yoink

One must point out that at no point did the British public VOTE for Boris Johnson. Ever. At all. Edit: late reply. Jakee got there way before me.

You get there’s a difference of scale though, right? On one hand quid pro quo could be seen as the basis for ANY negotiation. But ‘I’ll save your seat in the Senate by the exit if you bring me a latte’ is a little different to ‘dig up dirt on my political opponent in our upcoming election and I’ll continue sending you military aid’, don’t you think??

Personally I’d like to see the US slower to get involved in world policing in the future. That’s different to ‘less’. But also I think that if we’re already in a place and leaving will create a vacuum then we have an obligation to develop a plan for a real transition and contingencies for what happens if it goes to shit.

You're oversimplifying. Some companies will do that. Others will use it as a reason to innovate and change their processes and procedures to keep their profit margin stable while holding the same price point. Those companies that just pass the tax directly onto the consumer suddenly find themselves being priced out of the market and with decreasing market shares in a more competitive environment. It's the very basis of that capitalism schtick that you keep banging on about. I thought you understood this?

And there’s the name for my next home brew beer. A coffee stout with a creamy head I think.

I’ve been saying the same for the past 2 years.

https://youtu.be/mMrL2LGzJuQ Would be hilarious if it was happening to someone else and if it wasn’t, you know, 100% accurate.

Oh you pitiful fool! Can't you see that this is all misinformation spread by the deep state??? That's just what they WANT you to think. My super secret network of ultra-covert ex black secret ops people tell me the TRUTH and no-one else. And I know because we've got a secret handshake and everything. And one of those decoder rings from froot loops.

Even if they weren’t it’s a bullshit argument.

You CAN escape from indoctrination though. And I completely reject your stance. It’s the most pernicious type of threat that is prevalent in religion. ‘If you don’t believe exactly what we say, not only are you damned for all eternity, but you’re actually evil and have sworn to Satan. You don’t want that, do you??? Better sign up!!’ To me that’s evil. Utterly.

Erdogan threw Trumps letter in the bin and launched the attack the same day. Top notch diplomacy, Mr. President.

Why is he so ORANGE???

Divorce yourself from 'agreeing with ideas' and 'supporting him for reelection'. They're different things. I can support a tougher stance on immigration or a 'less interference in world affairs' in general without voting for Trump for reelection, for example. I can agree with those broad ideas in general without agreeing with how they've been specifically implemented, and without being a racist, or in any way culpable for the damage that is currently being done. Yes. If you VOTE for anyone you have to understand you're supporting the bad they do, as well as the good. But philosophically I can understand why people agree with some of his ideas WITHOUT them magically becoming Trump.

Did I spell it right?

Ayn? Really?? *cue frantic googling Fuck. Everything I've known is a lie!!

I'll leave it here. I'm obviously seeing things differently to you guys. It looked to me as though that was exactly what normiss was saying. Maybe I need a beer and a re-read. I believe it's possible to agree with (for example) Trump's policy on gun control while standing against his racism, sexism, narcissism and everything else. There's a difference between philosophical and tacit agreement and support. I do not believe everyone who support Trump is racist. I do think the human condition is more complicated than that and that sometimes people don't always stand up to fight for things that maybe they should. Maybe they're afraid. Maybe they just don't need the hassle right at that second. That doesn't make them racist.

I could say 'it's possible you snore a like an adenoidal warthog and have all the sex appeal of Anne Rand and Angela Merkel after a head swap operation'... I don't think that would be acceptable. Simply saying 'it's possible' before hand doesn't magically make it less of an insult. It's like 'I don't mean to offend you, but...' . You are about to say something offensive. Kallend has a history of posting backhanded insults like this, and the result is that posters who could contribute to a useful discussion feel like he's being allowed to directly insult them. If he has a specific argument then he should make it. Not just say 'some people who think 'x' are cretins. Not saying YOU'RE one just because you think that, of course...' all while sniggering into his hand. This is just as anti-human behavior, IMO. For a simple position, I agree with you. If someone is only widely known as a racist (take David Duke for an example), and you either support or enable his behavior then there's a good chance you're a racist too. Politics, particularly at the level of the presidency is murkier. Trump isn't a one-policy person. I believe someone can believe in one policy without directly supporting another. Do you honestly believe that EVERY person who agrees with anything Trump says is a racist??? Of course not. It's more complicated than that. Sad days.

And once again you step over the bounds of acceptable discussion to direct insults. Your MO of posting is to make indirect insults like this far beyond what others have been banned for. It's not clever. It's not subtle. In my opinion it's unacceptable on this forum and you should be given a ban for it. Make an argument without being insulting professor, unless that’s beyond your faculties? I can understand how people support Trump. I can even agree with some of his ideas. That doesn't mean I agree with the execution of those ideas or support him when he does abhorrent things. To simply suggest I or any other poster here is 'Ignorant' just because they disagree with your particular view is unbelievably arrogant and unfortunately, is a typical response of yours. This is a discussion board. To engender discussion requires at least an effort to understand a different point of view. You've missed that for a while, IMO. Your premise of 'enabling a racist makes you a racist' is fundamentally flawed. It doesn't. You can support Trump's economic policies while decrying his social ones, for example. Not speaking out against racism doesn't make you a racist - at worst it makes you a coward. Sometimes it just makes you human. Make better arguments that don't devolve into name calling.

I agree with that. So rise above it. I’ve lost count of the number of posts I’ve written, gone to bed, then deleted before posting the next morning. Hillary was a colossal mistake, although an unproven one for the most part. Trump is a PROVEN liar, coward, idiot, narcissist, racist and arguably, traitor. That doesn’t make his supporters those things.

Oh come on Ron. You’ve been saying SHTF soon for at least the last 5 years. Some prophecy!

Oh For FUCKS SAKE. Get over Hillary. She’s a non entity. She hasn’t been relevant for 3 years.There is someone actually in power who is deliberately dismantling democracy and the government that you served. Hillary is not and never was the Commander in Chief. Trump IS. What fucking sane individual really gives a flying shit about something that Hillary Clinton did or didn’t do half a decade ago and uses that as some sort of argument point??? You’re better than that - at least I always thought so. You’re not Rushmc. Yes. Hillary was an asshole. The democratic process did it’s job and ensured she didn’t get elected. Now, the same thing has to happen to whoever does the likewise...

I’m hoping that no one is stupid enough to start WWIII, but I can see a Russian-backed Syrian invasion of Turkey happening. NATO gets involved and the US pulls out of NATO while Syria gets hung out to dry. Putin would be perfectly happy with that outcome.

Do you think enough conservatives would vote for a woman right now, regardless of policy or experience? Shades of Hillary n'all.

The last election PROVED that you don't win on policies right now, you win on emotion, and remember - Trump is a master at this. Instead of realizing that and targeting it over the last three years they've been developing policies, just as they did before. And they'll lose the same way. The average right-centrist voter isn't interested in hearing about the details of exactly how budget will be balanced, or the international trade agreements that will be made. They just want to know that they've been listened to and that the party as a whole isn't just going to move to be more and more left wing. 'I know you didn't want to vote for Trump and we heard you' should have been what the D party have been screaming. That's the manifesto the Democrats should have been pushing - the emotional one, so that when it's time for policy presentations and debates you've already won that one. Literally the entire foundation of the electoral system is burning around us. Fix that first. Get into power to stop the harm being done, even if it means compromising on some stances like universal health care or gun control. THEN promote renewables and immigration.

Money Weather Money again.