|
|
Post by morecowbell on Mar 17, 2024 20:30:20 GMT
Bold of you to assume you knew what ajhall was talking about when clearly there was a misunderstanding. We don't have to argue about it at all, but your interpretation of the words vs. the actual words IS extremely relevant to the conversation. Again, I want to know what actual words in the plan are problematic for you. Not what a source interpreted them as. Please share which current DOE policies empower government rather than protecting and empowering students and families. I have concerns that doing away with the DOE will mean no enforcement of laws that require students with special needs to receive a free, appropriate public education without discrimination. You've said elsewhere that you are pro-choice. Are you not able to see how this language will be used to ban abortion for any reason at the federal level? Not to mention IVF and possibly some forms of birth control. Do you disagree with that? I understand where people are coming from here, but in many cases, I disagree. If you don't believe that kind of language will be used to marginalize and attempt to eliminate from pubic life any other kind of family, I have some coastal property in central Iowa to sell you. Please specify which federal policies currently disincentive work and penalize marriage as is claimed. Section F? It doesn't say anything about not performing the job requirements. In other places in the document, it specifies removal of anyone not actively working to promote the president's agenda. Even if that agenda stands in contradiction to decades of good policy and institutional memory. What they mean is to get rid of anyone who places loyalty to the US and its constitution over blind loyalty to the president. Is that OK with you? Specific responses within quote block above. You seem to have blinders on with regards to the clearly stated aims of the current GOP, and choose instead to read these words in the most innocuous possible light without regard to the context of recent experience. That is dangerous. That is cultism. It makes you a willing dupe. Something to be aware of is the way in which this document aims to solve problems that don't exist. By speaking the problem into seeming existence, it convinces people like you that the DOE seeks to empower itself and that a plethora of laws disincentivize work. Without any proof or specificity, people like you now believe those laws and problems exist and that a conservative president has a mandate to do whatever is necessary to fix them. Can you not see that? It takes no assumption to see exactly what I was responding to, just reading comprehension. Especially since WHAT I was responding to was literally right on top of my response, just like this: Let's ask someone that probably had a hand in writing it, what he's referring to: LinkedIn You ask me a question and before you even hear from me, you dismiss my answer if it doesn't agree with you. And YOU accuse ME of not "discussing in good faith."🙄 What is stopping state Department of Education from enforcing that? And you assign the most evil possible light without regard to the actual words, BECAUSE it didn't come from Democrats. THAT is pure coercion and manipulation and makes you completely devoid of sincerity. Certainly NOT conversing "in good faith" and makes your accusations above look like projection. Again. I disagree. This sounds an awful like your claim that people aren't actually seeing evidence of crime. I showed you a mountain of evidence that IS being seen. |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Mar 17, 2024 20:36:10 GMT
Yes, he/they can and he does. He works out plea deals. Then they are too soon free to go out and commit more crimes. He reduces more than half of felonies to misdemeanors. Sorry that bothers you, but the evidence is that Republicans generally employ the kind of policies that DISCOURAGE criminals and democrats do NOT. Despite your insistence that no one "is seeing evidence of crime" the evidence is everywhere and yet the "stats" are supposedly down. That very clearly tells you, the prosecutions are down, not crime. Do you even listen to YOURSELF? You seem to have forgotten that YOU specifically asked: "who “DC_Draino” considers GOOD GUYS who have been locked up. Jan. 6 insurrectionists, perhaps?" I provided a couple of good guys that got locked up. So YOU look either pretty stupid, or downright dishonest asking the question and then mocking me for answering. Neither choice looks good for you. I never said “no one is seeing evidence of crime.” I said they’re not seeing evidence of the huge spikes in violent crime that Republicans are claiming. Your assertions about Democratic DAs downgrading violent felonies are fanciful. Bring the receipts on that one or go home. Individual anecdotes are not evidence of trends, no matter how much you would prefer it to be otherwise. Contrary to what you may think, the best deterrent to crime is poverty reduction. And on that, Republicans’ records are dismal. ETA: here’s the more nuanced report of your claims. True, on its face, but as you know that rarely tells the real story. Bragg is not downgrading *violent* felonies and specifically directed that those not be downgraded. Violent offenders are prosecuted as felons. www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/apr/08/ron-desantis/are-more-half-felony-charges-manhattan-downgraded/Additionally, crime data isn’t based on convictions or even charges. It’s based on actions known to law enforcement as dictated by the FBI’s uniform crime reporting program. Even if Bragg somehow sent every murderer home with a lollipop, those crimes would still be reported as murders. So your claims are bullshit. It’s pathetic that you come in here with a report of some guy defending himself as evidence of subway crime like some big gotcha. And it’s ridiculous that you say you want good faith discussion when you do stuff like that. You’re just a shitposter. Do better. Page 7 of the "Chinese are crossing the border" thread. Middle of the page. You said this: The thing that's REALLY pathetic is that I just reminded you that YOU SPECIFICALLY ASKED: "who “DC_Draino” considers GOOD GUYS who have been locked up. Jan. 6 insurrectionists, perhaps?" I provided a couple of good guys that got locked up. And you're STILL trying to pretend I represented it as something else. That's downright dishonest. So, YOU calling ME out for "good faith discussion" when you do stuff like that, is laughable. YOU are JUST A SHITPOSTER. DO BETTER.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 17, 2024 20:52:41 GMT
I never said “no one is seeing evidence of crime.” I said they’re not seeing evidence of the huge spikes in violent crime that Republicans are claiming. Your assertions about Democratic DAs downgrading violent felonies are fanciful. Bring the receipts on that one or go home. Individual anecdotes are not evidence of trends, no matter how much you would prefer it to be otherwise. Contrary to what you may think, the best deterrent to crime is poverty reduction. And on that, Republicans’ records are dismal. ETA: here’s the more nuanced report of your claims. True, on its face, but as you know that rarely tells the real story. Bragg is not downgrading *violent* felonies and specifically directed that those not be downgraded. Violent offenders are prosecuted as felons. www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/apr/08/ron-desantis/are-more-half-felony-charges-manhattan-downgraded/Additionally, crime data isn’t based on convictions or even charges. It’s based on actions known to law enforcement as dictated by the FBI’s uniform crime reporting program. Even if Bragg somehow sent every murderer home with a lollipop, those crimes would still be reported as murders. So your claims are bullshit. It’s pathetic that you come in here with a report of some guy defending himself as evidence of subway crime like some big gotcha. And it’s ridiculous that you say you want good faith discussion when you do stuff like that. You’re just a shitposter. Do better. Page 7 of the "Chinese are crossing the border" thread. Middle of the page. You said this: The thing that's REALLY pathetic is that I just reminded you that YOU SPECIFICALLY ASKED: "who “DC_Draino” considers GOOD GUYS who have been locked up. Jan. 6 insurrectionists, perhaps?" I provided a couple of good guys that got locked up. And you're STILL trying to pretend I represented it as something else. That's downright dishonest. So, YOU calling ME out for "good faith discussion" when you do stuff like that, is laughable. YOU are JUST A SHITPOSTER. DO BETTER.
lol, Gia. You never disappoint. The capslock, bolded, larger font is just *chef's kiss.* Thanks for the entertainment. 🤡🤡🤡 |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Mar 17, 2024 21:12:35 GMT
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, answered questions in good faith and provided links and articles that you apparently have not read. I quoted Merge because I happen to agree with her and she eloquently made the same points that I wanted to make. There's nothing wrong with using someone else's words to make a stronger point. It does not mean that I didn't give my thoughts or that somehow my post wan't original if I included her words. You didn't actually respond to the points that we made about the document not existing In a vacuum. You just deflected. I'm not the one not operating in bad faith. First, the problem was my interpretation. Now the problem is my application of someone else's interpretation? There is when you were specifically asked for your own words on what you found problematic in the actual words in the document and you were specifically askednot to provide someone else's INTERPRETATION of the words. No. They're one in the same. I already did that. Your interpretation of the words vs. the actual words IS extremely relevant to the conversation.You clearly are. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 17, 2024 21:27:54 GMT
JFC another fucking hoax. Your source Acyn, is very dishonest. Looking back at the words YOU said, in telling ME how I should see the words in project 2025... You seem to have blinders on... and choose instead to listen to these words in the most EVIL possible light without critical thinking in regard to the context clipped from it. BECAUSE someone told you to. And you were more than happy to do it.Here is the full context of WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID: x.com/alx/status/1769188352949915999?s=20No, not a hoax, you're missing the full context. Yes, he was talking about the auto industry. But he said bloodbath for the country, not bloodbath for the auto industry. He zoomed out from the auto industry to talk about the country. Bloodbath in terms of the auto industry doesn't even make sense in the context of his plans for tariffs. He's just using the auto industry as a cover for plausible deniability, just like when he said to the Proud Boys - stand by and stand back. This is a classic Trump tactic, this is exactly what he does. He uses words to incite violence, but says them carefully so he can later say, no you're misquoting me. He was very purposeful, deliberate and careful about what he said. He intended for his supporters to hear bloodbath if he doesn't win in November and that's exactly what they heard. He opened the speech with the J6 anthem, praised the insurrectionists as patriots and hostages. In the same speech, he also said “If this election isn't won, I'm not sure that you'll ever have another election in this country.” This is the same guy that invited his supporters to the Capitol, told them "it will be wild", incited violence on J6, told his supporters to fight like hell or they would no longer have a country. He told them this with the knowledge that they were armed. There's no hoax. This was his message - there will be a bloodbath if he doesn't win in November. www.npr.org/2024/03/17/1239019225/trump-says-some-migrants-are-not-people-and-warns-of-bloodbath-if-he-loses But Trump used the stage to deliver a profanity-filled version of his usual rally speech that again painted an apocalyptic picture of the country if Biden wins a second term."If I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country," he warned, while talking about the impact of offshoring on the country's auto industry and his plans to increase tariffs on foreign-made cars.
bloodbath linkbut context |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 17, 2024 21:33:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 17, 2024 21:35:49 GMT
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, answered questions in good faith and provided links and articles that you apparently have not read. I quoted Merge because I happen to agree with her and she eloquently made the same points that I wanted to make. There's nothing wrong with using someone else's words to make a stronger point. It does not mean that I didn't give my thoughts or that somehow my post wan't original if I included her words. You didn't actually respond to the points that we made about the document not existing In a vacuum. You just deflected. I'm not the one not operating in bad faith. First, the problem was my interpretation. Now the problem is my application of someone else's interpretation? There is when you were specifically asked for your own words on what you found problematic in the actual words in the document and you were specifically askednot to provide someone else's INTERPRETATION of the words. No. They're one in the same. I already did that. Your interpretation of the words vs. the actual words IS extremely relevant to the conversation.You clearly are. I genuinely tried. I did specifically say what problems I have with the document and provided quotes and links. But, I give up. You just keep repeating the same thing, talking about my interpretation, deflecting and avoiding anything of substance or the actual document. You're ignoring or avoiding sections of the document that I included along with my thoughts and opinions. You're avoiding questions that I asked about the document. You skipped over all of this. You're not willing to have an actual conversation, you just want to deflect and avoid. I'm done. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 17, 2024 21:49:27 GMT
Hope it's OK that I'm reposting. This is worth repeating for anyone that might not want to click on a link or go to Twitter. I’m also going to point out the hypocrisy of the Republicans defending the ‘bloodbath’ comment when it was about increasing taxes 100%.
They don’t even know what they stand for anymore.
For a little more context Trump was talking about placing a 100% tariff on imported cars - that’s a 100% tax folks.
The global economic impacts of that would be devastating |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 17, 2024 21:55:13 GMT
Hope it's OK that I'm reposting. This is worth repeating for anyone that might not want to click on a link or go to Twitter. I’m also going to point out the hypocrisy of the Republicans defending the ‘bloodbath’ comment when it was about increasing taxes 100%.
They don’t even know what they stand for anymore.
For a little more context Trump was talking about placing a 100% tariff on imported cars - that’s a 100% tax folks.
The global economic impacts of that would be devastatingYeah, I don't know why tweets won't show up for me any more. It's frustrating. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 17, 2024 21:56:00 GMT
In light of Trump’s praise of the J6 insurrectionists, his featuring them in a version of the national anthem, and him calling them hostages, I feel compelled to share my experience with the J6 prisoners since I’m one of the few members of congress to spend time w/ them.
Last year, I visited the DC Jail on behalf of @oversightdems to visit the January 6 prisoners.
The visit was organized by Marjorie Taylor Greene and I and @repjasmine were there to observe. The actions of our GOP colleagues inside the facility were shameful.
Trump & Marjorie Taylor Greene continue to tell lies about the conditions of the facility and saying that there was no insurrection on January 6. The inmates that we saw were being treated fairly. They had 24 hr medical care, computer tablets & access to communicate with family.
When we saw the inmates, my GOP colleagues rushed to them and treated them like celebrities rather than people who attacked our capitol and our Democracy.
I saw Marjorie Taylor Greene all smiles and sharing stories with them. When one of them tried to shake my hand I refused.
It’s clear these insurrectionists are being held in much better conditions than most black and brown inmates in prisons across the country.
As we left the facility, the January 6 inmates started chanting “Let’s Go Brandon.”
Now Donald Trump is uplifting these traitors by including them in a new version of the national anthem.
This is sick, disgusting and all Americans should be rejecting these traitorous actions.
These insurrectionists are NOT hostages.
Don’t let Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Green re-write history. January 6 was a violent attack on our democracy.
We must call out Trump and the MAGA Republicans who are actively working to divide us and cause enoumous harm to country. We will fight back.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 17, 2024 21:57:27 GMT
Hope it's OK that I'm reposting. This is worth repeating for anyone that might not want to click on a link or go to Twitter. I’m also going to point out the hypocrisy of the Republicans defending the ‘bloodbath’ comment when it was about increasing taxes 100%.
They don’t even know what they stand for anymore.
For a little more context Trump was talking about placing a 100% tariff on imported cars - that’s a 100% tax folks.
The global economic impacts of that would be devastatingYeah, I don't know why tweets won't show up for me any more. It's frustrating. On my MacBook and my phone, tweets that start with x don't show up. If the link starts with twitter, it works for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 17, 2024 21:58:39 GMT
Yeah, I don't know why tweets won't show up for me any more. It's frustrating. On my MacBook and my phone, tweets that start with x don't show up. If the link starts with twitter, it works for me. Do you just change the x in the address to twitter when you post it? Also - I can't see the tweets you post on my laptop. The posts are just blank unless I'm in tapatalk on my phone, and then I can see the link. It's very strange. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 17, 2024 22:07:54 GMT
On my MacBook and my phone, tweets that start with x don't show up. If the link starts with twitter, it works for me. Do you just change the x in the address to twitter when you post it? Also - I can't see the tweets you post on my laptop. The posts are just blank unless I'm in tapatalk on my phone, and then I can see the link. It's very strange. Sorry, thats really odd. Not sure what's happening. When I post, I just copy and paste. The link just includes twitter. I will try to add the link from the create a link tab as well to see if that shows up. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 17, 2024 22:08:13 GMT
Trump clearly zooms out from talking about the auto industry to talking about the country. His statements are right out of an authoritarian playbook.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 17, 2024 22:15:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 17, 2024 22:44:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 17, 2024 23:48:36 GMT
If you were a Buffy fan back in the day, this will ring true. 😂  |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 17, 2024 23:58:19 GMT
In case there are any doubts about what Trump would do if elected. He would try to pass an abortion ban. No context needed. abortion ban |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 17, 2024 23:59:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 18, 2024 0:00:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 18, 2024 0:31:49 GMT
contextAs X battles over Trump’s bloodbath comment, remember his fmr chief of staff told me he praised Hitler. Consider the character of his comments together, from those he attacks - immigrants, stutterers - to those he praises - Putin, Jan 6 rioters.
The themes are fairly consistent; admiration of unfettered power, demonization of critics and those he sees as weak (Gen Kelly also detailed his disdain for wounded veterans), and predictions of carnage and chaos if he’s not in control.
One concern his former advisors related to me is, in a second term, those beliefs and feelings would be magnified.
“A second term with him [Trump]— particularly when he would not be worrying about reelection— it would be fundamentally a catastrophe for us,”Kelly told me
His former National Security Advisor John Bolton pointed to what he saw as another consistent theme: “He thinks everything through the prism of, ‘How does this benefit Donald Trump’?” Bolton told me.
bloodshed if he doesn't get his way
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Mar 18, 2024 0:41:17 GMT
Stephanopoulous asked, "So no one told -- your military advisers did not tell you, 'No, we should just keep 2,500 troops. It's been a stable situation for the last several years. We can do that. We can continue to do that'?" To which Biden said, "No one said that to me that I can recall."Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and US Central Command head Gen. Frank McKenzie both told Congress during Tuesday's testimony that they personally supported keeping a small number of troops past the withdrawal deadline. They refused to share exactly what they had told the sitting President but shared their personal opinions on the situation. "I won't share my personal recommendation to the President but I will give you my honest opinion. And my honest opinion and view shaped my recommendation," McKenzie said. "I recommended that we maintain 2,500 troops in Afghanistan."CNNSo what’s your point? |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 18, 2024 0:58:02 GMT
So true. Trump complains all of the time how he is a victim, no one treated worse etc. The reality is that he's been afforded all kinds of privileges no ordinary citizen would ever receive. bloodbath context |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 18, 2024 1:10:47 GMT
Republican response to President Biden's State of the Union. After some Republican made noise about uninviting him. plot to keep Biden from giving more State of the Union addresseswww.axios.com/2024/03/17/biden-state-of-the-union-invitation-republicansWHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, W.Va. — House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) said GOP leadership should reconsider how they invite presidents to give the State of the Union address, citing President Biden's "divisive" speech.
Why it matters: Emmer argued Biden's remarks were a "hyper-partisan" campaign speech, telling Axios the president should not be invited to address Congress next year if he's elected to a second term.
What they're saying: The Minnesota Republican said he's bullish on former President Trump's odds of defeating Biden in November, but felt Biden's speech should have had a more unifying tone.
"That was about the most divisive State of the Union — I wouldn't extend him an invitation next year, if that's what we're going to get," Emmer said during an interview at the House GOP retreat.
"He's not going to be there next year — it'll be a different president. But I think you've got to rethink issuing invitations for a State of the Union if it's not going to be a State of the Union, and that was not. That was a campaign speech," he added.
Flashback: Emmer is not the first Republican to float blocking Biden from giving the annual speech, with multiple members having sought to prevent the president from speaking this year.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) introduced a bill aimed at barring Biden from delivering the speech unless he submitted his budget and national security proposal on time.
Former House Freedom Caucus Chairman Scott Perry (R-Pa.) called for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to rescind his invitation unless Biden took stronger action to address securing the border.
The big picture: As political polarization has grown, the State of the Union has become an increasingly tense and partisan affair — with Republicans heckling Biden each of the last two years.
While Johnson called for his members to maintain decorum, members —including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) — repeatedly interrupted Biden during his speech this month.
Republicans have attempted to paint Biden's speech as "angry and divisive" ahead of the 2024 election, with multiple members pointing to the lack of a bump in the polls as a sign it wasn't well received.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,840
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Mar 18, 2024 1:41:51 GMT
Re: trump and his "bloodbath". His supporters are backsplaining and offering what-he-really-meants. Again. If it is that innocent (it's not) then at best he's an awful communicator seeing > half the country (and probably world) "misunderstands" him. That's a huge part of the job he seeks. If elected again, his "miscommunications" could cause havoc to say the least.
Been there, done that, not again, thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 18, 2024 2:18:28 GMT
Former Gov Whitman has words about the 'bloodbath' Donald Trump and his allies may say that the former president was taken out of context in his warning of a "bloodbath" for the country if he loses the election, but a former Republican governor says that argument is nonsense. Former New Jersey Republican Gov. Christine Todd Whitman appeared on MSNBC's The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart, where she was asked about Trump saying there would be a "bloodbath for the whole country." Earlier in the day, a White House correspondent argued that it was clear Trump's comments referred to more than just the auto industry. "So governor Whitman, you know, he loves to mush a lot of stuff in what he says, then his campaign says he was only joking or it was taken out of context or, he wasn't talking about violence on the country. I call B.S. on that. Am I wrong?" the host asked. "You are absolutely right," Whitman said. "That is B.S. on that." She continued, saying Trump was "definitely sending a call to his supporters to have a reprise of January 6th." "Even worse, when he says bloodbath, that means more of the weapons we saw on January 6th," she added. "It's appalling to have an ex-president, former is for someone who just left, ex is for someone who was beaten and taken out of the White House, an ex-president of the United States to say that, and follow it up with it would be the end of elections as we know them."Finally, she noted that Trump is "being very clear on what he plans to do if he's back in power." "Shame on us if we ignore this. It happened back in the 1930s when a fellow called Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. youtu.be/EclZHNKIEus?si=XBKhR3Mo6p7zHKUywww.rawstory.com/trump-hitler-bloodbath/ |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Mar 18, 2024 2:23:17 GMT
JFC another fucking hoax. Your source Acyn, is very dishonest. Looking back at the words YOU said, in telling ME how I should see the words in project 2025... You seem to have blinders on... and choose instead to listen to these words in the most EVIL possible light without critical thinking in regard to the context clipped from it. BECAUSE someone told you to. And you were more than happy to do it.Here is the full context of WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID: x.com/alx/status/1769188352949915999?s=20No, not a hoax, you're missing the full context. Total hoax. Yes, it does.  bloodbath noun blood·bath ˈbləd-ˌbath -ˌbäth Synonyms of bloodbath 1 : a great slaughter 2 a : a notably fierce, violent, or destructive contest or struggle the campaign has become a bloodbath b : a major economic disaster
a market bloodbathMerriam-Webster
|
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Mar 18, 2024 2:26:21 GMT
Re: trump and his "bloodbath". His supporters are backsplaining and offering what-he-really-meants. Again. If it is that innocent (it's not) then at best he's an awful communicator seeing > half the country (and probably world) "misunderstands" him. That's a huge part of the job he seeks. If elected again, his "miscommunications" could cause havoc to say the least. Been there, done that, not again, thanks. It's not a miscommunication. It's dishonest people presenting a video with the actual beginning of what he was talking about, removed. |
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,840
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Mar 18, 2024 2:32:50 GMT
Re: trump and his "bloodbath". His supporters are backsplaining and offering what-he-really-meants. Again. If it is that innocent (it's not) then at best he's an awful communicator seeing > half the country (and probably world) "misunderstands" him. That's a huge part of the job he seeks. If elected again, his "miscommunications" could cause havoc to say the least. Been there, done that, not again, thanks. It's not a miscommunication. It's dishonest people presenting a video with the actual beginning of what he was talking about, removed. |
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Mar 18, 2024 2:34:20 GMT
|
|
