All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Republicans, conservatives, right wingers and other like minded scumbags excel at twisting words from the Bible to suit their revolting ends, not to mention justifying their bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia and misogyny. Even worse are the evangelicals who have openly flaunted their hypocrisy to fit their own vulgar agenda, that being to support Trump and his abhorrent policies. That the holy rollers are fully in bed with a shitstain demagogue who’s broken at least half the Ten Commandments says plenty about how they sold their collective souls for a taste of power while ignoring the people, just like the craven and cowardly Republicans in Congress who figuratively set fire to the Constitution with their own disgusting actions.

[Kevinroc]

Ohhhhhhhh that's awkward

Tell me where in this video she says that these children should be held hostage in concentration camps?

[BeastieRunner]

Play this while you read the article.

Trump Lawyer Rudy Giuliani: Mueller Investigation Could Be 'Cleaned Up' With Pardons.

Send in the pardons ...

[numberthirty]

Tell me where in this video she says that these children should be held hostage in concentration camps?

Here's a question...

Do you think endorsing that approach back then makes it "More" or "Less" likely that policy winds up where it is today?

[numberthirty]

Play this while you read the article.

Trump Lawyer Rudy Giuliani: Mueller Investigation Could Be 'Cleaned Up' With Pardons.

Send in the pardons ...

Rudy is still going for "MVP".

As much as they joke about Trump never sleeping, I actually think that is more like Rudy.

[Kevinroc]

Here's a question...

Do you think endorsing that approach back then makes it "More" or "Less" likely that policy winds up where it is today?

I think it's irrelevant in 2018. Hillary Clinton is not the President. Hillary Clinton is not setting policy. And it annoys me seeing how much of this conversation is still dominated by Hillary Clinton when we have the government throwing kids into concentration camps in our name, when we have the government trying to strip millions of people of their health insurance, when our leaders push away the countries that are supposed to be our allies and praise those who are supposed to be our enemies.

[TheInvisibleMan]

the administration wants to build a 5,000 capacity "facility" for immigrant children

thats a concentration camp

what happens when these kids and babies with health issues start getting sick and dying?

[numberthirty]

I think it's irrelevant in 2018. Hillary Clinton is not the President. Hillary Clinton is not setting policy. And it annoys me seeing how much of this conversation is still dominated by Hillary Clinton when we have the government throwing kids into concentration camps in our name, when we have the government trying to strip millions of people of their health insurance, when our leaders push away the countries that are supposed to be our allies and praise those who are supposed to be our enemies.

You're certainly entitled to.

That said, I don't believe that saying something that was on the "They Will Have To Go/We Have To Try To Create A Disincentive To Trying To Cross The Border" wavelength make it less likely that we would wind up where we are today.

- Why would folks who are sympathetic to those immigrant's plight race to the voting booth for someone who was saying what she was there?

Which is not to try to say that what's going on now is "Right". Just saying that there was, at best, a potential solution for a distant future in what she said. Not a realistic look at that there needs to be a rational approach to dealing with the reality of things sooner and not later.

As for "Dominated By Hillary Clinton...", who else was in the picture that could have provided a stark alternative for voters to get behind? Seeing that an whole different approach is what needs to happen going forward is just reality. That means being honest about that it might not have been there before.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

So one of the funniest debates I have had today is a Trump supporter is steadfast that the United States isn't wanting to remove military support from South Korea. In fact she keeps telling me its military exercises only. Well I supplied articles from NY Times and Independent that shows Trump has wanted to remove the 28,000+ troops from there for 2+ years. But is repeatedly stopped from doing it. But wants to pull those troops and end military exercises.

So after this now its , "Well he didn't say now..." Like really were playing symantics over whether when he wants to pull troops ? Cause he wants to pull military support from that country. Plus this is after claiming my news articles were "UK based..." and how the left was twisting his words.


Now comically if North Korea goes back on their deal in a couple years , Trump won't be at fault. Like...uhh really ? He brokered a deal and made this huge promise.

[Kevinroc]

You're certainly entitled to.

That said, I don't believe that saying something that was on the "They Will Have To Go/We Have To Try To Create A Disincentive To Trying To Cross The Border" wavelength make it less likely that we would wind up where we are today.

- Why would folks who are sympathetic to those immigrant's plight race to the voting booth for someone who was saying what she was there?

Which is not to try to say that what's going on now is "Right". Just saying that there was, at best, a potential solution for a distant future in what she said. Not a realistic look at that there needs to be a rational approach to dealing with the reality of things sooner and not later.

As for "Dominated By Hillary Clinton...", who else was in the picture that could have provided a stark alternative for voters to get behind? Seeing that an whole different approach is what needs to happen going forward is just reality. That means being honest about that it might not have been there before.

It's not rational to fixate on Hillary Clinton to the degree that you have. She is not the President. She is not setting policy. As far as how serious she was about her suggestions? That is impossible to say. Obama originally said he wasn't for same sex marriage, and we know that was just something he said because that was where the mainstream appeal was at the time.

(For good and for ill, odds are Clinton would have continued Obama's policies on immigration. And pretty much everything else.)

But now we have Trump. And he's certainly not continuing Obama's policies. (His major policy is trying to burn everything Obama did to the ground.)

[numberthirty]

It's not rational to fixate on Hillary Clinton to the degree that you have. She is not the President. She is not setting policy. As far as how serious she was about her suggestions? That is impossible to say.

Are you seriously saying that someone who may not have even been serious about what they were saying was not less likely to win an election?

Policy on this was already an issue under President Obama. HRC seemingly didn't have much of a plan to address that. What little she did have was an issue.

That is only going to potentially cost the party support.

If you want to be in a position to set policy?

You need support. That reality reaches past Hillary Clinton into the future.

[Kevinroc]

Are you seriously saying that someone who may not have even been serious about what they were saying was not less likely to win an election?

Policy on this was already an issue under President Obama. HRC seemingly didn't have much of a plan to address that. What little she did have was an issue.

That is only going to potentially cost the party support.

If you want to be in a position to set policy?

You need support.

Again, it's irrelevant because Hillary Clinton is not President. Why is this so hard to understand? Why would you rather talk about Hillary over and over and over again, 2 years into her opponent's (1st?) term? Why are you so obsessed with her?

[numberthirty]

Again, it's irrelevant because Hillary Clinton is not President. Why is this so hard to understand? Why would you rather talk about Hillary over and over and over again, 2 years into her opponent's (1st?) term? Why are you so obsessed with her?

What you see as obsession with a person is just about who it happened to be.

That needs to be given a realistic look at what went wrong to change that going forward.

[Kevinroc]

What you see as obsession with a person is just about who it happened to be.

That needs to be given a realistic look at what went wrong to change that going forward.

Given the reaction some people have about Russia in this thread, how some people react to Comey, I don't think you're actually serious about that.

[numberthirty]

Given the reaction some people have about Russia in this thread, how some people react to Comey, I don't think you're actually serious about that.

Politely, I don't care that much about if you thing I'm actually serious.

I care about a party getting it's act together.

Hopefully, I'm just a little too wound up about that.