Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kimmo

What a joke

Recommended Posts

Just now, datafast69 said:

Heh, well I refuse to act in such a way in future, life is too short the waste it in such a way.

Ohhh come on, it's good to get the shit off your liver and besides, if your anger and words are honest then it's all good, isn't it ? It's only when a person bullshits and expects to be believed that everything turns rotten tomatoes ! ...imo.

Also, life is too short to be dull, too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, datafast69 said:

I'm happy that you are happy with your Trump, Leo.


I’m stoked Hillary lost and unhappy Trump won.

 

I like some things he’s done and the country is economically thriving. Lowest minority unemployment in decades, actual wage growth.

 

If I was American and I was faced with this lot of options in the Democrat slate, I’d either stay home (for the centrist Democrats) or volunteer for the Trump campaign against the “democratic” socialists - depending on who gets up.

 

I speak to relatives reasonably often there. Even the Dem-voting ones (the majority of my relos there) are utterly unexcited. 
 

The mood of the country is “Trump, socialists, or more of the same old shit”.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have been drinking the Trump cool-aid, drunk on it in fact  🤣

 

I guess it is a perfect example of Dr. Michael Shermer's book  'Why smart people believe stupid things'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, datafast69 said:

You have been drinking the Trump cool-aid, drunk on it in fact  🤣

 

I guess it is a perfect example of Dr. Michael Shermer's book  'Why smart people believe stupid things'.


I’m guessing you read that book to try fix your dementia and proclivity for believing stupid shit?

 

Did it work? (Course it didn’t, trick question).

 

For all those not afflicted with datafast69 levels of stupidity and understand the concepts expressed, here’s a UK Labour voter, just a random dude, explaining why Labour lost, why Labor lost and why Democrats will lose and it has NOTHING to do with liking Johnson, Morrison or Trump.

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/listeners-maajid-nawaz-caller-labour-leader/

 

If the left don’t realise just how fucken stupid what they’ve done is and stop listening to twats on Twitter, they will enable worse than Trump.

 

No normal Independent or marginal-left voting person votes for socialism, and 100 gender identities, for a party that hates the country’s flag and is obsessed by foreign conflicts and fixing the world.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, datafast69 said:

Funny deluded boy you are, Leo  🤣


Take your pills old man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like a couple of those comments from Leo's link there...

 

at it boils down to is Labour have become obsessed with identity politics. 

They call it progressive ideology but it is in fact regressive since they no longer see people as individual but as a collective, so if you're Muslim,  Black, Female, or any other minority group you're judged differently to the most evil of all things a white male already found guilty of oppression either directly or by association.  The left are always outraged, feelings are more important than honesty, diversity of thought is replaced with compliance and to anyone who disagrees, the left bring out their usual buzz words like racist, xenophobia islamophobia homophobia. This could not have been demonstrated more clearly by Gordon Brown who called a labour member a big it for expressing her concerns for immigration and jobs in her northern constituency. 
The caller may as well be leader,  but unless he sets about deselection of politicians behind this ideology such as David Lammy and Diane Abbott propped up by the racist momentum cult nothing will change for Labour. 
For now at least the public have utterly rejected Labour Socalist ideology but never underestimate their determination to destroy our country. 
Brexit is coming Rule Britannia 
What it boils down to is Labour have become obsessed with identity politics. 
They call it progressive ideology but it is in fact regressive since they no longer see people as individual but as a collective, so if you're Muslim,  Black, Female, or any other minority group you're judged differently to the most evil of all things a white male already found guilty of oppression either directly or by association.  The left are always outraged, feelings are more important than honesty, diversity of thought is replaced with compliance and to anyone who disagrees, the left bring out their usual buzz words like racist, xenophobia islamophobia homophobia. This could not have been demonstrated more clearly by Gordon Brown who called a labour member a big it for expressing her concerns for immigration and jobs in her northern constituency. 
The caller may as well be leader,  but unless he sets about deselection of politicians behind this ideology such as David Lammy and Diane Abbott propped up by the racist momentum cult nothing will change for Labour. 
For now at least the public have utterly rejected Labour Socalist ideology but never underestimate their determination to destroy our country. 
Brexit is coming Rule Britannia 

 

What it boils down to is Labour have become obsessed with identity politics.
They call it progressive ideology but it is in fact regressive since they no longer see people as individual but as a collective, so if you're Muslim,  Black, Female, or any other minority group you're judged differently to the most evil of all things a white male already found guilty of oppression either directly or by association.  The left are always outraged, feelings are more important than honesty, diversity of thought is replaced with compliance and to anyone who disagrees, the left bring out their usual buzz words like racist, xenophobia islamophobia homophobia. This could not have been demonstrated more clearly by Gordon Brown who called a labour member a big it for expressing her concerns for immigration and jobs in her northern constituency.
The caller may as well be leader,  but unless he sets about deselection of politicians behind this ideology such as David Lammy and Diane Abbott propped up by the racist momentum cult nothing will change for Labour.
For now at least the public have utterly rejected Labour Socalist ideology but never underestimate their determination to destroy our country.
Brexit is coming Rule Britannia.

 

So the Scots in your last line, accept a new master, give their fishing rights to the EUrinal anyway/everything to the EUrinal but complain about us? How does that work then?

 

(ok, that last one's probably Scottish so hard to understand by default, but "EUrinal" - PMSL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, datafast69 said:

He's a far right wing sucker.


How’s it feel to be the embodiment of the reason the left keeps losing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The left has alienated the only voters that can compromise.

 

Let me provide an example: Johnson has promised 40b pounds for the NHS and 80b pounds for Northern UK transport.

 

He has paid no price for it despite social welfare being theoretically a third rail for the right. I say theoretically - because it actually isn’t. The right just wants it FUNDED. Whether you think that right or wrong, that’s the stipulation. And whether he does it is also another question - but let’s leave that aside - he’s paid no cost from even the hard right in his party on going economically left on welfare.

 

On the opposite of the right is the traditional left. Left-economically, socially conservative workers. Their profile has changed - millions are middle class and lots are self-employed and rely on good economic conditions.

 

When their choice is a right wing party promising to go a little economically left or a left party that threatens their livelihoods - they’re going to pick the right wing party.

 

The problem is that by thoroughly alienating these voters with “Wakanda Forever! Allahu Akbar! Believe Women” social policies, the left is left with a coalition of groups utterly incapable of compromise or being able to see the forest for the trees.


These very same uncompromising gender-queer Islamist-aligned crazies then spend their time bashing the alienated Labour voter as stupid for voting for the other guy.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Leonid said:


How’s it feel to be the embodiment of the reason the left keeps losing?

Have i ever stated what political entity i support? No!

 

Typical Trumpkin assuming all the time 🤣

 

So easy to bait too 😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, datafast69 said:

Have i ever stated what political entity i support? No!

 

Typical Trumpkin assuming all the time 🤣

 

So easy to bait too 😎


It’s not hard to guess who you support old duffer 🙂

 

You clearly need a more regular regimen for your pills. Not only do you in your old age forget that you said you wouldn’t engage but you also appear to have not read a single thing I’ve ever written about Trump where I clearly state that: I am not a Trump supporter.

1 hour ago, eveln said:

lol


Anyone feel like that is offensive to urinals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

urinal/s is a totally unappealing word.

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, datafast69 said:

You can't help but bite, so easy.

 

A trait of far right loonies 😉


Is it time for your nap yet grandpa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since people have been bringing up the impeachment of Trump, and specifically that certain actions "are not crimes", I thought you might find this enlightening:

 

 

TLDW: Impeachement is not a matter of criminal law, and the offence(s) do not need to be crimes.

Edited by Cybes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cybes said:

TLDW: Impeachement is not a matter of criminal law, and the offence(s) do not need to be crimes.


100%. They need to be high crimes or misdemeanours.

 

Which is very open to interpretation. But what Trump is being accused of is, at worst, standard practise among Presidents.

 

There are even Democrats of the same opinion. Congressman Peterson is one.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leonid said:

100%. They need to be high crimes or misdemeanours.

 

No, that is not the complete criteria.  You really should try listening to an American lawyer on the subject of the American constitution, rather than assuming you know everything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Cybes said:

 

No, that is not the complete criteria.  You really should try listening to an American lawyer on the subject of the American constitution, rather than assuming you know everything.

 

That’s the complete criteria as per the US Constitution.

 

Section IV Article 2.

 

You should really try reading the American Constitution which was formed before there was ANY Federal Law whatsoever, and the crime of bribery was only Federally defined in the 1950s. Hence, wide interpretation.

 

If you define bribery as “making foreign puppet states do or not do things to increase a particular President’s electoral chances” I suspect every President is guilty. Obama and Trump certainly are.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh,

 

The only thing that really surprises me about the impeachment is that they picked such relatively low hanging fruit to specifically charge him with, I'm sure they could have been far more creative.

 

Perhaps they are holding off on if they ever get to see his tax returns - he's running out of ways to keep them concealed, before they arraign him on tax evasion...

 

Cheers

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Leonid said:

That’s the complete criteria as per the US Constitution.

 

Section IV Article 2.

 

 

The passage before 1950 is totally irrelevant, and you know it. Trump did not take office under one set of rules and have them changed underneath him - he agreed to abide by the current rules implicitly by running, and expressly when sworn in.  Currently it reads:

Quote

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

 

A "high crime", btw, is undefined.  It is most widely understood to mean any crime committed by high office.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, eveln said:

what is the bribe here ?

what happened to " quid pro quo " ?

 

In reverse order: that's just the latin words for the same thing; and fucked if I know - what he actually did was extortion, not bribery.  And misappropriation of funds, since that's senate-approved aid he has no legal access to.  But they haven't pressed those charges, so (my guess) he's going to skate on it.  Again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

There's no time limit on when they can bring further charges, not that I necessarily believe they are planning to do so.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×