|
Oh boy we're going to plunge down the rabbit hole of solipsism to justify a claim that not believing in your religion is 'faith', I can't wait. "But how do you know that telescope you're looking through even exists?.... Because you have faith??  " :smirks freshmanly:
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
max4me posted:Liberals: "a member of a group I support shot up members of another group I support.....I have mixed feelings about this" I don't think mass shooters or ISIS sympathizers are groups liberals support 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
Those rants are weird, it's like I start out nodding in agreement "deregulating derivatives was dumb yeah!" and then it gets crazier and crazier until the Saudi-Jew alliance is holding Clinton's charity by the balls and controlling the state department from behind the scenes. But I guess if you stick to plausible criticisms of Clinton then Trump's brain-damaged Mussolini impression and Johnson's pro-corporate naivete don't look so good in comparison, so you have to go full conspiracy nut against her to make either one of them seem like a halfway sane choice. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
hexenmexen posted:http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/george-soros-democratic-convention-226267 Could you explain to me what strings are attached? Let's see what dastardly causes your article has uncovered, so we can get a glimpse of this scheming Jew's master agenda: politico posted:[George Soros] focused his philanthropic attention on his international foundations, which have donated more than $13 billion over the past three decades to nonprofits that aim to defend human rights, shape the democratic process in Eastern Europe and expand access to health care and education in the U.S. and around the world.  Oh no! Not human rights, health care, and education! Not democracy! The fiend. Why if she gets elected he could call in his favors and force her to give health care and education to us all.And look what else politico posted:End Citizens United, which supports candidates, including Clinton, who pledge to push campaign finance reforms, this year received a $5,000 check from Soros, the maximum he could legally give to that group. Hmmm, donating to a group trying to overturn Citizens United and close the spigot of ultrarich donors and corporations buying politicians. Must be a false flag to throw us off the trail, exactly what a puppetmaster Jew would do! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:They just made quid pro quo legal by president as long as you dont look directly into a recorder and say "i am doing this is exchange for this money". At this point the damage is already done, even without CU. You can undo that damage. You can appoint justices like Ginsberg and Breyer (her husband's picks) that will overturn that part of McCutcheon. Oh hey, there's an opening on the court right now! Then the federal government or any state can pass a new campaign finance law and appeal it all the way to the supreme court. Or you could keep electing Republicans forever I guess, and never figure out why we can't seem to get donation limits.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:It's always kind of baffled me that the right feels the need to make up murders, health scares and rape allegations to go after the Clintons when the truth would work just fine. And the truth would be...? readingatwork posted:That they're pretty much "business as usual" incarnate. They're crass political animals with little real integrity who's entire political platform is based on shrewd calculations and will change on a dime the second the political winds blow in another direction. They're also up to their eyeballs in corporate cash and have pushed watered-down versions of pretty much every lovely Republican economic policy over the years. Hrrrm yes I wonder why Republicans aren't using the slam-dunk "Republican policies are universally lovely, and Clinton is just the lite version, vote Republican!" attack strategy. What a bizarre oversight, Republicans would have this election in the bag if they tell America how horrible electing Republicans is, yep.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:One side hasn't held as many press conferences as the press likes but still talks to them all the time, the other literally said that press that is mean to him will be banned once he is president then had their cameras cut and takes the press passes anyway from anyone who dare speak ill of him. Yeah but we expect that from Trump because he's a crass millionaire real estate mogul who isn't even trying to run a serious campaign. Nothing to worry about here everyone, he'll do fine. But Clinton is trying to be a serious candidate who can be trusted to govern competently and transparently so this is all very troubling from her. Think twice before you vote for that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:Also, we just had eight years of a president who didn't vote for the war, and she ran against a dude in the primary who didn't vote for it either, so it's not like it was some impossible political decision, she made a choice which rightfully or wrongfully solidifies people's opinions of her being two-faced. The way that vote was sold to congress and the public was a complete lie. The administration said war was a last resort but they needed authorization to get Saddam to disarm peacefully or he'd just blow off America as an empty threat. Then they just invaded anyway without even letting the UN inspectors finish their jobs. Bush never wanted nor intended a peaceful resolution, no matter what Saddam did. You could question her judgment and her inability or unwillingness to see what Bush and the Republicans really were, but she's undoubtedly learned from that in the past 16 years and everything indicates she won't make that mistake again. But it doesn't mean she's a secret war-monger or that it means she would have voted for war if Bush had said "I'm taking Iraq because I can and no amount of evidence will convince me otherwise."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
No First Use is the only rational position, even losing a conventional war is categorically better than a civilization-ending nuclear firestorm.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
I mean we tried brinkmanship in the 1950s and what happened: communist countries called our bluff and invaded their neighbors anyway because they correctly reasoned that we weren't willing to end our civilization over Korea or Vietnam. Did our official policy on nuclear weapons even stop the annexation of Crimea, of course not. No one would seriously believe we'd blow ourselves up for that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Lol if you think that denouncing a no first use policy means I want nukes to ever be used. No it doesn't, anyone who wants to start a conventional war is capable of correctly reasoning that No First Use is the only rational strategy and that any nuclear first strike posture is a bluff. If you dispute this, please name all likely or even possible situations where you think destroying our civilization in nuclear fire would advance the geopolitical interests of the United States in response to some diplomatic or conventional crisis. Here I'll start:
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:None obviously, but the threat of doing so most certainly is. Which is why it's critical that we maintain American credibility, so foreign Nations understand that the response to wonton aggression will be severe. Your realist theory depends on other states assuming we will act massively against our own interests just because we say we totally will for sure you better believe it bub? edit: wait is wonton aggression when China invades?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:They might think that, but whether they actually risk it is another story. The risk that we will actually destroy ourselves over this or that piddly crisis is exactly equal to the risk that we'll freak out and destroy ourselves anyway despite an official No First Use Policy. i.e. almost zero, and requires them to think us so unpredictable and irrational that we can't be dealt with in any way.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:pretty sure iraq is a fantastic example of us acting massively against our own interests just because we say we totally will. Oh my God. That you can't tell the difference between an action that politicians can justify to others/themselves with a plausible-sounding (but bullshit) narrative of why it's in the national interest, which actually is in the interest of some actors (defense contractors, people who benefit from Republican reelection, etc), and an action that everyone knows would destroy ourselves with no conceivable benefit to anyone...now that is revealing. You should stick to vaguely condescending to everyone that disagrees with you and saying they're not smart enough to "get it", this is a disaster that's only proving how little you know.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Failing to adopt a "no first use" policy does not mean we're going to actually use nuclear weapons y'all. It just means that other states by definition cannot discount that. Actually using nuclear weapons defeats their purpose, but maintaining the nuclear umbrella is an excellent deterrent to not just nuclear war, but conventional war between powers as well. If actually using the weapons defeats their purpose, then other states by definition can discount that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Pray tell, how many people died in the proxy wars between the two great powers of the world when compared to those who died in the two world wars? The only time first use is a credible threat is if a nuclear power is facing complete destruction in a total war, because you can't discount the possibility the rulers will launch out of spite when they're going to die anyway, and there's no point in starting a total war with another nuclear power when you don't want to risk winning. But No First Use is irrelevant there because you can't discount the risk that when facing defeat the enemy could change their policy and strike or threaten to strike anyway. Even if someone has a No First Use policy, provoking a situation where they might nuke you anyway is just as horrible an idea. But provoking a situation where it would be irrational and insane to nuke you is safe regardless of what the official policy says.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Not so! By definition they cannot discount the use of nuclear weapons, for their sheer destructive power makes them a threat that cannot ever be discounted. Then the official policy on first use is irrelevant because nuclear weapons can never be discounted.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:It's not irrelevant, but it means they're easier to discount. I don't see why that's desirable. The Iron Rose posted:Not so! By definition they cannot discount the use of nuclear weapons, for their sheer destructive power makes them a threat that cannot ever be discounted. You are arguing that nukes can both be discounted and cannot ever be discounted.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I'm arguing that there are degrees to which nuclear weapons act as deterrents. Even with a no first use policy, they still act as a deterrent to conventional war. However, they are a weaker deterrent as a result of a no first use policy than they would be otherwise. You haven't proven this and it doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. The only situation so dire that there's risk we'd actually follow through on such a policy are also so dire that we're just as likely to do it regardless of policy. That's really only going to be imminent defeat in a total war: MAD, and in no other situation. I have another question about your position The Iron Rose posted:But ultimately the best way to stop warfare between great powers is by having a really big stick. That's why maintaining credibility is so important, and why Obama's biggest failure was making a Syrian red line and then refusing to act on it. If making threats we don't intend to act on makes the world more dangerous, then why should we threaten a nuclear response when we'd never act on it, doesn't that undermine our credibility? Indeed we've shown repeatedly that we don't intend to act on a First Strike doctrine in ever war and crisis we've ever had since 1946.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Well, yes, but uh. There hasn't actually been any event that would trigger a first strike doctrine, seeing as there hasn't actually been a large scale war that would trigger said first strike doctrine. True, and therefore first strike doctrine doesn't deter The Iron Rose posted:China loving around in the South China Sea or the Taiwanese Strait either. because those aren't dire enough to trigger a first strike!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I'm personally of the belief that the seventh fleet has more to do with that than our nuclear umbrella, but I've still yet to hear any reason why a No First Use policy would be useful. The deterrence value generated by a no first use policy, however great or meager it is in the estimation of China and Russia, is essentially free. There is nothing, to my knowledge, to be gained from a No First Use Policy whatsoever. Correct, it is the USN that deters Chinese aggression in the Pacific. And again the deterrent effect against anything short of total war (if it exists, which it does not) is not free, both for reasons that you don't accept (the damage to our moral credibility when we announce our callous disregard for the deaths of billions and world Armageddon) but also for a reason you've already put forth (making threats we would never act on damages our credibility if another state takes the risk and proceeds anyway). The only real downside to a No First Use policy is it lets Republicans and Trumpists and neocons dickwave about Obama's weakness emboldening the terrists so they can corral people like you into panic voting for Nixon or Romney or Jeb or Trump or whatever garbage they're offering up next. Actually, I just convinced myself that a First Strike policy from Democrats is essential for this reason alone given how disastrous it is for the world whenever Democrats lose the White House. I now only support No First Use if a Republican administration inaugurates it, Only Nixon Can Go To China etc.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:However, matching policy to practical reality is dangerous, because PLA planners in the Central Military Commission (or Russian generals in the Kremlin) can put that possibility out of their minds easier with a no first use policy than without. The PLA attacked the US military in a conventional war already, our nuclear umbrella did nothing to deter them. "The PLA would never do this thing they already did!" They don't attack Taiwan because they don't have the naval power to hold it, not because they seriously think we'd blow up the world over some rinky dink island (no offense to Taiwan I'm sure it's a very lovely rinky dink island whose independence isn't quite worth destroying civilization itself) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:we are openly seeking to demographically displace you Hmmmmm...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
McAlister posted:But she also knows that the media's desire to poo poo on her is so strong that they will throw Nancy Reagan's still warm corpse under the bus for the chance to crow about Hillary Clinton being wrong about something.. And they did. Wasn't it glorious? Instead of a week of Reagan apologia and having to be polite about the departed we got wall to wall coverage of "Hillary Clinton Wrong! Nancy Reagan Actually Terrible Person!" I don't believe this was a brilliant master stratagem on Hillary's part, but that didn't make it any less beautiful when it happened  If she praises Phyllis Schlafly as an advocate of Equal Rights for women though we'll know what's up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I never was, I just ignored the hell out of this thread when a whole bunch of new posters showed up suddenly very concerned about Hillary's health. Oh wow, that was amazing. Man why do all these accelerationists think voting for a dumber and more racist version of the usual Republican trust fund baby millionaire is "throwing a wrench into the status quo". I'd like to see one of them advocate electing Al-Baghdadi. Now that would really shake things up around here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Democrats expanded Medicaid, but a Republican-dominated Supreme Court made sure that Republican-dominated states could reject it out of spite and political opportunism, loving over poor people of all colors so see what have Democrats done for blacks in Georgia and Mississippi and Texas, nothing that's what. I am a serious commenter making serious comments, you can tell I'm serious because both sides are equally guilty. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Sep 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
Nichael posted:A lot of voters think exactly that. You have to hand it to the GOP. They are masterful strategists... except when it comes to stopping orange baby people. Yes, the Republican strategy for eight years has been to gently caress up America so they'll have some pain they can blame on welfare queens and immigrants. And it has worked pretty well. But the OP wasn't talking about a successful political strategy convincing people to believe a false narrative, he claimed the narrative is the truth: that the Democrats never help black people because their votes are guaranteed. This is objectively false. He's also making a false equivalence: if poor GOP-voting whites voted for Democrats they would get help because Democratic policies help the poor. Republicans are only able to take them for granted because these voters care about white identity politics more than economics. If poor black people voted for Republicans they wouldn't get help because Republican policies gently caress the poor and gently caress POCs even harder. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Sep 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
Donkwich posted:I'm surprised Trump's protectionist attitudes aren't alienating the GOPe more. Do they just care about Pence making the actual decisions at this point? They think because he's stupid and a political neophyte they'll be able to control him once he's in office and he'll rubberstamp whatever the Republican congress passes. If he acts up, they'll just sit him down and explain that he's not to gently caress up the gravy train for the superrich. They think it will work out like when they stopped the Tea Party morons from defaulting on the debt. The David Camerons of the world never see it coming when something fucks up and their dumb populist rhetoric suddenly becomes policy. Obviously the extreme example and worst-case-scenario of conservative aristocrat drinking from this poisoned chalice is, of course, Franz Von Papen.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:Why they assume they could control him after failing to do so for this long, I have no idea. I mean, they might be right. It could work out. And Cameron might have won the Brexit vote, it almost worked out that way. It's just, you know, the mere fact he had to promise that referendum to eke out a win should have been a tipoff that he was taking a big risk. If they get the White House, they will control Congress and the Supreme Court, they will be one signing pen in an orange-fingered grip away from pillaging the country. So they're probably willing to engage in a lot of wishful thinking: "get the White House first, worry about keeping Trumpism in line later"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Of course he'll rubberstamp whatever Congress passes, because he's a lazy gently caress that doesn't care at all about policy. He'll be Colonel Potter wanting to get out of the office and Congress will be Corporal Radar O'Reilly trying to get a three-day pass signed. Just put the paper in front of him, and he'll sign it, because he doesn't give a poo poo and doesn't want to read it. Yes, this is what they think and they're counting on it. It's possible. It's also possible that Trump just loves all the attention he got in the primaries, and because he doesn't know anything about economics or governing, he decides to "play hardball" with bondholders and orders the Treasury to stop paying the debt. Or pulls out of NATO. Or stumps for a bill unilaterally abrogating NAFTA and there are enough Tea Party true believers and congressmen afraid of getting primaried by angry nativists that oops it passes. There's a good chance that he just does whatever the gently caress he wants because he's the goddamn president who doesn't have to listen to any of the losers who tried to stop him. He might start proposing all that popular stuff the base wants which GOP leaders never allow to ever be brought to the floor. Remember how long that dumb shutdown went on because establishment Republicans were all waiting for someone else to vote with the Democrats so they could go to their own district and say they stood up to Obama but those other RINOs betrayed them and caved? Now imagine the GOP trying to whip those cowards who will have to face reelection after Trump tears them apart in every media outlet for betraying the American worker to Mexico and China.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
As if the Republicans wouldn't be running the exact same "he's dying", "body double" conspiracy theories about Bernie Sanders, only instead of emails and corruption it'd be Marxist and Jewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww "You dumb leftist idealists, 2016 wasn't the time to risk everything and run some pie-in-the-sky socialist non-Christian grandpa! You're gambling with fascism! You had a safe moderate Methodist who worked for Obama who is scandal-proof after years of baseless Republican accusations, what were you thinking!" 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
hexenmexen posted:If I believe that business interests and actually promoting growth will reduce inequality versus social welfare that is a justifiable political opinion to have. You're not a fan of Bush's policies but you want to double down on Bush's tax cuts and deregulation. Are you even old enough to remember the Bush years.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
hexenmexen posted:Spend it on K-12 instead of free college (and you get a degree and you get a degree). Gary Johnson wants to abolish the Department of Education
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
hexenmexen posted:Well increasing the national debt by a complete refusal to REFORM any entitlements and continuing to keep the US as a no go zone for business isn't going to do anything for your children's futures. Hey idiot, cutting taxes increases the national debt. It has never decreased the national debt, not ever, why are you doubling down on Bush policies that gave us the largest deficit in history. Cutting "entitlements" (Social Security and Medicare) creates instant poor people and depresses demand because millions of seniors can no longer afford food and housing, and millions of families have to cut back on their spending to care for older family members. This hurts business, hurts tax revenue, and increases public debt everywhere it's been tried. hexenmexen posted:Hillary wants to increase entitlements by allowing free community and tech based college, without a real plan to reform K-12 education, and she has mentioned anything about the tax code. So welcome to another four years of reduced wages, failing education, and increased national debt. Free college is not an entitlement program, it's discretionary spending which is different. And despite your concern trolling about how you "really" want to fund K-12 education and help minority schools in poor neighborhoods, you're supporting the candidate who wants to abolish the Department of Education and federal funding for schools (gently caress you schools in poor areas with a limited tax base!) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Sep 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
Trump is probably just lying about giving himself access to nuclear weapons to appeal to the base, so he's a safe bet on that front.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
"We shouldn't have an educated workforce with college degrees, we need to spend that money on K-12 especially in minority communities!" "But your candidate wants to cut K-12 funding, drastically, and tell poor schools in those communities to get hosed." "You can't just throw money at the problem, lib, you need to give them real help like well I'm not going to say how, but cutting their funding is definitely the first step." Hmmmmmmmmmm
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
hexenmexen posted:The overall national debt isn't the issue, but if the GDP ratio can be fixed by increasing participation in the work force. Hey hombre take a look at what happened to debt-to-GDP under Reagan and the Bushes who espoused your Laffer Curve bullshit, each time Democrats came into office with a spiralling debt (and in Obama's case two failed wars and the worst recession since 1929) and managed to reverse the damage from years of "fiscal conservative" mismanagement.   These charts are only until 2014, the picture has actually improved since then because the deficit has continued to shrink while the GDP has continued to expand. Tax cuts have never, ever lead to a smaller debt-to-GDP ratio because cutting revenue increases the deficit, and trickle-down economics doesn't loving work, so  at you complaining about progressives doubling down on Obama's (successful, by any metric you care to name) policies while you want to double down on Dubya's catastrophic failure of an economic policy but conservative even harder than he did.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
hexenmexen posted:At least I've already accepted there wont be any SS for me by the time i retire. This is bullshit btw SSA posted:Social Security's total income is projected to exceed its total cost through 2019, as it has since 1982. The 2015 surplus of total income relative to cost was $23 billion. However, when interest income is excluded, Social Security's cost is projected to exceed its non-interest income throughout the projection period, as it has since 2010. The Trustees project that this annual non-interest deficit will average about $69 billion between 2016 and 2019. It will then rise steeply as income growth slows to its sustainable trend rate as the economic recovery is complete while the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Even if nothing is done, social security will stabilize at paying out 75% of current benefits, which is not "nothing". This could be returned to 100% by removing the income cap on FICA tax, or by the equivalent of reversing the Bush tax cuts on the top 2% of earners. I could continue to go line-by-line because almost every single sentence you type is a total lie but I'm tired and I have stuff to do so 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:Trump being voted supreme emperor of mankind for life would probably be less devastating for the world and especially the economy than a libertarian becoming president. The worst thing about them is their complete inability to understand anything outside their objectivist rational self-interest dissonance bubble. It would be comedic, if it wasn't so sad. Few things are sadder than someone who thinks their smarter than they are, while it's obvious to everyone else that they aren't very smart. When that happens there's at least a decent chance every economist in the country could sit Trump down and slowly explain in nice simple words why letting the US banking system collapse would be bad, like they had to do with George W Bush (probably with the use of hand puppets and some musical cues on a xylophone), and get him to save the economy from Great Depression 2: Depression Harder even if only because he doesn't want to go down in history as the worst president ever. With a libertarian Randroid there's a 99% chance he'll just go "nuh-uh my principles are self-evident, get out of here with your 'facts' and 'data', your reality-based community has no power over me and my world of pure reason" and let the country crumble into some Mad Max/Steinbeck nightmare while the free market gets to work on culling a few million unemployed workers and their families with efficient starvation. On the other hand, white supremacy and pogroms are really loving bad and Trump will definitely encourage those, whereas we might luck out and Johnson may not get the opportunity to bungle everything so badly that he kills more people than Trump so it's really a tossup over who is the worst. Of course, anyone voting for Johnson who actually knows what his platform is* would probably prefer Trump win over Hillary anyway because tax cuts, and since to the libertarian voter there's no amount of human misery that would be worth a 1% tax increase on the rich it's unlikely they'll ever consider changing their minds. *Note: this excludes hexenmexen, because he believed Johnson would increase federal funding for schools and retconned his position to "oh now I'm actually against funding schools, I mean actually I was against it all along" once he found out Johnson's real position on this issue VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Sep 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
greatn posted:https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/777629290489872385?s=09 Remember that just asking people if they disapprove of the Republican party doesn't distinguish between people who hate Republicans for their abhorrent conservative beliefs and people who hate Republicans because they didn't impeach Obama yet. Ted Cruz, the Tea Party etc contributed to Trump's rise and the delegitimizatiom of the GOP in the eyes of the base by making absurd promises to undo everything Obama the Usurper ever did and then blaming failure on treason by the Obama-loving Republican leadership
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 14:27
|
|