US Politics XIII: Don Jr. The Worst Judgment of Anyone in the World.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
May Kirstjen Nielsen never again enjoy a moment of peace for the rest of her time on this planet. May she be haunted by the memories of the families she destroyed and the children she abused for the rest of her nasty, pathetic life.

That's the worst part of it all - people like her sleep just fine at night.

There was an interesting interview I just read with Romeo Dallaire - the Canadian general who was in charge of the UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda when the genocide happened. He had written a book about it and this interview talks more about how he still suffers from massive PTSD 25 years later. He ostensibly blames Bill Clinton (detailing how and it's really a horrific and pathetic indictment of Clinton, enough to make you want to throw up to be honest) and generally the UN for their inaction despite his repeated pleas and willingness to use peacekeepers as a force to deter the genocide. Anyway, he talked about how he has attempted suicide 4x since then because he is haunted by all those dead souls. That's the measure of a person who is human at his core.

Kirstjen Nielsen is not.
 
And incompetent and mendacious and stupid.



And that’s the real scary part to me, at some point they’ll find someone who’s as smart as they are mean.

Not enough talk on Trumps judges that’ll stack the courts in his favor, and accomplish the GOPs racist agenda for decades.

McConnell refused to have hearings for Obama’s nominations. It’s really on him
 
And that’s the real scary part to me, at some point they’ll find someone who’s as smart as they are mean.

Not enough talk on Trumps judges that’ll stack the courts in his favor, and accomplish the GOPs racist agenda for decades.

McConnell refused to have hearings for Obama’s nominations. It’s really on him




Trump greatly values loyalty over basic competence. I don’t think we’re going to get someone both mean and smart.

This is how dictatorships work. It’s why they are family enterprises. It’s all about loyalty.
 
And that’s the real scary part to me, at some point they’ll find someone who’s as smart as they are mean.

Not enough talk on Trumps judges that’ll stack the courts in his favor, and accomplish the GOPs racist agenda for decades.

McConnell refused to have hearings for Obama’s nominations. It’s really on him
It's not.

It's on the Democrats being push overs. It's about going high when they went low. It's about not even trying to put up a fight.
 
It's not.

It's on the Democrats being push overs. It's about going high when they went low. It's about not even trying to put up a fight.

Part of it is definitely that Pelosi's counterpart in the Senate (Schumer) is not well-suited to his role. You could argue that he could do a passable or even acceptable job with a normal Republican majority in the Senate and Republican president, let's say someone like a Mitt Romney. But we are way beyond those times. So yes, McConnell is a terrible human being (one of the mean and smart sorts) but ultimately he gets things done and we can't endlessly whine because he is shrewd and good at his job. Just need to take the same approach.
 
Part of it is definitely that Pelosi's counterpart in the Senate (Schumer) is not well-suited to his role. You could argue that he could do a passable or even acceptable job with a normal Republican majority in the Senate and Republican president, let's say someone like a Mitt Romney. But we are way beyond those times. So yes, McConnell is a terrible human being (one of the mean and smart sorts) but ultimately he gets things done and we can't endlessly whine because he is shrewd and good at his job. Just need to take the same approach.
Right.

The Democrats need to realize that McConnell is simply much better at his job than Schumer is at his.

Obama could have pushed harder on Garland. He didn't. It's as much on him as it is on anyone else.
 
This and Headaches responses are why it's pointless to have a real conversation around here. Ok Headache, here's my response to crime and poverty........crime is down in some vities, up in others, but it's still ridiculously high. If poverty rates are going down (which they should be because of stricter enforcement if welfare policies, it has nothing to do with the Democrats running the cities, it's conservative policies. The Democratic mayors and city councils of these "worst run cities" which uses fact based data, don't want welfare reform, they want MORE welfare, MORE taxes to pour down the drain and do nothing to empower and help their communities grow upwardly.

And LN7, I don't post things to get a rise out of you or anyone, I really don't care enough about getting any kind of attention on a message board. It's just sometimes it's nice to have actual conversations about actual political facts and policies rather than just Trump Derangement Syndrome.

So fine, u guys think the Democrats running these cities in this article deserve to be voted in time after time. I disagree. We just have different opinions on what successful policy looks like.


Dear God.
So poverty rates are down because of conservative policies that cut welfare? So the fact that Social Security (that radical socialist program) kept 27 million people out of poverty in 2017 means what? That if we got rid of SS that poverty would drop?

Even more striking is when you look at all social benefit programs:
During President Donald Trump’s first year in office, income from these safety net programs directly kept 44.9 million people out of poverty in 2017. That’s 200,000 more people compared to 2016.

Seriously man. That's some pretty warped thinking.

Yet again the largest driver putting people into poverty is healthcare costs. And I guess you stand by the party that systematically dismantled the one program that actually slowed year over year increase, but ultimately doesn't work properly because it's been cut off at the knees by those pure and caring conservatives. The same bunch that has zero plan to address it in the future.


And violent crime is ridiculously high? I don't know where you get this stuff... Well, yeah, I guess I have a pretty good hunch.

Here is the murder trend in the largest 30 US cities

US_murders.png


With this side note - The murder rate for 2018 is projected to be 7.6 percent lower than 2017, largely thanks to “sharp declines” in “San Francisco (-35.0 percent), Chicago (-23.2 percent), and Baltimore (-20.9 percent),” according to the report.
You know, those evil liberal bastions of lawlessness.

Here is the overall crime trend:

US_crimes.png
 
Dear God.
So poverty rates are down because of conservative policies that cut welfare? So the fact that Social Security (that radical socialist program) kept 27 million people out of poverty in 2017 means what? That if we got rid of SS that poverty would drop?

Even more striking is when you look at all social benefit programs:
During President Donald Trump’s first year in office, income from these safety net programs directly kept 44.9 million people out of poverty in 2017. That’s 200,000 more people compared to 2016.

Seriously man. That's some pretty warped thinking.

Yet again the largest driver putting people into poverty is healthcare costs. And I guess you stand by the party that systematically dismantled the one program that actually slowed year over year increase, but ultimately doesn't work properly because it's been cut off at the knees by those pure and caring conservatives. The same bunch that has zero plan to address it in the future.


And violent crime is ridiculously high? I don't know where you get this stuff... Well, yeah, I guess I have a pretty good hunch.

Here is the murder trend in the largest 30 US cities

US_murders.png


With this side note - The murder rate for 2018 is projected to be 7.6 percent lower than 2017, largely thanks to “sharp declines” in “San Francisco (-35.0 percent), Chicago (-23.2 percent), and Baltimore (-20.9 percent),” according to the report.
You know, those evil liberal bastions of lawlessness.

Here is the overall crime trend:

US_crimes.png

So because in certain areas it's still awful, but less awful than before, just ignore the results, everything's fine..

Secondly, the whole Democrat idea of "You need us, you're oppressed, you can't make it on your own, vote for us and we'll keep you poor, just not destitute " is what I'm talking about.

It's a GOOD thing if people get off welfare and get a job and become upwardly mobile, it's just not good for Democrats.
 
But what does wallet hub have to say?

Still pouting over New York City , huh?

Well shoot, if this article is unreliable, and all of these bastions of Democratic policy aren't the 20 worst run cities in America, then we don't need any "redistribution of wealth", "MORE spending on education and healthcsre" ,"GUN CONTROL ", everything is fine!

Headache said so.
 
Still pouting over New York City , huh?



Well shoot, if this article is unreliable, and all of these bastions of Democratic policy aren't the 20 worst run cities in America, then we don't need any "redistribution of wealth", "MORE spending on education and healthcsre" ,"GUN CONTROL ", everything is fine!



Headache said so.
Yes. I'm still crying over your hurtful words towards a city I don't live in. I haven't stopped crying for days, actually. I sit at home in the fetal position, rocking back and forth asking republican gzus to make the bad man take back the mean mean words.
 
So because in certain areas it's still awful, but less awful than before, just ignore the results, everything's fine..

Secondly, the whole Democrat idea of "You need us, you're oppressed, you can't make it on your own, vote for us and we'll keep you poor, just not destitute " is what I'm talking about.

It's a GOOD thing if people get off welfare and get a job and become upwardly mobile, it's just not good for Democrats.

Yes, Democrats don't want people to have jobs. :doh: Are you really that obtuse? Just because we want people who unfortunately lose their jobs, or aren't able to work due to mental or physical disabilities, something to fall back on and not just rot away and die, does not mean we don't want as many able people to have jobs as possible. These are politically created lies to keep people blaming poor people for their problems. When even the richest are now vocally agreeing that they don't need any more tax cuts or government handouts. They see the need for strong middle class and lifting people in the lower incomes because in the end, it is actually better for their business and society as a whole.

Did Obama oversee the longest consecutive run of private job growth in history because he was working his hardest to make sure people lost their jobs and got on welfare? Your accusations are laughable.

And you keep saying crime is way up all over the place and only a few places are down. Again, what i posted was for the largest 30 cities. So ok, you don't want to take those plain, factual statistics.

Here is the US overall, ALL areas.

FT_19.01.03_CrimeTrends1.png


I think you fall into the category of "misperception" about the crime rate
which you can see here that you are not alone. But you are still flat wrong.

FT_19.01.03_CrimeTrends_perception.png
 
So because in certain areas it's still awful, but less awful than before, just ignore the results, everything's fine..



Secondly, the whole Democrat idea of "You need us, you're oppressed, you can't make it on your own, vote for us and we'll keep you poor, just not destitute " is what I'm talking about.



It's a GOOD thing if people get off welfare and get a job and become upwardly mobile, it's just not good for Democrats.



I don’t know how to read graphs.
I don’t know how to engage in conversations with people informed enough to understand these studies.

So I will use the decades old platitude that the Dems want you on the government teat and double down on Trump’s crime is on the rise.
 
And just in case you were wondering who depends the most on the welfare state, here are the stats on that. - 13 out of the top 15 are red states. So who wants their people sucking from the government teat?

1 New Mexico
2 Mississippi
3 Kentucky
4 West Virginia
5 Alabama
6 Arizona
7 Alaska
8 Montana
9 South Carolina
10 Indiana
11 Louisiana
12 Tennessee
13 Maine
14 Wyoming
15 North Dakota
 
I don’t know how to read graphs.
I don’t know how to engage in conversations with people informed enough to understand these studies.

So I will use the decades old platitude that the Dems want you on the government teat and double down on Trump’s crime is on the rise.

Jinx! we both said teat! :applaud::wink:
 
And just in case you were wondering who depends the most on the welfare state, here are the stats on that. - 13 out of the top 15 are red states. So who wants their people sucking from the government teat?

1New Mexico
2Mississippi
3Kentucky
4West Virginia
5Alabama
6Arizona
7Alaska
8Montana
9South Carolina
10Indiana
11Louisiana
12Tennessee
13Maine
14Wyoming
15North Dakota




Guess what these all have in common?

They are all pretty/very rural. Maybe we should cut welfare for rural people living high off the Blue State gravy train so these Trump voting rural folk will stop taking handouts from New York and California. It seems lazy rural Americans in red states could learn a thing or two about work ethic from urban America. Let's cut their welfare so they learn the value of an honest days work. Let's break the cycle of dependency.
 
Last edited:
Guess what these all have in common?

They are all pretty/very rural. Maybe we should cut welfare for rural people living high off the Blue State gravy train so these Trump voting rural folk will stop taking handouts from New York and California. It seems lazy rural Americans in red states could learn a thing or two about work ethic from urban America. Let's cut their welfare so they learn the value of an honest days work. Let's break the cycle of dependency.

:up:
 
Guess what these all have in common?

They are all pretty/very rural. Maybe we should cut welfare for rural people living high off the Blue State gravy train so these Trump voting rural folk will stop taking handouts from New York and California. It seems lazy rural Americans in red states could learn a thing or two about work ethic from urban America. Let's cut their welfare so they learn the value of an honest days work. Let's break the cycle of dependency.

Republicans and their gzus need them to keep freeloading.
 
And just in case you were wondering who depends the most on the welfare state, here are the stats on that. - 13 out of the top 15 are red states. So who wants their people sucking from the government teat?

1 New Mexico
2 Mississippi
3 Kentucky
4 West Virginia
5 Alabama
6 Arizona
7 Alaska
8 Montana
9 South Carolina
10 Indiana
11 Louisiana
12 Tennessee
13 Maine
14 Wyoming
15 North Dakota

I'm not totally sure but i believe that parts of more rural NYS depend on some of the monies generated by NYC.
 
Interesting bit of reporting I heard this morning — it’s easy to look at Trump’s purge of DHS as some kind of palace intrigue conducted by inbred Nazi Stephen Miller. That it’s about Miller wanting Trump to be more cruel and more inhuman because they’re both bloodthirsty racists who derive joy from the suffering of Guatemalan children.

But, apparently, it’s just because Trump has been watching Hannity and Lou Dobbs and they’re telling him he won’t win re-election unless he can demonstrate how he’s “getting tough” on the boarder. Laws are in his way, so he’s trying to circumvent people who follow laws.

So it’s both nakedly political and racist at the same time. There’s no bigger conspiracy beyond mendacity, incompetence, and political desperation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom