Caecus

Ah, see, our priorities are different. While I am the humble owner of a modest AR-15 and several handguns, I nonetheless voted for Clinton because I knew that a weapons ban (despite all the liberal diehards) is still ridiculously unfeasible at the federal level. I overall have a mild disinterest in domestic policy and take all presidents with a grain of salt when they present their domestic agenda. Where I am concerned is foreign policy. I voted for Clinton because I trusted her to maintain the power and prestige of the United States in the world. More and more everyday I feel vindicated by my choice when I see the sheer level of stupidity and incompetency of this administration. The only bright side is that Trump has delegated some major military options to senior command, instead of mulling over every decision like the Obama administration. But I would argue that is because Trump was offered that option and was simply too damn stupid to do anything else otherwise, not that he had any strategic and leadership foresight in the matter. From my understanding, the Russian Uranium deal had to be signed off by multiple other departments of which Clinton had no direct control over. Sure, you could say she had some influence via backroom deals to get the deal through (of which there is no evidence of or might have been in the deleted emails), but I would argue that still vindicates what I have said. If Hillary had influenced other departments, she was smart enough to delete all the evidence. Unlike this dumb schmuck who just tweeted it. Admit it all, corruption and backroom built Washington and will maintain it for generations to come. Unless you implement some serious changes (like, "mandatory buyback" levels of change), million dollar donors are always going to have more influence than the average schmuck here. If that is the case, then for god's sake, vote someone in who actually knows what the !@#$ they are doing.

Lol, I'm glad you enjoyed the second part of the sentence. That being said, I'm surprised you are so knowledgeable about this topic considering you didn't know anything about the Clinton email scandal. Still think you should lock her up? I'm just wondering if you genuinely do that much research into who you support or you are a political ideologue who is untethered by principle.

I seem to recall our Lord and Savior of Real News CNN said Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server wasn't illegal either, but that doesn't stop people from declaring her a traitor and should be "locked up." /winkyface /doublestandards But let's just take this back into context. The Trump campaign has spent the last 6 months saying that they had nothing to do with Russia. They said they never even talked to people from Russia. 6 months later and Mr. Donny Mcfuksalot here throws up emails saying he was offered compromising information on his political opponent from the Russian government itself and for some reason *cough* coverup *cough* didn't bother to put those meetings in his disclosures. And while yes, it's true we still don't know if Trump Jr. did get and use the compromising information (from which the illegality would be derived from), it's still A STUPID ASS MOVE. At least Clinton was smart enough to delete those emails as fast as she could so that there would be no legal case. Now Mueller is all up in that shit. Dumbshits don't know how to be corrupt. For god's sake, if you are going to be corrupt and treasonous, at least be as good as the Clintonites. The only thing worse than corruption is being corrupt and sucking nuts at it. At least when I support a party candidate, it's because they are masterminding the complete takeover of the world in a meticulous and methodical way and not the false champion trying really hard not to be obviously corrupt.

I have to notice that the last story is actually pretty huge. HUUUUGGEEEE. It pretty much incriminates that the Trump campaign tried (unsure if it is successful) to coordinate a campaign against their political opponent. Don't take my word for it though, hear it from the great Trump Jr. himself. Assuming you actually read his emails. What a !@#$ing idiot.

Lol. I see the cracks in your faith, son. You have strayed away from the one true Trump. I also find that funny too. 3 months ago, all you Trump supporters were like "Trump is the greatest in the world! He can do no wrong." Now, your best excuse is "At least he's better than Clinton." Which means, if Clinton was shit, Trump is just a smaller shit by your excuses. If I called Trump a diminutive turd 3 months ago, you guys would have lost your minds. Now, you just accept it to be fact. You guys are really scraping the bottom of the approval barrel here. In 3 months, when all you Trump supporters inevitably reject him like a transplanted liver and pretend you never wanted to vote for Trump, just remember we had this conversation. Also, if "details are not Trump's strong suit," why the bloody hell did you think he was going to be the best president? If "details are not his strong suit," that means he could potentially sod pretty much his entire base in the arse by passing a healthcare bill that benefits all the rich corrupt Democrats. Again, not that you could care, Mr. I-live-in-Britain-and-have-universal-healthcare-if-I-break-an-arm. I'm also thinking that Trump didn't collude with Russia on swaying the election. It's all a witch hunt. Lindsay Graham was right when he said the president is not enough detailed-orientated (i.e. too !@#$ing stupid) to collude with any government.

Oh, no. No, no no. You know. You said it yourself. "Trump... largely doesn't know what is in it and it is probably for the best," is what you said. Like he's a !@#$ing child being kept away from porn or his mother's erotica novels. And the result is not the same. One implies foresight and strategic genius being unrivaled in the modern age. Another implies sheer stupidity that for some ungodly reason hasn't led to nuclear war yet. Elmo. EL-!@#$ing-MO. Elmo could win against him now. 36% is Bush at the bottom of the housing market. 36% is Nixon post-watergate. Not even Bill Clinton was at 36% in his impeachment trials, and he got a blowly from a Jewish girl. You put a !@#$ing vegetable in the presidency and it would have at least 40%. You put Pence on the presidency and he would have at least 50%. Also, "Trump certainly is disliked even among his supporters?" Are you kidding me? You disgrace yourself by abandoning the one true Trump.

See, that's inconsistent. Here you are saying that Trump's genius tweets at distracting the world from the shady shit that goes down (by the way, also ironic) works, but then say that people care about real issues and not his tweets? You would be a better political strategist than he ever could! You are attributing political strategy to someone who literally has none. Plus, what you are saying is that Trump is the Schrodinger's cat of stupidity, that he can be both a political genius who can manipulate the masses at will AND an incompetent dumbshit who can't read his own bill for what it's worth. You could literally run Elmo against him right now and he would lose the electoral college and the popular vote. Perhaps May might find herself losing to Elmo when she totally screws up Brexit.

A masterful troll here. God, I've missed you so. Sometimes you are so troll, I really do start to believe that you are the stupid, misinformed, middle-aged basement-dwelling racist creature that all your posts suggest. Bravo.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLOLLLLLLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. Please. We both know and seen the things you have posted. Donald Trump could shit on the desk of the oval office and you would eat that turd. Let's not forget that you described Donald Trump lying to the American people on day 1 of his office about how many people attended his inauguration, or the treasonous Flynn directly influencing Trump's foreign policy against the interests of the US while being paid by the Russians and Turks as "minor." Or how every tweet he threw out there was some part of a larger grand strategy to distract people. BTW, you just did a 180 here. Before, Trump was a mastermind capable of manipulating the masses and all the liberal snowflakes. Now he's a dumbshit who doesn't understand what's in his own bill. Shame on you for betraying the one true Trump. As for 2020 or 2018, w/e. I could make the logical argument that most people voted for Trump begrudgingly, or how the difference between Trump and Clinton in the battleground states were a few thousand votes cast by moderates who are regretting their choice, or how Trump has literally done nothing except Gorsuch since he got elected. You will put up some ridiculous reasoning, cite how Trump won the election (despite being no longer applicable), and give your full-deep-throated support in believing that no one could ever beat him. I don't even see how your opinion has any weight to it. You literally don't live in this country and don't talk to people here. I would be surprised if you even watched Fox News, or any kind of news coverage of Trump. If I had to guess, all you Brits over there are sweating over the shitshow that May called for and presumably are dealing with the nightmareish implications of having to negotiate leaving the EU in the lifespan of a house spider. How is that, by the way? I heard that there is a possibility of you guys having to militarize your border with Ireland. That should be fun. Don't worry too much about those Muslims and all their terror, perhaps you should also be looking to remove all the Irish in your country before people go IRA on your arses.

Perhaps a broad-spectrum pay raise is an oversimplified answer to a rather complex problem. Granted, I still think that you could attract more competent individuals in general, but without having a system in place to remove the "chaff," I suppose the problem would continue to persist. The inconsistency with how some school districts (down to even some schools themselves) are of higher quality than others is rather disturbing, particularly if it is divided along racial or socio-economic lines. As a moderate conservative who recognizes (and dealt with) the inefficiencies of government sponsored programs, I still nonetheless have to disagree with you on public education. Historically speaking, public education and literacy have gone up in democracies where the franchise was expanded. 19th Century Britain, and the United States after the Great War are great examples of when the franchise was expanded and it necessitated better public education. If every person in this country gets the same voting power (If, being the operative word), then it is critical that public education has some level of a base-line for there to be an informed public debate. That being said, is public education without critical flaws? Heavens no, and I would never suggest such a thing. But I nonetheless believe that state-sponsored education, in some form, is inherently democratic and important to the Republic at large.

Oh my! No full-throated support of Trump? Are you suggesting that Trump is incompetent and doesn't even read the bills he is suppose to support? Are you suggesting that Trump is ignorant of the healthcare process? I thought I would never see the day. Shame on you Roz for betraying the one true Trump.

What Milton is trying to say in his nicest voice possible is that George Washington is as relevant in today's politics as King George III or Catherine II or James Madison. Do debates then have an impact on our country today? Of course, practically all issues today were raised in the first 10 years of the republic. George Washington is a figure of respect, a person with genuine faults and character flaws that are outweighed by his devotion to the "romanesque" republic. Milton is merely suggesting that despite commanding such gravitas and auctoritas 300 years past his death (and a thousand more to come, I hope), George Washington was still a man with faults and his words should not be read into like the bible. Instead, the Constitution which persists and evolves with the times as a perpetuation of high-minded ideals (of which the Washington contributed to) deserves that level of devotion and worship. Worship. lol. Get it? Cause, church and state? ... Don't judge.

Anyone here under the age of 35 and make more than $200,000 a year? No? You are all !@#$ed if the senate bill makes it through.

By all means, create.

This is, to some extent, true. The current go-to leaders of the Democrats is Pelosi and Schumer. Presidential candidate-wise, these two are far out there picks. However, it's not to say that they are terrible leaders, on the contrary. Pelosi and Schumer have more traditional congressional strengths, such as being good campaigners and fundraisers. Ever since the catastrphoic loss in 2010, they have essentially been evening the odds in Congress. They just have the personal appeal (to the millennials, the fickle group of angsty teens I keep referring to) of a wet carrot. They can run a good traditional campaign, but they have no idea what a Facebook is. Hillary's social media presence was more miss than hit, but significantly better. If I had to make a prediction, the Democrats are going to win a lot in 2018. Think I'm full of shit? Just look at 2010. Barrack Obama rides into office with 65%+ approval post-housing shittown, and then immediately after is subject to attack by conservatives. His proposal of ACA was essentially on the ticket, and most people were against it at the time (since every other word about the ACA was "socialist"). The Dems lost HARD in 2010. Like, former-majority-in-Senate level of losses. Obama's approval rating never dropped below 55 during that time. That being said, you have a president who hasn't done anything except a Supreme Court nomination. He spends most of his days tweeting about dumb shit instead of getting things done, and has shown no real leadership in any way regarding to the deployment of the AHCA. Russia still follows him like Benghazi, and his approval rating is second only to Nixon post-Watergate and Bush at the bottom of the housing market. Assuming Schumer and Pelosi didn't suffer a stroke and still know what they are doing, the democrats are (in my personal analysis) going to kill it in 2018. Again, presidential candidate-wise, both of them are less amusing than a dirty laundry. Maybe Bernie will run as a democrat again, despite being A !@#$ing INDEPENDENT YOU DUMBASS BERNIE BROS. If Clinton is still alive and everyone gets over the "I-hate-Clinton" phase, maybe she might have a go at it. Warren might take a shot too. So yes, they are deficient in getting good candidates for president, but not entirely bad leaders. Not to sound like our president, but Obama is to blame too. Obama was good at getting perhaps the most transformative legislation in the last 50 years (excluding 1965 immigration) into law, but did nothing for his party when the midterms spanked the Dems. But it also doesn't help that your major party leaders have the charisma of a dead fish. There is still time for the Democrats to find someone though. Same thing happened for Republicans before Trump. You think Jeb !@#$ing Bush is any better than Schumer or Pelosi? God-forbid, Chris Christie? The Republicans got lucky that some twitter troll emerged from a (golden) basement to run for president.

I also have to disagree with this statement. From the people I know who voted for Trump, most of them say they don't like him, they just like his policies. Granted, the population that I talk to is skewed. I live in Utah, where Trump's anti-immigration and rhetoric attacking other religions doesn't bode well here. Not to mention he has a long history of infidelity and multiple wives (though according to the stereotype of Mormons, I suppose that's not too far off base). In fact, he almost lost to a CIA Mormon guy that was only on the ticket in Utah. Most people here held their noses when they voted for him. Regardless, Trump is an "outsider." People like him because they equate the stupid shit he does to not being tethered to the establishment. They see a government which gets nothing done and representatives who get a shit ton of money in the process (which, for the most part is true). They see Trump as the great arsonist who will burn the whole shitshow down. However, I would argue that Trump isn't tethered to the establishment, he's not even tethered to reality. The 36% don't see a madman who gives no !@#$ about the constitution or democratic institutions, they see a man standing up to the restrictive and biased establishment. Again, I'm not sure how much leeway Trump supporters will give the man. Again, I don't think there is a line. No probs. Rand Paul is the leader of the ultra-conservative faction in the Senate. Look for him for this upcoming bill, it's all going to depend on him if it passes or not. As of now, Rand Paul thinks it's too Obamacare Lite. The moderate faction is more or less embodied in McConnell, though I would argue McCain is a more representative senator for the moderates. They see the 20 million being thrown off healthcare and fear for their seats. McCain is a republican in a blue state, so he actually has reason to want to veto the bill.

Don't forget the Supreme Court too! The problem with Republicans is that they have two opposite extremes. One is a powerful conservative right wing powerhouse who want no government, and the other is a moderate wing which closely resemble right democrats who don't want anything to go. The balancing act going on with the Obamacare repeal is that the moderate half of Republicans actually want to keep the ACA and just reform it, and the conservative block wants to gut it like a fish. They won't be working together on anything. They didn't during the Obama and Bush administration, and they won't now. The parties have polarized since the end of the Cold War. If you subscribe to Schmidt, I suppose that's a pretty good excuse. The best way to pass anything is through help with moderate democrats. Moderate democrats make up a large enough portion to combine with moderate Republicans to get things passed. This was how the ACA was passed too. Unlike the "shrill" left wing, they are actually open to working with Republicans on it. Problem is, they are under intense pressure by both the democratic party and their constituents to give the middle finger to Trump at any point they can. Most democrats will be running on that platform of telling Trump to !@#$ off, even the moderates from red governor states. Hell, even some moderate Republicans are feeling the heat to do so as well.

I disagree. If anything should come from the 2016 election, it is that you can be a !@#$-grabbing narcissistic sociopath without a shred of dignity and still be elected to the most powerful, prestigious, and prominent position in the world by "virtue" of promising 5% GDP growth and a conservative supreme court nomination. Turns out Americans don't particularly care if their president is the dumbest, classless lying shitard there is so long as it's in their economic interests. Oh, and a bunch of angsty teenagers who thought that by not voting for their beloved socialist leader, they don't have any part in electing the Orwellian shitshow going on today. With the exception of the Supreme Court nominee, Trump hasn't done anything. He's passed no legislation. He doesn't have a budget. The political arena today suggests that won't happen either. Most Americans don't particularly care about foreign affairs either, so long as it doesn't lead to a major confrontation and affecting American lives. Here's what I predict: Trump voters will be "happy" with Trump regardless of what he will actually achieve. People will say that he will get things passed and do good for this country, but 3 months down the road, those same people will say they were happy with just the Sup pick in the first place. If you look at his approval ratings over time, Trump does something abysmally stupid and his approval drops, but it always climbs back up to his 36%. I am fully convinced Donald Trump could shit on the oval office desk and a week later his approval numbers would be back up to the 36 line. In light of all the times he has politically shot himself in the head, I don't know where the line would end for Trump supporters. The dismantling of the democratic system? Ripping the constitution (literally, not figuratively)? Accidentally launching a nuke at Florida? I genuinely don't think there is that line for the 36%. Trump supporters will never feel duped.

Git Gud. Y'all's saltfest can suck my 35 pages during the Alpha-Syndi wars.

Lol. This statement embodies everything about your name.

You drunk, son! First, that's the wrong quote. Second, I said nothing about the second amendment. Third, my argument was simply correcting a logical fallacy made by Thalmor. Fourth, the radical Jeffersonian interpretation of the second amendment has been tried and failed at the cost of an entire generation. It's pretty safe to say that despite sectionalism or differing political ideologies, nobody wants that, not even our Dear Leader (and trust me, he's stupid enough to want pretty much everything else). If anything, this entire thread is a discussion about how extreme political ideology destroys the very democracy you claim to protect with guns, guns, guns. Also, I am extremely familiar with the interpretations of the second amendment. In fact, I would argue that your interpretation sucks nuts for gun rights advocates. Most gun right advocates would point to the 2nd comma and say that the "bear[ing] [of] Arms" would not solely apply to a militia, otherwise there would be no case for private ownership outside of a multi-party, organized militia. Which means that your interpretation is stupid because it is counterproductive to private ownership of firearms. Calling upon the memory of the Gracchi brothers, it's a goddamn miracle that Lincoln and everyone after him held the union together.

Lol. Let me break down that logic for you: >Congressman shot by gunman using gun. >Gunman was stopped by trained security staff with guns >Guns save lives, despite your statement A contradicting statement C. Could the logic of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" logic be applied here? Perhaps it's not the gun that saved lives, it's the quality and kind of person behind the gun that saves lives? Because if an inanimate object has the quality of saving life, it has the possibility of taking it too. In which case, guns DO kill people. What you really should be arguing for is not more guns, but more people who know how to use guns and use it for the right reasons. Also, in all technicality, Americans were subjects of the British crown up until 1776 until a formal declaration of independence was made. And even then, the declaration was made by 120 old, whore-hugging, sweat-drenched, white landed aristocrats that nowhere nearly represented the interests of the people they claimed to represent. And even then, the British crown never formerly recognized the colonies and the people there as independent until after the nearly decade-long war. So is it really apples to oranges?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Gracchus#Death Violence has no place in democracy. Ask all the other failed republics.

We have a no! Anyone want to bet yes?

Anyone think Trump's stupid enough to fire Mueller?