Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
apodino
Posts: 4092
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Thu Jan 19, 2017 1:03 am

Hillis wrote:
Dreadnought wrote:
If you saw a picture of my wife and daughter you would know that I am not a racist, and having spent over 20 years of my life overseas and visited over 60 countries, I'm hardly a xenophobe either. My wife is an immigrant, (whose had a shitty time with US Immigration authorities BTW), and I've lived in Texas so I know how screwed up our immigration system is from both perspectives.

But you (or at least the loudest mouths on the left it seems) don't seem to understand my position on anything - If I don't agree with you on all points, well that just means I'm racist, xenophobe etc. We're tired of it.


And yet you have no problem siding with a party and a man who is bigotry personified. The ideology you worship hates African-Americans, Mexicans, LGBTQ's, Muslims, and anyone else who doesn't meet their prudish standards of the GOP. So, I think DLX is correct that you're apparently not as bright as you tell us. After all, if you're so worldly, then why do you support people who would probably want to do harm to your wife and daughter?

I read today that that some head of a Neo-Nazi group here in the U.S. had to resign today because it was found out he had a Jewish wife. Even with a Jewish wife, he is more than willing to call for harm against people like his wife. So, again, I think DLX is onto something as far as you're concerned.


The posts you two have made toward each other both make me sick. You two are both hurling insults at each other and making arguments with no basis in fact what so ever. And when you stoop to insulting the other side, rather than listen to them...it prevents an actual honest dialogue from happening, it makes people less like to listen to your point of view, and it divides us further as a nation. The fact is this division has only grown in the past decade. I am not going to point fingers at anyone person on either side for making it happen, but it needs to stop period.

Do I believe the Republican party is racist? No I don't. It is a fact the republican party helped abolish slavery, got the 14th amendment ratified, and helped pass the civil rights act. Now people can claim that the parties switched roles sometime in the 60's or so, and while there is truth to that in some respects, much of this is debunked by Dinesh D'Sousa and a black lady who has a predominant role in the D'Sousa Documentary Hillary's America. (Granted its a partisan movie, but the movie uses facts and not emotion to tell its story). South Carolina reelected a Black Senator by one of the widest margins in any race period in a deep red state. Colorado voted against a Black guy for the Senate, and most of the votes against him were Democrats. Does this make these people racist? Another overlooked fact is the fact that Mike Pence will be the first public official to be sworn into office by a Black man, Clarence Thomas. The Republican Primary featured one Woman, Two Latinos, a Black Man, among others. The Democratic primary featured nothing but White people. Do I believe Donald Trump is a racist? No. Do I believe he said some racist things on the campaign trail. Absolutely he did, and this is why I did not vote for him. Even if he didn't mean his rhetoric as racist, it comes across that way, and that doesn't help us, and he hasn't learned anything since getting elected.

The Democrats aren't blameless either. The biggest problem in the democratic party is a diversity of ideas. If you don't tow the party line, the liberal base and online publications like Daily Kos and Huffington Post will trash you. And the biggest issue for them is, the areas of the country outside of the Coasts and Chicago land are very different. What works for people in some areas doesn't work in others. Which is why a diversity of ideas at the national level is so desperately needed. One of the reasons the Tea Party was founded is because some of these ideas were not being heard by either party. But all in all, I say the republican party has had more diverse ideas in recent years than the Democrats. The best example to illustrate what I am saying is the Women's March this weekend. I understand why the march is happening, and I am sympathetic to a lot of what this march is about. They have every right to protest. I have no issues with that. One issue I do have is there are a lot of womens groups such as the Susan B Anthony Foundation as well as And Then There were None who are being told not to march in solidarity with these women even though these groups have much in common. The big reason. These groups are full of pro life women. Apparently a lot of women believe that being pro life costs you your Woman Card. When people agree on so much more than they disagree on, to turn them away on this issue saddens me. There is so much that can unite us. And we focus on our differences. And instead of healthy dialogue, we resort to insulting each other. And unfortunately this is how the politicians love it, because a divided country gets them votes, and its true on both sides. And we pay the price for it.
 
NIKV69
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Thu Jan 19, 2017 1:17 am

D L X wrote:
Run on sentence. Unintelligible.



Voters that sent you guys packing don't buy into words like "racist" or "xenophobe" They are educated voters that don't watch MSNBC or FOX. Don't appreciate being talked down to by overeducated zealots like Rachel Maddow. Or being insulted after the fact.

Now I hope the perfect grammar cleared it up. Though I think we both know you understood it the first time. Just used it as a way to insult me.
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Thu Jan 19, 2017 1:49 am

D L X wrote:
Dreadnought wrote:
If you saw a picture of my wife and daughter you would know that I am not a racist

Sorry, but having a non-white family member does not make one not racist. You and mhamm01 both should know that.


What exactly have you done in your life to foster better race relations in the US?

Put up or shutup.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8710
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:01 am

apodino wrote:
The posts you two have made toward each other both make me sick. You two are both hurling insults at each other and making arguments with no basis in fact what so ever. And when you stoop to insulting the other side, rather than listen to them...it prevents an actual honest dialogue from happening, it makes people less like to listen to your point of view, and it divides us further as a nation. The fact is this division has only grown in the past decade. I am not going to point fingers at anyone person on either side for making it happen, but it needs to stop period.


THIS! Thank you! We can't have an honest dialogue without either side calling the other a plethora of names, and it's a blanket statement. I'm a liberal, but I take issue when I'm placed with people who whine for everything. For once, I'd like to have a serious debate about issues without being called a whiner or a "true" racist (because apparently that's what liberals are) or a tree hugger. So thank you: both sides are equally at fault and the recent political threads are proof.

I will however address a few things we can debate:

apodino wrote:
Do I believe the Republican party is racist?

A distinction must be made between the South and the rest of the country. Ask a conservative in California if they believe immigrants pose a threat and you'll find they're more welcoming than a conservative in Alabama, for example. Ask a Republican in Washington if they believe the Voting Rights Act should be reformed to meet today's conditions and you'll find more sympathy for the cause than a Republican from Texas.

Unfortunately, because Dixiecrats took over Republican politics in the South, the Republican party as a whole suffers. It doesn't help when you have states like North Carolina passing restrictions on voting methods enjoyed predominantly by African Americans while leaving methods preferred by Whites intact, or when you have states like Alabama who require you to present ID to vote but then closes DMVs in predominantly Black counties.

Is the GOP racist? I don't think so, but they haven't done a good job of restraining the many elements in their party that harbor racist sentiments.

apodino wrote:
D'Sousa Documentary Hillary's America.
Just like I would take Michael Moore's films with a grain of salt, I'd do the same with D'Sousa. When something is partisan as a way to get a point across, I wouldn't take it seriously.

apodino wrote:
South Carolina reelected a Black Senator by one of the widest margins in any race period in a deep red state.
South Carolina also sent a governor accused of having an affair to Congress in one of the districts. What does that say about the voters? Absolutely nothing, because in the South, anything with an R after the name is golden while anything with a D is poisonous, just like it used to be before people switched allegiances. Tim Scott may have been elected to the Senate, but it doesn't mean that voters aren't racist (it doesn't mean they are either), but rather that they'd send a Republican to the Senate before a Democrat. Heck, the Democrat can have all they could ever want in a candidate and they'd still vote for the Republican. So I'm sorry, but in this case, the jury is out. That being said, if Tim Scott is primaried out or (somehow) defeated by a Democrat, does that mean that South Carolinians are racists? No. The jury is also out on that. The fact that the Senator's race isn't the first issue when they cast a ballot doesn't mean that they're perfectly OK with it either.

apodino wrote:
Another overlooked fact is the fact that Mike Pence will be the first public official to be sworn into office by a Black man, Clarence Thomas.
That doesn't say anything. I haven't seen any tendencies to suggest Pence is racist. Homophobe? Yes. Racist? Not in the slightest. And think of the PR nightmare it would be for any elected official to demand that only a White SCOTUS justice swear them in.

apodino wrote:
The Republican Primary featured one Woman, Two Latinos, a Black Man, among others.
It doesn't say anything other than these are people who, in a way, vote against their interests or are two faced. Fiorina doesn't mind that government regulate women's uterus. Rubio and Cruz would like to deport Mexicans but are perfectly happy accepting Cuban refugees. Carson? Who now?

apodino wrote:
Do I believe Donald Trump is a racist? No.
When you start your campaign blaming the country's woes on a particular segment of the population, I'm afraid it's not a good start and does not bode well to make the case that you're not racist. It's akin to saying "I'm not a homophobe but I think gays are disgusting and should be put to death". And the problem is that during his campaign he never sat down to clarify what he meant. He says crime is skyrocketing in cities and black communities. What is the conclusion we draw from that? That Blacks are more prone to be criminals. He says that Mexicans bring drugs, crime, and are rapists. What conclusion do we draw from that? That all Latinos (because you can't tell a Mexican from a Cuban unless they tell you) are rapists, criminals, and drug dealers. He says that Muslims are dangerous and that he'd shut down mosques and force Muslims to register. What conclusion do we draw from that? That any Muslim is dangerous. He never sat down to clarify that we have an immigration problem where some people who cross the border seek a better life, but some do not; he never clarified that these Black communities are disadvantaged and could explain why crime is prevalent in some areas; he never clarified his belief that many Muslims in the US share the love for the country that their Christian neighbor does and that freedom of religion is a fundamental value in a free society. Had I seen that Trump in the campaign, I wouldn't be afraid because I know that he would have stood up for the Joe Average as well as the Hussein Average and Jose Average and JaQuan Average.

apodino wrote:
Even if he didn't mean his rhetoric as racist, it comes across that way, and that doesn't help us, and he hasn't learned anything since getting elected.
Which only justifies our fear that he's erratic and will not watch out for those who are not White, Straight, Male, and Christian.

apodino wrote:
If you don't tow the party line, the liberal base and online publications like Daily Kos and Huffington Post will trash you.
That is true, but the right isn't guiltless either. Breitbart and, until recently, Fox News were THE outlets to be trashed if you didn't follow the plan.

apodino wrote:
the areas of the country outside of the Coasts and Chicago land are very different.
There will be constituencies you can please and others you won't. You can't push for inclusive LGBT legislation without pissing off religious conservatives in the South. You can't push for clean air from West Virginia without pissing out coal industry in the state. You can't push for environmentally friendly policies without pissing off those who would care less (if they could pollute to their heart's content, they'd do it). So while Democrats are trying to balance the coast with certain segments of the interior, Republicans are strengthening in the heartland...but they'll find that as people move to cities and urban areas get bigger, new ideas take hold. The countryside isn't exposed to diversity of opinions or race, so it's easy to want to follow the American way and feel like they're pushing an agenda on you; move to the city and it's the other way around: all you can see is people of different races mingling and a plethora of opinions. You CAN be friends with a Muslim or an Atheist; you CAN be happy that your gay friend found true love (you may not agree with it, but it's so prevalent that because it doesn't affect you, you seek no action against it); you CAN support efforts by the city to reduce pollution and be more sustaining (by supporting green energy or recycling or investing in public transport). Thus, the Democrats (long seen as the racist party) have embraced these values because they know that clean energy benefits everyone, that all Americans are equal and should have the same chances for everything, and that personal differences should not preclude you from getting to know others. You can still be economically conservative, and that may lead you to support Republicans, but then this is a case of what I mentioned earlier in this post where you're more sympathetic to social causes because though your economically conservative, socially, you're neutral or leans liberal.

apodino wrote:
When people agree on so much more than they disagree on, to turn them away on this issue saddens me.
It's the poison pill effect. It's like when you shop for a car and everything lines up perfectly with what you want EXCEPT the car does not have AWD or SiriusXM or keyless entry. And you simply walk away because even though it's 99% of what you wanted, that 1% is large enough to make it worthless.

However, it all comes back to the whole notion of a Nazi Jew or a Black KKK member. To say that you champion women's rights but are pro-life or against equal pay...that's a bit contradictory. And that's where the poison pill effect comes in. Why wouldn't it be an all inclusive package and instead you pick which rights you want?

If you want a cheeseburger without cheese, then you don't want a cheeseburger, you want a burger. And if you don't want the cheese or the patty, then it's neither a cheeseburger nor a burger. So you can't say that you like cheeseburger when you won't eat the cheese or the patty. If you accept this premise to be true, then surely you must accept that to say "I champion women's rights except..." is not being completely in favor of women's rights, and in that sense, some organizations prefer to associate with those who share all their goals all the way (not halfway).

And now for the obligatory slur: #racist #deplorable #ugh :duck:
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:34 am

apodino wrote:
Do I believe the Republican party is racist? No I don't. It is a fact the republican party helped abolish slavery, got the 14th amendment ratified, and helped pass the civil rights act.


The GOP that abolished slavery, passed the 14th Amendment and passed Civil Rights no long exists. it began to go out of existence in 1948, when Harry Truman desegregated the Armed Forces. A South Carolina Democrat named Strom Thurmond, based on that move, ran for President as a Dixiecrat, and he began the slow migration of conservative, white Southerners from the Democratic Party to the GOP. That Exodus continued through the early 1970's, and became complete when Nixon ran his "Southern Strategy", where he used fear of African-Americans to woo white Southern voters into the GOP.

The fact is, today's Republicans are the political descendants of Jefferson Davis, Alec Stephens, Jubal Early, and others who created the Confederacy. They are not the political descendants of Abraham Lincoln. Political parties do not stay static, and both of the parties in the U.S. are now polar opposites of what they were in 1860.


apodino wrote:
Now people can claim that the parties switched roles sometime in the 60's or so, and while there is truth to that in some respects


See above. It isn't "in some respects". It's an historic fact.

apodino wrote:
]much of this is debunked by Dinesh D'Sousa


Stop right there, and don't go any further. If you're going to take the word of a right wing lunatic like D'Sousa, then you have no legs to stand on. That guy has no credibility whatsoever. He's a jailbird who tried to mask himself as an expert on liberalism. You've just shot down any credibility, using that asshole as a source.

apodino wrote:
and a black lady...


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

apodino wrote:
South Carolina reelected a Black Senator by one of the widest margins in any race period in a deep red state.


If he had had a (D) behind his name, he never would have won. He didn't win because he's black. He won because he had an (R) behind his name. That's all that matters in the South.

apodino wrote:
Another overlooked fact is the fact that Mike Pence will be the first public official to be sworn into office by a Black man, Clarence Thomas.


A black man who hates black people. Yeah, lovely.

I could go on about how naïve you are, but the fact remains that White Nationalist groups supported, endorsed, and worked for Donald Trump's candidacy. He made racial statements that were meant to make white people fear Muslims, Mexicans, LGBT's and African-Americans. The party reeks with racism. And if you cannot look back over the 8 years of our first African-American president and see the abject racism and disrespect that he had to endure, then I don't need you lecturing me on what makes you sick.

Learn some history, and grow up.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:51 am

apodino wrote:
....

While I agreed with the point you were trying to make in the first paragraph of your post you threw any credibility you had gained away when you dragged out the ridiculous and partizan assertion that the modern day Republicans stem from a morally pure background because the assemblage of letters r-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-a-n happen to match the assemblage of letters used by the party of Lincoln. If you've never heard it before, I'll inform you now that Lincoln's Republican party died that day that Andrew Johnson took the oath of office. The Republican party was purified a number of times after that by people like JP Morgan and John D Rockefeller even before it became the platform for the avowed racist and Nazi sympathizer, Herbert Hoover (who was actually the original inventor of Nixon's southern strategy.) The most charitable view of your post I can offer after that bit of attempted partizan rhetoric is thoughtless.

Which leaves the question you asked: Do I believe the Republican party is racist? I can't answer that because that would be painting a complex construct with a broad brush. But I will say that Republicans on a national and most state levels have exploited racism to further their ends and their electorate buys into it without fail every time. The Donald Trump 2016 campaign is emblematic of this.

You go on to say that "the biggest problem in the democratic party is a (lack of) diversity of ideas." I think the biggest problem the Democratic party has is the ongoing lowering of dialogue by talk radio scaremongers and corrupt media voices like Fox (entertainment) News with their out and out populist calls for emotionalism over rationalism. These media outlets managed to sell an ill justified and quite unnecessary war, and after that war was lost and the nation was left with enormous public debit and a crashed economic system they then set about hanging the blowback for that war on the next guy to take office. And they have gotten away with it because you can't rebut calls to emotion with reasoned logic to an inattentive audience.

Then you go on to critique the women's movement with dialogue which to me indicates that you don't even understand the issues.
 
afcjets
Posts: 3832
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:24 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
To say that you champion women's rights but are pro-life or against equal pay...that's a bit contradictory.


What is anti-women is to reduce women to baby making machines as liberals do and as you demonstrate and view them as anti-women if they are against vacuuming out or stabbing a fetus (which kind of resembles a baby with its kicking feet and all) with forceps.

And who on earth (besides Hillary Clinton) would claim they champion women's rights but are against equal pay for women? See Clinton News Network link below.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/21/news/cl ... omen-less/
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8710
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:55 pm

afcjets wrote:
What is anti-women is to reduce women to baby making machines as liberals do

Are you feeling all right? Baby making machines? When liberals effectively want it to be the law of the land to allow a woman to choose if she wants to be a "baby making machine" or not?

afcjets wrote:
and as you demonstrate and view them as anti-women if they are against vacuuming out or stabbing a fetus (which kind of resembles a baby with its kicking feet and all) with forceps.

1. I like how you equate not being pro-women as being anti-women when they're not the same thing. Nowhere on my post did I insinuate that to be halfway pro-women is equal to being anti-women. Stop putting words in my mouth. Reread the cheeseburger analogy: you can't say you like cheeseburgers if you order one without cheese. You can't say you're pro-women if there are areas you're comfortable with women being under men (equal pay, for example). You're not anti-women (that would imply favoring more restrictions), but don't beat your chest proudly proclaiming to be something you're not.

2. If a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy, WHO THE HELL CARES?! Are you going to personally take charge of the baby? You believe the fetus has the right to life. Will you personally take care of expenses for the woman to go to her appointments? Will you personally raise the baby and love it as if it were your own? Do you support tax dollars being used for a woman to complete the pregnancy and stay home to raise the baby until it's old enough for school? If not, it's not your business: get that through your head. It's settled law that an abortion is legal up to the third trimester where viability has been documented. For someone who advocates for small government, you (and many conservatives) have a knack for making exceptions to that.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:22 pm

afcjets wrote:
einsteinboricua wrote:
To say that you champion women's rights but are pro-life or against equal pay...that's a bit contradictory.


What is anti-women is to reduce women to baby making machines as liberals do and as you demonstrate and view them as anti-women if they are against vacuuming out or stabbing a fetus (which kind of resembles a baby with its kicking feet and all) with forceps.


Hold it right there. Liberals aren't the ones who want to make women baby-making machines, as you say. That's a description of many conservatives. Phyllis Schalfley was a leading proponent of woman staying at home to rear kids, even though she hypocritically didn't do that herself. The Pro-Birth movement are the ones that would rather have mom stay at home, and let the man make the money.


http://www.salon.com/2013/10/31/social_ ... stay_home/

That's one thing that conservatives wish they could turn back the clock on, because their used to be a time where most women did stay at home, rearing children, cleaning house, cooking, while the man did the "real" work. That's an America they long for, but hasn't existes since the early 1960's. And it doesn't exist because in most families, one income simply cannot pay the bills any longer.

I never understand why conservatives always pin on liberals what they themselves believe.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23963
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:26 pm

Obama better get on the ball if he is going to impose Sharia and confiscate all our guns!
 
afcjets
Posts: 3832
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:35 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
afcjets wrote:
What is anti-women is to reduce women to baby making machines as liberals do

Are you feeling all right? Baby making machines? When liberals effectively want it to be the law of the land to allow a woman to choose if she wants to be a "baby making machine" or not?

Liberals absolutely reduce women to baby making machines when they see woman as completely one dimensional (a baby making machine) and think this is the only issue that matters to them and how they are not allowed to vote for anyone who is pro-life, or even show up and march with them in Washington protesting Trump.
 
afcjets
Posts: 3832
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:58 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
I like how you equate not being pro-women as being anti-women when they're not the same thing.

Nowhere on my post did I insinuate that to be halfway pro-women is equal to being anti-women. Stop putting words in my mouth.


I don't, but almost all liberals do, if you disagree on any single position that affects anyone other than a wealthy heterosexual white Christian male not only are you anti-them, you know the mantra (which uses a liberal's favorite word)...

Hillis wrote:
The ideology you worship hates :wave: African-Americans, Mexicans, LGBTQ's, Muslims, and anyone else who doesn't meet their prudish standards of the GOP.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:19 pm

seb146 wrote:
Obama better get on the ball if he is going to impose Sharia and confiscate all our guns!


:rotfl: :rotfl:

I also hear he's making a last-second push to fill up those FEMA Camps and those UN Camps as well. You know, last-minute details.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:39 am

He is illegitimate, not only because the electoral college is an antiquated, racist invention of those trying to suppress voting rights of black persons (slaves), but because of Russia's intervention, the FBI's last minute intervention, and his nonfactual racist/bigoted/misogynistic/ableist/IGNORANT and BASAL campaign and criticism of President Obama.

He is an illegitimate fool, and a damned fool at that. And so are the ignorant and/or self-serving black persons cooning for him. Now check that.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23963
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:27 am

afcjets wrote:
einsteinboricua wrote:
I like how you equate not being pro-women as being anti-women when they're not the same thing.

Nowhere on my post did I insinuate that to be halfway pro-women is equal to being anti-women. Stop putting words in my mouth.


I don't, but almost all liberals do, if you disagree on any single position that affects anyone other than a wealthy heterosexual white Christian male not only are you anti-them, you know the mantra (which uses a liberal's favorite word)...


What you just said is EXACTLY what Republicans do. Look at how they treat Lindsey Graham and John McCain and Susan Collins, just to name a few. Or, as they call them "RINOs." They are hated among Republicans because they break from party ranks once in a while and actually question things like "party before country" and ethics. Look at what they did to John Boehner when he did not want to play ball with the tea freaks. When have Democrats threatened their own and stripped them of leadership rolls for not hating women and children and blacks and just anything in general?

Besides, you are supporting a party who is nearly all white heterosexual Christian. While the Democratic party is far from perfect, at least they pass laws aimed at including all races, religions, sexual orientations, etc. instead of going on TV and saying "look at my black there!"
 
afcjets
Posts: 3832
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:45 am

LOL how is that "EXACTLY" what Republicans do? Do a significant number of Republicans or any Republicans for that matter accuse John McCain, Lindsey Graham, or John Bohener of being hate filled racists, bigots, xenophobes when they disagree with them?

And when did the Republican party go on tv and say "look at my black there?"

Also, the irony of your post that Republicans accuse those they disagree with on an issue of hatred instead of Democrats when you state "When have Democrats threatened their own and stripped them of leadership rolls for not hating women and children and blacks and just anything in general?" doesn't really help prove your claim either.
Last edited by afcjets on Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14664
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:55 am

afcjets wrote:
Do a significant number of Republicans or any Republicans for that matter accuse John McCain, Lindsey Graham, or John Bohener of being hate filled racists, bigots, xenophobes when they disagree with them?


Of course not, they complain those are not enough of hate filled racists, bigots and xenophobes.

best regards
Thomas
 
afcjets
Posts: 3832
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:00 am

That was meant to be a rhetorical question to prove a point.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:18 am

salttee wrote:
Other than supporting Yeltsin, the US has made no attempt and had no opportunity to meddle in Russian politics ever - and Russia has never meddled in ours other than the pathetic attempts by the American Communist party, until 2016.


There are(were?) so many US financed NGOs busy in Russia that your quip appears hilarious.
https://www.google.com/search?q=US+NGO+busy+in+Russia
One of the more harmless types in that domain is former chess player Kasparov.

What do you think the $5b ( just for Ukraine) that Ms Nuland mentioned were spent on?

Is there a nonUS region on earth where the US is not busy with full spectrum ( from open to backstabbing insidious ) influencing?
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:13 pm

WIederling wrote:
There are(were?) so many US financed NGOs busy in Russia that your quip appears hilarious.

The N G in NGO means non-governmental.
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:02 pm

mham001 wrote:
D L X wrote:
Dreadnought wrote:
If you saw a picture of my wife and daughter you would know that I am not a racist

Sorry, but having a non-white family member does not make one not racist. You and mhamm01 both should know that.


What exactly have you done in your life to foster better race relations in the US?

Put up or shutup.


Still waiting, D L X.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Fri Jan 20, 2017 5:22 pm

salttee wrote:
WIederling wrote:
There are(were?) so many US financed NGOs busy in Russia that your quip appears hilarious.

The N G in NGO means non-governmental.


By name not by action.
 
NIKV69
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Fri Jan 20, 2017 5:43 pm

He is legitimate now folks.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14664
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Fri Jan 20, 2017 5:57 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
He is legitimate now folks.


And he is a traitor now folks.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:05 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
He is legitimate now folks.


I don't think he'll ever be legitimate. I don't think he'll last his term, because he's a criminal.

I did read over the text of his Inauguration Speech. Wasn't a bad speech, actually. But I don't buy a word of what he said. He's in office not for you or me, but to enrich himself. Words are nice. Words are cheap. His actions, I'm convinced, will paint a different story.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:14 pm

Hillis wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
He is legitimate now folks.


I don't think he'll ever be legitimate.


That is delusional. Trump took the oath of office. He is the legitimate 45th President of the United States now and forever. You're welcome to join us in reality.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8710
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:16 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
That is delusional. Trump took the oath of office. He is the legitimate 45th President of the United States now and forever. You're welcome to join us in reality.

Funny. Barack Obama took the oath of office and legitimately became the 44th President of the United States...TWICE. That didn't stop people like Trump from questioning his legitimacy. Or is Orly Taitz and her ilk all but a memory? Birther conspiracies anyone?
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:24 am

DfwRevolution wrote:
Hillis wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
He is legitimate now folks.


I don't think he'll ever be legitimate.


That is delusional. Trump took the oath of office. He is the legitimate 45th President of the United States now and forever. You're welcome to join us in reality.


I'm not delusional, but Dumpf could kiss my ass if I would let him. I wouldn't let his ugly, hateful mouth anywhere near my cheeks.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:54 am

DfwRevolution wrote:
Hillis wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
He is legitimate now folks.


I don't think he'll ever be legitimate.


That is delusional. Trump took the oath of office. He is the legitimate 45th President of the United States now and forever. You're welcome to join us in reality.




It is a question of who is delusional and the epitome of Hypocrisy. I cannot really get over the extent of it. It is like a fever among you Republicans, deny, deny ,deny and eventually you expect people to believe it. Unfortunately only Republicans do. Imagine reading this 50 years from now, the Conservatives will be judged harshly, or at the very least give people a good example of Hypocrisy.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14664
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Sat Jan 21, 2017 1:54 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
That is delusional. Trump took the oath of office. He is the legitimate 45th President of the United States now and forever. You're welcome to join us in reality.

Funny. Barack Obama took the oath of office and legitimately became the 44th President of the United States...TWICE. That didn't stop people like Trump from questioning his legitimacy. Or is Orly Taitz and her ilk all but a memory? Birther conspiracies anyone?


And different from Obama, Trump is in fact a criminal starting, at the latest, the moment he took the oath, by still being in the pay of foreign governments.

best regards
Thomas
 
apodino
Posts: 4092
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Sat Jan 21, 2017 2:34 pm

I got ripped for my last post in this thread...and rightly so. I was trying to make an argument while I was dead tired and it came out wrong. I know I mentioned the D'Sousa film, and I would encourage people to watch it even if they don't agree with it. One interesting historical aspect of the film that I found was that the first ever woman Millionaire in this country was Black. I cant remember her name but the movie Hidden Figures reminded me of it. I do apologize for some of what I said in the post.

One thing I wanted to post in here, and get your thoughts on is this Huffington Post article. Basically it makes the argument that the Democrats elevated trump to get Hillary elected, not ever stopping for a moment to think that she could lose. Its a very interesting piece.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5881d3b1e4b0d96b98c1dac2?timestamp=1484905037681
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14664
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Sat Jan 21, 2017 2:43 pm

apodino wrote:
One thing I wanted to post in here, and get your thoughts on is this Huffington Post article. Basically it makes the argument that the Democrats elevated trump to get Hillary elected, not ever stopping for a moment to think that she could lose. Its a very interesting piece.


Really interesting. Bernie could have brought a fresh start. Hilary would have been more of the same, so "ok", but no leap forward.

But now there is Trump, and he is going to complete the destruction of the USA by republican presidents started by Reagan.

best regards
Thomas
 
YZF101
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:12 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:27 pm

I just love sitting here reading posts as lefty's heads explode with the (in their minds) irrational thought that someone they don't like was actually sworn in as President of the United States.

It will be an interesting 4 years, watching the very destruction of the Democrat Party from within. No "foreign" entities needed - just plain old sorry crybabies who can't understand they didn't get their way. We all should be grateful to Hillary, Obama, and the whole Washington Democrat apparatus for laying the groundwork for the Republican Party (or otherwise non-left party) to be in power for a long time. It's amusing to watch the holier-than-thou Left protest and burn and turn their noses up and somehow still proclaim they are the "ruling party". Reality somehow doesn't sit well with this new breed of American. It might help to realize - painful as it may be - that it was Hillary, Obama, and their ilk that lost the election. Not some boogeyman from foreign lands (or outer space, as it seems to appear).

As we progress forward into 2017 and 2018, it will become clearer to those looking in from the outside that the political left (ie. democrat) are bordering on insane and definately not to be trusted should they ever (laughingly) be elected to any office that might deal with the outside world. It's already obvious that those persons of the Democrat frame of mind will be more obstructive, more destructive, than any person or group of people ever seen in America. If anyone thought the Republicans were obstructive - they haven't seen anything yet.....wait till the sadness ends and the tears stop flowing and you'll see the side of the left that hasn't reared it's ugly head before. But it really is alright - America is more inclusive than some orator with a teleprompter wrongly lead people to believe over the previous 8 years. His message became clearer over the last year or so. 'If you don't believe our way of thinking and doing things, you'll be an outcast'. 'Follow us to wonderfullness'. Or else.

Thankfully, "or else" happened.

Stay safe, "live long, and prosper"!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14664
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Sat Jan 21, 2017 5:41 pm

YZF101 wrote:
It will be an interesting 4 years, watching the very destruction of the Democrat Party from within.


Lets just hope the FBI counter intelligence will crack down hard on the now Russo-Chinese Spy-ring that calls itself the republican party.

And his policies will probably not have the effect he is hoping for. My company just decided we need a 2nd source for Automation hardware, now 100% US supplied..... the 2nd source will be somewhere else. Buying US products only for critical business purposes has become too risky.

best regards
Thomas
 
YZF101
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:12 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Sat Jan 21, 2017 6:57 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
YZF101 wrote:
It will be an interesting 4 years, watching the very destruction of the Democrat Party from within.


Lets just hope the FBI counter intelligence will crack down hard on the now Russo-Chinese Spy-ring that calls itself the republican party.

And his policies will probably not have the effect he is hoping for. My company just decided we need a 2nd source for Automation hardware, now 100% US supplied..... the 2nd source will be somewhere else. Buying US products only for critical business purposes has become too risky.

best regards
Thomas


Surprised your company just came to that conclusion now. Deciding it's better to run and hide rather than continue to invest in your own country? Or you just hate someone's politics that much you can't stand to support that country? Think the country is going to burn so you want to diverge your suppliers?

That would have been a good business move for critical components to have done that ages ago, Better to serve your customers with two (or more) stable sources.

Be careful where you source that "critical" stuff, though.....you might get unpleasant surprises. Better the devil you don't know I suppose. :(

Peace :)
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14664
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:10 pm

YZF101 wrote:
Surprised your company just came to that conclusion now.


It was the only field in which we where not at least dual sourced...

Deciding it's better to run and hide rather than continue to invest in your own country?


We are one of those "hidden champions", currently giving Cisco a run for their money, after kicking anyone else out of the competition. And they did try to price us out of the competition, too bad that don´t understand IP v6 like we do...

Or you just hate someone's politics that much you can't stand to support that country?


Nah, that is just me and the reason why my department isn´t buying from China. And not from the US, but that is just because in my business there isn´t really a US supplier, those that pretend to be US have their factories in either the ROC or the PRC.I would have loved to have an annual business trip or two to the on the company credit card....

Think the country is going to burn so you want to diverge your suppliers?


Trade war anyone?

That would have been a good business move for critical components to have done that ages ago, Better to serve your customers with two (or more) stable sources.


for many things you can do that, if there is a whole ecosystem connected to the product line, it is easy to have several sources, but very hard on the sales side.

best regards
Thomas
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14664
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:11 pm

First day at work, first law suit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/p ... wsuit.html?

best regards
Thomas
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Mon Jan 23, 2017 7:17 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
First day at work, first law suit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/p ... wsuit.html?

best regards
Thomas



I agree with the lawsuit. THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING comes to mind. We have laws, and he should darn well follow them.
 
User avatar
11725Flyer
Posts: 1462
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 4:51 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Mon Jan 23, 2017 9:49 pm

Have a good time up there discussing Trump's legitimacy. While I'm not a huge fan of the man, he won the Electoral College. Time to move on. Demonstrate to be heard, and work hard to elect others during the mid-term elections. I'm going to turn off any cable news channels and watch reruns of "Everybody Loves Raymond."
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12603
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:07 pm

Just to f*ck with Trump: https://twitter.com/HalfOnionInABag :-)
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:44 am

Kiwirob wrote:
Hillis wrote:
With all due respect, you're not an American, and while you'll be affected by what this idiot does, you won't in a way that many of us in the U.S. will be affected. Easy to criticize when you're on the outside looking in.


Trump isn't the real problem, the real problem is the US electorate can't be arsed voting, this is the result, you shouldn't be mad at Trump and his supporters you should be pissed at the 150 million American idiots who stayed home, they are the cause of this, they are the people you should direct your anger towards.


Or maybe he completely destroys her. Remember, she was winning. The media said so. Why go and vote if he can't win anyway?
 
BestWestern
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:01 am

Trump has now said he did win the popular vote - but for 3-5 million illegal votes were cast for Clinton.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /96976246/

Sweet Jesus - grant Donald the ability to shut up.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:04 am

BestWestern wrote:
Trump has now said he did win the popular vote - but for 3-5 million illegal votes were cast for Clinton.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /96976246/

Sweet Jesus - grant Donald the ability to shut up.



Of course, Alternate facts in a Alternate Universe. Putin must be so proud of his Proteges.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14664
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The illegitimate president

Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:16 am

WarRI1 wrote:
Of course, Alternate facts in a Alternate Universe. Putin must be so proud of his Proteges.


His empooyess. Those 200+ Trump companies in Russia give him ample laverage after all.
He could simply make them disappear and the capital in them with it. ...

Best regards
Thomas
 
dragon-wings
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 4:55 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:15 am

BestWestern wrote:
Trump has now said he did win the popular vote - but for 3-5 million illegal votes were cast for Clinton.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /96976246/

Sweet Jesus - grant Donald the ability to shut up.


I was just about to start a new thread about this.

Why the hell is Trump still talking about this?? He won! He is the the most insecure and thin skinned President EVER!
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:36 am

Here's another bit of false information that voters were given before the election that was sure to have cost Hillary some votes. Aetna insurance company pulled out of the insurance market in 11 states supposedly because it was losing money under Obamacare. Now it turns out that they were just trying to get back at the Obama administration because the justice dept blocked their merger with Humana.

Aetna claimed this summer that it was pulling out of all but four of the 15 states where it was providing Obamacare individual insurance because of a business decision — it was simply losing too much money on the Obamacare exchanges.

Now a federal judge has ruled that that was a rank falsehood. In fact, says Judge John D. Bates, Aetna made its decision at least partially in response to a federal antitrust lawsuit blocking its proposed $37-billion merger with Humana. Aetna threatened federal officials with the pullout before the lawsuit was filed, and followed through on its threat once it was filed. Bates made the observations in the course of a ruling he issued Monday blocking the merger.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... story.html

There was the Russian E-mail hacking, the phony new "evidence" by Comey and now this.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:02 am

BestWestern wrote:
Trump has now said he did win the popular vote - but for 3-5 million illegal votes were cast for Clinton.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /96976246/

Sweet Jesus - grant Donald the ability to shut up.

The NYT has run the story prominently with the headline:

Trump Repeats Lie About Popular Vote in Meeting With Lawmakers

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/p ... crats.html

I love it!
 
User avatar
Siren
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:50 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:22 am

NIKV69 wrote:
How was our election "Interfered" with?

I await your answer.


I'll jump in on this...

The hack exposed information which shouldn't have come to light. It was private and off the record, and was never intended for public release. The content of the emails wasn't nearly as bad as the media stories and headlines - those who were swayed by the emails in question never read them. They were influenced by the hype behind it.

We would have needed to see RNC internal communications for it to not have had an effect on the election. If both the DNC and RNC were hacked and equal amounts of 'bad' emails released, then I'd be willing to admit there was no interference in the election. Further, if the hacking had come from a domestic source, then I'd be willing to drop the notion of interference.

The fact is, foreign actors used illegal methods to sway public opinion. That is interference.
 
User avatar
Siren
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:50 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:29 am

salttee wrote:
BestWestern wrote:
Trump has now said he did win the popular vote - but for 3-5 million illegal votes were cast for Clinton.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /96976246/

Sweet Jesus - grant Donald the ability to shut up.

The NYT has run the story prominently with the headline:

Trump Repeats Lie About Popular Vote in Meeting With Lawmakers

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/p ... crats.html

I love it!


Thank God the media is finally using the L word. About time. "Lie" has much more punch to it than "untruth" or "falsehood" or whatever other words they choose. Lie is very clear, one syllable, and is a word even a three year old knows - after all, language has to appeal to the lowest common denominator for it to be most effective, especially true for those who support Republican policies, as they actively vote against their own interests...

The notion that Herr Trump lost the popular vote because of "millions" of illegal votes is plainly insane, and anyone who believes it is disconnected from objective reality and thus their opinions don't matter - they are like the doomsday sayers on the street corners prophesizing the end of the world. There isn't evidence even a thousand people voted illegally, much less "millions." Trump has provided no justification for his claim, nor has anybody else on his team. It's not just false: It's delusional. It’s akin to believing the earth is flat, and notions of it being round are in fact a grand conspiracy.
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6327
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

Re: The illegitimate president

Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:55 am

BestWestern wrote:
Trump has now said he did win the popular vote - but for 3-5 million illegal votes were cast for Clinton.


Is this guy really that stupid or what? Does he not realize that implying voter fraud in elections he has WON actually DELEGITIMIZES his own position?
He should be assigned a babysitter for his own good, and above all "No Twitter after dinner, Donnie!"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dutchy and 36 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos