Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 856734 times)

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5703
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8350 on: August 21, 2019, 10:40:20 AM »
I have not heard of a single political candidate of any importance from either party support open borders.

As for providing health care, you are going to have to be a lot more specific.  It has been a legal requirement for hospitals to provide urgent medical care to everyone regardless of their ability to pay.  This has been true for decades under both Democratic and Republican rule.  It's also an obligation under international law to provide medical services to detainees, regardless of their guilt or innocence. Whether we should extend medical coverage including checkups and vaccinations regardless of status is a much more narrow question that not even everyone in the Democratic party supports.

Regarding the latter, it should be noted that several dozen countries provide basic health services without charge to the patient, and in many cases without any requirement of citizenship.




Well these ten seem to agree:

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/watch-democrat-candidates-asked-raise-hands-if-their-health-care-plan-would

See my earlier response to open borders. Perceptions matter.

My perception is that you claimed (rephrased for succinctness):

All of the viable Democratic candidates have let the fringe elements of their party dictate their stances and they all support open borders.

And now you are trying to walk that back with some talk about "perception."

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11130
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8351 on: August 21, 2019, 10:42:02 AM »
I have not heard of a single political candidate of any importance from either party support open borders.

As for providing health care, you are going to have to be a lot more specific.  It has been a legal requirement for hospitals to provide urgent medical care to everyone regardless of their ability to pay.  This has been true for decades under both Democratic and Republican rule.  It's also an obligation under international law to provide medical services to detainees, regardless of their guilt or innocence. Whether we should extend medical coverage including checkups and vaccinations regardless of status is a much more narrow question that not even everyone in the Democratic party supports.

Regarding the latter, it should be noted that several dozen countries provide basic health services without charge to the patient, and in many cases without any requirement of citizenship.




Well these ten seem to agree:

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/watch-democrat-candidates-asked-raise-hands-if-their-health-care-plan-would

See my earlier response to open borders. Perceptions matter.

So basically what you are saying is that you do not know of any candidate pushing for open boarders, despite what you've said upthread?


Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8352 on: August 21, 2019, 11:00:48 AM »
Trump just canceled a meeting with the Danish PM because she said Greenland isnít for sale.

Hey, Trump supporters: you are idiots.


Your arrogance is astounding. That you feel you have the right to openly denigrate millions of your fellow Americans and probably a fair percentage of Mustachians is incredible in its entitlement.

Let me inform you of a little secret that to which you seem to be oblivious: People support Trump not because of the dumb things he says but because the alternative is to turn over the country to intolerant and dogmatic people like you, people incapable of any sort of balance in their opinions. Your attitude along with many others will be a primary driver for a Trump victory in 2020. You need to take ownership of that when it happens. My bet though is that you will double-down on your prejudice. Prove me wrong.

And again, we are back to community guidelines in these forums. What do you guys hope to accomplish when statements like that are made? How many converts do you get when you openly call others stupid? This misguided moral righteousness will never draw someone to your side; you will never shame someone into believing what you believe, at least anything lasting.

Don't believe me? Check out the #Walkaway videos for some examples. This intolerance is suffocating the Democratic party.

What examples of Trump's tolerance can you offer? Sincere question.

Can you offer video of him welcoming people who might not vote for him? Can you offer video of him saying he isn't bothered by people who disagree with his positions on abortion or gay marriage? Can you offer a statement in which he insists on seating a newly elected legislator who might disagree with him--someone like Doug Jones--before an important vote is taken?

Examples of all of the above are available online from previous Presidents of both parties.

Good point. Versatile's complaint is rather disingenuous considering how bad this kind of attitude can be coming from the other side, Trump himself in particular.

But at the same time I agree that calling Trump supporters idiots is harmful. Calling someone an idiot is counterproductive when you want to change their mind.

It's not something I do very often. I mean, sure, maybe in private to my husband. But in general I avoid name-calling. I certainly don't do it to individuals.

But you know what? This Greenland thing is idiotic. And to not see that is idiotic. So, sorry, I'm not above pointing out that the groupthink of Trump supporters that would make them blind to this shows a pattern of idiotic behavior characteristic of that group.

Bullshit. You do it all of the time. At least here in the forums.

If you want proof I can provide.

You are very condescending and when cornered you just dismiss away your poor behavior. You are harming the very platform that allows you to vent. It's O.K. to vent, but the personal insults are not acceptable.

If you can find them, I encourage you to report them to the mods so they can chastise or ban me.

I don't want you banned, I want you to be civil. Your voice matters just as mine does or a Trump supporter. I guarantee you if we sat across from each other we would find many things to agree upon. Neither of us is evil or a monster.

And I want you to argue in good faith. As apparently do many other people. You unwillingness to do so is why so many here speculate you are a troll.

Everything I have said has been in good faith and I believe and can back up. The problem occurs when my sources are openly discounted for no other reason than someone has posted an opposing article. Now, certainly I could be wrong in my assertions, but I can assure you I have done a lot of research coming to those conclusions.

And it takes a lot of work to point by point prove every assertion just to have someone who hasn't done any homework call bullshit because they heard a different narrative on NPR. Look at the responses to me. Either they call me a troll because they don't agree with my responses or they want me to write a thesis on my points. Or they parse language for the win while they ignore basic human behavior and more importantly regular peoples ability to read between the lines. Most responses to me are very insulting. Sherr called me a damned dirty liar and wanted me banned for comments on Mueller which all proved to be true. Just because she didn't agree with me at the time. It was kind of shocking at the time to be honest.




JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5703
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8353 on: August 21, 2019, 11:04:53 AM »
Trump just canceled a meeting with the Danish PM because she said Greenland isnít for sale.

Hey, Trump supporters: you are idiots.


Your arrogance is astounding. That you feel you have the right to openly denigrate millions of your fellow Americans and probably a fair percentage of Mustachians is incredible in its entitlement.

Let me inform you of a little secret that to which you seem to be oblivious: People support Trump not because of the dumb things he says but because the alternative is to turn over the country to intolerant and dogmatic people like you, people incapable of any sort of balance in their opinions. Your attitude along with many others will be a primary driver for a Trump victory in 2020. You need to take ownership of that when it happens. My bet though is that you will double-down on your prejudice. Prove me wrong.

And again, we are back to community guidelines in these forums. What do you guys hope to accomplish when statements like that are made? How many converts do you get when you openly call others stupid? This misguided moral righteousness will never draw someone to your side; you will never shame someone into believing what you believe, at least anything lasting.

Don't believe me? Check out the #Walkaway videos for some examples. This intolerance is suffocating the Democratic party.

What examples of Trump's tolerance can you offer? Sincere question.

Can you offer video of him welcoming people who might not vote for him? Can you offer video of him saying he isn't bothered by people who disagree with his positions on abortion or gay marriage? Can you offer a statement in which he insists on seating a newly elected legislator who might disagree with him--someone like Doug Jones--before an important vote is taken?

Examples of all of the above are available online from previous Presidents of both parties.

Good point. Versatile's complaint is rather disingenuous considering how bad this kind of attitude can be coming from the other side, Trump himself in particular.

But at the same time I agree that calling Trump supporters idiots is harmful. Calling someone an idiot is counterproductive when you want to change their mind.

It's not something I do very often. I mean, sure, maybe in private to my husband. But in general I avoid name-calling. I certainly don't do it to individuals.

But you know what? This Greenland thing is idiotic. And to not see that is idiotic. So, sorry, I'm not above pointing out that the groupthink of Trump supporters that would make them blind to this shows a pattern of idiotic behavior characteristic of that group.

Bullshit. You do it all of the time. At least here in the forums.

If you want proof I can provide.

You are very condescending and when cornered you just dismiss away your poor behavior. You are harming the very platform that allows you to vent. It's O.K. to vent, but the personal insults are not acceptable.

If you can find them, I encourage you to report them to the mods so they can chastise or ban me.

I don't want you banned, I want you to be civil. Your voice matters just as mine does or a Trump supporter. I guarantee you if we sat across from each other we would find many things to agree upon. Neither of us is evil or a monster.

And I want you to argue in good faith. As apparently do many other people. You unwillingness to do so is why so many here speculate you are a troll.

Everything I have said has been in good faith and I believe and can back up. The problem occurs when my sources are openly discounted for no other reason than someone has posted an opposing article. Now, certainly I could be wrong in my assertions, but I can assure you I have done a lot of research coming to those conclusions.

And it takes a lot of work to point by point prove every assertion just to have someone who hasn't done any homework call bullshit because they heard a different narrative on NPR. Look at the responses to me. Either they call me a troll because they don't agree with my responses or they want me to write a thesis on my points. Or they parse language for the win while they ignore basic human behavior and more importantly regular peoples ability to read between the lines. Most responses to me are very insulting. Sherr called me a damned dirty liar and wanted me banned for comments on Mueller which all proved to be true. Just because she didn't agree with me at the time. It was kind of shocking at the time to be honest.

You made a very simple claim. I am simply awaiting your source.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4592
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8354 on: August 21, 2019, 11:05:04 AM »
Trump just canceled a meeting with the Danish PM because she said Greenland isnít for sale.

Hey, Trump supporters: you are idiots.


Your arrogance is astounding. That you feel you have the right to openly denigrate millions of your fellow Americans and probably a fair percentage of Mustachians is incredible in its entitlement.

Let me inform you of a little secret that to which you seem to be oblivious: People support Trump not because of the dumb things he says but because the alternative is to turn over the country to intolerant and dogmatic people like you, people incapable of any sort of balance in their opinions. Your attitude along with many others will be a primary driver for a Trump victory in 2020. You need to take ownership of that when it happens. My bet though is that you will double-down on your prejudice. Prove me wrong.

And again, we are back to community guidelines in these forums. What do you guys hope to accomplish when statements like that are made? How many converts do you get when you openly call others stupid? This misguided moral righteousness will never draw someone to your side; you will never shame someone into believing what you believe, at least anything lasting.

Don't believe me? Check out the #Walkaway videos for some examples. This intolerance is suffocating the Democratic party.

What examples of Trump's tolerance can you offer? Sincere question.

Can you offer video of him welcoming people who might not vote for him? Can you offer video of him saying he isn't bothered by people who disagree with his positions on abortion or gay marriage? Can you offer a statement in which he insists on seating a newly elected legislator who might disagree with him--someone like Doug Jones--before an important vote is taken?

Examples of all of the above are available online from previous Presidents of both parties.

Good point. Versatile's complaint is rather disingenuous considering how bad this kind of attitude can be coming from the other side, Trump himself in particular.

But at the same time I agree that calling Trump supporters idiots is harmful. Calling someone an idiot is counterproductive when you want to change their mind.

It's not something I do very often. I mean, sure, maybe in private to my husband. But in general I avoid name-calling. I certainly don't do it to individuals.

But you know what? This Greenland thing is idiotic. And to not see that is idiotic. So, sorry, I'm not above pointing out that the groupthink of Trump supporters that would make them blind to this shows a pattern of idiotic behavior characteristic of that group.

Bullshit. You do it all of the time. At least here in the forums.

If you want proof I can provide.

You are very condescending and when cornered you just dismiss away your poor behavior. You are harming the very platform that allows you to vent. It's O.K. to vent, but the personal insults are not acceptable.

If you can find them, I encourage you to report them to the mods so they can chastise or ban me.

I don't want you banned, I want you to be civil. Your voice matters just as mine does or a Trump supporter. I guarantee you if we sat across from each other we would find many things to agree upon. Neither of us is evil or a monster.

And I want you to argue in good faith. As apparently do many other people. You unwillingness to do so is why so many here speculate you are a troll.

Everything I have said has been in good faith and I believe and can back up. The problem occurs when my sources are openly discounted for no other reason than someone has posted an opposing article. Now, certainly I could be wrong in my assertions, but I can assure you I have done a lot of research coming to those conclusions.

And it takes a lot of work to point by point prove every assertion just to have someone who hasn't done any homework call bullshit because they heard a different narrative on NPR. Look at the responses to me. Either they call me a troll because they don't agree with my responses or they want me to write a thesis on my points. Or they parse language for the win while they ignore basic human behavior and more importantly regular peoples ability to read between the lines. Most responses to me are very insulting. Sherr called me a damned dirty liar and wanted me banned for comments on Mueller which all proved to be true. Just because she didn't agree with me at the time. It was kind of shocking at the time to be honest.

Claiming to argue in good faith and actually doing so are two different things, Versatile.


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11130
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8356 on: August 21, 2019, 11:23:32 AM »

Everything I have said has been in good faith and I believe and can back up. The problem occurs when my sources are openly discounted for no other reason than someone has posted an opposing article. Now, certainly I could be wrong in my assertions, but I can assure you I have done a lot of research coming to those conclusions.

And it takes a lot of work to point by point prove every assertion just to have someone who hasn't done any homework call bullshit because they heard a different narrative on NPR.

No.  You are making demonstrably false statements and then failing to back them up.  Several (including myself) have asked about your assertion that many want "open borders".  As near as I can tell the true number of US representitives and State Governors who advocate this is zero. Tall Texan very politely asked what examples you could provide of Trump's tolerance, to which you deflected by saying "Let's stay on point,"  and "I'm not here to discuss Trump" rather than offer your thoughts or examples.
 

OtherJen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8357 on: August 21, 2019, 11:27:37 AM »

Everything I have said has been in good faith and I believe and can back up. The problem occurs when my sources are openly discounted for no other reason than someone has posted an opposing article. Now, certainly I could be wrong in my assertions, but I can assure you I have done a lot of research coming to those conclusions.

And it takes a lot of work to point by point prove every assertion just to have someone who hasn't done any homework call bullshit because they heard a different narrative on NPR.

So back them up. Iíd like to see your sources.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11730
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8358 on: August 21, 2019, 11:33:05 AM »
There is no country in the world that espouses "open borders".*  They all have border controls, and immigration controls. So I am massively skeptical of anyone claiming that anyone is advocating that in any country.  It just doesn't fly.

*And for all the Americans of various political stripes that bitch and say they will move to Canada, we also have border controls and immigration policies.  No just waltzing in and thinking we will welcome you.  Plus even the most left-wing of you would find our political practices very strange. And if you don't believe me, look up the Rhinoceros Party and the Bloc Quebecois.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8359 on: August 21, 2019, 12:07:15 PM »
A call was made a few pages back for Trump's critics on this thread to detail whether there is anything Trump has said or done that we agree with (not sure the call was entirely in good faith...). The obvious public floating of payroll tax cuts is a great idea. Now I know there are solid-appearing arguments for the existence of the payroll tax contributing to success of Social Security and Medicare over the decades, across generations and age groups and other divisions. But it is a relatively regressive tax, I think it was a mistake to reverse the 2011-2012 one, and I think it should be paired with a removal of the OASDI income cap that is currently in place.

Trump was also quoted as saying "I am the Chosen One", so that apparently happened.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4057
  • Age: 28
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8360 on: August 21, 2019, 12:14:20 PM »
Trump was also quoted as saying "I am the Chosen One", so that apparently happened.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11130
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8361 on: August 21, 2019, 12:19:02 PM »

*And for all the Americans of various political stripes that bitch and say they will move to Canada, we also have border controls and immigration policies.  No just waltzing in and thinking we will welcome you.  Plus even the most left-wing of you would find our political practices very strange. And if you don't believe me, look up the Rhinoceros Party and the Bloc Quebecois.

I can testify to Canada having a thorough and comprehensive process to vet people who want to move there.  I'll also add that while each Canadian province has single-payer healthcare for citizens and permanent residents, and has provisions for medical care for everyone (e.g. emergency care, some preventative & basic care), "illegals" do not get the same coverage as a Canadian citizen residing in Canada. Most who advocate for universal coverage are referencing countries such as Canada, or Norway, or the UK as models we could draw from.  No serious candidate is advocating to allow universal coverage and no cost for 'medical-tourism', or other such nonsense.



nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11130
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8362 on: August 21, 2019, 12:21:56 PM »
A call was made a few pages back for Trump's critics on this thread to detail whether there is anything Trump has said or done that we agree with (not sure the call was entirely in good faith...). The obvious public floating of payroll tax cuts is a great idea. Now I know there are solid-appearing arguments for the existence of the payroll tax contributing to success of Social Security and Medicare over the decades, across generations and age groups and other divisions. But it is a relatively regressive tax, I think it was a mistake to reverse the 2011-2012 one, and I think it should be paired with a removal of the OASDI income cap that is currently in place.

I think the payroll tax should be restructured, but 1) Trump has already apparently abandoned the idea and 2) when it was under consideration the plan (much as it was) appeared to be a complete and temporary reprieve from the payroll tax, and not a restructuring. Cutting federal revenue when the economy is doing very well is the exact opposite of what we should be doing, IMO.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4081
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8363 on: August 21, 2019, 12:32:09 PM »
A call was made a few pages back for Trump's critics on this thread to detail whether there is anything Trump has said or done that we agree with (not sure the call was entirely in good faith...). The obvious public floating of payroll tax cuts is a great idea. Now I know there are solid-appearing arguments for the existence of the payroll tax contributing to success of Social Security and Medicare over the decades, across generations and age groups and other divisions. But it is a relatively regressive tax, I think it was a mistake to reverse the 2011-2012 one, and I think it should be paired with a removal of the OASDI income cap that is currently in place.

I think the payroll tax should be restructured, but 1) Trump has already apparently abandoned the idea and 2) when it was under consideration the plan (much as it was) appeared to be a complete and temporary reprieve from the payroll tax, and not a restructuring. Cutting federal revenue when the economy is doing very well is the exact opposite of what we should be doing, IMO.

Yep, a reprieve should be used as stimulus when the economy is in the shitter.

It was a no-go anyway. The House wouldn't have agreed without concessions and Pelosi is getting better at handling Trump.

OtherJen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
  • Location: Metro Detroit

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1298
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8365 on: August 21, 2019, 12:52:59 PM »
The Greenland thing is much more problematic than what gets presented in the foreign media. Those 56 000 people living up there are not Danish, they are 90 % Inuit who identify as Greenlanders. When the Danish PM said she can't sell Greenland because it belongs to the Greenlanders, it was not a nice and polite phrase. There are years of conflict, rasism, oppression, and attempts of genocide behind those words. The reason Greenland now belongs to the Greenlanders is not because the Danish are so nice. That is due to the home rule act of 2009, and a very strict wording from the UN that you can't mess with land belonging to native people.

So what Trump is doing is deeply racist (asking the white folks if he can buy their colony), and it nourishes some very old conflicts that might have a backlash. One of the old actions the Danish have had to atone for these last few years, is selling the Thule area to the US for them to build an airbase in the 1950s. The people living in that village were forced out, with only a few days warning. Their hunting grounds became closed off, and they were moved to a much less desirable area to the north. Lately they have gotten access to some of the hunting grounds again, after half a century of fighting.

So what might happen if Trump insists on starting fights? The relationship between Greenland and Denmark is fragile. And the US in connected to Denmark in peoples' minds. According to the home rule act, Greenland can demand to take over more and more power from Denmark (as the Faroes have been doing for years - they are now almost independent of Danish funding, and are fighting Denmark for places at the negotiation tables in the EU, Arctic council, IWC, etc). Greenland is popular due to resources and location, and the Chinese are very much wanting a piece of the pie. If the US stumbles too much in the diplomacy, Greenland might very well decide that China seems like a much better business partner.


Trump just canceled a meeting with the Danish PM because she said Greenland isnít for sale.

Hey, Trump supporters: you are idiots.

Is Svalbard for sale?  Norway could make some quick cash.
I think you just picked the country least likely to ever need some quick cash.

We are good, thanks. If Trump would like to know how to buy parts of the world, he could have a look at our list of foreign property: https://www.nbim.no/no/oljefondet/beholdningene/beholdninger-per-31.12.2018/?fullsize=true (click on the country/region, and then on "eiendom", and you will see the adresses of all the property we currently hold in that region. Yes, we do own parts of Times Square in New York, Oxford Street in London, etc).

Also - F no you are not getting into Svalbard. We are holding on to the peace with Russia with our fingernails. We DO NOT need the US making a mess of that shit.

On the other hand; should Greenland decide they want to correct the error that was made in 1814 when Denmark stole parts of Norway, we would be happy to welcome them back. That also goes for the Faroes, Iceland, Shetland, Orkneys, Hebridies, and Isle of Man.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4081
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8366 on: August 21, 2019, 01:03:46 PM »
And here we go again, per Reuters:

Trump says he is seriously looking at ending birthright citizenship

Tossing a bone for his white nationalist supporters.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2273
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8367 on: August 21, 2019, 01:14:58 PM »
The Greenland thing is much more problematic than what gets presented in the foreign media. Those 56 000 people living up there are not Danish, they are 90 % Inuit who identify as Greenlanders. When the Danish PM said she can't sell Greenland because it belongs to the Greenlanders, it was not a nice and polite phrase. There are years of conflict, rasism, oppression, and attempts of genocide behind those words. The reason Greenland now belongs to the Greenlanders is not because the Danish are so nice. That is due to the home rule act of 2009, and a very strict wording from the UN that you can't mess with land belonging to native people.

So what Trump is doing is deeply racist (asking the white folks if he can buy their colony), and it nourishes some very old conflicts that might have a backlash. One of the old actions the Danish have had to atone for these last few years, is selling the Thule area to the US for them to build an airbase in the 1950s. The people living in that village were forced out, with only a few days warning. Their hunting grounds became closed off, and they were moved to a much less desirable area to the north. Lately they have gotten access to some of the hunting grounds again, after half a century of fighting.

So what might happen if Trump insists on starting fights? The relationship between Greenland and Denmark is fragile. And the US in connected to Denmark in peoples' minds. According to the home rule act, Greenland can demand to take over more and more power from Denmark (as the Faroes have been doing for years - they are now almost independent of Danish funding, and are fighting Denmark for places at the negotiation tables in the EU, Arctic council, IWC, etc). Greenland is popular due to resources and location, and the Chinese are very much wanting a piece of the pie. If the US stumbles too much in the diplomacy, Greenland might very well decide that China seems like a much better business partner.


Trump just canceled a meeting with the Danish PM because she said Greenland isnít for sale.

Hey, Trump supporters: you are idiots.

Is Svalbard for sale?  Norway could make some quick cash.
I think you just picked the country least likely to ever need some quick cash.

We are good, thanks. If Trump would like to know how to buy parts of the world, he could have a look at our list of foreign property: https://www.nbim.no/no/oljefondet/beholdningene/beholdninger-per-31.12.2018/?fullsize=true (click on the country/region, and then on "eiendom", and you will see the adresses of all the property we currently hold in that region. Yes, we do own parts of Times Square in New York, Oxford Street in London, etc).

Also - F no you are not getting into Svalbard. We are holding on to the peace with Russia with our fingernails. We DO NOT need the US making a mess of that shit.

On the other hand; should Greenland decide they want to correct the error that was made in 1814 when Denmark stole parts of Norway, we would be happy to welcome them back. That also goes for the Faroes, Iceland, Shetland, Orkneys, Hebridies, and Isle of Man.

Thanks for this background.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8368 on: August 21, 2019, 01:19:28 PM »

Thanks for this background.

Yep, this is more context than I would expect from all major US news outlets combined. Thank you.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3535
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8369 on: August 21, 2019, 01:25:01 PM »
Ok, just in the last couple days, He called the Danish Prime minister to ask to buy Greenland, and she shot down the idea calling it absurd. So then in a fit of pique, also using his favorite female term "nasty" for the female Prime Minister, canceled the already agreed upon visit to Denmark, invitation from the Royal Family, via Twitter. Apparently the Royal family learned of cancellation from Twitter.   

And he called American Jews who vote Democrat "shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty."

The news now states that Trump is planning, without congress, to cancel literally billions of dollars of foreign aid, unless those countries do what Trumpie wants (well it's canceled except of course some pet projects of Ivanka Trump and Mike Pence, can't have that).  Even Lindsey Graham, says, " Not only do these cuts have the potential to undermine significant national security and anti-terrorism efforts of our diplomats and international partners overseas, but we fear such a rescission package could complicate the ability of the Administration and Congress to work constructively on future appropriations deals".

Oh yeah, he called himself "the chosen one".

Did I miss any?


« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 01:29:01 PM by partgypsy »

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1913
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8370 on: August 21, 2019, 01:26:42 PM »
To be fair, and since we are always comparing the US with other countries like Denmark, Australia, etc., I think those countries do not grant automatic birthright citizenship unless at least one of the parents already has citizenship.

So if we want to emulate the rest of the world in that, we probably do need to change the 14th amendment.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1298
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8371 on: August 21, 2019, 01:27:00 PM »
BTW: if you want some soundtrack to the news reading, I have had the Greenlandic folkprog band Sume on repeat for the last week or so. Especially their song Inuit Nunaat (People's land) from 1974:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz0Sa_w94wk

translation:

We came here in ancient times
to these lands where we now roam
Utilizing its riches, having power over them
It is for future generations
what our ancestor's upheld
it is the land of the Inuit
it will be theirs
it will be theirs forever

then came the qallunaat Ė the white people Ė with their way of life
they referred to the holy ones and wanted to have influence
their masters decreed
our lands should be ruled
and take possession of its riches
and sell them above our heads
and sell them above our heads
and sell them above our heads
with those we call our representatives
we have been lulled to sleep
we want to arise
in unison
For it is for the future generations
what our ancestors upheld
It is the land of the Inuit
they will rule it in unison
it will be theirs forever
it will be theirs forever

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11130
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8372 on: August 21, 2019, 01:35:32 PM »
To be fair, and since we are always comparing the US with other countries like Denmark, Australia, etc., I think those countries do not grant automatic birthright citizenship unless at least one of the parents already has citizenship.

So if we want to emulate the rest of the world in that, we probably do need to change the 14th amendment.

Birthright citizenship is largely a North American tradition.  However, most developed countries that do not have birthright citizenship DO have a de-facto citizenship condition, which means people like the 'Dreamers' (those who came to the US illegally as children) have a straightforward (and often automatic) path to citizenship as adults.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3535
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8373 on: August 21, 2019, 01:38:34 PM »
To be fair, and since we are always comparing the US with other countries like Denmark, Australia, etc., I think those countries do not grant automatic birthright citizenship unless at least one of the parents already has citizenship.

So if we want to emulate the rest of the world in that, we probably do need to change the 14th amendment.

Wait, so are you saying Trump is not a constitutionalist? You know, separation of church and state, the balance of power between the three arms of government, limitations on executive power, the honoring constitution and the amendments? I am astounded.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4081
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8374 on: August 21, 2019, 01:51:47 PM »
The news now states that Trump is planning, without congress, to cancel literally billions of dollars of foreign aid, unless those countries do what Trumpie wants (well it's canceled except of course some pet projects of Ivanka Trump and Mike Pence, can't have that).  Even Lindsey Graham, says, " Not only do these cuts have the potential to undermine significant national security and anti-terrorism efforts of our diplomats and international partners overseas, but we fear such a rescission package could complicate the ability of the Administration and Congress to work constructively on future appropriations deals".

"The President is out of control! What can be done?" -- A concerned Senator from the controlling party

Trump is doing exactly what they want.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1913
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8375 on: August 21, 2019, 02:11:56 PM »
To be fair, and since we are always comparing the US with other countries like Denmark, Australia, etc., I think those countries do not grant automatic birthright citizenship unless at least one of the parents already has citizenship.

So if we want to emulate the rest of the world in that, we probably do need to change the 14th amendment.

Wait, so are you saying Trump is not a constitutionalist? You know, separation of church and state, the balance of power between the three arms of government, limitations on executive power, the honoring constitution and the amendments? I am astounded.

Well the right way to approach it would have been for Trump to say "We need to change the 14th amendment through ratifying another amendment, clarifying the right of citizenship by birth if one or more parents already have citizenship or legal permanent residence"

That really doesn't play very well to the Trump voters though and we all know it would have zero chance of getting any kind of traction anyway.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8376 on: August 21, 2019, 02:35:01 PM »
Trump just canceled a meeting with the Danish PM because she said Greenland isnít for sale.

Hey, Trump supporters: you are idiots.


Your arrogance is astounding. That you feel you have the right to openly denigrate millions of your fellow Americans and probably a fair percentage of Mustachians is incredible in its entitlement.

Let me inform you of a little secret that to which you seem to be oblivious: People support Trump not because of the dumb things he says but because the alternative is to turn over the country to intolerant and dogmatic people like you, people incapable of any sort of balance in their opinions. Your attitude along with many others will be a primary driver for a Trump victory in 2020. You need to take ownership of that when it happens. My bet though is that you will double-down on your prejudice. Prove me wrong.

And again, we are back to community guidelines in these forums. What do you guys hope to accomplish when statements like that are made? How many converts do you get when you openly call others stupid? This misguided moral righteousness will never draw someone to your side; you will never shame someone into believing what you believe, at least anything lasting.

Don't believe me? Check out the #Walkaway videos for some examples. This intolerance is suffocating the Democratic party.

What examples of Trump's tolerance can you offer? Sincere question.

Can you offer video of him welcoming people who might not vote for him? Can you offer video of him saying he isn't bothered by people who disagree with his positions on abortion or gay marriage? Can you offer a statement in which he insists on seating a newly elected legislator who might disagree with him--someone like Doug Jones--before an important vote is taken?

Examples of all of the above are available online from previous Presidents of both parties.

Good point. Versatile's complaint is rather disingenuous considering how bad this kind of attitude can be coming from the other side, Trump himself in particular.

But at the same time I agree that calling Trump supporters idiots is harmful. Calling someone an idiot is counterproductive when you want to change their mind.

It's not something I do very often. I mean, sure, maybe in private to my husband. But in general I avoid name-calling. I certainly don't do it to individuals.

But you know what? This Greenland thing is idiotic. And to not see that is idiotic. So, sorry, I'm not above pointing out that the groupthink of Trump supporters that would make them blind to this shows a pattern of idiotic behavior characteristic of that group.

Bullshit. You do it all of the time. At least here in the forums.

If you want proof I can provide.

You are very condescending and when cornered you just dismiss away your poor behavior. You are harming the very platform that allows you to vent. It's O.K. to vent, but the personal insults are not acceptable.

If you can find them, I encourage you to report them to the mods so they can chastise or ban me.

I don't want you banned, I want you to be civil. Your voice matters just as mine does or a Trump supporter. I guarantee you if we sat across from each other we would find many things to agree upon. Neither of us is evil or a monster.

And I want you to argue in good faith. As apparently do many other people. You unwillingness to do so is why so many here speculate you are a troll.

Everything I have said has been in good faith and I believe and can back up. The problem occurs when my sources are openly discounted for no other reason than someone has posted an opposing article. Now, certainly I could be wrong in my assertions, but I can assure you I have done a lot of research coming to those conclusions.

And it takes a lot of work to point by point prove every assertion just to have someone who hasn't done any homework call bullshit because they heard a different narrative on NPR. Look at the responses to me. Either they call me a troll because they don't agree with my responses or they want me to write a thesis on my points. Or they parse language for the win while they ignore basic human behavior and more importantly regular peoples ability to read between the lines. Most responses to me are very insulting. Sherr called me a damned dirty liar and wanted me banned for comments on Mueller which all proved to be true. Just because she didn't agree with me at the time. It was kind of shocking at the time to be honest.

You made a very simple claim. I am simply awaiting your source.

Read this or GTFO! Sorry, couldn't resist.

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/452311-pavlich-open-border-democrats

If one decriminalizes crossing the border and then guarantees health care, could a reasonable person conclude that the incentive to come to America unannounced and without processing has been greatly increased. Some may even call it an open border policy.

If that article isn't to your liking, then I can produce many more. Quite frankly, I can't understand how you would not know what is outlined in the above article already. This is a radical departure from any Democrat talking point in recent history.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtxPWXIqC6U

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/hillary-i-voted-for-border-fence-to-keep-out-illegal-immigrants

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/09/683623555/president-obama-also-faced-a-crisis-at-the-southern-border

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5703
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8377 on: August 21, 2019, 02:45:58 PM »
Trump just canceled a meeting with the Danish PM because she said Greenland isnít for sale.

Hey, Trump supporters: you are idiots.


Your arrogance is astounding. That you feel you have the right to openly denigrate millions of your fellow Americans and probably a fair percentage of Mustachians is incredible in its entitlement.

Let me inform you of a little secret that to which you seem to be oblivious: People support Trump not because of the dumb things he says but because the alternative is to turn over the country to intolerant and dogmatic people like you, people incapable of any sort of balance in their opinions. Your attitude along with many others will be a primary driver for a Trump victory in 2020. You need to take ownership of that when it happens. My bet though is that you will double-down on your prejudice. Prove me wrong.

And again, we are back to community guidelines in these forums. What do you guys hope to accomplish when statements like that are made? How many converts do you get when you openly call others stupid? This misguided moral righteousness will never draw someone to your side; you will never shame someone into believing what you believe, at least anything lasting.

Don't believe me? Check out the #Walkaway videos for some examples. This intolerance is suffocating the Democratic party.

What examples of Trump's tolerance can you offer? Sincere question.

Can you offer video of him welcoming people who might not vote for him? Can you offer video of him saying he isn't bothered by people who disagree with his positions on abortion or gay marriage? Can you offer a statement in which he insists on seating a newly elected legislator who might disagree with him--someone like Doug Jones--before an important vote is taken?

Examples of all of the above are available online from previous Presidents of both parties.

Good point. Versatile's complaint is rather disingenuous considering how bad this kind of attitude can be coming from the other side, Trump himself in particular.

But at the same time I agree that calling Trump supporters idiots is harmful. Calling someone an idiot is counterproductive when you want to change their mind.

It's not something I do very often. I mean, sure, maybe in private to my husband. But in general I avoid name-calling. I certainly don't do it to individuals.

But you know what? This Greenland thing is idiotic. And to not see that is idiotic. So, sorry, I'm not above pointing out that the groupthink of Trump supporters that would make them blind to this shows a pattern of idiotic behavior characteristic of that group.

Bullshit. You do it all of the time. At least here in the forums.

If you want proof I can provide.

You are very condescending and when cornered you just dismiss away your poor behavior. You are harming the very platform that allows you to vent. It's O.K. to vent, but the personal insults are not acceptable.

If you can find them, I encourage you to report them to the mods so they can chastise or ban me.

I don't want you banned, I want you to be civil. Your voice matters just as mine does or a Trump supporter. I guarantee you if we sat across from each other we would find many things to agree upon. Neither of us is evil or a monster.

And I want you to argue in good faith. As apparently do many other people. You unwillingness to do so is why so many here speculate you are a troll.

Everything I have said has been in good faith and I believe and can back up. The problem occurs when my sources are openly discounted for no other reason than someone has posted an opposing article. Now, certainly I could be wrong in my assertions, but I can assure you I have done a lot of research coming to those conclusions.

And it takes a lot of work to point by point prove every assertion just to have someone who hasn't done any homework call bullshit because they heard a different narrative on NPR. Look at the responses to me. Either they call me a troll because they don't agree with my responses or they want me to write a thesis on my points. Or they parse language for the win while they ignore basic human behavior and more importantly regular peoples ability to read between the lines. Most responses to me are very insulting. Sherr called me a damned dirty liar and wanted me banned for comments on Mueller which all proved to be true. Just because she didn't agree with me at the time. It was kind of shocking at the time to be honest.

You made a very simple claim. I am simply awaiting your source.

Read this or GTFO! Sorry, couldn't resist.

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/452311-pavlich-open-border-democrats

If one decriminalizes crossing the border and then guarantees health care, could a reasonable person conclude that the incentive to come to America unannounced and without processing has been greatly increased. Some may even call it an open border policy.

If that article isn't to your liking, then I can produce many more. Quite frankly, I can't understand how you would not know what is outlined in the above article already. This is a radical departure from any Democrat talking point in recent history.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtxPWXIqC6U

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/hillary-i-voted-for-border-fence-to-keep-out-illegal-immigrants

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/09/683623555/president-obama-also-faced-a-crisis-at-the-southern-border

So no, you cannot find evidence of everyone raising their hands in support of open borders.  Thank you.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8378 on: August 21, 2019, 02:47:56 PM »

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/452311-pavlich-open-border-democrats

If one decriminalizes crossing the border and then guarantees health care, could a reasonable person conclude that the incentive to come to America unannounced and without processing has been greatly increased. Some may even call it an open border policy.


Yes, but then "some" would be making up their own definition of "open borders".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_border

« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 02:49:27 PM by Dabnasty »

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3535
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8379 on: August 21, 2019, 02:50:49 PM »
Oh here's another one:
The Trump administration is moving to end a federal agreement that limits how long immigrant children can be kept in detention. Basically no repercussions if held indefinitely.

I think everyone needs to agree there needs to be a balance between "open borders" or "decriminalizing" immigration, and closed borders" or criminalizing immigration. the most extreme strict immigration policy being, shoot people who cross the border (aka Berlin Wall style). I'm thinking that's probably not legal? But Trump's admin is certainly testing the waters what is legal or illegal to down.
A step down is what we are doing now, which is say, arresting and jailing US citizens from leaving water in the desert for humanitarian reasons. There have been reports of Immigration officials pouring out water in the desert or confiscating water from prisoners. There is detaining them in unfit conditions, with no straightforward route to either immigrating or returning. And a biggie, separating children from their parents, which is a pretty basic "no no" regarding human rights, as well as US laws. Even in bad refugee camps, families are not separated.  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/americas/us-un-migrant-children-families.html

So you can have a sane immigration policy, that decides things like how many people will we let in, how many refugees will we accept? As well as having understandable path to citizenship for people already in the US who are known non-offenders or even desirable people to have stay, (students, Dreamers, skilled workers). Instead Trump is throwing everything in the wood chipper. On every level. It's not a sane policy or even beneficial to the US. The only thing it does, is show that we are a bully, and our word and promises mean nothing. 

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5703
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8380 on: August 21, 2019, 02:57:50 PM »

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/452311-pavlich-open-border-democrats

If one decriminalizes crossing the border and then guarantees health care, could a reasonable person conclude that the incentive to come to America unannounced and without processing has been greatly increased. Some may even call it an open border policy.


Yes, but then "some" would be making up their own definition of "open borders".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_border

Alternate facts, as it were.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5703
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8381 on: August 21, 2019, 03:06:33 PM »
Per https://mediabiasfactcheck.com--

Salon:
Quote
LEFT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation.  They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

Overall, we rate Salon Left Biased based on story selection that strongly favors the left and endorsements of political positions that are affiliated with the Democratic Party. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information and adherence to the consensus of science.

Amgreatness:
Quote
RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Overall, we rate American Greatness Right biased based on story selection that favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to the use of poor sources.

RealClearPolitics:
Quote
RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

Overall, we rate RCP as Right-Center biased based on source selection that leans right and Mixed for factual reporting due to use of multiple sources who have failed fact checks.

If you're going to discount Salon as being left and respond with something equivalently right, that seems...hypocritical.  I checked the realclearpolitics article because that's the most central -- it's a Youtube commentator's monologue, who makes this claim:

"The Democratic Socialists of America have repeatedly called for no borders and no nations, a particularly extreme position."

Thus far, you have been unable to prove that this belief actually exists among all mainstream Democratic politicians (as you claimed earlier) -- and parroting someone else's incorrect assessment of a situation does not constitute proof.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3535
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8382 on: August 21, 2019, 03:09:22 PM »
https://www.salon.com/2018/07/09/russian-bots-are-back-walkaway-attack-on-democrats-is-a-likely-kremlin-operation/

Quick question. If I were to quote a Brietbart article, would you take it seriously? Probably not. Just so you are aware, Salon is the equivalent to those of us who distrust media. I instantly discount it but I still read the article. Have you ever read a rebuttal or considered what it would take for this movement to be a Russian operation? Check this out:

https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/22/walkaway-from-the-real-fascists/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/03/tim_pool_is_the_far-left_helping_trump_to_a_second_term.html

Well, yeah. Someone is causing this diverson. It is not an actual Democratic party platform anywhere, that calls for "no borders" or "open borders". If you look at the actual legislation proposed, nothing like that often more like what say Reagan or Bush had for immigration policies, centrist. Trump has swung far right, and wants to strip rights and due process from large numbers of peoples. Remember according to the Constitution, even non-citizens have rights. upholding those rights of non-citizens is not open borders. It is simply upholding the laws of our land. If you don't like it, you can always leave. 

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5703
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8383 on: August 21, 2019, 03:10:26 PM »
Now I know you didn't have time to read that article and watch those videos before you responded. And people still demand I prove everything when they won't even read or watch what I provide. You can't have it both ways.

One lonely article you posted has the phrase "open borders" and that is not from a Democratic politician.  You still have not demonstrated proof that all Democrats want open borders.

If somehow I missed an article showing mainstream Democrat politicians raising their hands to support open borders, please do point it out.  Also keep in mind that by open borders, I mean open borders.  Not some arbitrary definition you've invented.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9730
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8384 on: August 21, 2019, 03:43:44 PM »
The person using the longest, most deeply nested quotes loses.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1176
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8385 on: August 21, 2019, 03:55:43 PM »
The person using the longest, most deeply nested quotes loses.

I'm pretty sure this whole thread lost.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1298
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8386 on: August 21, 2019, 04:24:42 PM »
The PM of Iceland has informed the US that she "unfortunately" can't make it back from Sweden in time to meet Mike Pence while he is visiting Iceland. She has a speech in MalmÝ the day before his visit, and I guess with the travel times and all... You know how it is. (BTW: MalmÝ is less than an hour by train from Kastrup airport in Denmark, and the last plane for Reykjavik leaves at 22:30. Or she could catch the morning plane and be home before 10:00).
https://time.com/5658037/iceland-pm-skipping-pence-visit/

Iceland and Greenland both used to be Danish colonies, until Iceland gained their independence in 1944. But the Atlantic island nations still feel as a community, in part supported by the long standing tradition to study at the university in Copenhagen, where a lot of them gather in the same dorms. Also, there is the Pence vs LGBTQ thing.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11130
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8387 on: August 21, 2019, 05:42:57 PM »
The person using the longest, most deeply nested quotes loses.
Thanks - that made me laugh.

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 596
  • Location: Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #8388 on: August 21, 2019, 06:11:52 PM »
Thread has been locked.

Trolls and only-politics posters are banned.

Thank you.