All Things POLITICS v2

[thebuzzardman]

Ehr ma Gerd, your wife is BLACK? Quick, build a wall down the middle of the bed. Make her pay to build it, of course.

Well, I have to say, I thought I was pretty tolerant, but the Trump supporters here have convinced me of the error of my ways. I don't think a wall is necessary for the wife, but I am locking up all the valuables from now on, as she clearly can't be trusted. I also remove any flammables from the house whenever we watch the news, because I don't want her to catch any rioting fever and firebomb me and sh*t. However, regarding the wall, I now insist that the nice Latino ladies who come clean the house every two weeks do so ensconced in a movable barrier. I don't think they mind, because they have given me a new nickname. Does anyone know what Bendejo means? I think it's a term of affection because they say it all the time now. I mean, it must be, because I'm not charging them for their personal walls.

This is wonderful - you're finally getting with the program. Expect a personally signed thank you from Ann Coulter in the mail shortly. Also, a chance to win a free prize of one can of lysol, to help clean up the germs left by any rapists or drug dealers you may have let into your house. You are now and A#1 American. BTW, could I interest you in a semiautomatic weapon, cheap? I can get you a great deal on the Breitbart site.

Hey, thanks! I don't know where my head was at all these years. There's no telling what sort of negroes were in my house. On a side note, I've let my wife know she can stay on as a house slave, and we can live it up all Tom Jefferson Sally Hemmings style.

Already have my assault rifle coming from GunsRUs though, thanks.

[thebuzzardman]

Hmm, maybe I should ease up before someone w/o a sense of humor bans me. Well, if that happens, looks for a new member "Uzardman"

[CJackson]

Ehr ma Gerd, your wife is BLACK? Quick, build a wall down the middle of the bed. Make her pay to build it, of course.

Well, I have to say, I thought I was pretty tolerant, but the Trump supporters here have convinced me of the error of my ways. I don't think a wall is necessary for the wife, but I am locking up all the valuables from now on, as she clearly can't be trusted. I also remove any flammables from the house whenever we watch the news, because I don't want her to catch any rioting fever and firebomb me and sh*t. However, regarding the wall, I now insist that the nice Latino ladies who come clean the house every two weeks do so ensconced in a movable barrier. I don't think they mind, because they have given me a new nickname. Does anyone know what Bendejo means? I think it's a term of affection because they say it all the time now. I mean, it must be, because I'm not charging them for their personal walls.

This is wonderful - you're finally getting with the program. Expect a personally signed thank you from Ann Coulter in the mail shortly. Also, a chance to win a free prize of one can of lysol, to help clean up the germs left by any rapists or drug dealers you may have let into your house. You are now and A#1 American. BTW, could I interest you in a semiautomatic weapon, cheap? I can get you a great deal on the Breitbart site.

Will you fellas leave Lysol out of this please?

He's doing his part for inter-racial harmony

[CJackson]

Hmm, maybe I should ease up before someone w/o a sense of humor bans me. Well, if that happens, looks for a new member "Uzardman"

I would go with "The Pink Turtle"

[BKlutch]

Well, I have to say, I thought I was pretty tolerant, but the Trump supporters here have convinced me of the error of my ways. I don't think a wall is necessary for the wife, but I am locking up all the valuables from now on, as she clearly can't be trusted. I also remove any flammables from the house whenever we watch the news, because I don't want her to catch any rioting fever and firebomb me and sh*t. However, regarding the wall, I now insist that the nice Latino ladies who come clean the house every two weeks do so ensconced in a movable barrier. I don't think they mind, because they have given me a new nickname. Does anyone know what Bendejo means? I think it's a term of affection because they say it all the time now. I mean, it must be, because I'm not charging them for their personal walls.

This is wonderful - you're finally getting with the program. Expect a personally signed thank you from Ann Coulter in the mail shortly. Also, a chance to win a free prize of one can of lysol, to help clean up the germs left by any rapists or drug dealers you may have let into your house. You are now and A#1 American. BTW, could I interest you in a semiautomatic weapon, cheap? I can get you a great deal on the Breitbart site.

Hey, thanks! I don't know where my head was at all these years. There's no telling what sort of negroes were in my house. On a side note, I've let my wife know she can stay on as a house slave, and we can live it up all Tom Jefferson Sally Hemmings style.

Already have my assault rifle coming from GunsRUs though, thanks.

You're welcome, citizen. Also don't forget -- you need to make the wall even higher, because black people are, you know, even darker than Mexicans. So a higher wall will keep out more of that darkness. But don't forget - Bill O'Reilly says it's ok to still feed her well, just like the did when those slaves volunteered to build the White House for free, and of course, Sally Hemmings.

The only thing I can't understand is -- my first wife was white, and it was a disaster. My wife now isn't, and we're really happy. How could that be?

[Rasho Brezec]

There's that false equivalence again. There is a distinction between randomly aggressive supporters of a campaign and a campaign where the head is using a dog whistle to foment hate against his opponents. If you don't see that here, again, I don't know what to tell you.

And yet the randomly aggresive supporters are the ones actually using violence.

I guess once you convince yourself that words are same as fists, anything goes. Luckily, not everyone is that deluded.

[thebuzzardman]

This is wonderful - you're finally getting with the program. Expect a personally signed thank you from Ann Coulter in the mail shortly. Also, a chance to win a free prize of one can of lysol, to help clean up the germs left by any rapists or drug dealers you may have let into your house. You are now and A#1 American. BTW, could I interest you in a semiautomatic weapon, cheap? I can get you a great deal on the Breitbart site.

Hey, thanks! I don't know where my head was at all these years. There's no telling what sort of negroes were in my house. On a side note, I've let my wife know she can stay on as a house slave, and we can live it up all Tom Jefferson Sally Hemmings style.

Already have my assault rifle coming from GunsRUs though, thanks.

You're welcome, citizen. Also don't forget -- you need to make the wall even higher, because black people are, you know, even darker than Mexicans. So a higher wall will keep out more of that darkness. But don't forget - Bill O'Reilly says it's ok to still feed her well, just like the did when those slaves volunteered to build the White House for free, and of course, Sally Hemmings.

The only thing I can't understand is -- my first wife was white, and it was a disaster. My wife now isn't, and we're really happy. How could that be?

I don't know, minus marriage I've had similar experiences. Perhaps it is their lawless nature.

[CJackson]

There's that false equivalence again. There is a distinction between randomly aggressive supporters of a campaign and a campaign where the head is using a dog whistle to foment hate against his opponents. If you don't see that here, again, I don't know what to tell you.

And yet the randomly aggresive supporters are the ones actually using violence.

I guess once you convince yourself that words are same as fists, anything goes. Luckily, not everyone is that deluded.

Here you go again with your faulty aspersions. Does anybody here condone physically attacking supporters of an opposition candidate?

NO.

Nobody said every Trump supporter knowingly wants a fascist regime even if Nazis and skinheads at Trump rallies are shadowing reporters, taking notes and photos while they stare them down and generally imposing a climate a fear inside the rally itself.

What individuals do independently does not conflate into proof anything. But the implications are different when that activity is facilitated by the campaign.

The only conclusive information about the candidates themselves thus far is what they allow or condone to happen within their own rallies.

I am not aware of Clinton forbidding members of the press from attending like Trump or the press being intimidated with the implied threat they will be hunted down and perhaps killed by Trump supporters who are completely allowed to behave like that.

You love to make it sound like bad behavior by individuals is the litmus test when the real criteria is what activity the campaigns themselves are facilitating.

When you have a campaign like Trump's that fosters hatreds then you can expect some will react with equal amounts of hatred.

One does not justify the other. But only one campaign is seeding this behavior.

[AndroidMan]

Russia's interests in Syria aren't ours. We both may not like/want ISIS, but they want to restore Assad, while we want to topple him.

We're involved in destabilization of Syria and regime change, as you pretty much highlight by stating "we want to topple him.". Russia is promoting that Syria and Syrians have the right to self determination. We should not be in Syria, or any other country, for that matter providing arms to rebel factions and engaging in human death, where the final goal is regime change. Obama and Clinton escalated the mess in Syira and provided ISIS with arms.

Pretty selective views of US policies the last, oh, 70 years or so. It's only bad when Democrats you don't like do it? The Russians are the good guys here (not saying the US is either). Are you one of those paid Putin trolls?

Not selective whatsoever, and I'm not partisan in any way. US foreign policy has been ridiculous for decades in their efforts towards destabilization and regime change. If it makes you feel better, Obama and Clinton are just as guilty as those before them. I'm not promoting the Russians here on their virtue either. Just saying, the Russians are not the ones causing destabilization and death, but are allowing the right for self determination, something I believe all Americans inherently agree with. It's unfortunate that this administration and those before it, have failed to take this course.

[CJackson]

Donald Trump is the New Face of White Supremacy

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/28/donald-trump-is-the-new-face-of-white-supremacy/

I'm waiting for the chants of White Power at a Clinton rally so the false equivalence gang finally gets the opportunity to present an actual true equivalence whereby Clinton fails to disown such behavior.

Until then, the only candidate who is facilitating White Supremacy at their rallies is Trump.

And before anybody says Trump is not the one chanting White Power, then Trump can step up and ask that people not engage in such behavior at his rallies, but he never does.

Trump knows who is buttering his bread and he won't piss off the extreme racists and risk losing their votes.

Again, anyone who is so completely lame as to suggest Trump is not a racist and is not pursuing outright Nazis really doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

I'm not saying you are not entitled to express yourself. Nobody is shutting you down. But going back half a year now when the clown bus arrived to protest against accusations of Trump's racism there has never been any reason to take such nonsense seriously.

The man is promoting a new breed of politically legitimized hate activity and to condone that is cowardice. You are condoning it when you trot out more examples of bad behavior by citizens reacting to Trump, because that is a failure to directly address the issue.

All Americans should be united against this disgusting hate mongering by Trump. If you can't vote for Clinton, then vote for an independent, but you have a lot of balls to suggest Trump is not doing this.

And if you are not an American with a vote stop pretending you are unbiased when you protest that Trump is not a racist pushing a dangerous agenda.

Making BS counter-arguments by pointing to bad behavior of people reacting to Trump is really childish.

Clinton is not race baiting, only Trump is so spare us the attacks on Clinton every time somebody rightfully points out the fear based tactics Trump is promoting.

All the yakking about libs shutting down conversation is BS. The problem is a continual inability to deal with each precise point.

When talking about Trump's racism, the issue is not Clinton's possible racism.

If you want to talk about Clinton, go ahead, but that does not validate Trump or vice versa. This is Debate 101.

When talking about Trump's racism, a rebuttal that Trump supporters were attacked is not conversation or debate. It is deflection. Proving that some are intolerant of others and physically act on it does not in the least address THE CANDIDATES OWN BEHAVIOR.

Stick to the subject and stop deflecting.

You are entltled to dislike Clinton even more if you choose, but don't pretend you have a leg to stand on regarding Trump's racism fueled agenda if you choose not to acknowledge its existence by using deflection tactics. It is cowardly.

Hating Clinton is no excuse to deny Trump's racist campaign tactics.

Therefore, responding to discussions of Trump's racism by NOT dealing specifically with the TRUMP CAMPAIGN'S ACTIONS means you either want to protect Trump from just accusations or your hatred of Clinton justifies your denials of Trump's actions.

[CJackson]

We're involved in destabilization of Syria and regime change, as you pretty much highlight by stating "we want to topple him.". Russia is promoting that Syria and Syrians have the right to self determination. We should not be in Syria, or any other country, for that matter providing arms to rebel factions and engaging in human death, where the final goal is regime change. Obama and Clinton escalated the mess in Syira and provided ISIS with arms.

Pretty selective views of US policies the last, oh, 70 years or so. It's only bad when Democrats you don't like do it? The Russians are the good guys here (not saying the US is either). Are you one of those paid Putin trolls?

Not selective whatsoever, and I'm not partisan in any way. US foreign policy has been ridiculous for decades in their efforts towards destabilization and regime change. If it makes you feel better, Obama and Clinton are just as guilty as those before them. I'm not promoting the Russians here on their virtue either. Just saying, the Russians are not the ones causing destabilization and death, but are allowing the right for self determination, something I believe all Americans inherently agree with. It's unfortunate that this administration and those before it, have failed to take this course.

So you are saying Russia is a superior example of democracy in action compared to the U.S.?

[AndroidMan]

Pretty selective views of US policies the last, oh, 70 years or so. It's only bad when Democrats you don't like do it? The Russians are the good guys here (not saying the US is either). Are you one of those paid Putin trolls?

Not selective whatsoever, and I'm not partisan in any way. US foreign policy has been ridiculous for decades in their efforts towards destabilization and regime change. If it makes you feel better, Obama and Clinton are just as guilty as those before them. I'm not promoting the Russians here on their virtue either. Just saying, the Russians are not the ones causing destabilization and death, but are allowing the right for self determination, something I believe all Americans inherently agree with. It's unfortunate that this administration and those before it, have failed to take this course.

So you are saying Russia is a superior example of democracy in action compared to the U.S.?

No, it's not a blanket statement of support, nor was my statement's scope that broad. I'm stating that in the specific instance I mentioned, it appears Russia is doing a better job of allowing a countries citizenry the right to self-determination.

[CJackson]

Not selective whatsoever, and I'm not partisan in any way. US foreign policy has been ridiculous for decades in their efforts towards destabilization and regime change. If it makes you feel better, Obama and Clinton are just as guilty as those before them. I'm not promoting the Russians here on their virtue either. Just saying, the Russians are not the ones causing destabilization and death, but are allowing the right for self determination, something I believe all Americans inherently agree with. It's unfortunate that this administration and those before it, have failed to take this course.

So you are saying Russia is a superior example of democracy in action compared to the U.S.?

No, it's not a blanket statement of support, nor was my statement's scope that broad. I'm stating that in the specific instance I mentioned, it appears Russia is doing a better job of allowing a countries citizenry the right to self-determination.

What instance? I went back to find what you are referring to and I cannot find any instance cited by you of Russia's superior support of their citizen's right to self-determination.

[thebuzzardman]

Not selective whatsoever, and I'm not partisan in any way. US foreign policy has been ridiculous for decades in their efforts towards destabilization and regime change. If it makes you feel better, Obama and Clinton are just as guilty as those before them. I'm not promoting the Russians here on their virtue either. Just saying, the Russians are not the ones causing destabilization and death, but are allowing the right for self determination, something I believe all Americans inherently agree with. It's unfortunate that this administration and those before it, have failed to take this course.

So you are saying Russia is a superior example of democracy in action compared to the U.S.?

No, it's not a blanket statement of support, nor was my statement's scope that broad. I'm stating that in the specific instance I mentioned, it appears Russia is doing a better job of allowing a countries citizenry the right to self-determination.

I see both countries trying to back a horse and maintain strength in a region with not much concern for the citizenry in either case. I

[AndroidMan]

So you are saying Russia is a superior example of democracy in action compared to the U.S.?

No, it's not a blanket statement of support, nor was my statement's scope that broad. I'm stating that in the specific instance I mentioned, it appears Russia is doing a better job of allowing a countries citizenry the right to self-determination.

I see both countries trying to back a horse and maintain strength in a region with not much concern for the citizenry in either case. I

I see a dispute created by Hillary and Obama when they started shipping arms into Syria in efforts of destabilization and regime change. The Russian support came afterwards, once it was painfully obvious the US wasn't interested in toppling ISIS, but taking Assad out of power. The Americans have no right to decide who should lead any country, but their own. We should allow the people of that country that inherent and sovereign right.

[BKlutch]

We're involved in destabilization of Syria and regime change, as you pretty much highlight by stating "we want to topple him.". Russia is promoting that Syria and Syrians have the right to self determination. We should not be in Syria, or any other country, for that matter providing arms to rebel factions and engaging in human death, where the final goal is regime change. Obama and Clinton escalated the mess in Syira and provided ISIS with arms.

Pretty selective views of US policies the last, oh, 70 years or so. It's only bad when Democrats you don't like do it? The Russians are the good guys here (not saying the US is either). Are you one of those paid Putin trolls?

Not selective whatsoever, and I'm not partisan in any way. US foreign policy has been ridiculous for decades in their efforts towards destabilization and regime change. If it makes you feel better, Obama and Clinton are just as guilty as those before them. I'm not promoting the Russians here on their virtue either. Just saying, the Russians are not the ones causing destabilization and death, but are allowing the right for self determination, something I believe all Americans inherently agree with. It's unfortunate that this administration and those before it, have failed to take this course.

Your comments are batshyt crazy. The Russians are flying out of Iranian airbases to bomb anti-Assad forces in Syrai and attack the Kurds, or allies. Ask the Latvians and the Lithuanians (or, for that matter, the people of all the liberated former Soviet possessions) if they EVERY wanted to be conquered by the USSR. See today's article in the NY Times that describes how Putin disposes of his adversaries with a whole array of sophisticated, hard to detect, deadly poisons. Ask yourself how many countries we've taken over after fighting wars? Germany? Japan? Korea? Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan?

Your comments are not only insane but an affront to decent people everywhere. I'm ashamed that you would write these things on our board. If you don't mean what you write, but say it only for the effect, you should be banned. If you mean what you say, God help you.

[CJackson]

No, it's not a blanket statement of support, nor was my statement's scope that broad. I'm stating that in the specific instance I mentioned, it appears Russia is doing a better job of allowing a countries citizenry the right to self-determination.

I see both countries trying to back a horse and maintain strength in a region with not much concern for the citizenry in either case. I

I see a dispute created by Hillary and Obama when they started shipping arms into Syria in efforts of destabilization and regime change. The Russian support came afterwards, once it was painfully obvious the US wasn't interested in toppling ISIS, but taking Assad out of power. The Americans have no right to decide who should lead any country, but their own. We should allow the people of that country that inherent and sovereign right.

And Russia's takeover of Crimea was respectful of the right to self-determination by the free country of the Ukraine?

If you have a particular axe to grind with American foreign policy, then deal with that, but the broad strokes you were making to infer Russia's respect for self-determination is superior is really sloppy.

[GONYK]

yeah last thing this country is need some diplomacy with the MuslI'm world...

Why is the Royal House of Clinton being funded by dirty Saudi money called diplomacy, but Trump saying he could work with Putin gets treated like an act of treason?

this group doesn't want to deal with this question. They haven't been told how to answer that yet. Childish pics and responses will be the answer.


The type of people who are capable of thinking for themselves are scared **** of this nwo puppet. This election should be about this country (which would also mean this world).

Interesting response from someone who has basically been quoting Alex Jones verbatim

[AndroidMan]

I see both countries trying to back a horse and maintain strength in a region with not much concern for the citizenry in either case. I

I see a dispute created by Hillary and Obama when they started shipping arms into Syria in efforts of destabilization and regime change. The Russian support came afterwards, once it was painfully obvious the US wasn't interested in toppling ISIS, but taking Assad out of power. The Americans have no right to decide who should lead any country, but their own. We should allow the people of that country that inherent and sovereign right.

And Russia's takeover of Crimea was respectful of the right to self-determination by the free country of the Ukraine?

If you have a particular axe to grind with American foreign policy, then deal with that, but the broad strokes you were making to infer Russia's respect for self-determination is superior is really sloppy.

No, my reference was to a specific instance. You keep trying to expand my statement to fill a broader spectrum.

As far as Crimea, since you referenced it, it appears the Crimeans are supportive of the Russians.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-after-russia-annexed-crimea-locals-prefer-moscow-to-kiev/#1949e4475951

In June 2014, a Gallup poll with the Broadcasting Board of Governors asked Crimeans if the results in the March 16, 2014 referendum to secede reflected the views of the people. A total of 82.8% of Crimeans said yes. When broken down by ethnicity, 93.6% of ethnic Russians said they believed the vote to secede was legitimate, while 68.4% of Ukrainians felt so. Moreover, when asked if joining Russia will ultimately make life better for them and their family, 73.9% said yes while 5.5% said no.

In February 2015, a poll by German polling firm GfK revealed that attitudes have not changed. When asked “Do you endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea?”, a total of 82% of the respondents answered “yes, definitely,” and another 11% answered “yes, for the most part.” Only 2% said they didn’t know, and another 2% said no. Three percent did not specify their position.

With two studies out of the way, both Western-based, it seems without question that the vast majority of Crimeans do not feel they were duped into voting for annexation, and that life with Russia will be better for them and their families than life with Ukraine. A year ago this week, 83% of Crimeans went to the polling stations and almost 97% expressed support for reunification with their former Soviet parent. The majority of people living on the peninsula are ethnic Russians.

[CJackson]

I see a dispute created by Hillary and Obama when they started shipping arms into Syria in efforts of destabilization and regime change. The Russian support came afterwards, once it was painfully obvious the US wasn't interested in toppling ISIS, but taking Assad out of power. The Americans have no right to decide who should lead any country, but their own. We should allow the people of that country that inherent and sovereign right.

And Russia's takeover of Crimea was respectful of the right to self-determination by the free country of the Ukraine?

If you have a particular axe to grind with American foreign policy, then deal with that, but the broad strokes you were making to infer Russia's respect for self-determination is superior is really sloppy.

No, my reference was to a specific instance. You keep trying to expand my statement to fill a broader spectrum.

As far as Crimea, since you referenced it, it appears the Crimeans are supportive of the Russians.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-after-russia-annexed-crimea-locals-prefer-moscow-to-kiev/#1949e4475951

In June 2014, a Gallup poll with the Broadcasting Board of Governors asked Crimeans if the results in the March 16, 2014 referendum to secede reflected the views of the people. A total of 82.8% of Crimeans said yes. When broken down by ethnicity, 93.6% of ethnic Russians said they believed the vote to secede was legitimate, while 68.4% of Ukrainians felt so. Moreover, when asked if joining Russia will ultimately make life better for them and their family, 73.9% said yes while 5.5% said no.

In February 2015, a poll by German polling firm GfK revealed that attitudes have not changed. When asked “Do you endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea?”, a total of 82% of the respondents answered “yes, definitely,” and another 11% answered “yes, for the most part.” Only 2% said they didn’t know, and another 2% said no. Three percent did not specify their position.

With two studies out of the way, both Western-based, it seems without question that the vast majority of Crimeans do not feel they were duped into voting for annexation, and that life with Russia will be better for them and their families than life with Ukraine. A year ago this week, 83% of Crimeans went to the polling stations and almost 97% expressed support for reunification with their former Soviet parent. The majority of people living on the peninsula are ethnic Russians.

WTF?

The majority of Crimea is well known to have Russians who are sympathetic to Putin.

So quoting a poll justifies annexing a portion of the Ukraine to Russia?

Estonia has a very large amount of Russians (about a quarter of the population), some of who are from an older generation and feel more Russian than Estonian. Some of them have never bothered to learn Estonian and choose to cloister themselves into Russian enclaves.

If 25% of Estonians wanted to be annexed by Russia, how does that have more or less validity than quoting some poll of Russians who were Urkrainian citizens?

It doesn't.

If they want to live in Russia, then they can go live there.

What a rubbish concept that you would come back with this kind of justification.

The Ukraine was fuqqing invaded! And you justify it out of one corner of your mouth while pursuing another argument about Russia supporting self-determination. Dude you are completely FOS.

You post exactly like one of the drones from the Russian propaganda internet mills.