As should everyone.

I'm not defending the riots in Portland but we're talking about entirely different reasons. One is an ongoing combat against social injustice in a country who's history is littered with it. The other is a sanctioned march by an outgoing President who refused to cede until this march went nowhere and he was out of options to remain in power.

It was an attack on democracy in a country that champions it. Again, you'd have to have your head up your ass to think these two movements are anywhere similar.
- golfingsince

Lol

Again, don't read anymore into what I have said, look at the narrative.

The dangerous toppling of the government by a well organized militia or military is one thing.

That riot was a far from an actual insurrection or coup as it can get. I'm sorry but your have to have your head up your ass to think it was an actual coup. Look at the language you're using, an attack on democracy, come on man, you're better then this. Was it an attack on democracy? Did you at any point feel that Trump was going to sieze power? Go read a history book on insurrection and coups. This was not one. Even the failed beer hall putch had more action then this. This was a protest egged on by a public figure that was allowed into the halls of power. You Probably don't believe that because it doesn't fit your narrative but there's no way that security should be so lacking except through wilful or outright ignorance. It was allowed to happen, bunch of rednecks and everyone starts talking about a (frank)ing coup.... do some research, you're believing a political PR narrative.

Not saying that I support it, just that it was in no way shape or form an insurrection, coup or attack on democracy, those are all catch phrases that you've bought into.

You bring up reason as a defining reason that they were worse. I support BLM riots and ACAB movement, I don't support the capital riots. However, the righteousness of a movement doesn't redefine the means. Burning a courthouse in Portland is the same as burning a courthouse in Washington, they are both definitely attacks on a democratic institution. Or do you actually believe that, with the right cause, the morality of individual events get stripped away?

Lol

Again, don't read anymore into what I have said, look at the narrative.

The dangerous toppling of the government by a well organized militia or military is one thing.

That riot was a far from an actual insurrection or coup as it can get. I'm sorry but your have to have your head up your ass to think it was an actual coup. Look at the language you're using, an attack on democracy, come on man, you're better then this. Was it an attack on democracy? Did you at any point feel that Trump was going to sieze power? Go read a history book on insurrection and coups. This was not one. Even the failed beer hall putch had more action then this. This was a protest egged on by a public figure that was allowed into the halls of power. You Probably don't believe that because it doesn't fit your narrative but there's no way that security should be so lacking except through wilful or outright ignorance. It was allowed to happen, bunch of rednecks and everyone starts talking about a (frank)ing coup.... do some research, you're believing a political PR narrative.

Not saying that I support it, just that it was in no way shape or form an insurrection, coup or attack on democracy, those are all catch phrases that you've bought into.

You bring up reason as a defining reason that they were worse. I support BLM riots and ACAB movement, I don't support the capital riots. However, the righteousness of a movement doesn't redefine the means. Burning a courthouse in Portland is the same as burning a courthouse in Washington, they are both definitely attacks on a democratic institution. Or do you actually believe that, with the right cause, the morality of individual events get stripped away?
- Pres.cup

So because it didn't succeed it's not dangerous. I get it.

A wise man told me a long time ago you can't reason with a Trump supporter. I'm out.

So because it didn't succeed it's not dangerous. I get it.

A wise man told me a long time ago you can't reason with a Trump supporter. I'm out.
- golfingsince

Lol, I've never supported Trump, thank you for once again proving my point that 90 percent of people can only see in black and white.
If I have any opinion contrary to your own then I must be the extreme of what you disagree with, in this case, a trump supporter.

Nice avoidance of the questions and points. You get an E for effort and a C minus for content.

Lol, I've never supported Trump, thank you for once again proving my point that 90 percent of people can only see in black and white.
If I have any opinion contrary to your own then I must be the extreme of what you disagree with, in this case, a trump supporter.

Nice avoidance of the questions and points. You get an E for effort and a C minus for content.
- Pres.cup

you accuse everyone of having a narrative because they have a different opinion than yours, so exactly what is the difference, you are spewing your narrative because some here have an opinion contrary to yours then we must be the extreme of what you disagree with, in this case, absolutely spot on.

you accuse everyone of having a narrative because they have a different opinion than yours, so exactly what is the difference, you are spewing your narrative because some here have an opinion contrary to yours then we must be the extreme of what you disagree with, in this case, absolutely spot on.
- Makita

I do, of course have a narrative, as does everybody. I am not going to label everyone who disagrees with me as being .... what even, Biden worshipers, libtards or socialists? No cuz that would be ignorant. Everyone has a wide spectrum of beliefs that I may or may not agree with.

What grinds my gears is this automatic assumption that I'm pro trump because I point out fallacies of his predecessor( drone programs, cages, new wars) or his successor (lifetime politician, historic racist, owned by the lobby). I have spent years pointing out the poop trump has done wrong.

This last debate in regards to the riot is stupid. If I don't believe it was an insurrection, I'm pro trump? Wtf, I love my history, if this was a coup, it was the poorest attempt at a coup, ever. The facts speak for themselves, that rhetoric that it was a coup as justification for a slew of politically motivated action is a dangerous to democracy as the riots themselves.... but if I say that, I'm pro trump.

That's the difference.... I know other opinions are valid and don't mean that they're extreme. But the inability for people(not just here, on social media or in real life) to be able to disagree without people drawing lines in the sand is a poignantly new phenomenon, possibly from mental stress related to Covid-19 and its related restrictions.

Also, when debating 4 or 5 people who continually berate you as a Trumpist, it gets old fast. There are a few things I agree with the trump administration doing, CCP, no new wars and the fair drug pricing act. Most of his poop I disagree with, but I'm not so ignorant as to say that everything he did was evil, because the facts don't support that. Most of what all these fucking politicians do is self serving and evil, including one of my favorites, Bernie Sanders (he's a millionaire with multiple mansions).

But if someone calls me a (frank)ing idiot, I'm gonna call them one right back, unless they're right, but I avoid discussions that I don't research and am wrong about.

So, does that make me a Trumpist? A socialist, a free thinker? I don't know, I just know that that riot wasn't a coup and Biden is gonna make a bunch of people rich. (frank), at least he's not Hillary.

What grinds my gears is this automatic assumption that I'm pro trump because I point out fallacies of his predecessor( drone programs, cages, new wars) or his successor (lifetime politician, historic racist, owned by the lobby). I have spent years pointing out the poop trump has done wrong.


Also, when debating 4 or 5 people who continually berate you as a Trumpist, it gets old fast. There are a few things I agree with the trump administration doing, CCP, no new wars and the fair drug pricing act. Most of his poop I disagree with, but I'm not so ignorant as to say that everything he did was evil, because the facts don't support that. Most of what all these fucking politicians do is self serving and evil, including one of my favorites, Bernie Sanders (he's a millionaire with multiple mansions).

But if someone calls me a (frank)ing idiot, I'm gonna call them one right back, unless they're right, but I avoid discussions that I don't research and am wrong about.

So, does that make me a Trumpist? A socialist, a free thinker? I don't know, I just know that that riot wasn't a coup and Biden is gonna make a bunch of people rich. (frank), at least he's not Hillary.
- Pres.cup

I know you've bought into the Trump advertising but let's look below the surface:
1) Warmonger - You seem to think that Trump was not a warmonger-in-chief like how you categorize his successor and predecessors but he's actually just like them perhaps worse.

Iran - He wanted to go to war with Iran even before he took office. He was talked out of escalated strikes several times by his staff sometimes with threat of resignation. In fact, that was a reason for SecDef Mattis' resignation.

Trump's assassination of Soleimeini is actually an act of war which you would surely claim if anyone else did it. In fact, Iran retaliated by killing an American soldier etc. It was Trump's intention to goad them into a bigger response so he could go to war with them. It was Trump's intention as well as Netanyahu's intention to draw Iran into a war.

Why do I think so?

Well, my next point is: You say he isn't a warmonger, but why were American specialists/soldiers/military put into a military conflict/war in Yemen.

Yemen was fighting a civil war (which actually was just a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.)

Why was the American army supporting a Saudi Arabian war against Iran?

American troops were also put into Saudi Arabia? Why? The troops were removed almost 20 years ago?

For someone who isn't a warmonger, why was there a permanent force being put into Saudi Arabia?

With respect to drone strikes, he actually increased their use. He increased their use in Afghanistan but more importantly, he INCREASED IT EXPONENTIALLY in Africa (particularly Somalia.)

He supported with American personnel (military) a coup in Venezuela.

He loosened the rules of engagement and most importantly and this is why you probably think he didn't do so badly, he ended the disclosure of civilian casualties. This is why you think that his predecessor was worse. You buy into the bullsh!t.



just some fun reading about how much he's not a warmonger. just remember that he loosened up the rules of engagement and pardoned this guy (against the wishes of top military brass):
https://www.theguardian.c...gher-trump-navy-seal-iraq

anyway, there was a lot more to write but i've got meetings (damn those people in ontario who don't care about time zones.)

i would write more about his supposed anti-war stuff (which is complete and utter bullsh!t) but i hope you got a taste.

you can say that obama/biden (i have no idea why "you people" keep bringing up hillary - says a lot about you but i digress) were no better but that's the point: you keep thinking that he was better with respect to foreign policy.

btw, his confront china policy would be good except it's all rhetoric. the policy paper that came out last week was bang on (it was a trump administration paper.) this white paper laid out the issues and what was needed perfectly.

i agreed with it to the extent i read it. the problem is that the words don't match the actions. i'd have to write an essay (and as much as i'd like to, i won't) but long story short, china must be confronted by a cooperative of nations.

the problem is that you can't have a coalition when you've alienated everyone else. you can't have economic cooperation amongst countries to confront china when you're walking away from international agreements and free trade.

simply put, good rhetoric/bad policy.

but that seems to be the appeal of trump: talk tough. actions don't really matter.

i'd get into pharmaceuticals/healthcare but i shouldn't have to. his policies have led to higher healthcare costs but he's tried to do some consumer friendly stuff which is superficial.

last point: i think but i hope not.... you wouldn't be a joe rogan accolyte would you? the topics and/or people you bring up seem to be what his army of non-thinkers like. btw, lol about tulsi gabbard. she isn't the anti-war person you think. she doesn't war in some places but doesn't mind military use in others. (and she's from a hare krishna family which is just weird.) and joe rogan is a self admitted fcuking moron. honestly, he's so full of half-truths and misinformation, it's a wonder how his body can absorb all the steroids and TRT.

and if you think i'm too mean about joe rogan, you need some of the snake oil brain supplements he's peddliing. remember to use the promo code onnit.

Lol, I've never supported Trump, thank you for once again proving my point that 90 percent of people can only see in black and white.
If I have any opinion contrary to your own then I must be the extreme of what you disagree with, in this case, a trump supporter.

Nice avoidance of the questions and points. You get an E for effort and a C minus for content.
- Pres.cup

You have done nothing but support him and his base. You are only kidding yourself by denying that.

I do, of course have a narrative, as does everybody. I am not going to label everyone who disagrees with me as being .... what even, Biden worshipers, libtards or socialists? No cuz that would be ignorant. Everyone has a wide spectrum of beliefs that I may or may not agree with.

What grinds my gears is this automatic assumption that I'm pro trump because I point out fallacies of his predecessor( drone programs, cages, new wars) or his successor (lifetime politician, historic racist, owned by the lobby). I have spent years pointing out the poop trump has done wrong.

This last debate in regards to the riot is stupid. If I don't believe it was an insurrection, I'm pro trump? Wtf, I love my history, if this was a coup, it was the poorest attempt at a coup, ever. The facts speak for themselves, that rhetoric that it was a coup as justification for a slew of politically motivated action is a dangerous to democracy as the riots themselves.... but if I say that, I'm pro trump.

That's the difference.... I know other opinions are valid and don't mean that they're extreme. But the inability for people(not just here, on social media or in real life) to be able to disagree without people drawing lines in the sand is a poignantly new phenomenon, possibly from mental stress related to Covid-19 and its related restrictions.

Also, when debating 4 or 5 people who continually berate you as a Trumpist, it gets old fast. There are a few things I agree with the trump administration doing, CCP, no new wars and the fair drug pricing act. Most of his poop I disagree with, but I'm not so ignorant as to say that everything he did was evil, because the facts don't support that. Most of what all these fucking politicians do is self serving and evil, including one of my favorites, Bernie Sanders (he's a millionaire with multiple mansions).

But if someone calls me a (frank)ing idiot, I'm gonna call them one right back, unless they're right, but I avoid discussions that I don't research and am wrong about.

So, does that make me a Trumpist? A socialist, a free thinker? I don't know, I just know that that riot wasn't a coup and Biden is gonna make a bunch of people rich. (frank), at least he's not Hillary.
- Pres.cup

Nice pro-Trump rant.

You have done nothing but support him and his base. You are only kidding yourself by denying that.
- Marwood

Boy do you not know how to make any salient points? Hilarious and sad.

anyway, there was a lot more to write but i've got meetings (damn those people in ontario who don't care about time zones.)

i would write more about his supposed anti-war stuff (which is complete and utter bullsh!t) but i hope you got a taste.

you can say that obama/biden (i have no idea why "you people" keep bringing up hillary - says a lot about you but i digress) were no better but that's the point: you keep thinking that he was better with respect to foreign policy.

btw, his confront china policy would be good except it's all rhetoric. the policy paper that came out last week was bang on (it was a trump administration paper.) this white paper laid out the issues and what was needed perfectly.

i agreed with it to the extent i read it. the problem is that the words don't match the actions. i'd have to write an essay (and as much as i'd like to, i won't) but long story short, china must be confronted by a cooperative of nations.

the problem is that you can't have a coalition when you've alienated everyone else. you can't have economic cooperation amongst countries to confront china when you're walking away from international agreements and free trade.

simply put, good rhetoric/bad policy.

but that seems to be the appeal of trump: talk tough. actions don't really matter.

i'd get into pharmaceuticals/healthcare but i shouldn't have to. his policies have led to higher healthcare costs but he's tried to do some consumer friendly stuff which is superficial.

last point: i think but i hope not.... you wouldn't be a joe rogan accolyte would you? the topics and/or people you bring up seem to be what his army of non-thinkers like. btw, lol about tulsi gabbard. she isn't the anti-war person you think. she doesn't war in some places but doesn't mind military use in others. (and she's from a hare krishna family which is just weird.) and joe rogan is a self admitted fcuking moron. honestly, he's so full of half-truths and misinformation, it's a wonder how his body can absorb all the steroids and TRT.

and if you think i'm too mean about joe rogan, you need some of the snake oil brain supplements he's peddliing. remember to use the promo code onnit.
- RealityChecker

I hear you on this, especially at the Federal level.

As for the rest of the points you made, narratives RC, also the article posted above is from the Guardian, didn’t we establish that only articles that support the narratives being pushed are relevant and accepted.

I will say that you made some great counter points to the Trumpian supporter, well done.

anyway, there was a lot more to write but i've got meetings (damn those people in ontario who don't care about time zones.)

i would write more about his supposed anti-war stuff (which is complete and utter bullsh!t) but i hope you got a taste.

you can say that obama/biden (i have no idea why "you people" keep bringing up hillary - says a lot about you but i digress) were no better but that's the point: you keep thinking that he was better with respect to foreign policy.

btw, his confront china policy would be good except it's all rhetoric. the policy paper that came out last week was bang on (it was a trump administration paper.) this white paper laid out the issues and what was needed perfectly.

i agreed with it to the extent i read it. the problem is that the words don't match the actions. i'd have to write an essay (and as much as i'd like to, i won't) but long story short, china must be confronted by a cooperative of nations.

the problem is that you can't have a coalition when you've alienated everyone else. you can't have economic cooperation amongst countries to confront china when you're walking away from international agreements and free trade.

simply put, good rhetoric/bad policy.

but that seems to be the appeal of trump: talk tough. actions don't really matter.

i'd get into pharmaceuticals/healthcare but i shouldn't have to. his policies have led to higher healthcare costs but he's tried to do some consumer friendly stuff which is superficial.

last point: i think but i hope not.... you wouldn't be a joe rogan accolyte would you? the topics and/or people you bring up seem to be what his army of non-thinkers like. btw, lol about tulsi gabbard. she isn't the anti-war person you think. she doesn't war in some places but doesn't mind military use in others. (and she's from a hare krishna family which is just weird.) and joe rogan is a self admitted fcuking moron. honestly, he's so full of half-truths and misinformation, it's a wonder how his body can absorb all the steroids and TRT.

and if you think i'm too mean about joe rogan, you need some of the snake oil brain supplements he's peddliing. remember to use the promo code onnit.
- RealityChecker

Some great points, I researched the pharmacy one, the trump mandated insulin thing was only for veterans and seniors, the biggest kicker was if you didn't apply within 7 months you had to pay the full price, not the fair cost price, I admit I had only briefed the notes on that one. Still better then nothing but window dressing still.

I've never listened to or watched either Joe Rogan or Alex Jones, my podcast of choice is "Behind the Bastards"

I brought up Hillary as a jab at Marwood, she was a huge war hawk.

Trump is an idiot, I said so for his whole presidency, so I need to continually reiterate policies of his in order to remind people of that?
Here's a list of things I disagree with his policy on.

Treating Canada poorly, from nafta to sanctions on imports he's barely treated us as an ally. If I was American I'd say his America first policy was good for small segments of the country but bad for America as a whole.

Constant rhetoric regarding America's military bases in other countries and how those countries should pay for them. America wants to be the world's super power, projecting force globally comes at a cost. You can't project force and ask other countries to pay for it, then you're just merchandising the military which lowers America's image as a superpower. On the other hand, I am anti war, anti global military complex so I do think America shouldn't be staging military groups all over the world, "Team America" is half propaganda. The drone program, started by Bush, expanded by Obama and again by Trump is evil. The killing of the Syrian General should be judged equally to the killing of people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq Yemen, etc.... it's (frank)ed up Orwellian era poop. The technology itself shouldn't exist but the genie is out of the bottle. In the other hand, physical soldiers got pulled out of conflict zones. I don't think they should be in the conflict zones in the first place but I can see the logic despite disagreeing with the policy.

His use of division and fear to prey on his followers fears accelerated the already partisan political climate to a fervor. This is what's led people, including cops, to act with impunity in their prejudicial, bigoted manner. I have to say that he wasn't the only one, Mitch McConnell is probably just as guilty and more flagrantly evil(I expect trump to act like a bag of dicks, I expect the leading senator to not).

I don't blame the Republicans for moving swiftly to stack the Supreme Court, but think they're hypocrites for doing so in at least one of the seats, but I'm not so blind as to believe the democrats wouldn't have done the same if they'd the opportunity.

I could go on and on but it's an almost endless list that I've already stated multiple times over the years.

I want to try to stay on track, I mocked Biden for canceling a pipeline before freeing the children, I stand by that. It was a political move and Biden wouldn't gain much support for freeing the children. I point out who built the cages because people like to believe Obama was some kind of demi God who did no evil. I liked Obama, he's the only president who hasn't been to Epstien Island. He still did a Bunch of things that i consider wrong and it triggered some people to have that pointed out. He expanded done, he expanded domestic surveillance, he let senior NSA and CSI officials get away with lying to congress. He built the cages. The guy was the best of the bunch in decades, by far, but he was still a walking hypocrite who's policies trump took advantage of.

Trump should have pardoned Snowden and Assange, there's a report that McConnell threatened him with conviction at the impeachment trial of he did, but I don't know the truth to either report.

That's a big enough essay, I think you're one of the only ones who I've debate on here that actually uses facts instead of rhetoric, good on you for actually educating yourself before declaring your side, unlike some....

TLDR, all politicians are evil eventually.

I hear you on this, especially at the Federal level.

As for the rest of the points you made, narratives RC, also the article posted above is from the Guardian, didn’t we establish that only articles that support the narratives being pushed are relevant and accepted.

I will say that you made some great counter points to the Trumpian supporter, well done.
- Makita

Please go look for one time when I say that I endorse trump? Just one, it would really do wonders for your narrative! Just saying.....

Narratives are like bumholes, everybody's got one.

Boy do you not know how to make any salient points? Hilarious and sad.
- Pres.cup

Probably because I don't read most of your doctrines. I just skim them for the funny bits. Also, as I said in the past, I think you argue for the sake of arguing.

Probably because I don't read most of your doctrines. I just skim them for the funny bits. Also, as I said in the past, I think you argue for the sake of arguing.
- Marwood

I prefer essays and debate... both of which appear to be beyond you at this point.

Everyone here educates themselves on most matters. I just don't have the time nor patience to go through posts point by point and dispute them.

Despite your criticisms of Trump you still seem to fall for the noise he makes. The fact that you question his real attack on democracy betrays you. There is absolutely nothing that man would not have done to remain in power had he not been obstructed. That is far more frightening and dangerous than a social uprising calling for fair and equal treatment.

I prefer essays and debate... both of which appear to be beyond you at this point.
- Pres.cup

You are not very good at it, as this Reality guy has been schooling you.

I prefer essays and debate... both of which appear to be beyond you at this point.
- Pres.cup

Very Trumpian of you to insinuate that I am weak or dim.

Very Trumpian of you to insinuate that I am weak or dim.
- Marwood

Labels, like fables are for children.

I didn't say you are dim or weak.

I said essays(you admit you don't read them or write them yourself) and debate(you write one line insults as responses) seem to be beyond you at this point.

Everyone here educates themselves on most matters. I just don't have the time nor patience to go through posts point by point and dispute them.

Despite your criticisms of Trump you still seem to fall for the noise he makes. The fact that you question his real attack on democracy betrays you. There is absolutely nothing that man would not have done to remain in power had he not been obstructed. That is far more frightening and dangerous than a social uprising calling for fair and equal treatment.
- golfingsince

As far as the capital riots are concerned, I agree that Trump would have liked nothing less then to have the military step up and actually support him, that would have been a coup. The man should and is being held accountable.

The actual issue that I took issue with is the constant labeling of that riot as a coup. It wasn't, not in any definition of the word. The initial report by the FBI that stated rioters were intent on hanging members of government was retracted the next day. There's video of the cops letting them in, for the most part the violent offenders stayed civil, there were a handful of asshats who were violent, but to label the riot as a violent insurrection is just PR to create a narrative that justified the reaction.

I've posted essays from the civil right movement leaders who don't believe censorship is the answer, it can backfire and make a martyr out of him.

I've stated many times through the year that I'm pro BLM and ACAB. I've attended counter protests against the alt right in Vancouver. I'm very familiar with the subjects. Many, many anti Trump people disagree with the censorship, that doesn't make them Trumpist.

You are not very good at it, as this Reality guy has been schooling you.
- Cupcakes

Aww, cupcake

He's the only one actually making points and not rhetoric, I enjoy that, I enjoy learning and actually seeing things from other viewpoints.

The "if you don't agree that the riot was a coup" then you must be a Trumpist rhetoric I disagree with. No evidence besides rhetoric has been presented, so I will continue kicking that can down the road. The truth of it is over a beer, holding and I probably agree on Trumps actual role in it and a need for consequences. We might differ on the consequences and the definition, but they're shades of gray, not black and white like some like to present the facts as.

It's more a world wide phenomenon then a hockey buzz discussion. I recognize and am against the deteriorate of civil discourse, when you can state an opinion or fact without being name called or pigeonholed over it. Because of that, yes I am pushing some buttons and using some specific language that is triggering but is specific in that I'm trying to cause discourse, not discord. But it's hard and people are justifiably sensitive due to the pandemic, civil unrest and poor hockey to distract us.

That's all, thanks for your contribution to the debate.

here's some nice, light reading for you fcukers.

https://beta.documentclou...na-strategy-group-axios-1

read the executive summary (page 4). it's pretty good.

here's a nice summary:
https://www.axios.com/sco...57-8b22-5e7fe1b7e442.html

this is radical (but inevitable imo) stuff. bifurcation of technology. basically a new cold war.

as per the article, What to watch: Whether or not the proposal gets traction in the Biden administration, its emphasis on multilateralism fits with the administration's goals and priorities.

here's some nice, light reading for you fcukers.

https://beta.documentclou...na-strategy-group-axios-1

read the executive summary (page 4). it's pretty good.

here's a nice summary:
https://www.axios.com/sco...57-8b22-5e7fe1b7e442.html

this is radical (but inevitable imo) stuff. bifurcation of technology. basically a new cold war.

as per the article, What to watch: Whether or not the proposal gets traction in the Biden administration, its emphasis on multilateralism fits with the administration's goals and priorities.
- RealityChecker

Really good article, I'm in favor of it, it'll be interesting if it does get traction under Biden. Would go against the pro china propaganda if it does.

- Pres.cup

Nice cultural appropriation.