the underside of the heel bone”) are a somewhat common reason for such deferments.

But it would be a pretty big coincidence for McCain to bring up that particular ailment — especially in light of his regular criticisms of Trump and his clear allusion to Trump's “half-baked spurious nationalism” in a speech two days before taping this interview. Trump has recently targeted McCain for torpedoing the GOP's efforts to replace the Affordable Care Act, among other things.

For all the controversies Trump faced on the campaign trail and has confronted as president, his Vietnam deferments have not even been even close to chief among them. McCain just changed that at a very conspicuous time.

It should be noted that Dear Leader's daddy, Kim Jong Fred didn't serve either, which is too bad. If he had, Dear Leader could have played the, "My daddy was a Marine which makes me a Marine" card.

On a related note, an otherwise irrelevant member of the board can't seem to digest the fact that a Veteran can be a Liberal. But as we see, if it wasn't for Libs and Dems, there wouldn't be an Armed Forces because Cons and Republicans are too chickenshit to sign up. But to their credit, they do make up some creative excuses. But if nothing else, Bar(r)on Bonespur von Pussengropen could have at least been a bilge rat just like a past, and just as irrelevant, board member did. Even the woeful, inadequate and cowardly can find their place if they work up even the slightest quantity of Patriotism. But I guess that's what makes them woeful, inadequate cowards.

 

[xfire]

Perhaps you should try again after the ambush in Niger is blamed on a YouTube video and H.R. McMaster goes around on the Sunday talk shows perpetrating the fraud. Sorry to intrude on the lib group therapy thread however.

Credit to the incompetence of the Trump administration, in their chickenshit they've at least avoided making mistaken assumptions, of course it's merely incidental being that the main gist of their silence is being too chickenshit to say anything, not any sort of strategery. Dat General Kelly, tho, first time I've seen a four-star Marine general commit political suicide on National television. That whole, "generals shouldn't be on t.v." should have been one thing Trump followed through with. It's always good to hear from the peanut gallery.

 

[sean miguel]

On a related note, an otherwise irrelevant member of the board can't seem to digest the fact that a Veteran can be a Liberal. But as we see, if it wasn't for Libs and Dems, there wouldn't be an Armed Forces because Cons and Republicans are too chickenshit to sign up. But to their credit, they do make up some creative excuses. But if nothing else, Bar(r)on Bonespur von Pussengropen could have at least been a bilge rat just like a past, and just as irrelevant, board member did. Even the woeful, inadequate and cowardly can find their place if they work up even the slightest quantity of Patriotism. But I guess that's what makes them woeful, inadequate cowards.

Relevancy, on a politics sub-forum of a porn board. I guess that's important to some people, and if so, I don't fault you or others for it. Like you said, everyone wants a place where people know their name. Or just someone, anyone.

And to your point that liberals can be veterans. Yes, I think those on the right, as dim-witted as they are, can grasp that concept. But are they the majority as you seem to claim? They aren't. And even less so among the higher ranks and units on the edge. As far as support for the military goes, historically, the left's record on that is well established.

On a related note, this letter from an SF guy:

My Special Forces Brothers died in #Niger

Here are my thoughts:

https://twitter.com/DrMikeSimpson/s...et-just-sent-a-clear-message-to-all-liberals/

 

[Jack Davenport]

"My daddy was a Marine which makes me a Marine" card.

On a related note, an otherwise irrelevant member of the board can't seem to digest the fact that a Veteran can be a Liberal. But as we see, if it wasn't for Libs and Dems, there wouldn't be an Armed Forces because Cons and Republicans are too chickenshit to sign up. But to their credit, they do make up some creative excuses. But if nothing else, Bar(r)on Bonespur von Pussengropen could have at least been a bilge rat just like a past, and just as irrelevant, board member did. Even the woeful, inadequate and cowardly can find their place if they work up even the slightest quantity of Patriotism. But I guess that's what makes them woeful, inadequate cowards.

No trigglypuff, unlike you, I don't claim to have served when I didn't. I know you aren't very bright but cotdam! Work with us will ya?

Yep, that's me Mr. Irrelevant, in fact so irrelevant that you admittedly stayed away because of me ( and of course the agonizing butt hurt you endured after the election)

Mayhem: Veteran

Bwahahahahaha

:rofl2:

 

[sean miguel]

Yep, that's me Mr. Irrelevant, in fact so irrelevant that you admittedly stayed away because of me ( and of course the agonizing butt hurt you endured after the election)

Mayhem: Veteran

Bwahahahahaha

:rofl2:

stayed away... away.... away... away.

 

[sean miguel]

revenge ... revenge ... revenge ... revenge

lol I couldn't help myself.

I'm not mocking; I Promise.

 

[sean miguel]

I get the impression that this Niger business, is some sort of Partsianship tit for tat for Bengahzi. As if politicans can't resist but calculate building narratives of incompetence by their opponenets over an unfortunate military engagement, in time for elections, when they are out of power. Disgusting. I disagreed when Republicans politizied the Bengazhi raids. Just as I disagree with what Democrats are doing now. And this was not the first instance. I remember in the early weeks of the Trump Administration, there was botched raid in Yemen. Bystanders were killed and a US Seal was killed. Pundits were all over it.

You don't see the difference, particularly in the aftermath?

Hillary greeting widows with the coffins promising the person responsible for the video will pay (nevermind that pesky First Amendment).

I tried liking the left (being one of their own in my stupid younger years) and assuming the best intentions. But they are either hopelessly naive or fucking evil. And judging by the end results, does it really matter?

#fucktheleft

 

[himperv303]

Let us talk about Trumps Military experience.

During Vietnam he said he chickened out of joining the military because he had grown an vagina.

During his election campaign he said he knew more than most Generals did.

Now he says, ” I always felt that I was in the military” just because he has banged Russian hookers.
.
.
.
Hey, banging Russian hookers is not is not the same as serving the military.

 

[sean miguel]

Let us talk about Trumps Military experience.

Lets. And let's talk about FDR's military experience as it relates to WWII and Obama's during our current war on terror ... err... overseas contingencies.


Donald Trump, the candidate, disparaging John McCain as a POW was reprehensible (I don't use words like that IRL) bullshit and should've disqualified him. But in hindsight, I'm glad it didn't. Despite his drawbacks (I'm nuanced I guess), he is good and I say best for America. The last president who had "military experience" (as the left would define it - that Dan Rather tho) went one term. so spare me.

President Donald J. Trump is the commander-in-chief of our armed forces. In that, he will affect our safety more than John McCain ever has.

 

[Mayhem]

Donald Trump the candidate disparaging John McCain as a POW was reprehensible (I don't use words like that IRL) bullshit and should've disqualified him.

No, what Dear Leader said about McCain is straight out of the conservative playbook. As we see firsthand. The two inbred coward cons on this board like to disparage the service of others if that Vet has different political views as them. Just like their cotdam, incoherent Messiah. Yee-haw. And one of them even puts up a paramilitary avatar because that's what he needs to feel like a man. :lame:

Thanx to conservatives and their cotdam, incoherent Messiah, Gold Star families are no longer respected. Yee-haw. We're not pulling out of any of these conflicts, AS PROMISED. Yee-haw. We're losing people where we didn't even know we had troops. Yee-haw. And Dear Leader can't even have a 5 minute phone call where he isn't coughing up one hairball after another. Yee-haw.

he is good and I say best for America

Yes, I have no trouble believing you genuinely feel that way. But hey, a whole 37% feel that way too. Yee-haw.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Credit to the incompetence of the Trump administration, in their chickenshit they've at least avoided making mistaken assumptions, of course it's merely incidental being that the main gist of their silence is being too chickenshit to say anything, not any sort of strategery. Dat General Kelly, tho, first time I've seen a four-star Marine general commit political suicide on National television. That whole, "generals shouldn't be on t.v." should have been one thing Trump followed through with. It's always good to hear from the peanut gallery.

You're adorable when you're triggered.

Incoherent, but adorable.

 

[sean miguel]

No, what Dear Leader said about McCain is straight out of the conservative playbook. As we see firsthand. The two inbred coward cons on this board like to disparage the service of others if that Vet has different political views as them. Just like their cotdam, incoherent Messiah. Yee-haw. And one of them even puts up a paramilitary avatar because that's what he needs to feel like a man. :lame:

Thanx to conservatives and their cotdam, incoherent Messiah, Gold Star families are no longer respected. Yee-haw. We're not pulling out of any of these conflicts, AS PROMISED. Yee-haw. We're losing people where we didn't even know we had troops. Yee-haw. And Dear Leader can't even have a 5 minute phone call where he isn't coughing up one hairball after another. Yee-haw.


Yes, I have no trouble believing you genuinely feel that way. But hey, a whole 37% feel that way too. Yee-haw.

lol those russian brides tho.

and my avatar - it's from Ghost Recon Wildlands. I'm playing it on PS4 pro right now. You should check it. yee haw.