ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

鬼殺し wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

Except that it does not mention that the ones paying for the wall would be the population. I'm willing to bet many of those that vote yes, would vote no if they had to pay for it.

edit: it's also a ridiculously small sample size for something that affect 325~ millions.

Let it go. He's really talking out of his arse with this one.

Even IF 40% of US citizens support the wall, and the other 60% consider that wall 'racist' (big fucking what-ifs here, ridiculously hyperbolic shit), that doesn't then lead to that 60% thinking the other 40% are automatically racist. There are steps of thought between the two. And even if it does, the term 'racist' itself is broad enough to accommodate anything from the Grand Dragon of the KKK to my slightly crazy Aunt over in Western Australia who gets twitchy any time someone says 'halal'.

The sample size is plenty. Almost 2000 people polled. Sampling method might still be an issue, but that'd be true even with a larger sample.

By the way, if you didn't catch it earlier, my answer to that poll would be "not too important a priority." So I think it's safe to say that just over half of US residents feel about the same about the Wall as I do, or want it more than I do. You're right in saying it IS NOT 60% of the US who opposes the Wall.

The number of people who are willing to kill people for the thoughtcrime of racism is certainly less than 32% of the US, and probably not even half that. But it is astonishing that such opinions can be voiced on mainstream media or even posted on this thread without significant backlash. I think it is fair to say a majority of people are unwilling to call out that tiny percent when they see it; I think that part of the reason for that is that broadly people are losing sight of the distinction between ridicule and censorship, conflating the two as part of a single process of mob deplatforming. We need to go back to where it's okay to be a mentally damaged piece of shit on the Internet, and also okay to point such things out, and nobody loses any rights over it.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

you've just closed your eyes and stepped right off the cliff.

Interesting how this is precisely what I was warning you against when it comes to taking WaPo's conspiracy theories seriously, yet I am in no way so offended by your position that I'd refuse to talk with you.

I'm willing to bet that if the question was "Would you support a part of your taxes to fund Trump's wall project", 60% or more would be against it, with maybe 10% that would be neutral or do not know.

If the question would be "would you support a tax raise to fund Trump's wall project" There would be 80% or more that would be against it.


If the question would be "If Mexico footed the bill entirely, would you support Trump's Wall project", THEN I'd agree that there would be 40%~ that would agree with it with a good 10-15% neutral opinions.

"

faerwin wrote:

If the question would be "If Mexico footed the bill entirely, would you support Trump's Wall project", THEN I'd agree that there would be 40%~ that would agree with it with a good 10-15% neutral opinions.

faerwin, the text was clear. When asked "how much of a priority should" "constructing a wall along the US/Mexico border" "be for Congress," 24% of respondents said it was top priority, and another 18% said it was an important priority but not a top priority. That's 42%. It says nothing in the question about Mexico paying for the wall, and it's not even asking how much of a priority it should be for Trump, but for Congress. And if you add in the category of "not too important a priority," you get 53% of respondents not opposed to the Wall versus 32% opposed. Americans who are okay with building the wall outnumber Americans who aren't at about a 5:3 ratio, or 4:1:3 if you want to separate out people like me who believe it isn't a big deal either way.

Being antiwall is the unpopular opinion, not the popular one. (And that's despite — or perhaps because of — relentless negative press.) Why do you think Trump ran on it? Are you also part of the conspiracy theory club who thinks Trump won because of Putin, or do you take the more reasonable position that Trump picked winning issues? It USED to be a Democrat issue, but you fumbled it and he scooped it up.

Ultimately, if you're antiwall, you're currently losing, and Trump is putting huge pressure on you, and your side is set to crumble on the shutdown before Trump is. If you don't want to believe this, reality doesn't care about your feelings and you will lose. The only chance the antiwall folks have is to convince the people like me, who aren't really buying what Trump is selling here, that it'd actually be a bad idea to just give the majority of Americans what they want, and to convince us of that quickly — and the polar opposite of successful persuasion is saying that an inanimate structure of metal is racist.

From where I'm reading, it's 56% against, 35% for it, with 5% who don't know.

The text isn't clear in who's funding it, which is a very important thing in this situation.

I wouldn't be surprised if a good deal of those that support the wall do so because they think Mexico is gonna pay for it, which those against it think it's gonna be the US population that will have to fund it (via taxes).

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I don't want to ruin your fun, but I hope you understand that the article is only "journalism" in the same sense that Alex Jones' InfoWars is journalism. You mean that two powerful people had a conversation and we don't have a full transcript? Outrageous! We should immediately assume the worst and presume they were illegally conspiring against active US government investigations! Note that this description applies both to Trump/Putin and to Clinton/Lynch. There's no solid evidence of any illegal activity in that article, just waxing conspiratorial and supporting the twin neocon military-industrial-complex agendas of endless war in the Middle East and Cold War 2.0 fearmongering to keep NATO on life support.

But hey, I get it. I've been on an InfoWars kick before. It's fun in a way. Enjoy.

The issue is not so much the private conversation, the issue is Trump confiscating the translator's notes and ordering her not talk about what has been discussed.

In and of itself this might not be much of an issue at all. But then there are Trump's lies regarding his Moscow project, his extemelely friendly - almost servile - attitude towards Putin, his history regarding Russian money, his hiring of Manafort et al., his son's reaction of "I love it" when offered dirt on Hillary by Russian government officials, his stepson's attempts to create a "backchannel" with the Russian government that bypasses US inteligence, his firing of Comey because of that "Russia thing", his firing of Sessions because Sessions' recusal from the Trump-Russia investigation, and not least of all the lies told by many in his campaign team regarding meetings with Russian officials (and quite a few more oddities and coincidences and actions taken that aim at or end up benefitting Putin/Russia).

The problem with equating Alex Jones type of conspiracy theories with WaPo's speculations regarding Trump and Russia is that Alex Jones' delusions usually can be disproven by facts. His conspiracy theories are built upon lies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, misinteprertations, assumptions, etc. His MO is: If the facts don't fit my narrative, the facts are wrong.
This is not the case when it comes to the Trump-Russia "conspiracy theory". It is based on facts, and people just connect the dots. No facts are being ignored, or called lies and fabrications.

I think anybody who follows this whole debacle should be able to realize that.

No no no. Jeff Sessions wasn't fired, He was "ordered" to resign.


"Dear Mr. President,

At your request, I am submitting my resignation. "

"

鬼殺し wrote:

"

Anonymous1749704 wrote:

Trump made a lot of money so he must be smart.

Soulja Boy has made a lot of money so he must be smart.


Good luck getting out of that one, Trumpets. Hahaha.

I was reading up on this actually. Trump is still considered a successful businessman by most accounts but most of those accounts do acknowledge his multiple bankruptcies as 'part of business'. Which, again, is fine if you've got certain fallbacks but is a terrible way to approach running a country. Even were he far more intelligent, say a Musk or a Branson, he still wouldn't be anywhere near equipped enough to run a country (which is probably why the Musks and Bransons of the world don't try for it, but a hype-monster braggart convinced of his own fabricated image like Trump just couldn't resist).

There was a time when it was probably okay for a businessman to be President or Prime Minister, but the machinery of government is so complicated now and so far removed from the idea of 'profit' (see my previous article) that there really should be some sort of check to prevent a mogul or magnate from sliding into the big chair simply because they're really, really rich (or appear to be). If there's one position that shouldn't be purchasable by the inexperienced, surely it's that of a country's head of state.

Bush/Obama were both horrible Presidents. Bush had experience, and was still horrible, Obama had almost no experience, and was horrible.

Every once in a while you get a good President, Like Reagan, but most Presidents are horrible.

"

Jojas wrote:

The issue is not so much the private conversation,

Bullshit. From the article:

"

“It’s been several months since Helsinki and we still don’t know what went on in that meeting,” Engel said. “It’s appalling. It just makes you want to scratch your head.”

"

Jojas wrote:

the issue is Trump confiscating the translator's notes and ordering her not talk about what has been discussed.

From the article:

"

on at least one occasion

So, once, that they know of.

"

taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter

So, he took the notes. Why? Unknown. It doesn't say "confiscated," perhaps (or perhaps not) because that would be libel; the writers are counting on you to fill in the blanks by assuming the worst.

"

and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials,

So, the meeting between Trump and Putin involved classified information. While I was in the US Army I was often reminded by supervisors not to discuss information with soldiers who didn't have clearance AND a need to know. WaPo is trying to scare you with the most basic principles of OPSEC like they're something sinister.

And even then, we have people like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden who leaked classified information when they thought doing what was right wasn't the same as what was legal. In today's media climate, do you believe for a moment that someone would hesitate to do so if they had powerful evidence of corruption? Even nothingburgers get outed by the likes of Reality Winner.

"

Jojas wrote:

his extemelely friendly - almost servile - attitude towards Putin

What are you basing that opinion on? Most of the time I hear it, it's from Syria hawks who want continued fighting in the region and the forced overthrow of Bashar al-Assad.

"

Jojas wrote:

his son's reaction of "I love it" when offered dirt on Hillary by Russian government officials,

Why wouldn't he love dirt on Hilary? Offer ended up being fake anyway.

"

Jojas wrote:

his firing of Comey because of that "Russia thing",

Comey was richly deserving of firing for reasons unrelated to Russia. You're saying her that you disbelieve the official, published rationale for his dismissal.

"

Jojas wrote:

his firing of Sessions because Sessions' recusal from the Trump-Russia investigation,

Ditto here.

"

Jojas wrote:

The problem with equating Alex Jones type of conspiracy theories with WaPo's speculations regarding Trump and Russia is that Alex Jones' delusions usually can be disproven by facts. His conspiracy theories are built upon lies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, misinteprertations, assumptions, etc. His MO is: If the facts don't fit my narrative, the facts are wrong.
This is not the case when it comes to the Trump-Russia "conspiracy theory". It is based on facts, and people just connect the dots. No facts are being ignored, or called lies and fabrications.

I think anybody who follows this whole debacle should be able to realize that.

I don't think you fully understand what you mean by "it is based on facts, and people just connect the dots." That isn't an unfair characterization of the Alex Jones type: he starts with facts — maybe not all that many facts, but you must realize not everything such a person believes is false — and then fills in the gaps with raw speculation. There are facts you are ignoring, facts that do not contradict the facts you use as the basis of your conspiracy theory (obviously) but that disagree with the constellation you imagine that draws those dots together.

Now I'm not saying I don't connect dots too. But I understand that the dots, and the dots alone, are the facts, and that my constellations, the narratives in my head to explain these facts, are not proven. As the beginning of this post demonstrates, the facts in the WaPo article are rather mundane and possibly explained by much less sinister goings-on.