Jump to content

bolverk

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    11639
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by bolverk

  1. 1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

    These are statements on what you believe Trump is trying to accomplish.   I used to hear similar such speculations from folks on what Obama was trying to accomplish.  These type of statements are impossible to falsify.  

    I'm asking what things you believe will happen that can be verified.  "People seem more polarized" is not an easily verifiable statement.  "Unemployment will increase by 5% by 2020" is an easily verifiable prediction.

     

    These are not easily verifiable statements.  What are the verifiable/quantifiable things have that happened or will happen as a result of Trump that will lead to permanent significant harm or destruction of the US?

     

    Is your prediction that the US is going to create concentration camps or invade our neighboring nations like the nazis?

    1

    Quantifiable? Like, I think American influence in East Asia will decline by 45.7% and will fall 28.2% in Europe? That kind of quantifiable? Eighteen percent of Americans in the future will have lost confidence in the institution and norms of our democracy? Once the effect of tariffs fall into place and multiple trade wars have begun, economic growth will shrink to -13.4%? Twenty-nine percent of male Anglos between the ages of 25 and 34 will join White Nationalist movements by 2022? Hate crimes against minorities and immigrants will increase by 115% over the next five years?

    Get the fuck out of here. People are honestly trying to express their concerns but you turn around and try to peg them to a specific "quantifiable" prediction so that you can argue details. While I have no earthly idea if the figures I propose above are precisely accurate, I'm fairly fucking confident my guesses tend to point toward an accurate direction of trends.

    • Like 6
  2. 2 hours ago, Grade of D as in David said:

    She actually was drafted for the role. Unfortunately for her she doesn't have bone spurs.

    She does have rather big bones though.

    8 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

    This is the worst thing any of them can do.  The dipshits on the TrumpTrain use this type of banter as more ammo.  We need to cut off their supply lines and starve them like the Nazis they are.    

     

    I would certainly agree someone needs to cut off her donut supplies.

  3. 25 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

    Drama queen.  

    My only response to this is ^ what Brisket said:

    5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Perfect. It’s not the evil they do, so much as the evil they happily go along with.

  4. 7 minutes ago, NateHitch said:

    Yeah well my blood pressure is a lot lower than yours right now

    Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
     

    That's because you have a cold reptilian heart, are lacking a soul, and are willingly and repeatedly spouting lies about the facts at hand. You should go to Facebook if you're looking for a stupid and gullible audience.

  5. 2 minutes ago, Caracara said:

    We've been told his people think he's a God

     

    Which is precisely my point. If the man behind the kimono fears being exposed for what he actually is, he's not going to open it up to reveal his tiny prick for people to point and laugh at.

    You seem to be under the illusion he's proud of what he's got. But, keep in mind, he was "educated in the West", so I'm pretty sure he knows he's not exactly packing the heat his people think he is. 

  6. 26 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    The Dems are identity politics and socialists.

    If we're going to play the game of wide gloopy brushes that paint over subtle nuances, one could also argue that the entire Trump campaign was based on white identity politics and overt fascism.

  7. 7 minutes ago, Dolemite said:

    Years ago I use to get my hair cut by a Korean lady. As a child, she escaped from North Korea along with a dozen or so others. They had to travel up a stream in the dead of night, in freezing weather and pass underneath a bridge, where NK guards were posted. One of the women in the group had an infant. The mother knew and understood that if her infant made any noise what so ever that it was to be immediately pushed under the water and drowned. 

    This tragic anecdote is a perfect example of why many of us question Lil' Kim's ability to open up his country. Once you've gone far enough down that path, small and gradual openings don't work. Instead, North Korean society would be like a dam bursting, scouring and scrubbing all remnants of the former regime from the face of the earth. I think he knows that and will do everything he can to stay in power. He might choose a path that slowly opens the economy for better trade and wages, but he'll never give away his ultimate power over people's lives.

    • Like 1
  8. 2 minutes ago, scottsins said:

     


    Here’s the thing: You are ignoring the fact that opening up economic opportunities and globalizing to a degree, to Kim, poses a giant risk of being removed from power. So the “top guy in a prosperous country” may not be accurate or seen that way by Kim.

     

    There are no really good parallels that I can think of (KJU = dear leader/god), but opening the society and economy of a repressive nation didn't seem to go very well with Gorbachev. Of course, the USSR was never nearly so repressive after Stalin nor China after Mao as North Korea. Both of those countries had a defined apparatus to choose their next leaders. North Korea has nothing of the sort. It's basically a dynastic, almost feudal, regime with no counterbalancing bureaucracy to ensure stability.

  9. 6 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

    Such as?

    McCain, Powell, Weld, Whitman, Bennett, Kemp, Dole, Forbes, George H.W. Bush, Ford, Nixon, and Eisenhower for sure. Even W's embrace of "compassionate conservativism" would be mocked today by what has become mainstream in the Republican Party. Strauss if you're looking closer to home. George Will, David Brooks, and Bill Buckley also come to mind. It should also be noted that Krauthammer isn't much of a Trump fan either.

  10. 1 hour ago, Dolemite said:

    I agree. He saw the life his grandfather and father led. A life where they were constantly on guard for potential threats on their life. Living in isolation, having to suck up to the Chinese etc.

    Little Kim seems like the type who sees the benefit of joining the world community. Cutting ties with Iran etc, and I think that is where he wants to go for the future. 

     

    You may sincerely believe this, but I have no clue what your evidence might be.

    "He seems like the type..." How could you possibly get that impression from a couple of meetings he had with Moon and Trump unless you've been swayed by talking heads who have a) never met him, b) made claims based on watching a tape, and c) a narrative they're parroting.

    Recall Brisket's post quoting a family member who has actually met the guy. He/she was under no such illusion that KJU was prepared to fulfill any of his promises.

    Look, none of us on this board are mindreaders and none of us really know first-hand what's up. To go out on a limb and speculate that KJU might want to open his country up seems like fantasy based on what we actually know his past actions have been. He has a pattern of behavior that doesn't seem terribly removed from his predecessors.

    Sure, we can hope. I hope too for peace, but I'm not going to hold my breath and make claims that are based on speculation.   

  11. 1 minute ago, EMAWesome said:

    Explain to me then why Cubans have spent the last 50 years paddling 90 miles across the Atlantic in homemade rafts.

    Probably for many (not all) the same reasons Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans, and Salvadorans have been crossing 90 miles of desert to get here.

    • Like 2
  12. Fucking tent city-styled internment camps for kids...in the gotdam desert. If this goes through, it'll forever be a shameful blight on the soul of America.

    These are the same evil idiots who drummed up fantastical fears about Wal-Mart concentration camps as a result of standard military training exercises.

    No Gestapo in Bastropo! How 'bout Gestopo in San Angelo?

    • Like 1
  13. And, now, for something completely different: It looks like the judge might let the emoluments case proceed. This shouldn't be overshadowed by the TrumpKim rendez-vous.

    Judge in Emoluments Case Questions Defense of Trump’s Hotel Profits

    GREENBELT, Md. — A federal judge on Monday sharply criticized the Justice Department’s argument that President Trump’s financial interest in his company’s hotel in downtown Washington is constitutional, a fresh sign that the judge may soon rule against the president in a historic case that could head to the Supreme Court.

    The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland, charge that Mr. Trump’s profits from the hotel violate anti-corruption clauses of the Constitution that restrict government-bestowed financial benefits, or emoluments, to presidents beyond their official salary. They say the hotel is siphoning business from local convention centers and hotels.

    The judge, Peter J. Messitte of the United States District Court in Maryland, promised to decide by the end of July whether to allow the plaintiffs to proceed to the next stage, in which they could demand financial records from the hotel or other evidence from the president. The case takes aim at whether Mr. Trump violated the Constitution’s emoluments clauses, which prevent a president from accepting government-bestowed benefits either at home or abroad. Until now, the issue of what constitutes an illegal emolument has never been litigated.

    Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and Maryland say that by allowing foreign officials to patronize the five-star Trump International Hotel blocks from the White House, Mr. Trump is violating the Constitution’s ban on payments from foreign governments to federal officeholders. They also claim the president is violating a related clause that restricts compensation, other than his salary, from the federal government or from state governments.

    In a two-hour hearing, attorneys for the local jurisdictions and for the Justice Department debated what the framers meant by the emoluments clauses, citing definitions of the word emolument in centuries-old dictionaries and quoting Alexander Hamilton and other founders in attempts to discern their intent.

    The Justice Department contended that the Constitution’s framers meant only to bar federal officials from providing a service to a foreign government and receiving compensation. For example, said Brett Shumate, a deputy assistant attorney general, the Constitution would prohibit Mr. Trump from signing a treaty in exchange for a financial benefit. But it allows him to profit financially from foreign diplomats who book his hotel because there is “no allegation that in exchange, he took some official action,” he said.

    Judge Messitte repeatedly challenged that interpretation, asking whether the framers meant merely to rule out outright bribery or to ward off situations that could give rise to corruption as well.

    “Is your argument that as long as the president takes the money without corrupt intent, it’s O.K.?” he asked Mr. Shumate. “It has to be an actual quid pro quo?”

    Steven M. Sullivan, the solicitor general for the state of Maryland, argued that it would be absurd if Mr. Trump were barred only from profiting for personally rendering a service to a foreign government. That “would prohibit him from accepting $5 for carrying a diplomat’s bags up to a suite at the Trump International Hotel but would permit him to receive thousands of dollars from the same foreign government” for its hotel bookings, he said.

    Mr. Shumate insisted that previous officeholders had engaged in the same type of behavior without a whiff of public controversy. For example, he said, libraries owned by foreign governments had purchased President Barack Obama’s biography, earning him royalties.

    Penny Pritzker held onto to her stock holdings in the Hyatt Hotels Corp. while she served as Mr. Obama’s commerce secretary and while foreign governments rented rooms and held conferences at Hyatt properties worldwide, he said.

    But Judge Messitte seemed unconvinced by that comparison to Ms. Pritzker. “It may well have been a violation,” he said. “I don’t know. No one challenged it.”

    The Trump Organization signed a 60-year-lease in 2013 with the federal government for the building, renovated it and reopened it as a hotel just before Mr. Trump was elected president. Since then, the plaintiffs claim, the hotel has made special efforts to drum up business from foreign governments, including appointing a head of diplomatic sales. Mr. Trump himself regularly visits.

    Judge Messitte has already ruled once in favor of the plaintiffs. In March, he rejected the Justice Department’s argument that Maryland and the District of Columbia had failed to show that they had suffered injuries.

    If he rules for the plaintiffs again next month, the case would typically move to the evidence-gathering phase, which could open up some of Mr. Trump’s financial records to public scrutiny

    But legal experts said the Justice Department is highly likely to appeal an adverse decision from Judge Messitte. The department could seek an emergency stay, arguing that the circumstances are so extraordinary that a higher court must intervene without waiting for the lower court proceedings to end, as is customary.

    The federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has another emoluments case on its docket. In February, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit organization known as CREW, appealed a decision by a federal judge in New York to dismiss a suit involving Mr. Trump’s restaurant interests. CREW is also a co-counsel in the Maryland case.

    In promising an opinion in just seven weeks, Judge Messitte appears to be acting with dispatch. As he noted during the hearing, federal judges are almost never called upon to decide a new constitutional question.

  14. To those of y'all who keep citing the fact that Lil' Kim being educated in West somehow means he wants to open his country up to globalization and negotiate in good faith with the community of nations, I can only say: Trump was also educated in the West and expresses neither of those desires. 

    • Like 1
  15. 18 hours ago, Caracara said:

    I do believe I've said I think we're demanding and will get, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization.  If we don't, I'll be here eating crow.

    Today is Tuesday - it's the day we eat the birds.

    Here, have some hot snow to go with your crow.

    hotwater-25-1480071984.jpg

    • Haha 1
  16. I'm wondering if Trump will sign a peace treaty with him. We are, technically, still at war with North Korea after all. The rationale for signing it, of course, would be that if we're at peace, they no longer need nukes and we don't need troops in the South.

    So, for his part, Kim agrees to...denuke? I sure as fuck hope so, but I'm not holding my breath.

  17. 3 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

    Is it wrong to assume that the middle and upper class are going to have to pay while lower class will not? Some of the lower class do not even pay taxes now and even get money back because of the tax credits. So it's not a straight division of spending and population, unless you propose that everyone pay the same amount regardless of income.

    "Lower classes" pay taxes today: payroll, social security, property, and sales. Sure, there's a bunch who get income tax refunds, but they do pay in many other ways. Moreover, there are studies showing that the inequities in the above taxing schemes mean that the poors spend a larger percentage of their take home in total taxes than the uber-rich who might have higher income tax rates but pay less (after tons of deductions).

    If you're a flat-taxer, then I understand where you're coming from. I, however, am not. Progressive tax rates are based on two principles: 1) the ability to pay and 2) the "upper classes" have benefitted the most from our system. In both cases, the rationale is that they should pay more into the system.

    • Like 1
  18. 38 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

    Dumb question amnesty: How much extra would each person be taxed to pay for single-payer healthcare? 

    It's pretty easy to figure the cost per capita if you just go by total healthcare spending divided by population. Without looking anything up, we know the US spends (direct payments + taxes) about twice the share of its GDP on healthcare than most comparable nations, who all happen to have "socialized medicine", and who all have better outcomes (measured by longevity) than the US.

  19. 1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

    Actually, plenty of studies show that guys with small dicks tend to seek out short women or dwarves, in the mistaken belief that it makes them look bigger than they really are.

     

    Wait a goshdarn second! Are you telling me my friend that doesn't work?

  20. 1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:


    Also...fake news. It’s a shadow on a shitty video.

    Trump’s a fake president. Let’s worry about that.

    Did he post that stupid fucking Trudeau eyebrow thing again?

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...