Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blotsfan

Trump Regime thread.

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Omerta said:

I get people wanting to believe her, especially people on the left. That said, to remember literally NOTHING with accuracy. It's odd to me that no evidence had become evidence in the court of public opinion.

I also have to disagree about a burden of proof too. This thread is exactly why. Why are we trying to ruin a man's career over something there is no proof for ? Saying," Well he sure seems like the kind of guy" is the same reason black people are treated unfairly by SOME cops. Those cops are the," They seem like trouble" type without knowing them. 

Most people only know him through people trying to slander him. If you judge him on the things you can prove, he's not a bad guy. I get a bad vibe from him, but my vibes have been wrong before so I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that about his character. 

I think you also need to have proof because this believe all women shit has gotten out of hand. Women can now character assassinate people and be caught, and they can say well I must have misremembered band the retraction of the story gets less than one 10th the attention the accusation does. We have to be careful about these things.

All I am saying is it is not unreasonable to think Blasey-Ford is full of shit. She may be burying the memories, and that is the lens you look through if you want to believe. Or it never happened and she is making it up and can't remember details because if that. That is the lens I see it from. Not remembering how many guys in the room, not remembering how old, what year, what house, any of that. But, somehow being able to remember which friends were there when they don't, and the coup de grace imo, emphatically remembering you only had one beer. You can't remember shit else but the one thing that would make you look like a typical lush teenager and cast doubt on your story, you emphatically remember? It just seems to convenient, doesn't it?

I am not saying he will make a good justice. I am saying Trump would have got another guy, and this would probably happen to him. The next conservative judge will probably have this happen to him as well. What I am saying is the logic you use of where there is smoke there is fire, can be applied to Blasey-Ford and bullshit. There is evidence she at the very least has no idea what happened. Also something stinks here and it's not just Kavanaugh, if it's him at all.

"trying to ruin a man's career." This is such a bullshit claim that's been repeated a bajillion times by his defenders. The man would have just been a federal judge again, making six figures a year and he probably would have written a book about it. Who am I kidding, he's still probably going to. Oh no! SC justices should be above reproach. So should the President, for that matter.

It doesn't seem convenient at all to me. When you suppress a memory you remember the oddest things about the incident. She may have held onto the memory that she only had one beer because it exonerated her in her own eyes. We blame ourselves after things like that and it generally takes a long time to come to grips with it. So long for her that she may have been fine with just sitting on it forever- except he was then nominated to the SC. 

The right's counter to #MeToo is just not based in reality. Sure, some people lie, and I don't think we should send people to jail or actually ruin a guy's career merely on an accusation. But if 10 people come forward, that's a different story. Again, no jail time, but yeah people aren't going to like you. Less than 1% of rape claims are made falsely. Sure they get a ton of attention, but then you have dudes like Brock who raped a girl behind a dumpster and got six months jail time because they didnt want to ruin his life. This is FAR more likely to happen than someone falsely accusing you of rape. And that has been on for years. And only now that more people are speaking out, all of a sudden the right is outraged about false claims, and completely being fine with the status quo.

I'm not just talking about Blasey-Ford, though I think she is likely telling the truth. He was credibly accused by multiple women. 

"Trump would have just gotten another guy." Exactly, so why fight to the death over Kavanaugh? Also if this just happens to any conservative justice, why didn't it happen to Neil Gorsuch after the GOP stole the seat from Merrick Garland? If anything they'd be more mad about him. I don't like Gorsuch politically, I disagree with a lot of his stances on things. But he is above reproach and he knows the law. So he's a good candidate. Kavanaugh is not and should have been voted down, and he should absolutely be impeached and removed from the Supreme Court because of the sham of a process that put him in. Won't happen, because the Dems won't play cutthroat like the GOP will.

Prime example is Nadler vs Lewandoski two days ago. Nadler should have had him thrown in jail when he refused to answer questions. No balls. The GOP doesn't give a fuck about rules, truth, or what is right and wrong. Dems need to go cutthroat or the GOP will just keep rigging the system. They can't win in many places without extreme partisan gerrymandering- which they can now legally do thanks to the SC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Less than one percent of rape claims are made falsely"

Dude, that's not even remotely accurate. There are no facts that back up or even suggest that statistic. Come on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BwareDWare94 said:

"Less than one percent of rape claims are made falsely"

Dude, that's not even remotely accurate. There are no facts that back up or even suggest that statistic. Come on.

My bad, I didn't finish the quote- was pulling from several different sites. "Less than one percent of rape claims are made falsely AND lead to arresting the wrong person." This idea that men are in danger of being thrown into jail from a false rape claim is statistically insignificant, especially when you compare it to the probability that the majority (60%+) of rapes are not even reported at all. 

The actual figure for false claims is 7%, (it varies from 2-10, but the most widely cited study which looked at over 2,600 rape allegations is probably closest to accurate.)

So 60%+ of rapes are never even reported because the victim is too afraid of either consequences, blame themselves, is embarrassed, knows they will never be believed due to whom its against, or some other reason. 7% of rapes reported are false claims, which less than 1% of the time, (several studies did not find a single instance), lead to the man accused actually suffering jail time.

Which is the larger problem in society, do you think? Why are Republicans outraged over the far, far less likely occurrence and haven't said a peep about the far more common one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sending troops to Saudi Arabia.... *sigh*

This quote from Gabbard seems relevant :

Trump awaits instructions from his Saudi masters. Having our country act as Saudi Arabia's bitch is not "America First."  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tulsi should explain it better though @DalaiLama4Ever. The US is using the Saudis and the Israelis and UAE to do what England failed to do last century. We're using them as our enforcers so we don't have to stretch ourselves so thin to maintain our control over middle eastern oil and other resources. Read The Prince(I'd actually be surprised if you didn't, just trying to make a point). Trump is just some retarded wild card that people like Mike Pompeo have to deal with because they're the ones that actually run the country. I mean, does anyone think Trump even has any interest in in running the country? He likes being in TV. He likes that everyone reads his dumbass tweets but for the most part he just signs off on shit and the same people from the last three Republican administrations are running shit. Besides his stupid trade stuff he feels he needs to do to claim he's fulfilling campaign promises about the horrible trade deals, he's been your typical Republican president, just much more bombastic. 

The scary thing is Bill Clinton would be doing the same thing and I think there's a good chance Obama would too. It's really sad because he's been the best president of my lifetime very easily and was at least sane when it came to relations with Iran and Russia but he wasn't what I would call good, just not batshit crazy. Certainly not worthy of any Peace prize. He at least knew that WWIII would be a bad thing. 

If/when Trump gets a second term all bets are off. Right now I think He's hesitant to start a war of that scale right before an election because if nothing else, Trump is good at running for President. He's not nearly as out of touch with what regular people think as most politicians because he's been marketing himself for decades. Problem is, if we get Biden or WARren it might not even matter if he loses in regards to war with Iran and possibly by extension, Russia. You guys should re-think not voting for Sanders. Really hope he has a spot for Tulsi in his administration. She's be a great secretary of state. I really don't think the DNC would ever allow either one to win and all these fucking retards are already declaring they'll vote for Hitler if he won the Democratic nomination just to beat Trump. Idk man. I just don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm voting for Sanders if he wins the nomination, but Yang has convinced me that Sanders' ideas will not work in the long run. They are a band-aid solution to the real problem. Bringing minimum wage up doesn't help if the jobs aren't there in the first place.

Yang has my full support at the moment. He needs to start interrupting the moderators in the debates though, they don't give him enough time.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Thanatos said:

I'm voting for Sanders if he wins the nomination, but Yang has convinced me that Sanders' ideas will not work in the long run. They are a band-aid solution to the real problem. Bringing minimum wage up doesn't help if the jobs aren't there in the first place.

Yang has my full support at the moment. He needs to start interrupting the moderators in the debates though, they don't give him enough time.

Well Sanders also wants to guarantee jobs by building new, green infrastructure. We do still need to bring up minimum wage because most of the jobs that have been created that Trump and Obama before him have bragged about ad nauseum are retail and service jobs. I think Sanders also has a lot of important points on bringing workers into the boardroom too. It's not just about raising minimum wage for him. I like the way the Germans do it. Not saying we can bring their system in wholesale but workers need to have a voice in the workplace. Executives of these big corporations just don't understand a lot of the day to day on the ground shit. I also like that Sanders is for eliminating a lot of personal debt and giving everyone health care. I think that would free people up to be entrepreneurs more, be able to get loans and switch jobs freely. He's also spoken about anti-trust issues which is huge for me. I honestly prefer Tulsi over both, she pissed me off with the Israel stuff but I just think she has the most balls to stand up to the establishment in Washington and Wallstreet. I think that's why she's being kept out of the debates 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Andrew Yang a lot. UBI makes the most sense, and everyone gets it no matter how much they currently make. Technology has already permanently stolen lots of jobs, and it'll only get worse. Alaska has been doing something similar with oil money for some time now. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I HATE the idea of UBI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your solution to the fact that technology is going to keep taking jobs away from workers?

Share this post


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

Your solution to the fact that technology is going to keep taking jobs away from workers?

This right here is why the left is as bad as the right. You talk about the right fear-mongering, this is the lefts big bullshit lie.

There are not many studies that say technology is going to hurt this country more than help, as opposed to the MASSIVE amounts of studies who say it will take jobs but create more. The most outrageous is a celebrity "futurist" Thomas Frey who provides no mathematical basis or forecasting for his inflammatory billion job number he pulled out of his ass in an off the cuff comment at a speaking engagement.

So what would I do? Stop scaring the shit out of people over shit that most likely will not happen according to almost all of the economic forecasting models and study banks that have no political bias lol. 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/11/29/automation-could-kill-73-million-u-s-jobs-2030/899878001/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610005/every-study-we-could-find-on-what-automation-will-do-to-jobs-in-one-chart/

Those are some of the most recent one the floor and doin ones are from 2013 and 2015. Now that we see what technology is doing the only people left scared are on the left.

 

Of course we can't wait and see. We have to say a BOOMING economy is going to shit and everyone is going to lose their jobs. The left is disgusting, just as much as the right as far as far mongering. The right tells you Mexicans are bad, and the left says technology. Fuck them both.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jobs are lost for a variety of reasons though, not just technology. That was only one example. And a lot of the new jobs that are created each year don't pay a whole lot. The UBI protects unemployed people for whatever reason they might be unemployed. Additionally it gives people to ability to pay off debt, save for retirement, take vacations, and leave shitty dead end jobs that aren't going anywhere. It could potentially also lead to families spending more time together since both parents won't have to work their lives away in jobs they hate just to get by. 

I like it, but I understand why others don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know if you’re referring to Yang, which is what thanatos was getting at but fear mongering really isn’t his thing. 

He tells you like it is. His campaign thus far has been meeting people displaced by AI. It’s already happening (to a smaller degree).

There’s a million truck drivers in this country... mostly male... mostly with nothing more than a GED / diploma.  Automated vehicles obliterates that job field (just one example).

Its similar to Yangs policies on climate change. He’s the only Democrat up there that while he does advocate for change... he lays it out like it is... We’re beyond fucked. We’ve fucked up the planet beyond a point of reversal.

There is doom and gloom there but he attacks it from a very logical angle... with facts. 

The landscape of work IS changing. Will we survive? Sure. Are there ways to enable humans to make that jump easier and smoother. Damn right. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people blame technology like it's the lefts mexican.

There's no way it will be a living wage. If you want to bankrupt the economy, make that happen.

I could definitely seeing it hurt children though. Right now we have so many programs to help kids specifically, I would hate to give free will to a shitty parent who doesn't spend it on their kids. If their not shitty then the current programs work fine for the kids imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DalaiLama4Ever said:

I don’t know if you’re referring to Yang, which is what thanatos was getting at but fear mongering really isn’t his thing. 

He tells you like it is. His campaign thus far has been meeting people displaced by AI. It’s already happening (to a smaller degree).

There’s a million truck drivers in this country... mostly male... mostly with nothing more than a GED / diploma.  Automated vehicles obliterates that job field (just one example).

Its similar to Yangs policies on climate change. He’s the only Democrat up there that while he does advocate for change... he lays it out like it is... We’re beyond fucked. We’ve fucked up the planet beyond a point of reversal.

There is doom and gloom there but he attacks it from a very logical angle... with facts. 

The landscape of work IS changing. Will we survive? Sure. Are there ways to enable humans to make that jump easier and smoother. Damn right. 

 

First the Department of Labor is saying the effect on truckers is vastly overstated.

https://www.fleetowner.com/autonomous-vehicles/fewer-drivers-risk-losing-jobs-over-truck-automation-study-says

And we are a loooooong way from that if it happens anytime soon. 

I don't buy we are beyond fucked. If the Democrats would ease up on using nuclear energy we would beat AOCs green new deal like a drum, but alas they won't. He isn't talking about that.

Yang is weak, not somebody I want. He has no balls, he caves to the clamoring of the outrage culture crowd. And his policies are ass imo. UBI, anti- 2nd amendment and so on, dumb energy plan that is a kickback to his base using 400,000,000 in vouchers. 

He is garbage imo. More tolerable than Bernie or Warren but not a great option imo.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s weird to say he caters to outrage culture when he’s saying things like don’t worry about impeaching Trump, don’t impeach Kavanaugh (although he doesn’t think he should’ve been confirmed to begin with), and don’t fire the SNL cast member (who made racist jokes that were in part directed are yang specifically). 

He’s spoken out against outrage culture and being PC so many times it’s hard for me to rationalize your image of him and who he actually is. 

However, I’m not looking to change anyone’s vote. I come here to discuss, post the things I like (and don’t). However people choose to take that information is up to them. No skin off my back lol 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He had a hard change of mind about the 2nd amendment when he had those big crocodile tears and him walking back his position which just coincided with when the outrage SJW's growled at the door.  

I won't vote for anyone who I feel is that way. He may not be the raging outrage peddler Bernie and Warren are, but he is susceptible to their bullshit. He has no sack is my point.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yeah, I'm not trying to convince anyone how to vote. I'm not that cool. I would like to discuss for once how there is an actual good candidate and not just the retards we get to vote for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truck drivers? Regulation is more of a threat to drivers than automation. There are drivers in this country who can't make money for a variety of reasons. In some cases it's how they're contracted, others it's they can only work 40 hours. I mean, I completely agree with making sure these guys aren't exhausting themselves to the point of falling asleep behind the wheel of a big rig, but for fuck's sake, we're over-regulating them in some cases.

You want to regulate semi drivers? Give them 3 strikes and lose their license for 10 years with speeding, take their license away for 5 years if you catch them blowing a stop sign, etc. The crazy fucks are more dangerous than the long hour guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't see how you get so up in arms over a simple statement like automation is going to take retail jobs. It's a fact that it is, not because its in the future, but because it is currently happening right now. You don't need people to take other's orders anymore, for example. Sure they're still there, but I bet they won't be in 20+ years. You can order at a kiosk. 

Elon Musk endorsed Yang for precisely this reason. 

And sure, tech also creates more jobs- but not at the same level. It's the baseline retail jobs that get kicked in the teeth the hardest by automation.

We're halfway to self-driving cars. The idea that trucks will follow seems completely logical. AI is better than a human 99% of the time driving, the only real issue is if AI driver can't predict what a human driver will do. If everything is automated that ceases to be a problem.

He's still pro-2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment simply doesn't cover military grade assault rifles. The NRA's fearmongering on the issue has done wonders to the extreme right, anyone who proposes any restrictions is suddenly labeled anti-2nd amendment. 

The idea that Yang caters to the outrage culture crowd is just so absolutely not true I don't even know where to start with that lol. Favre already laid out why that claim is pure bullshit. You've clearly made up your mind on him, but a dude that pulls 10%+ of Trump voters is not some far left hack who just wants PC culture.

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Thanatos said:

I really don't see how you get so up in arms over a simple statement like automation is going to take retail jobs. It's a fact that it is, not because its in the future, but because it is currently happening right now. You don't need people to take other's orders anymore, for example. Sure they're still there, but I bet they won't be in 20+ years. You can order at a kiosk. 

Elon Musk endorsed Yang for precisely this reason. 

And sure, tech also creates more jobs- but not at the same level. It's the baseline retail jobs that get kicked in the teeth the hardest by automation.

We're halfway to self-driving cars. The idea that trucks will follow seems completely logical. AI is better than a human 99% of the time driving, the only real issue is if AI driver can't predict what a human driver will do. If everything is automated that ceases to be a problem.

He's still pro-2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment simply doesn't cover military grade assault rifles. The NRA's fearmongering on the issue has done wonders to the extreme right, anyone who proposes any restrictions is suddenly labeled anti-2nd amendment. 

The idea that Yang caters to the outrage culture crowd is just so absolutely not true I don't even know where to start with that lol. Favre already laid out why that claim is pure bullshit. You've clearly made up your mind on him, but a dude that pulls 10%+ of Trump voters is not some far left hack who just wants PC culture.

Because it's not true. At least not yet.  The EXACT same logic is used by the right. Have some illegals taken jobs that white people could do? Sure. Is it some widespread pandemic, no. It's usually lazy people who don't want to work who get their jobs taken. Now are there some industries where it is prominent, yes. Is it causal for the 08 collapse? No. Is it something to beat your cheat about? No.

Technology is the same. Has it taken some jobs, sure. There are kiosks at Applebee's but really there is the same amount of employees because I'm not getting my own drinks, food, or what have you. They still need those people even with kiosks. 

All the projections are doing is causing people to panic and live in fear when there is no actual evidence that it is going to take a massive percentage of jobs. And MOST projections say it will create more jobs. The trucker Things gets brought up all the time but there is a study that is about a year old saying it is not going to be a profound shift.

People would rather cause panic and prey on people's fears of making a living by saying the big tech Boogeyman is going to take all the jobs, when that isn't any more true than the immigrant theories. When people do that I think it is reprehensible.

Elon Musk I am not impressed with so he doesn't away me one way or the other. He is a business owner, nothing more really.

And you keep saying that the 2nd amendment has all these restrictions. It's bullshit. It doesnt. You made that up as have other people and say we agreed to it as a society. We obviously didn't or it would not be hotly contested. The only thing it says really is a well regulated militia ( nothing to do with regulating guns, I can source you no less than six books that this was speaking to funding the militia, even the federalist papers point this out), and shall not infringe. When it was written the citizenry had military grade weaponry. So you saying it restricts them is not factually correct.

I was with Yang until he bent to a mob. I think people who do that are weak and will do it again. Now for me, Gabbard is the only one who I think has any balls. She has had mobs at the door and she owned it and said the course. That is all the PC Mafia and outrage machine have. A weak but vocal mob imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really don't think most people think the 2nd amendment allows you carte blanche on weaponry. It's not controversial at all in terms of what the public wants, they are like 70%+ for this. Its the deep pockets of the NRA and the GOP kow-towing to them that makes it so hard to pass gun control legislation.

No infringement on the right to bear arms. So to you, this means literally nothing can be done? I mean by this logic, we can't pass background checks, we can't remove people who might be threats from owning guns, we can't even say people who are mentally ill cannot own guns. 

I'm sensing a theme here. "You can't cause panic by stating what's going to happen, even if its going to happen!" Climate change, and now technology. Really don't think Yang is causing a panic or trying to cause one, since no one is panicking. We're just trying to get ahead of tech taking retail/service jobs, which is already happening.

How is AI being literally able to do a trucker's job not going to take many of said jobs? Sure you need people for loading and unloading, but still. And yes, it will create jobs as well, but not at the same level. You will need more education to do the jobs that technology will provide, it's not going to provide nearly as many base-level entry jobs as it takes away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and the public overwhelmingly hates the media. Let's scrap the first one too. This is why the bill of rights is so important, to keep the mob from trampling people's rights.

We have done well being civil but if you are going to put words in my mouth the cordial attitude ends here. I have said MANY times I support background checks. Don't do the bullshit where you make up my argument for me and argue that.

Now I'm a climate change denier..? Is this really how you want to play this?

Did you read the report? It tells you in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Omerta said:

Yes and the public overwhelmingly hates the media. Let's scrap the first one too. This is why the bill of rights is so important, to keep the mob from trampling people's rights.

We have done well being civil but if you are going to put words in my mouth the cordial attitude ends here. I have said MANY times I support background checks. Don't do the bullshit where you make up my argument for me and argue that.

Now I'm a climate change denier..? Is this really how you want to play this?

Did you read the report? It tells you in there.

You're missing my point.

Your logic, if taken to its logical end- no infringement whatsoever- means that we can't even have limits. I KNOW you support background checks and red-flag laws- we did that poll- that was my entire point in making that statement. Therefore, what is your logic for supporting background checks and removing guns from people who are threats and yet not allowing a simple restriction on assault rifles?

My point in stating the public overwhelmingly supports it was simply to say I don't think its that controversial, as you had claimed. 

I actually don't know how you stand on the climate change issue. I do find it difficult to believe you think its a real threat if you're planning on voting for Trump at all, much less just to stick it to the libs, as you have stated, given Trump has literally put a denier in charge of the EPA. But I have heard lately the GOP ratcheting up their rhetoric about panicking the kids over climate change. (It's funny since most of these people are religious and don't see the hypocrisy in saying we can't panic them over climate change while literally telling them they will go to hell for all eternity if they don't believe in their parents God.)

The report you linked states a lot of vague things. First off, its one versus a bunch that says the other way. Secondly, they don't even say how many they think we will lose, just "less than journalists and even some experts think." Thirdly, they say we won't lose as many jobs because there are things only drivers can do. This is kinda already covered. You won't need a specialized license or training if the AI is driving, and thus they can hire people with less expertise, and thus, less pay. And probably less people, too. Fourth, a lot of it is pure speculation. Rather than look at industries that are already being affected, they just basically make a claim that humans will still be needed because there are jobs that are hard to program an AI to do.

For now, this remains true. The rate that tech advances, its quite easy to figure out this will not always be the case.

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you're missing mine. This is getting tiresome. We disagree.

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  

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×