Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 342344 times)

wbranch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Some Mountain Ridge
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3300 on: August 01, 2018, 10:33:24 AM »

I agree with everything you just said. The GOP is not dying in the Red States. I've grown up and lived in the rural South my whole life. Young white people here just love him. There are only maybe four issues that most rural white people really care about: 1) Guns 2) Abortion 3) Immigration 4) PC Culture.
[snip]

I agree this is probably the case (broadly speaking), but I'm trying very hard to understand how these can be the issues rural GOP voters care about...

I'm not asking you or anyone to understand why. I'm just telling you what I hear non-stop from my conservative family members and on my Facebook feed. I'm a rural, middle-class southern white who was raised in a rural, middle-class southern community by a family of rural middle-class southern whites. These are my people, I still don't understand it.

Not gonna lie. My dad has a Master's degree, a pension with a cash value north of $3 million, and he retired as a high-ranking government official. If I had to rank his top political priorities, I'd put PC culture at the top of the goddamn list. Mind you, he wouldn't put it there, but that's my inference based on the crap that he complains about. You'd be surprised how many seemingly normal people are motivated by gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, the "Me Too" movement, and gender-neutral pronouns. Those are practically the only "political" issues that my Dad even talks about.

I agree with all of your posts regarding the top 4 issues when applying them to the majority of people in rural areas throughout the northern midwest where I grew up and the intermountain west where I currently live. I would say they vote based on guns and/or abortion. Immigration combined with the PC culture is just a bonus that pisses of liberals in their minds.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7205
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3301 on: August 01, 2018, 10:56:20 AM »
Terminology matters.  I think you could honestly label those four issues as promoting gun violence, restricting individual freedoms for women, embracing racism, and defending hate speech.

The conservative world view confuses me.  They defend individual liberty, except for women.  They promote states rights, except for California.  They want fiscal responsibility, unless you can use debt to give a tax cut to billionaires.  They whine about religious persecution, then burn down mosques.  They want a strong military to defend America, then welcome hostile foreign powers subverting our democracy.  They blather about family values, then elect a serial philanderer. 

Wtf, people?  What do you even stand for anymore?

Because the only common theme I see in these contradictions is a thinly veiled effort to preserve power for the wealthy white Christian males that have always had power in America.  It sure looks like all of that ideology stuff was just a front, a cheap veneer of on top of policies motivated by greed, hatred, misogyny, and racism.  Is that all that "conservatives" really want?
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 11:38:50 AM by sol »

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1162
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3302 on: August 01, 2018, 11:24:22 AM »
Terminology matters.  I think you could honestly label those for issues as promoting gun violence, restricting individual freedoms for women, embracing racism, and defending hate speech.

The conservative world view confuses me.  They defend individual liberty, except for women.  They promote states rights, except for California.  They want fiscal responsibility, unless you can use debt to give a tax cut to billionaires.  They whine about religious persecution, then burn down mosques.  They want a strong military to defend America, then welcome hostile foreign powers subverting our democracy.  They blather about family values, then elect a serial philanderer. 

Wtf, people?  What do you even stand for anymore?

Because the only common theme I see in these contradictions is a thinly veiled effort to preserve power for the wealthy white Christian males that have always had power in America.  It sure looks like all if that ideology stuff was just a front, a cheap veneer of on top of policies motivated by greed, hatred, misogyny, and racism.  Is that all that "conservatives" really want?

It's not confusing.  They want liberty, civility, etc. as long as it relates to their straight, white, (probably male), Christian worldview.  Anything other than that is offensive and should be rooted out.  They like their status.  They don't want others to also have the opportunity to attain said status.  They are simply scared of people who are "other" having the ability to rise - be it socially, financially, politically, etc.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1773
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3303 on: August 01, 2018, 11:25:59 AM »
Terminology matters.  I think you could honestly label those for issues as promoting gun violence, restricting individual freedoms for women, embracing racism, and defending hate speech.

The conservative world view confuses me.  They defend individual liberty, except for women.  They promote states rights, except for California.  They want fiscal responsibility, unless you can use debt to give a tax cut to billionaires.  They whine about religious persecution, then burn down mosques.  They want a strong military to defend America, then welcome hostile foreign powers subverting our democracy.  They blather about family values, then elect a serial philanderer. 

Wtf, people?  What do you even stand for anymore?

Because the only common theme I see in these contradictions is a thinly veiled effort to preserve power for the wealthy white Christian males that have always had power in America.  It sure looks like all if that ideology stuff was just a front, a cheap veneer of on top of policies motivated by greed, hatred, misogyny, and racism.  Is that all that "conservatives" really want?

Yeah, you can frame it any way you like, but ultimately what conservatives want, more than anything else, is for things to not change. White Christian males have always held the lion's share of power in society. Even those with little real power individually - the white middle class - hold tremendous power collectively. Their (Our) grip is weakening, and most don't want to give it up without a fight. It's not surprising, really. It's human nature. Progress demands that we share, but our instincts demand that we hoard. It's a recipe for conflict.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1772
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3304 on: August 01, 2018, 11:33:10 AM »
Humans are naturally very tribal.  I feel like most  liberals either don't realize this, or refuse to believe it, and it really impairs their messaging when trying to win elections.

I've been listening to and reading a lot of research recently that indicates that ANY PERCEPTION that your tribe is losing numbers and/or status relative to other tribes causes people to become more conservative in political views and in voting.  This includes members of statistically minority 'tribes' who perceive themselves as losing status relative to their previous status.  Interestingly, the shift to align with conservative positions apparently includes a shift to be more conservative on policies not even related to immigration and demographics (e.g., on environmental issues, military spending, etc.).

This perception of status change that drives the ideological shift often has almost nothing to do with ACTUAL numbers of each 'tribe', nor the day to day conditions the anxious tribe is experiencing.  They might be secure economically, with decent jobs (most white Trump voters were).  They might not even be living in towns or states that are experiencing much growth in minority populations (also true of most Trump voters). 

I grew up in a small, 99% white, mostly protestant, Midwestern town that voted for Trump, and I have seen this is action.  When I was a kid you could literally count racial minority families on one hand (mostly Native American). There was one Jewish family.  LGBT people were all closeted. At this time, b/c most of the residents were white, tribalism and prejudice appeared along other lines: non protestants were suspect...Catholics in particular were considered to be the 'rednecks' of the town. The town divided tribally between working and professional classes (education and financial status). My family was professional class and there was a lot of angst among the older generation on how to keep the town from becoming 'trashy' (i.e., how to increase the number and power of professional class, educated, conservative voting protestants) and how to discourage leftist 'hippies' (whites with non conforming clothes/grooming/jewelry/long hair or facial hair) from cluttering up the town during the tourist season.  The 'power elite' (LOL) never worried about discouraging racial minorities b/c they weren't even on anyone's radar.

When I go back now, I might see a dozen minority-race people during a couple rounds of the downtown.  There are a few yoga studios (:gasp: HIPPIES!!!) and a Whole Foods knockoff (MORE HIPPIES).  I saw a gay couple (men) holding hands in the street.  Now, objectively speaking, this is an obvious indicator that there has been a large increase in the relative number, and somewhat of an increase in relative percent, of minorities (or at least visible minorities) since my childhood.  But in reality, the town is still 95% white (according to Wikipedia, anyway) and probably still mostly Protestant.

However, the reality of numbers is not very related to how most people emotionally process just seeing/casual exposure to more minorities and/or diversity in their environment.  For example, I was listening to a discussion of survey data about changing U.S. demographics.  Currently, MOST white Americans believe that the U.S. is already a majority minority country even though it is not expected to be that for another ~20 years.  Further, e.g., white Ohioans believe that they are CURRENTLY the minority in Ohio, and they have believed this for some years, DESPITE the fact that whites actually comprise ~82% of the population!!

Perception is reality when it comes to voting, and the Dems have a staggeringly stupid habit of tending to message their campaigns in ways that draw further attention to diversity, and to the grievances of sub-groups and special interests within their coalition, which naturally feeds into tribalistic instincts in voters, even some voters who might otherwise be receptive to their economic messaging.

Unless Dems figure out a way around this problem, I think we're going to see the GOP party of white anxiety hang on a lot longer than demographic shifts indicate they could or should.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 11:39:00 AM by wenchsenior »

ematicic

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Virginia
  • Money Enthusiast
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3305 on: August 01, 2018, 11:37:00 AM »

I agree with everything you just said. The GOP is not dying in the Red States. I've grown up and lived in the rural South my whole life. Young white people here just love him. There are only maybe four issues that most rural white people really care about: 1) Guns 2) Abortion 3) Immigration 4) PC Culture.
[snip]

I agree this is probably the case (boradly speaking), but I'm trying very hard to understand how these can be the issues rural GOP voters care about. 
1) Guns - as in 'pry them from my cold dead fingers'.  The worry here seems to be the 'government' taking them away with future legislation, not that current legislation curtails their self-interpreted 2nd amendment right. It seems no promises by any Dem candidate or court protections are enough to sway opinion that Dems = no guns/limited guns.

2) abortion. I get that this is a moral issue for some, but it seems limited in scope given the fervor it creates from the anti-abortion crowd (something like 1.2% of reproductive women per year and a comparable percentage to # of live births).  That its an issue for so many older men just strikes me as odd, particularly since they often are simultaneously opposed to programs that prevent pregnancy and help support unplanned children.

3) Immigration.  I guess immigrants are (once again) the scapegoat of all our societal ills?  A casual look at the data shows them to be, on average, productive upstanding members of society.  The fear that we will somehow 'lose our culture' with immigrants nearby is equally bizarre to me - shifts in culture happen because people discover new foods, music and mannerisms they like and incoporate into their daily lives.  how would that be bad?  tl;dr - empanadas are fantastic!

4) PC Culture. I guess I don't understand why this would motivate people to vote - what exactly are they protesting against? They want to continue to use terms other people find offensive?  Personally I've never found PC culture to be very burdensome; it basically fits how I was raised - if someone says they don't like being called a certain name, stop calling them that. I also can't understand why people care so much about who poops where.

... all I'd a fifth to the list
5) Military (hero worship). It's become obligatory in many places and events to pledge fealty to the military.  The narrative has been subtly changed from "It's a great honor to serve one's country" to "we must honor those who serve". Meanwhile our annual military budget exceeds that of any other country, and is higher than the next 8 countries combined. The adage - 'when the only tool in your bag is a hammer every (international) problem starts resembling a nail" comes to mind.


The only way to reach a common ground is to find a better middle place from both sides on all of these important issues.

1. It is not allow guns / ban guns. 2A is not going away and the subsequent rights to assembly and form a militia are in the constitution to stay also. I think much of the gun control discussion is up to State gov to hammer out. Illinois is very tough in terms of gun laws but look at Chicago, every weekend about 20 shootings and incredibly low crime solve rate. Printed guns are now a threat and the streets are flooded with illegal guns. Middle ground is tough here but many states are looking at making purchase harder, it will be interesting to see which policies succeed.

2. Abortion, again not simply allow / don't allow. I think many Conservative have a bigger concern at the frequency some people have them, and whether late term abortions are ethical as the fetus may have a sense of awareness. I agree that a ban on abortion is not something the government has a right to do. But I also see a fundamental ethical failure of a society that is so quick to dispose of a fetus due to careless decisions. There is middle ground there. I think late term abortions are terribly unethical, and the current lack of accountability makes this procedure as common place as getting a manicure.

3. Immigration. This needs to be regulated. Not stopped, but not a free flow. My wife has a green card. She came here legally, we met, she stayed. Dreamers should have a shot at naturalization, not simply labeled for someone else to decide later. Yes, immigrants mainly come here and contribute to make America great, but the border does need secured. We need to know who comes, who stays and open borders is not ethically or financially wise. We need significant restructuring to a currently overloaded Department of Immigration and find solutions for those that are here. We do have a significant homeless problem that should be addressed before allowing thousands per convoy to enter unobstructed. When people sneak in, they can (and some are) bringing drugs, human cattle, and even returning after being deported from crimes like murder. Yes, this is a small percentage, but again, I say control the border. We do need to be ready to assist countries with emerging problems.
 
I really like Nikki Haley's UN efforts to address refugee countries and try Conflict Prevention over Conflict resolution. Much over due and I hope more of NATO gets on board to try and limit these convoys by helping countries heal

4. PC Culture, This will always be a far right vs the Far Right. Too many want to exercise their rights while suppressing those that disagree.

5. Military. I would group Police and First Responders into this category too. I think they all play crucial roles. If I had a say, more so than voting, I would not cut the military, I would rather see them become more diverse to better assist with Domestic issues. When Katrina hit, I was stationed in New Orleans and it took a bit for our logistics and air assets to fit into the rescue plan. I am sorry that you feel like the Military is hounding you so hard to respect them, it seems uncharacteristic to me but I don't know you. I do believe that police need respect and any message to protest police brutality (which I admit exists) should also include a discussion about crime and the people committing them. Cops put themselves in harm's way. The same mention you make to most immigrants are good, I feel the same is also true about police. Cities like Baltimore and Chicago are trying to recover from some serious murder and crime rate spikes as the Police are painted as the "Bad Guy". Politicians are calling for physical aggression against other politicians and the "Sores of Discontent" have been rubbed for 8 years. I have no expectation for society to respect the military, I didn't sign up for that. I would hope though, that people fight for societal change without trying to avoid the accountability that makes everyone safe though.

FIRE@50

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Maryland
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3306 on: August 01, 2018, 11:40:29 AM »
Terminology matters.  I think you could honestly label those four issues as promoting gun violence, restricting individual freedoms for women, embracing racism, and defending hate speech.

The conservative world view confuses me.  They defend individual liberty, except for women.  They promote states rights, except for California.  They want fiscal responsibility, unless you can use debt to give a tax cut to billionaires.  They whine about religious persecution, then burn down mosques.  They want a strong military to defend America, then welcome hostile foreign powers subverting our democracy.  They blather about family values, then elect a serial philanderer. 

Wtf, people?  What do you even stand for anymore?

Because the only common theme I see in these contradictions is a thinly veiled effort to preserve power for the wealthy white Christian males that have always had power in America.  It sure looks like all of that ideology stuff was just a front, a cheap veneer of on top of policies motivated by greed, hatred, misogyny, and racism.  Is that all that "conservatives" really want?
From what I can tell, they want the 1950's to never end. We all liked Back to the Future, right?

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3307 on: August 01, 2018, 11:59:54 AM »
Is it so hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes, jeez. I am guessing you have read about this for most of your lives, or as has some have said lived with it your whole lives.

Here is the basics of all this. Conservatives prioritize their issues. There is a hierarchy to what is important. I personally think marijuana and prostitution should be legalized but I not going to put much energy into it. Abortion; I'll be there.
As an aside I think progressives think more along the lines of some larger system as a way to fix something, then the details can be worked out later. I.e. Socialism/greater state control will lead to a better society in general. At least that is what I think they think. Please elaborate anyone.


Abortion. Stop killing people, prosecute people for murder. A government that cannot effectively prosecute people for murder isn't much of a government; illegitimate.
You have all heard this but I'll restate. Humans have fundamental value as humans. Rights cannot be taken away; ignored but not taken. So why do conservatives not vote for social programs, esp for young moms??? Several reasons, quickly
   -Families are the fundamental unit of society and extended family are to help when someone falls on hard times
   -Most conservatives also have a economic libertarian bent.
   -While they might personally give you the shirt off their back if they met someone in need, passing along through the government has several problems; corruption, waste, not prioritizing it properly
   -they give to their church which they know helps those in need(perhaps not to the extent that government does but nonetheless). "Hey, if the progressives (thereby a greater percentage of those in society) went to church and donated then we wouldn't need social programs at all."
   -(the stickler) Why are the moms/parents in that position to begin with? What we all know, they consider it immoral behavior to have sex out of wedlock. You might not like that at all but that is just it. Yes, they feel bad for the kid(s) but don't know what would help without rewarding/not punishing the parents.
   -Dislike of idleness. Find a way to make dead beat dads pay child support and conservatives will beat down the door for increasing government power.
edit-so in conclusion, yes abortion is very important. Life is the first liberty, without it nothing else is possible. Helping moms on hard times is important too, but isn't paramount and it isn't to say they would not get help elsewhere. Whereas a child who is about to be killed by their own mother is detestable(remember the family point at the beginning).

Guns. I get how there can be some disagreement about violence and gun violence and statistics etc. But why liberals (Britain) wants to be rid of all guns is a little confusing. At some point all societies become dictatorial and need to be curtailed. I think most conservatives understand this basic idea of history. Ok, Ok, yes, the deer rifle is not stopping the US military and jets, and Apache helicopters but they will make this country ungovernable.

Immigration. They vote for democrats. That simple; self preservation. I get if you are a politician how this could work as good fodder to your constituency to call others racist for this, but it seems like it is backfiring; see Trump 2016.  Older asians used to vote for Republicans but now most immigrants vote liberal. A little old but ...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/22/are-unauthorized-immigrants-overwhelmingly-democrats/

PC culture. People don't like change, esp as they get older. I personally don't care as long as the school I pay taxes for isn't trying to teach sex ed to 2nd graders or whatever. I think they perceive, rightly or not, that a lot of the loose morals of Hollywood, TV or whatever they are looking at is negatively influencing their teenage kids, or the kids their kids are hanging out with, (Caitlyn Jenner was Bruce on KuwtK, in case you need a reference). Some of this is their own fault. They grew up watching Leave it to Beaver and assumed TV was a decent baby sitter for kids, and in no case is it.

So why is Trump acceptable? Because despite being the incarnation of antithesis of all of those things, he promised to deliver, he is rich enough to not have to bend the knee to any interest group, and, as was evidence by the media correspondence dinner, he had an axe to grind, much like conservative america. I doubt this is a new normal, an ideologue who throws bones to his voters and they keep reelecting him or those who support him, (my own governor McMaster...). If a democrat promised to leave gun laws as they are, took some abortion curbing initiatives, like he cared about unborn babies instead of considering them human waste, and maybe came up with some cake compromise, it would really cool the enthusiasm of a lot of conservatives.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 12:05:30 PM by hoping2retire35 »

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1164
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3308 on: August 01, 2018, 12:26:21 PM »
2. Abortion, again not simply allow / don't allow. I think many Conservative have a bigger concern at the frequency some people have them, and whether late term abortions are ethical as the fetus may have a sense of awareness. I agree that a ban on abortion is not something the government has a right to do. But I also see a fundamental ethical failure of a society that is so quick to dispose of a fetus due to careless decisions. There is middle ground there. I think late term abortions are terribly unethical, and the current lack of accountability makes this procedure as common place as getting a manicure.

Third trimester abortions are banned in all but 9 states outside of medical reasons. The actual number performed is difficult to find, the closest CDC estimate (2014) I can find is 5,578 after 21 weeks (suggests third trimester would be considerably lower as they are banned in most states where 21-26 weeks is not). I'm not sure how many manicures are performed annually.

Of the 5,578 after 21 weeks, do you know why they happen? Many are wanted pregnancies where the fetus is found to have anomalies which would cause serious health problems for the child and/or the mother. A mother may find out that their child will have an illness that will make their life short, painful and probably very expensive. The experience and decision are painful and difficult. In other cases it's because they didn't know they were pregnant. This may sound crazy and it is of course unusual, but so are late term abortions.

This feels very much like a case of perception is reality. Conservative media shows disgust at the absurd numbers of late term abortion → late term abortions must be commonplace.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 12:28:31 PM by Dabnasty »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11852
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3309 on: August 01, 2018, 12:34:25 PM »
Abortion. Stop killing people, prosecute people for murder. A government that cannot effectively prosecute people for murder isn't much of a government; illegitimate.

You have all heard this but I'll restate. Humans have fundamental value as humans. Rights cannot be taken away; ignored but not taken.

Life is the first liberty, without it nothing else is possible. Helping moms on hard times is important too, but isn't paramount and it isn't to say they would not get help elsewhere. Whereas a child who is about to be killed by their own mother is detestable(remember the family point at the beginning).


You said that rights cannot be taken away . . . but by preventing a woman from having an abortion, you are taking away her autonomy to do what she wishes with her body.  Childbirth is riskier than abortion, so you're actually choosing to increase risk to the mother's life.

I thought that life was the first liberty?

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3310 on: August 01, 2018, 12:42:27 PM »
ok, now for the psychoanalysis of the progressives.

Why the hatred for Russia? They are harboring a hero to those who love privacy (Edward Snowden), is it because he did it by getting egg on the face of their hero, Obama? Is it because they have given up their socialist/communist ways and are now easy fodder of a failed state for anyone wanting to undermine progressive goals(a state controlled system)?

Why hate Trump? For years liberals were complaining that too many good jobs were leaving the US, now that someone came along and finally said he is doing something about it their heads are exploding. He is obviously a self contradiction, why complain, just enjoy the rideedit; of what you believe to be the self implosion of the GOP. In the end, all the protests and undermining of authority really undermines the authority of the state, not a good idea if you want universal health insurance, paid higher education, guaranteed retirement.

Soft power? This was all the rage a few years ago, now that Trump seems to be using it effectively, progressives are beside themselves. They might as well be calling for the invasion of a foreign country. The US will not invade N. Korea, they'll get China to do it.

Russia again. How they do progressive literally turn a blind eye to the fact that HRC stole the primary from Bernie?????

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/24/why-its-hard-to-take-democrats-seriously-on-russia-215415

Until democrats tar and feather her, i'll never take their claims of collusion/conspiracy seriously. Period.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 12:45:52 PM by hoping2retire35 »

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1164
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3311 on: August 01, 2018, 12:46:46 PM »
Until democrats tar and feather her, i'll never take their claims of collusion/conspiracy seriously. Period.

FTFY

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1773
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3312 on: August 01, 2018, 12:50:23 PM »


Third trimester abortions are banned in all but 9 states outside of medical reasons. The actual number performed is difficult to find, the closest CDC estimate (2014) I can find is 5,578 after 21 weeks (suggests third trimester would be considerably lower as they are banned in most states where 21-26 weeks is not). I'm not sure how many manicures are performed annually.

Of the 5,578 after 21 weeks, do you know why they happen? Many The vast majority are wanted pregnancies where the fetus is found to have anomalies which would cause serious health problems for the child and/or the mother.

Our second child has severe, debilitating congenital defects. We did not find out the full extent of his condition until 21 weeks. We never considered abortion, but I couldn't in good conscience wish to deny that option to a mother who was going through what we went through. It was fucking hard then, it still is today, and it nearly bankrupted us (which is what led me to MMM). I have no regrets, and I love my son more than I love myself, but dear God, to anyone who thinks that abortion shouldn't be an option for families in that position, while also believing that socialized healthcare (which could have alleviated the financial strain, if not the emotional toll) is morally wrong: Go get your head examined.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 01:17:33 PM by Mississippi Mudstache »

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3313 on: August 01, 2018, 12:57:34 PM »
Until democrats tar and feather her, i'll never take their claims of collusion/conspiracy seriously. Period.

FTFY
Wow, what a clever way to quote-post and make me sound like a conservative blow hard who never listens to anyone, evidence or reason.

Or you know that Dems will never take responsibility for their latest presidential candidate...

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1773
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3314 on: August 01, 2018, 01:06:00 PM »
Until democrats tar and feather her, i'll never take their claims of collusion/conspiracy seriously. Period.

FTFY
Wow, what a clever way to quote-post and make me sound like a conservative blow hard who never listens to anyone, evidence or reason.

Or you know that Dems will never take responsibility for their latest presidential candidate...

You just stated without ambiguity that you will not listen to evidence or reason. Why should the evidence of the Trump campaign's collusion or conspiracy with Russia have anything to do with the way Democrats feel about Hillary Clinton? The two are not even tangentially related. I have a hard time feeling as though Dabnasty's edit is unwarranted.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11852
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3315 on: August 01, 2018, 01:16:18 PM »
Why the hatred for Russia?

Who hates Russia?

I haven't seen much hatred thrown at Russia or Russians.  There is a lot of hatred thrown at the fact that the Russian President controls Trump, but that's not hatred of Russia.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3316 on: August 01, 2018, 01:16:33 PM »
/\/\

..."Tangentially related.." Because almost all the things russia did during the election had to do with emails from her campaign colluding to keep Bernie from winning.

What else is there? Some facebook ads??? How about the BBC and CBC stop writing stories about the election, else wise we can decide that is an act of war. We could run over Canada pretty quick, finally make them another state, should have happened in 1776 anyways.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3317 on: August 01, 2018, 01:19:36 PM »
We could run over Canada pretty quick, finally make them another state, should have happened in 1776 anyways.

lol you don't want to do that, the conservatives in Canada largely aligns with Dems.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8470
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3318 on: August 01, 2018, 01:25:32 PM »
Terminology matters.  I think you could honestly label those for issues as promoting gun violence, restricting individual freedoms for women, embracing racism, and defending hate speech.

The conservative world view confuses me.  They defend individual liberty, except for women.  They promote states rights, except for California.  They want fiscal responsibility, unless you can use debt to give a tax cut to billionaires.  They whine about religious persecution, then burn down mosques.  They want a strong military to defend America, then welcome hostile foreign powers subverting our democracy.  They blather about family values, then elect a serial philanderer. 

Wtf, people?  What do you even stand for anymore?

Because the only common theme I see in these contradictions is a thinly veiled effort to preserve power for the wealthy white Christian males that have always had power in America.  It sure looks like all if that ideology stuff was just a front, a cheap veneer of on top of policies motivated by greed, hatred, misogyny, and racism.  Is that all that "conservatives" really want?

Yeah, you can frame it any way you like, but ultimately what conservatives want, more than anything else, is for things to not change. White Christian males have always held the lion's share of power in society. Even those with little real power individually - the white middle class - hold tremendous power collectively. Their (Our) grip is weakening, and most don't want to give it up without a fight. It's not surprising, really. It's human nature. Progress demands that we share, but our instincts demand that we hoard. It's a recipe for conflict.

It's surprising that people find this surprising - a conservative is someone who wants to conserve (i.e. protect and defend) the status quo, and is inherently resistant to changes. That the conservative party in a country which has been led by rich white men want to support policies that favor those same group of people is self evident in my view.

it makes me giggle when I hear someone say "i'm a staunch conservative, and we need to change the policies in this country!" - well, are you a conservative or do you want a lot of change, cause it can't be both. :-P

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1164
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3319 on: August 01, 2018, 01:26:47 PM »
Until democrats tar and feather her, i'll never take their claims of collusion/conspiracy seriously. Period.

FTFY
Wow, what a clever way to quote-post and make me sound like a conservative blow hard who never listens to anyone, evidence or reason.

Or you know that Dems will never take responsibility for their latest presidential candidate...

I'm sorry, the snark wasn't necessary. But like Mudstache said, denouncing Hillary has nothing to do with the potential conspiracy with Russia. It seems that the first part of you're statement was an excuse to justify the second. If democrats spoke out against Hillary (which many have), I suspect you would find another excuse.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 01:39:23 PM by Dabnasty »

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2295
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3320 on: August 01, 2018, 01:26:55 PM »
OK, I can't unpack all of this. I'm not even sure if you are just trolling. But for the record, Obama signed the Magnitsky act, and did it with bipartisan support, and was only going to repeal the Jackon Vanit act if it was going to be replaced by something else. Also Obama did do diplomacy with Russia. At the same time there were consequences to Putin and his cronies action. That is why Russia was removed from the G-8, when they invaded Crimea. This enraged Putin and is a primary reason why he did not like Obama and certainly did not want a Democratic successor elected.
 
Our intelligence has known for a long time, certainly since 2015, that Russia has been trying to undermine the US as well as other Democratically led countries, to both weaken them and in turn make Russia look like a more viable trading partner/increase power. While not an explicit act of war, most people believe that Russia was behind the attack on diplomats in Cuba. We know that Putin and his associates have assasinated his personal enemies, journalists even when they are on Democratic soil such as the UK. The Kremlin also is doing electronic warfare with the US, and even has tried hacking into our election systems. That's why the hate for Russia. As for Edward Snowden, I personally do not see him as any kind of hero. People on both sides of the political spectrum either love him or hate him. It's not a Republican/Democrat divide. As far as socialist/communist, Russia is a plutocracy and controlled by a dictator. The quality of life that Russians experience is falling every year that Putin is in power. Would you want to live in that system? Why would you want our president to be beholden to someone who prevents free elections and assassinates or imprisons his political enemies? Are those the kind of people you admire? 

As far as but - Hillary. She was investigated about Russia connections, but there is nothing of substance there.  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
So you can tar and feather her as much as you want, but there's no beef.
As far as but her emails, you do realize that many of Trumps white house staff are using private servers? Or that Trump continues to use cell phones without the appropriate security protocols. It might be funny, except we are literally having Russian agents arrested in DC who are eavesdropping on communications! Some reason GOP's not interested or curious in this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/05/22/trump-warned-of-great-danger-posed-by-clintons-emails-but-he-eschews-security-procedures-for-his-own-phone/?utm_term=.3c0b970129b3



ok, now for the psychoanalysis of the progressives.


Why the hatred for Russia? They are harboring a hero to those who love privacy (Edward Snowden), is it because he did it by getting egg on the face of their hero, Obama? Is it because they have given up their socialist/communist ways and are now easy fodder of a failed state for anyone wanting to undermine progressive goals(a state controlled system)?

Why hate Trump? For years liberals were complaining that too many good jobs were leaving the US, now that someone came along and finally said he is doing something about it their heads are exploding. He is obviously a self contradiction, why complain, just enjoy the rideedit; of what you believe to be the self implosion of the GOP. In the end, all the protests and undermining of authority really undermines the authority of the state, not a good idea if you want universal health insurance, paid higher education, guaranteed retirement.

Soft power? This was all the rage a few years ago, now that Trump seems to be using it effectively, progressives are beside themselves. They might as well be calling for the invasion of a foreign country. The US will not invade N. Korea, they'll get China to do it.

Russia again. How they do progressive literally turn a blind eye to the fact that HRC stole the primary from Bernie?????

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/24/why-its-hard-to-take-democrats-seriously-on-russia-215415

Until democrats tar and feather her, i'll never take their claims of collusion/conspiracy seriously. Period.

honestly Trump should really stop referring to Hillary's emails. Because all he is doing is reminding everyone, that he asked for and received assistance from a Foreign power to aid his election, which is a federal crime. And stupid to even have to say this, what Hillary did in those emails, did not implicate her in any crime even if it was extremely embarrassing for her.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 01:32:54 PM by partgypsy »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4951
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3321 on: August 01, 2018, 01:27:16 PM »
/\/\

..."Tangentially related.." Because almost all the things russia did during the election had to do with emails from her campaign colluding to keep Bernie from winning.

What else is there? Some facebook ads??? How about the BBC and CBC stop writing stories about the election, else wise we can decide that is an act of war. We could run over Canada pretty quick, finally make them another state, should have happened in 1776 anyways.

1) You need to elaborate a lot more than that. What are these "things" that Russia did "with emails" that are somehow implied to be Clinton's fault?

2) If you really wanted to know what else there was, you would know. I have a strong suspicion that you are living in deliberate and intentional ignorance.

3) Here's a neat list with links to all of these items:
Quote
Flynn Thing
Manafort Thing
Tillerson Thing
Sessions Thing
Kushner Thing
Wray Thing
Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius "Russian Law Firm of the Year" Thing
Carter Page Thing
Roger Stone Thing
Felix Sater Thing
Boris Epshteyn Thing
Rosneft Thing
Gazprom Thing (see above)
Sergey Gorkov banker Thing
Azerbaijan Thing
"I Love Putin" Thing
Lavrov Thing
Sergey Kislyak Thing
Oval Office Thing
Gingrich Kislyak Phone Calls Thing
Russian Business Interest Thing
Emoluments Clause Thing
Alex Schnaider Thing
Hack of the DNC Thing
Guccifer 2.0 Thing
Mike Pence "I don't know anything" Thing
Russians Mysteriously Dying Thing
Trump's public request to Russia to hack Hillary's email Thing
Trump house sale for $100 million at the bottom of the housing bust to the Russian fertilizer king Thing
Russian fertilizer king's plane showing up in Concord, NC during Trump rally campaign Thing
Nunes sudden flight to the White House in the night Thing
Nunes personal investments in the Russian winery Thing
Cyprus bank Thing
Trump not Releasing his Tax Returns Thing
the Republican Party's rejection of an amendment to require Trump to show his taxes thing
Election Hacking Thing
GOP platform change to the Ukraine Thing
Steele Dossier Thing
Sally Yates Can't Testify Thing
Intelligence Community's Investigative Reports Thing
Trump reassurance that the Russian connection is all "fake news" Thing
Chaffetz not willing to start an Investigation Thing
Chaffetz suddenly deciding to go back to private life in the middle of an investigation Thing
Appointment of Pam Bondi who was bribed by Trump in the Trump University scandal appointed to head the investigation Thing The White House going into cover-up mode, refusing to turn over the documents related to the hiring and firing of Flynn Thing
Chaffetz and White House blaming the poor vetting of Flynn on Obama Thing
Poland and British intelligence gave information regarding the hacking back in 2015 to Paul Ryan and he didn't do anything Thing
Agent M16 following the money thing
Trump team KNEW about Flynn's involvement but hired him anyway Thing
Let's Fire Comey Thing
Election night Russian trademark gifts Things
Russian diplomatic compound electronic equipment destruction Thing
let's give back the diplomatic compounds back to the Russians Thing
Let's Back Away From Cuba Thing
Donny Jr met with Russians Thing
Donny Jr emails details "Russian Government's support for Trump" Thing
Trump's secret second meeting with his boss Putin Thing
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 01:34:50 PM by JLee »

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3322 on: August 01, 2018, 01:35:18 PM »
/\/\

..."Tangentially related.." Because almost all the things russia did during the election had to do with emails from her campaign colluding to keep Bernie from winning.

What else is there? Some facebook ads??? How about the BBC and CBC stop writing stories about the election, else wise we can decide that is an act of war. We could run over Canada pretty quick, finally make them another state, should have happened in 1776 anyways.

You need to elaborate a lot more than that. What are these "things" that Russia did "with emails"?

If you really wanted to know what else there was, you would know. I have a strong suspicion that you are living in deliberate and intentional ignorance.

they hacked into a server, stole them and handed them over to wikileaks. So they did something illegal/illegalish(they aren't in the same country but it is still bad i get it)/act of war but much smaller in scale. That's it.


Given what was in the emails, I am glad they did. I have a strong suspicion that you are living in a deliberate and intentional ignorance of what is in those emails.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3323 on: August 01, 2018, 01:37:28 PM »
The quality of life that Russians experience is falling every year that Putin is in power.

This I can vouch, it's not a great place to live, despite what the "surprised world cup fans" found about Russia.


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8470
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3324 on: August 01, 2018, 01:44:35 PM »
ok, now for the psychoanalysis of the progressives.

Why the hatred for Russia? They are harboring a hero to those who love privacy (Edward Snowden), is it because he did it by getting egg on the face of their hero, Obama? Is it because they have given up their socialist/communist ways and are now easy fodder of a failed state for anyone wanting to undermine progressive goals(a state controlled system)?
Ok, I'll bite.  I don't think the hatred towards Russia has much (if anything) to do with Snowden. Rather most see Russia as a State that oppresses its citizens, has been hostile towards the US and the EU for decades, has no free press, assassinates political rivals both at home and abroad, and is a horrible offender of human rights.  Those aren't ideals of any progressive I've ever met.

Quote
Why hate Trump? For years liberals were complaining that too many good jobs were leaving the US, now that someone came along and finally said he is doing something about it their heads are exploding. He is obviously a self contradiction, why complain, just enjoy the rideedit; of what you believe to be the self implosion of the GOP. In the end, all the protests and undermining of authority really undermines the authority of the state, not a good idea if you want universal health insurance, paid higher education, guaranteed retirement.
There are 66+ pages on this thread outlining the various problems people have with Trump. 
As for protesting and public services, many of the protests are motivated by and in reaction to attempted cuts to entitlement programs and education.  Are you suggesting that someone who supports universal health coverage or increased funding for higher learning should NOT protest when those are on teh chopping block in order to advance those goals?  That makes zero sense.

Quote
Soft power? This was all the rage a few years ago, now that Trump seems to be using it effectively, progressives are beside themselves. They might as well be calling for the invasion of a foreign country. The US will not invade N. Korea, they'll get China to do it.
This is not what soft power is.  Soft power is when a country uses its programs and culture so that other countries think favorable towards that country.  Building health clinics, making popular music and providing emergency aid after a disaster are all examples of soft power.  Soft power is forming alliances and partnerships. Getting another country to intervene in armed conflict is not.  Trump is undermining the US's soft power all over the place, as is evident by the sliding opinion other countries have towards the US.

Quote
Russia again. How they do progressive literally turn a blind eye to the fact that HRC stole the primary from Bernie?????
Until democrats tar and feather her, i'll never take their claims of collusion/conspiracy seriously. Period.
I'm still baffled by this idea that the DNC should have supported an independent candidate who's never wanted to declare himself a Democrat over someone who had served as SoS, been a US Senator and had previously run for President. I don't see how anything was 'stolen' from Bernie - it's like a job candidate whining that the selection committee favored the employee who had worked for years at that company vs him, a guy who resisted being part of the company until that job suddenly was announced.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4951
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3325 on: August 01, 2018, 01:47:29 PM »
/\/\

..."Tangentially related.." Because almost all the things russia did during the election had to do with emails from her campaign colluding to keep Bernie from winning.

What else is there? Some facebook ads??? How about the BBC and CBC stop writing stories about the election, else wise we can decide that is an act of war. We could run over Canada pretty quick, finally make them another state, should have happened in 1776 anyways.

You need to elaborate a lot more than that. What are these "things" that Russia did "with emails"?

If you really wanted to know what else there was, you would know. I have a strong suspicion that you are living in deliberate and intentional ignorance.

they hacked into a server, stole them and handed them over to wikileaks. So they did something illegal/illegalish(they aren't in the same country but it is still bad i get it)/act of war but much smaller in scale. That's it.


Given what was in the emails, I am glad they did. I have a strong suspicion that you are living in a deliberate and intentional ignorance of what is in those emails.

You seriously think that Russian involvement was limited to hacking a DNC email server?

WRONG

Quote
links to all are here:
Flynn Thing
Manafort Thing
Tillerson Thing
Sessions Thing
Kushner Thing
Wray Thing
Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius "Russian Law Firm of the Year" Thing
Carter Page Thing
Roger Stone Thing
Felix Sater Thing
Boris Epshteyn Thing
Rosneft Thing
Gazprom Thing (see above)
Sergey Gorkov banker Thing
Azerbaijan Thing
"I Love Putin" Thing
Lavrov Thing
Sergey Kislyak Thing
Oval Office Thing
Gingrich Kislyak Phone Calls Thing
Russian Business Interest Thing
Emoluments Clause Thing
Alex Schnaider Thing
Hack of the DNC Thing
Guccifer 2.0 Thing
Mike Pence "I don't know anything" Thing
Russians Mysteriously Dying Thing
Trump's public request to Russia to hack Hillary's email Thing
Trump house sale for $100 million at the bottom of the housing bust to the Russian fertilizer king Thing
Russian fertilizer king's plane showing up in Concord, NC during Trump rally campaign Thing
Nunes sudden flight to the White House in the night Thing
Nunes personal investments in the Russian winery Thing
Cyprus bank Thing
Trump not Releasing his Tax Returns Thing
the Republican Party's rejection of an amendment to require Trump to show his taxes thing
Election Hacking Thing
GOP platform change to the Ukraine Thing
Steele Dossier Thing
Sally Yates Can't Testify Thing
Intelligence Community's Investigative Reports Thing
Trump reassurance that the Russian connection is all "fake news" Thing
Chaffetz not willing to start an Investigation Thing
Chaffetz suddenly deciding to go back to private life in the middle of an investigation Thing
Appointment of Pam Bondi who was bribed by Trump in the Trump University scandal appointed to head the investigation Thing The White House going into cover-up mode, refusing to turn over the documents related to the hiring and firing of Flynn Thing
Chaffetz and White House blaming the poor vetting of Flynn on Obama Thing
Poland and British intelligence gave information regarding the hacking back in 2015 to Paul Ryan and he didn't do anything Thing
Agent M16 following the money thing
Trump team KNEW about Flynn's involvement but hired him anyway Thing
Let's Fire Comey Thing
Election night Russian trademark gifts Things
Russian diplomatic compound electronic equipment destruction Thing
let's give back the diplomatic compounds back to the Russians Thing
Let's Back Away From Cuba Thing
Donny Jr met with Russians Thing
Donny Jr emails details "Russian Government's support for Trump" Thing
Trump's secret second meeting with his boss Putin Thing

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2295
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3326 on: August 01, 2018, 01:52:12 PM »
/\/\

..."Tangentially related.." Because almost all the things russia did during the election had to do with emails from her campaign colluding to keep Bernie from winning.

What else is there? Some facebook ads??? How about the BBC and CBC stop writing stories about the election, else wise we can decide that is an act of war. We could run over Canada pretty quick, finally make them another state, should have happened in 1776 anyways.

You need to elaborate a lot more than that. What are these "things" that Russia did "with emails"?

If you really wanted to know what else there was, you would know. I have a strong suspicion that you are living in deliberate and intentional ignorance.

they hacked into a server, stole them and handed them over to wikileaks. So they did something illegal/illegalish(they aren't in the same country but it is still bad i get it)/act of war but much smaller in scale. That's it.


Given what was in the emails, I am glad they did. I have a strong suspicion that you are living in a deliberate and intentional ignorance of what is in those emails.

So why don't you tell us? You seem to have information that our own domestic intelligence doesn't seem to have, as they declined to prosecute. I think Trump WAS hoping there was something extremely juicy/damming in those emails but heck he played his cards, not his fault they were a pair of 10's.

Now, Hillary did do something stupid/careless. She was careless in how she managed what were confidential/top secret emails. Now that we know these type of communications are vulnerable, shouldn't this current White house be even more vigilant about communications and confidential information? Everything from emails to twitter to phone calls to personal communications? But they are not. They have no excuse. An in this particular international incident, now only did he share confidential information, he endangered the life of an Allied spy (Israel is considered an ally; Russia is not).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%27s_disclosures_of_classified_information
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 01:57:01 PM by partgypsy »

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1930
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3327 on: August 01, 2018, 01:58:52 PM »
ok, now for the psychoanalysis of the progressives.

Why the hatred for Russia? They are harboring a hero to those who love privacy (Edward Snowden), is it because he did it by getting egg on the face of their hero, Obama? Is it because they have given up their socialist/communist ways and are now easy fodder of a failed state for anyone wanting to undermine progressive goals(a state controlled system)?

Why hate Trump? For years liberals were complaining that too many good jobs were leaving the US, now that someone came along and finally said he is doing something about it their heads are exploding. He is obviously a self contradiction, why complain, just enjoy the rideedit; of what you believe to be the self implosion of the GOP. In the end, all the protests and undermining of authority really undermines the authority of the state, not a good idea if you want universal health insurance, paid higher education, guaranteed retirement.

Soft power? This was all the rage a few years ago, now that Trump seems to be using it effectively, progressives are beside themselves. They might as well be calling for the invasion of a foreign country. The US will not invade N. Korea, they'll get China to do it.

Russia again. How they do progressive literally turn a blind eye to the fact that HRC stole the primary from Bernie?????

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/24/why-its-hard-to-take-democrats-seriously-on-russia-215415

Until democrats tar and feather her, i'll never take their claims of collusion/conspiracy seriously. Period.

Hoping2retire, thank you for the effort and thought it takes to represent these views out here. I know that many will react to individual pieces (I myself will probably), but I do appreciate how broad a summary this is.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1187
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3328 on: August 01, 2018, 03:49:27 PM »
Guns. I get how there can be some disagreement about violence and gun violence and statistics etc. But why liberals (Britain) wants to be rid of all guns is a little confusing. At some point all societies become dictatorial and need to be curtailed. I think most conservatives understand this basic idea of history. Ok, Ok, yes, the deer rifle is not stopping the US military and jets, and Apache helicopters but they will make this country ungovernable.

This one got my attention.   From the perspective of the rest of the developed world, American gun proponents are a bunch of ummm looney tunes.    We think you all should deal with your problems instead of just taking up arms to defend yourself.     The way the politicans are trying to divide the country, you may not need guns to be ungovernable.

However, I do have some understanding of  why you love your firearms.   https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/firearms-in-the-home/  But it's a very different point of view than everyone else.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3329 on: August 01, 2018, 03:59:52 PM »
Why hate Trump? For years liberals were complaining that too many good jobs were leaving the US, now that someone came along and finally said he is doing something about it their heads are exploding.

Yeah this doesn't make sense. Trump's proposal to bring back jobs was to re-work fuck up NAFTA. Mind you he was also referring to conventional manufacturing jobs (basically gadget pushers etc.) Hillary's proposal was to invest in training programs.

As it is manufacturing jobs have been increasing for several years (since before Trump) for 2 main reasons:
1. A weaker US dollar
2. A decision by manufacturers themselves to invest in training programs.

Notice none of this is a result of any Trump proposal or policy. But #2 sure looks like a Hillary proposal. Do you know why that is? I would wager a guess the Dems focused on the shifting job climate within factories etc. and understood that there was/is a much higher need for more specialized jobs (ie. robot operators).

But here we are, still thinking Trump is the savior of jobs and Dems are out of touch. Funny how that is.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8590
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3330 on: August 01, 2018, 04:45:40 PM »
Why is this a surprise?  We had several Republican supporters a few pages back arguing that Donald Trump was committing treason by the common use of the word but not by the legal definition - and therefore his actions were OK.  :P
Appears you misunderstood.  The issue was leading Democrats suggesting that Trump had committed treason as an impeachable offense when in fact he had not.  We all understand that they would like to get rid of him, much as many leading Republicans would have liked to find a reason to get rid of Obama, but "there's no there there" on that point.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9257
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3331 on: August 01, 2018, 06:57:07 PM »
Guns. I get how there can be some disagreement about violence and gun violence and statistics etc. But why liberals (Britain) wants to be rid of all guns is a little confusing. At some point all societies become dictatorial and need to be curtailed. I think most conservatives understand this basic idea of history. Ok, Ok, yes, the deer rifle is not stopping the US military and jets, and Apache helicopters but they will make this country ungovernable.

This one got my attention.   From the perspective of the rest of the developed world, American gun proponents are a bunch of ummm looney tunes.    We think you all should deal with your problems instead of just taking up arms to defend yourself.     The way the politicans are trying to divide the country, you may not need guns to be ungovernable.

However, I do have some understanding of  why you love your firearms.   https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/firearms-in-the-home/  But it's a very different point of view than everyone else.

What was really funny was conservatives threatening to come to Canada if Obama (and then Clinton) won.   First, we are way left of the US. Second, our borders are pretty tight.  Third, we have strict requirements for immigration - I know someone from the U.S. who is jumping through all sorts of hoops to gain permanent residency status.  And the US would want 10 more states that will basically be Democrat voting? It seems so weird to say blue states, here blue ridings go Conservative, Red ridings go Liberal, Orange ones go NDP (and the NDP would drive your Democrats crazy, and your Republicans to serious drug use).

Not to mention that as NATO members the rest of NATO would come to our aid if we were invaded. 54/40 died a long time ago.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2295
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3332 on: August 01, 2018, 07:56:11 PM »
Why is this a surprise?  We had several Republican supporters a few pages back arguing that Donald Trump was committing treason by the common use of the word but not by the legal definition - and therefore his actions were OK.  :P
Appears you misunderstood.  The issue was leading Democrats suggesting that Trump had committed treason as an impeachable offense when in fact he had not.  We all understand that they would like to get rid of him, much as many leading Republicans would have liked to find a reason to get rid of Obama, but "there's no there there" on that point.

Maybe where we differ is, Democrats (and many others) feel there is sufficient evidence to impeach Trump. And Republicans do not, or at least are refusing to hold hearings for impeachment as long as they are in power. Both Trump and extreme right wingers are pushing for Rod Rodenstein to be impeached, so that Trump can replace him with someone who WILL fire Mueller.  This has nothing to do with justice. It has to do with obstruction of justice, and trying to hold onto political power, under any means possible.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8590
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3333 on: August 01, 2018, 08:12:38 PM »
Maybe where we differ is, Democrats (and many others) feel there is sufficient evidence to impeach Trump. And Republicans do not, or at least are refusing to hold hearings for impeachment as long as they are in power.
Agreed - no surprises there.

Quote
Both Trump and extreme right wingers are pushing for Rod Rodenstein to be impeached, so that Trump can replace him with someone who WILL fire Mueller.
We'll see.  Seems Trump could do so either directly or (as that article suggests) with less effort than a Rosenstein impeachment would require.  I'm guessing that Trump has calculated Mueller won't have enough to depose Trump and thus won't try to fire Mueller any time soon.  But that's a guess, and I don't know what the stock market will do tomorrow either.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2295
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3334 on: August 01, 2018, 08:40:37 PM »
Maybe where we differ is, Democrats (and many others) feel there is sufficient evidence to impeach Trump. And Republicans do not, or at least are refusing to hold hearings for impeachment as long as they are in power.
Agreed - no surprises there.

Quote
Both Trump and extreme right wingers are pushing for Rod Rodenstein to be impeached, so that Trump can replace him with someone who WILL fire Mueller.
We'll see.  Seems Trump could do so either directly or (as that article suggests) with less effort than a Rosenstein impeachment would require.  I'm guessing that Trump has calculated Mueller won't have enough to depose Trump and thus won't try to fire Mueller any time soon.  But that's a guess, and I don't know what the stock market will do tomorrow either.

I think Trump has floated the idea of firing Mueller, he was strongly advised NOT to do so. Because that action will only strengthen the case against him for obstruction of justice (again, he fired Comey which was pretty unthinkable at the time). Not to say he won't try something, but it would be pretty stupid for him to do that, and instead should have motivation to look like everything is aboveboard and he is not circumventing/interfering with the formal investigation.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 08:46:38 PM by partgypsy »

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1763
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3335 on: August 01, 2018, 10:12:27 PM »
Whew, finally caught up to the thread.  Surprised there was no mention of this sad development...

Quote
A migrant child placed in a South Texas immigration detention center under the federal government’s “zero-tolerance” policy died after contracting a disease from another detainee, according to a lawyer’s claim, which officials have denied.

Mana Yegani, a Houston-based immigration attorney, posted the claims on Twitter on Wednesday, initially appearing to say that the child had died at the Family Residential Center in Dilley south of San Antonio. The facility is run by a private company on contract for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8470
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3336 on: August 02, 2018, 05:49:53 AM »
Why is this a surprise?  We had several Republican supporters a few pages back arguing that Donald Trump was committing treason by the common use of the word but not by the legal definition - and therefore his actions were OK.  :P
Appears you misunderstood.  The issue was leading Democrats suggesting that Trump had committed treason as an impeachable offense when in fact he had not.  We all understand that they would like to get rid of him, much as many leading Republicans would have liked to find a reason to get rid of Obama, but "there's no there there" on that point.

Maybe where we differ is, Democrats (and many others) feel there is sufficient evidence to impeach Trump. And Republicans do not, or at least are refusing to hold hearings for impeachment as long as they are in power. Both Trump and extreme right wingers are pushing for Rod Rodenstein to be impeached, so that Trump can replace him with someone who WILL fire Mueller.  This has nothing to do with justice. It has to do with obstruction of justice, and trying to hold onto political power, under any means possible.
My personal opinion (FWIW) is that there is certainly enough material to impeach based on the standards used under Clinton, but practically speaking impeachment would not lead to removal from office given the current or likely composition of congress this fall and next year. Consequentially, impeachment would not be a great course of action for the Dems to take.  Impeachment proceedings will further entrench members of congress along party lines, and ultimately the failure to remove would cast everything in a different light - no doubt DJT would tout it as proof this was all a 'witch hunt!" which his supporters will be all too willing to accept as unfair persecution. Quite possibly it will curtail future oversight and investigations into this or future administrations.

Instead, and assuming the Dems manage to take at least the House in November, they can use their majority more productively to investigate, subpoena, expose and punish all the transgressions of this administration. Without sycophants like Nunes protecting Trump, congressional committees can make public their findings, and provide what evidence exists for various transgressions we've heard about through the media. A congress controlled by Dems could also effectively protect and fund Mueller's investigation to completion. They could use their power to release his tax records and force him to actually divest himself from his businesses. Finally, they could block the most egregious executive appointees - those that are continuously given positions in this administration for the sole quality of loyalty and are often devoid of any experience in the departments they are assigned.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3337 on: August 02, 2018, 06:07:53 AM »
Why is this a surprise?  We had several Republican supporters a few pages back arguing that Donald Trump was committing treason by the common use of the word but not by the legal definition - and therefore his actions were OK.  :P
Appears you misunderstood.  The issue was leading Democrats suggesting that Trump had committed treason as an impeachable offense when in fact he had not.  We all understand that they would like to get rid of him, much as many leading Republicans would have liked to find a reason to get rid of Obama, but "there's no there there" on that point.

GuitarStv was referencing Republican's on this forum defending his actions, not "leading Democrats." I'm not even sure leading Dems referred to it as treason and certainly unaware of any reference to impeach him. I could be wrong and perhaps you have more insider info?

John Brennan (former CIA director) and Paul Pillar (former CIA counter-terrorism official) referred to it as Treason.


thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1174
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3338 on: August 02, 2018, 06:19:43 AM »
Why is this a surprise?  We had several Republican supporters a few pages back arguing that Donald Trump was committing treason by the common use of the word but not by the legal definition - and therefore his actions were OK.  :P
Appears you misunderstood.  The issue was leading Democrats suggesting that Trump had committed treason as an impeachable offense when in fact he had not.  We all understand that they would like to get rid of him, much as many leading Republicans would have liked to find a reason to get rid of Obama, but "there's no there there" on that point.

Maybe where we differ is, Democrats (and many others) feel there is sufficient evidence to impeach Trump. And Republicans do not, or at least are refusing to hold hearings for impeachment as long as they are in power. Both Trump and extreme right wingers are pushing for Rod Rodenstein to be impeached, so that Trump can replace him with someone who WILL fire Mueller.  This has nothing to do with justice. It has to do with obstruction of justice, and trying to hold onto political power, under any means possible.
Another note is that impeachment is not a criminal issue, it's political.  There is no need for articles of impeachment to deal with legal statutes.  Congress could impeach based on "behavior unbecoming" and it would stand.  The legal definition of treason doesn't come into it.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1930
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3339 on: August 02, 2018, 08:52:19 AM »
While I don't support Trump, and I wish he were not the President, I think impeaching him now would be a colossal political mistake. With 40% approval, the political will to do it is simply absent. One of my friends argued that "you only get once chance to take out the King", and I worry that surviving impeachment would simply embolden Trump further to erode norms and enrich his favored circle. We basically saw this in Turkey when Erdogan survived the attempted coup two years ago.

The Democratic leadership are smart enough to realize this, and I think they wish to play a long game in which they use Trump's frequent abuses as a motivation to reverse the dramatic losses they've suffered in state-level governments, perhaps leading to a series of more favorable election results in 2020. Democratic insurgents (Ocasio-Ortiz seems to be attracting a lot of attention) do not seem to be, and that worries me.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1773
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3340 on: August 02, 2018, 09:02:44 AM »
While I don't support Trump, and I wish he were not the President, I think impeaching him now would be a colossal political mistake. With 40% approval, the political will to do it is simply absent. One of my friends argued that "you only get once chance to take out the King", and I worry that surviving impeachment would simply embolden Trump further to erode norms and enrich his favored circle. We basically saw this in Turkey when Erdogan survived the attempted coup two years ago.

The Democratic leadership are smart enough to realize this, and I think they wish to play a long game in which they use Trump's frequent abuses as a motivation to reverse the dramatic losses they've suffered in state-level governments, perhaps leading to a series of more favorable election results in 2020. Democratic insurgents (Ocasio-Ortiz seems to be attracting a lot of attention) do not seem to be, and that worries me.

Agreed. Unless something completely new and earth-shattering comes of the Mueller investigation, impeachment proceedings would be a massive waste of time and political capital. Democratic insurgents don't really worry me, except to the extent that they may end up as an impediment to cohesive leadership, as the Freedom Caucus is in the GOP.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2018, 09:18:07 AM by Mississippi Mudstache »

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3341 on: August 02, 2018, 09:13:19 AM »
We think you all should deal with your problems instead of just taking up arms to defend yourself.   

That's the idea, except when it no longer works. That my be outside of my lifetime, but to think it is not inevitable is foolish. At some point a tyrant will come with the national socialists, enforcing their rules on everyone everywhere. The idea is to keep the centralized power as weak as possible and the people as powerful as possible, so that at the very least it will be limited.

Don't think you are that great, your hate speech laws seem pretty egregious to many of us here.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8470
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3342 on: August 02, 2018, 10:35:36 AM »
We think you all should deal with your problems instead of just taking up arms to defend yourself.   

That's the idea, except when it no longer works. That my be outside of my lifetime, but to think it is not inevitable is foolish. At some point a tyrant will come with the national socialists, enforcing their rules on everyone everywhere. The idea is to keep the centralized power as weak as possible and the people as powerful as possible, so that at the very least it will be limited.

Here's a question I have regarding having an armed populace to deter tyrannical governments: what good are hand-held firearms in the face of modern military technology?  I personally don't see how they could stand up to a governmental army that has armored vehicles and air-strike capabilities. Insurgents rely primarily on IEDs - which are clearly illegal under our current laws. Even Scalia argued that governments can impose reasonable restrictions on rights (e.g. no Howitzers or guided missles sold to private citizens).

In other words, would lots of citizens holding small arms really be able to stop the kind of future dystopia you are talking about?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11852
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3343 on: August 02, 2018, 10:40:34 AM »
We think you all should deal with your problems instead of just taking up arms to defend yourself.   

That's the idea, except when it no longer works. That my be outside of my lifetime, but to think it is not inevitable is foolish. At some point a tyrant will come with the national socialists, enforcing their rules on everyone everywhere. The idea is to keep the centralized power as weak as possible and the people as powerful as possible, so that at the very least it will be limited.

This is kinda like refusing to wear a seatbelt because your car might go off a bridge and you might need to escape while sinking underwater, and the belt might refuse to release.

Except in the seatbelt case, you're the only one who gets killed.  You endanger everyone else by owning a gun.


Don't think you are that great, your hate speech laws seem pretty egregious to many of us here.

I don't think that we're all that great.  We're just a country, there are places better in quality of life, happiness of citizens, human rights adherence, places with more humane prison systems, etc.  I'd argue that the US is superior in certain areas actually (it's easier to quickly amass personal wealth through hard work in the US for example).  That said, Canada's a nice place to live for a variety of reasons.

One of them is that a long time ago we decided that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech.  (Actually, you Americans did too but generally don't acknowledge this . . . it's why you're not allowed to yell FIRE in a crowded theater for example, or to say that you're a police officer when you're not.)  It is true though.  Here in Canada you're not allowed to advocate for genocide or expose vulnerable groups to "detestation and vilification beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims".  Given the rarity of this law being enacted this isn't any practical greater encroachment on freedom in my eyes, but you can certainly make the argument that the US limitations on freedom of speech are better if it floats your boat.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7205
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3344 on: August 02, 2018, 11:05:33 AM »
The second amendment is utterly useless for preseving liberty.  Only democracy can do that.

Your right to bear arms is already severely restricted.  You cannot own or even attempt to build a nuke.  You cannot own artillery, which is century old technology.  You cannot own RPGs, or explosive rounds, or bioweapons.  You cannot encrypt live data transmissions.  You can't even saw off a shotgun.  If you were batman-rich, you could buy a fancy plane and halo jump out of it while armed to the teeth, but that's technically illegal too and you can't make your plane into a supersonic stealth bomber. 

The US military has all of these things and many more superpowers you don't even know about.  They have highly trained people whose only job is to practice and maintain these skills and systems.  24 individual soldiers flew a stealth helicopter undetected into sovereign pakistan, then took 38 minutes to carve through a small army of heavily armed bodyguards and shoot bin laden in the face, and you think your AR-15 can keep you safe?

The only defense we have against the use of force is political.  We spend trillions making sure nobody can compete with the US military in a fight.  You will never win by fighting that force with force.  Crying about what kind of guns you can't own is a joke.  Your liberty is protected at the ballot box, not the ammo aisle, and recently the pro-gun party has given away all pretense of defending America anyway.  What good are you guns when the Russians control both the president and the NRA?

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2295
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3345 on: August 02, 2018, 11:11:38 AM »
We think you all should deal with your problems instead of just taking up arms to defend yourself.   

That's the idea, except when it no longer works. That my be outside of my lifetime, but to think it is not inevitable is foolish. At some point a tyrant will come with the national socialists, enforcing their rules on everyone everywhere. The idea is to keep the centralized power as weak as possible and the people as powerful as possible, so that at the very least it will be limited.

Don't think you are that great, your hate speech laws seem pretty egregious to many of us here.

My Dad lived through WWII and then a civil war in Greece. Everyone had guns. But if you were on the side that lost (Greece vs Germany, or Socialists versus Fascists), despite having "guns" your days were numbered.
My fear, is that a weak government, causes what you see in Russia and in many African states, where laws are not enforced, there is no recourse to legal or other crimes committed, corruption is rampant and things only happen with bribing, and power is in the rich and powerful. Guns won't help you in that situation either. The kind of people who come in power in that kind of power vacumn, if they don't want you to have guns they are just going to take them regardless of what the rule of law or constitution says. Maybe they will say it's martial law. That is the more likely path of the US, what Trump is paving. 

I think the original framers had it right. You need a democracy. You need fair elections. You need people to be educated, have rights, and the ability to vote in or vote out people. You want a functioning democracy because ultimately that is the strongest protection for living in a fair society that protects the strong AND the weak.   
« Last Edit: August 02, 2018, 11:18:26 AM by partgypsy »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11852
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3346 on: August 02, 2018, 11:23:43 AM »
The second amendment is utterly useless for preseving liberty.  Only democracy can do that.

Your right to bear arms is already severely restricted.  You cannot own or even attempt to build a nuke.  You cannot own artillery, which is century old technology.  You cannot own RPGs, or explosive rounds, or bioweapons.  You cannot encrypt live data transmissions.  You can't even saw off a shotgun.  If you were batman-rich, you could buy a fancy plane and halo jump out of it while armed to the teeth, but that's technically illegal too and you can't make your plane into a supersonic stealth bomber. 

The US military has all of these things and many more superpowers you don't even know about.  They have highly trained people whose only job is to practice and maintain these skills and systems.  24 individual soldiers flew a stealth helicopter undetected into sovereign pakistan, then took 38 minutes to carve through a small army of heavily armed bodyguards and shoot bin laden in the face, and you think your AR-15 can keep you safe?

The only defense we have against the use of force is political.  We spend trillions making sure nobody can compete with the US military in a fight.  You will never win by fighting that force with force.  Crying about what kind of guns you can't own is a joke.  Your liberty is protected at the ballot box, not the ammo aisle, and recently the pro-gun party has given away all pretense of defending America anyway.  What good are you guns when the Russians control both the president and the NRA?

All of what Sol says is true . . . but let's play Devil's advocate here.

Let's say you and your stalwart band of freedom fighters do manage to hold off the full might of the US government with your semi-auto handguns, rifles, and shotguns.  For some reason, nobody bothers to release a bioweapon that would kill you and leave everything around you untouched.  Or a chemical weapon that does the same.

Let's say that you not only struggle against the tyrannical government, but that you eventually succeed.  To do this of course, you have had to use every dirty tactic in the books.  IEDs, terrorist attacks on population centers, hiding in the general population, torturing and executing captured prisoners, raping your enemies to instill fear, destroying infrastructure, arming child soldiers, suicide bombings, using civilians as human shields, cannibalism to instill fear, execution of collaborators, etc.  You win!  The US government says 'fuck that noise' and is afraid of you.  They back off, and you are free to establish the new nation of NRAsia.

Now you and your most trusted lieutenants get to set up a government.  Can you point me to a single time in the past hundred and fifty years where a small band of rebels have taken over a country by force in this way . . . and then the country hasn't turned into a dictator led shithole at least as bad as the government overthrown?  Afghanistan, Libya, Tajikstan, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, Somalia, Niger, Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Rwanda . . . fuck, the list goes on and on.  It never works.

You need to use dirty tactics to win and wear down a massively better trained, better armed, and stronger force.  Head on and fighting farily you will lose every time.  Unfortunately, the people who excel at dirty warfare tactics suck at creating a fair, stable government.  They are just not compatible mindsets.  You can't be rape torturing the wives of your enemies one day, and then be writing up a document ensuring human rights for all the next.  So, even if you "win" (and man, the odds are long on that) . . . you really end up losing.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3070
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3347 on: August 02, 2018, 11:37:20 AM »
All of what Sol says is true . . . but let's play Devil's advocate here.

Let's say you and your stalwart band of freedom fighters do manage to hold off the full might of the US government with your semi-auto handguns, rifles, and shotguns.  For some reason, nobody bothers to release a bioweapon that would kill you and leave everything around you untouched.  Or a chemical weapon that does the same.

What about that documentary "Red Dawn?" Those high school kids fought off the Russkies (or North Korea, depending on who you believe).

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8470
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3348 on: August 02, 2018, 12:52:24 PM »
All of what Sol says is true . . . but let's play Devil's advocate here.

Let's say you and your stalwart band of freedom fighters do manage to hold off the full might of the US government with your semi-auto handguns, rifles, and shotguns.  For some reason, nobody bothers to release a bioweapon that would kill you and leave everything around you untouched.  Or a chemical weapon that does the same.

What about that documentary "Red Dawn?" Those high school kids fought off the Russkies (or North Korea, depending on who you believe).
WOLVERINES!!!

Barbaebigode

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 121
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3349 on: August 02, 2018, 01:11:37 PM »
All of what Sol says is true . . . but let's play Devil's advocate here.

Let's say you and your stalwart band of freedom fighters do manage to hold off the full might of the US government with your semi-auto handguns, rifles, and shotguns.  For some reason, nobody bothers to release a bioweapon that would kill you and leave everything around you untouched.  Or a chemical weapon that does the same.

What about that documentary "Red Dawn?" Those high school kids fought off the Russkies (or North Korea, depending on who you believe).

Don't waste your time. Libtards don't get the amazing power of pre battle speeches on an untrained populace.