America under President Trump

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Rue said:

You missed the point. Claiming you know the difference between a deranged leftist and a deranged rightist is. That is a partisan bias. You assume when someone disagrees with you they are a leftist and therefore deranged which if anything makes you a right wing deranged individual if we use your reasoning. By the way I do concede derangement but I am not a a lefitist or a rightist, I am a directionless derangement.

I assume that leftists who are deranged are deranged, and I assume that rightists who are deranged are deranged. Your derangement is not directionless, you buy into the idiotic left wing talking points far more than you buy into the idiotic right wing talking points, feigning like you are unbiased is laughable.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[BubberMiley]

17 hours ago, betsy said:

You keep avoiding to provide anything to support your claims!

 

STOP DEFLECTING.

Do you have anything.....................or none at all?

Trump bangs porn stars and uses campaign money to try and shut them up. Jim Bakker is a devout evangelical and he too bangs porn stars and uses contributions to his church to shut them up. Trump is therefore a Christian.

[Rue]

23 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Trump bangs porn stars and uses campaign money to try and shut them up. Jim Bakker is a devout evangelical and he too bangs porn stars and uses contributions to his church to shut them up. Trump is therefore a Christian.

Now that is an example of the theory of relativity.  Still porn  is inescapable when discussing Trump's behaviour and the fact is the US will need to take a large collective bath when Trump's reign is over and maybe de-lice itself.

[Rue]

35 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I assume that leftists who are deranged are deranged, and I assume that rightists who are deranged are deranged. Your derangement is not directionless, you buy into the idiotic left wing talking points far more than you buy into the idiotic right wing talking points, feigning like you are unbiased is laughable.

Well yes I am laughing. Your analysis of my opinions is welcome. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Rue

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, Rue said:

Well yes I am laughing. Your sense of direction is no better then that of my leader, Moses. Try use GPS. Me bias? I love William F. Buckley and Mr. Buckley had full respect for Martin Luther King. Its possible to be rockin and rollin down the middle. You sway to one side or the other but its fun. There is a reason Elvis Presely's hips went both ways. Then again here I go again with the porno analogies. Sorry. p.s. you need to laugh... Elvis put vasoline on his thighs of course

Filthy Neutral Milquetoast Fence Sitter is still biased, in favor of neutrality. Your claim on not being biased is dismissed as ridiculous on the face of it, you might be able to fool yourself with that nonsense, but you don't fool me.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, Rue said:

Now that is an example of the theory of relativity.  Still porn  is inescapable when discussing Trump's behaviour and the fact is the US will need to take a large collective bath when Trump's reign is over and maybe de-lice itself.

 

No he won't...porn is as American as apple pie and Chevrolet.

[Rue]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Filthy Neutral Milquetoast Fence Sitter is still biased, in favor of neutrality. Your claim on not being biased is dismissed as ridiculous on the face of it.

I actuallly was toning down and editing my response as you responded. Filthy neutral milquetoast fencesitter is still bias in favour of neutrality...good one and I wear that. Of course it is. I never claimed to not have biases. I just claim that the label left or right  is overused and often arbitrary. Your assumption Trump is right wing is an interesting one. There are days he sounds an awful llot like Vladimir, no not Putin, Lenin. 

 

[Rue]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No he won't...porn is as American as apple pie and Chevrolet.

I defer. When you are right you are right if you excuse the pun. Listen there is something you need to know, in Canada we grew up with access to Mrs. Emma Peal of the Avengers, Jane Fonda in Barbarella, Raquel Welch in that movie where she ran around in a loin cloth but that was as porno as we got mainstream. The rest had to be smuggled in and put at the back of peep shops in grainy film. Also we considered Anne Murray cute. I always called her Mr. Murray.  Then Celine Dion came along and a lot of Canada got confused. So you know the way Trump behaves reminds us of the lady down the street who dressed in man clothes and smoked cigars and this is why we elected McKenzie King who had a thing about his mother or Justin Trudeau and the same thing again. We have unresolved issues with out leaders you Yanks seem to be ok with. Then again France has Mr Marcon and his mother I mean wife, and Boris looks like a complete boozed up draq queen a la Camilla Parker Bowles. The two look very similar. 

I think Trump reminds me of Benny Hill mixed with a little Charlie Manson.

[Yzermandius19]

28 minutes ago, Rue said:

I actuallly was toning down and editing my response as you responded. Filthy neutral milquetoast fencesitter is still bias in favour of neutrality...good one and I wear that. Of course it is. I never claimed to not have biases. I just claim that the label left or right  is overused and often arbitrary. Your assumption Trump is right wing is an interesting one. There are days he sounds an awful llot like Vladimir, no not Putin, Lenin. 

 

Trump is right wing, but less so than many GOP presidents. He's a New York Liberal who hijacked the Republican Party. Left and Right can be over used and often arbitrary, but not so much when I use it, lumping me in with most people who overuse those terms is not a fair characterization, you are projecting other's faults on me, just because we occasionally use the same term.

You need to get over the hatred of descriptive labels, without them, nothing could be discussed, and yet Filthy Neutral Milequetoast Fence Sitters want to pretend like no labels should ever be used to describe them because they are so impartial none of them applies or some nonsense.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Iceni warrior]

Why is it that those who scream partisan the loudest are often the most partisan posters?

[Yzermandius19]

9 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

Why is it that those who scream partisan the loudest are often the most partisan posters?

Nope. It's those who claim non-partisanship the loudest who are the most partisan posters, they are so partisan, they don't even know they are partisan. Those who admit their biases openly, instead of feigning impartiality, are actually the least biased posters, it's the undercover hack b*tches who are the most biased posters. To wit, you are actually far more biased than clubgop, you just like to pretend otherwise.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Iceni warrior]

24 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Nope. It's those who claim non-partisanship the loudest who are the most partisan posters, they are so partisan, they don't even know they are partisan. Those who admit their biases openly, instead of feigning impartiality, are actually the least biased posters, it's the undercover hack b*tches who are the most biased posters. To wit, you are actually far more biased than clubgop, you just like to pretend otherwise.

Yet I get accused of being deranged if I dare to criticise the orange shit gibbon...

Edited February 19, 2020 by Iceni warrior

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

Yet I get accused of being deranged if I dare to criticise the orange shit gibbon...

That's only when you make idiotic criticisms, not when you make good ones. Of course you think all your criticisms of Trump are good, even when parroting obvious Anti--Trump media propaganda, but that doesn't mean they are. This is why you don't notice the difference when someone critiques your critiques, and you just think people criticize you if you ever criticize him at all. You refuse to believe that any of your criticisms about Trump isn't fair and unbiased, and you lash out at anyone who points out that isn't true.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Iceni warrior]

I mean, I have never once been accused of having Corbyn Derangement Syndrome no matter how many times I called him an unelectable '80s dinosaur but speak out about BoJo's lies and I have BDS every time.

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

I mean, I have never once been accused of having Corbyn Derangement Syndrome no matter how many times I called him an unelectable '80s dinosaur but speak out about BoJo's lies and I have BDS every time.

That's because your attacks on Corbyn are far better than your attacks on Bojo. With Corbyn you know you are biased against him and wear it as a badge of honor but you don't need to reach to attack him and don't do it nearly as often, but with Bojo you refuse to admit you are biased against him and you reach for straws to attack him all the time. That's the difference.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Iceni warrior]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

That's only when you make idiotic criticisms, not when you make good ones. Of course you think all your criticisms of Trump are good, even when parroting obvious Anti--Trump media propaganda, but that doesn't mean they are. This is why you don't notice the difference when someone critiques your critiques, and you just think people criticize you if you ever criticize him at all.

...and of course , you think all criticisms of Trump are idiotic and label them TDS even when they are perfectly valid.

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

...and of course , you think all criticisms of Trump are idiotic and label them TDS even when they are perfectly valid.

Not true at all. You just pick your battles very poorly when it comes to Trump and Bojo and you don't like that I call you out on it. When you pick your battles better, I give you credit for it, when you don't, I don't give you credit for a thing you didn't do.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Iceni warrior]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

That's because your attacks on Corbyn are far better than your attacks on Bojo. With Corbyn you know you are biased against him and wear it as a badge of honor but you don't need to reach to attack him, but with Bojo you refuse to admit you are biased against him and you reach for straws to attack him all the time. That's the difference.

No, it's just that you like criticisms of Corbyn because you have a RW bias but can't take criticisms of Boris so you label them BDS.

It's intellectually lazy.

[Yzermandius19]

11 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

No, it's just that you like criticisms of Corbyn because you have a RW bias but can't take criticisms of Boris so you label them BDS.

It's intellectually lazy.

You simply want to create a narrative in your head that allows you to easily dismiss my criticism of your criticism without having to critically reflect on the holes in your logic. Talk about intellectually lazy, you can't address the argument points so you just claim bias is the only reason I hold my opinion, when I claim you are being biased, I at least put forward an argument as to why that is the case and why your argument sucks, which is far less lazy than what you are doing, which is just claiming bias with no explanation, just to shut down a discussion you know you are losing.

I like your criticisms of Corbyn because they are more well thought through, if you applied the same rigor to your criticisms of Trump and Bojo, I would tell you so, you just don't. If you go reaching to attack Corbyn, I'll still call you out on it, no matter how much I dislike the dude, you just do that less often than you do with Trump and Bojo, hence I call you out for the latter a lot more often. If you start attacking Corbyn for dubious reasons as often as the other two, I'll call you out for Corbyn Derangement Syndrome as often as I call you out for TDS and BDS.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Iceni warrior]

9 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

You simply want to create a narrative in your head that allows you to easily dismiss my criticism of your criticism without having to critically reflect on the holes in your logic. Talk about intellectually lazy, you can't address the argument points so you just claim bias is the only reason I hold my opinion, when I claim you are being biased, I at least put forward an argument as to why that is the case and why your argument sucks, which is far less lazy than what you are doing, which is just claiming bias with no explanation, just to shut down a discussion you know you are losing.

I like your criticisms of Corbyn because they are more well thought through, if you applied the same rigor to your criticisms of Trump and Bojo, I would tell you so, you just don't. If you go reaching to attack Corbyn, I'll still call you out on it, no matter how much I dislike the dude, you just do that less often than you do with Trump and Bojo, hence I call you out for the latter a lot more often. If you start attacking Corbyn for dubious reasons as often as the other two, I'll call you out for Corbyn Derangement Syndrome as often as I call you out for TDS and BDS.

And round and round we go...

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Rue said:

I am not sure how arguing Obama is a poo head makes Trump less of a poo head. I don't think that is how it works. Now  mind you I conceded the  theory of relativity appears flawed at the moment due to new equations seeming to suggest what we think is reality only becomes reality when we see it as reality meaning it does not exist unless we first decide to see it which would mean neither Obama are Trump are poo heads just illusions but I will go with the old theory of relativity for now and say one poo head does not undo another's poo or Obmapoo = Trumpoo squared.

That's not really the point.

Bringing up Obama's record as a lawyer after 3 years on the job as POTUS would be completely pointless because you already know exactly what kind of President he actually is at that point. 

Even if you heard one person's first-hand account of what Obama was like as a lawyer it would be pretty worthless info at that point, by comparison to seeing what kind of a President he is.

Rep: "Ooooh look! Obama lost 25% of his court cases!!!!!"

Dem: "Well... the economy is out of it's death spiral, so there's that."

Rep: "Didn't you hear me? He lost 25% of his court cases!!!!" 

 

(This isn't to say that there wasn't a problem with Obama as POTUS, just that his record as a lawyer wasn't worth talking about after 3 yrs on the job)

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

Now that is an example of the theory of relativity.  Still porn  is inescapable when discussing Trump's behaviour and the fact is the US will need to take a large collective bath when Trump's reign is over and maybe de-lice itself.

I think we both know that Trump's conduct isn't that different from that of a large percentage of men with his charisma and his position of power. 

Did Americans need to take a bath because of Kennedy's extra-marital affairs or are they still enamoured with him? Some would say that he's still the Dems' claim to fame. 

Did Americans need to take a bath because of Martin Luther King's extra-marital conduct which might include his participation in a rape that was caught on an audio recording? Or is he still considered to be one of America's most virtuous leaders? (There's still an MLK day in the US) What about MLK's victim's "me too" moment? Does that bitch just have to take it lying down, and stfu? 

The Dems themselves already exonerated Clinton for his extra-marital affairs, the credible accusations of rape against him, his felony counts of lying under oath and witness tampering. Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin, Edwards and some other current Dems actually voted against Clinton's impeachment. They have zero room to talk. Ditto for Hillary, who talked about it more than anyone.

You're applying scrutiny to Trump where basically everyone else has gotten a pass. I call BiaS. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

You're applying scrutiny to Trump where basically everyone else has gotten a pass. I call BiaS. 

And you're giving Trump a pass on the basis of "Yabut whaddabout blah blah and blah?  Their wrongs cancel out mine". 

I call that remarkably typical of you. 

[WestCanMan]

51 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And you're giving Trump a pass on the basis of "Yabut whaddabout blah blah and blah?  Their wrongs cancel out mine". 

I call that remarkably typical of you. 

As usual you don't have the foggiest clue what's going on.

People are acting like something about Trump's pre-Presidential life is earth-shaking to the point of being disqualifying, when everything that they're saying is basically just par for the course. Some of the men who are regarded as America's most prominent & virtuous leaders did as much or even worse than Trump did and that's just a well-known fact so I haven't even been asked for links.

That's all there in black and white, and everyone else seems to understand it.

It's just the daily dose of leftist hypocrisy, which you are on board with. Shocker.

 

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Iceni warrior said:

Yet I get accused of being deranged if I dare to criticise the orange shit gibbon...

Maybe you get accused of being deranged because you're deranged - without regard to the orange fat man.