The American Politics Thread - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Atavachron View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65268

Posted: July 05 2017 at 22:05

Finnforest wrote:

Also meant to ask you about "Jackie" since I know you're a Kennedy enthusiast. Interesting film. I don't know about the accuracy but I liked the style and the music.

Yeah it was rather good ~

Jackie

Eagerly expecting to dislike this one and brush-off Natalie Portman's portrayal of a beloved FLOTUS as trivial and self-serving, I was surprised at Portman's commitment to the role, her uncanny mimicry of Jacqueline Kennedy's throaty, sensual voice, and the gloomy, disturbed atmosphere achieved as she recalls her time in the White House. Mica Levi's queasy, elastic score haunts us as we're taken through the excruciating days just after the murder of JFK and his death in Jackie's lap as they rode through Dallas, and Billy Crudup excellent as the interviewer trying to pry an account from a dark and disoriented First Lady. A true story that's truth is eternally unknowable and largely speculative, Jackie doesn't flinch in its depiction of a life gone from magisterial to mundane in a few seconds. Plus a poignant appearance by John Hurt in the last film released before he died.

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy

SteveG

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20609

Posted: July 06 2017 at 04:18

Finnforest wrote:

SteveG wrote:

^And this is the problem. Repubs generally do not win by landslides. These 2-4 point wins are devastating to the Dems! What will it take to turn the tide?

Hey Steve, do you think it would work for them to run strongly on Single-payer? Quit beating around the bush. Put their money where their mouth is and run on it for real, nationally. I suspect that could give them 2-4 points, what do you guys think?

It would certainly help but its not a cure all. Some major restructuring of the Dems is needed along with a new message and mission statement, as well an infusion of new members in leadership roles who were born after 1958. So, a lot needs to be done just to get those 2-4 votes consistently.

Edited by SteveG - July 06 2017 at 04:30

progaardvark View Drop Down

Collaborator

Crossover/Symphonic/RPI Teams

Joined: June 14 2007
Location: Sea of Peas
Status: Offline
Points: 51086

Posted: July 06 2017 at 06:00

omphaloskepsis wrote:

progaardvark wrote:

Donald Trump's file: 69% mostly false to pants on fire; another 15% half true

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Trump's lies: the definitive list:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

Good god Aardvark. Must I spoon feed you like an middle school teacher? Can you read your own article aardvark? 16% pants on fire! not 69!

However I will put a gold star by your name for using a fun sexual number and zodiac sign...69.

Gee, I didn't know I had to also do math for you. Calling me a middle school teacher? You can't even perform elementary school arithmetic. See above where I say "mostly false to pants on fire" [bold emphasis mine]. Now add them up: 21 + 32 + 16 = 69.

----------
i'm shopping for a new oil-cured sinus bag
that's a happy bag of lettuce
this car smells like cartilage
nothing beats a good video about fractions

omphaloskepsis View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 6343

Posted: July 06 2017 at 08:31

The Dark Elf wrote:

omphaloskepsis wrote:

Get with the times Easy Money. The MSM has retracted the Russian -Trump collusion story. It's over! I refuted it in March. I was vindicated in June. The most recent evidence points toward Russia helping Hillary. That's right Hillary. Hillary signed off on deal that gave Russia 20% of American Uranium. Clinton Foundation received 145 million dollars in contribution from Russia. I could go on, but I've already covered this ground with hard evidence, Proof, articles and other facts earlier in this thread. Please review and then we'll talk.

Your rhetoric lacks one important detail – facts. If you actually researched real news organizations and reports from the U.S. government itself, rather than relying on laughable spawn like “Blaze”, you would not come off sounding so tinfoil-hat-squirrel-nut-zipper.

1) Newspapers and Broadcast networks retract stories when the sources are not up to their standards. Retractions, if anything, are a sign of integrity. So when you say "MSM has retracted the Russian -Trump collusion story. It's over!" that is simply silly. It's a single story against an avalanche of other stories regarding the same subject that have proven to be true. Meanwhile, Robert Mueller just hired Preet Bharara, a noted US Attorney who busted organized crime in NY. It's not a stretch to consider that Trump and/or Trump associates like Paul Manafort and Felix Sater are tied to the Russian Mob. Follow the money, as the saying goes. I won't play smoke and mirrors, I'll wait for Mueller's report.

How many lies have Breitbart and Fox retracted? InfoWars has to be sued (lost a suit to Chobani), or crazy fascist listeners have to shoot up pizza parlors in order for Alex Jones to retract his lies. And what of the hundreds of lies spewed by Trump on a daily basis that have proven to be without foundation? But he keeps making new lies, because it's a compulsion. Hell, it took 8 years and a direct question during a presidential debate for Trump to admit his whole birther nonsense was a lie. By the way, here's the complete list of Trump lies (at least up to 06/23/17), complete with monthly charts:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?mcubz=0&_r=0

2) Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State when the U.S. government (9 signatories, all department heads, including Hillary Clinton) signed off on the sale of uranium mines that were not held by an American firm, but owned by a Canadian company (Uranium One, an international mining company headquartered in Canada with operations in several U.S. states) to a Russian firm, Rosatom, which completed purchase of a 51% stake Of Uranium One. Uranium One’s mines produced 11% of U.S. uranium as of 2014. Politifact has noted Trump’s claim as false.

In addition, the uranium does not leave the U.S. for Russia. This is a direct quote from the Nuclear Regulatory Convention:

“NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.”

So, your asinine Limbaugh/Levin radio rant has no basis in truth. It is completely made up. In fact, you regurgitating it basically is a worthless exercise in typing. On to your next right-wing fallacy....

3) Regarding any contributions to the Clinton Foundation, “Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.” So please, explain to me how Cllinton benefited from the sale of 51% of Uranium One to Rosatom?

The transactions are all on file, which is required by federal law, as are a complete list of all donors who contributed $25 million or more to the Clinton Foundation: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada), Frank Giustra, The Radcliffe Foundation, Nationale Postcode Loterij, The Children's Investment Fund Foundation, UNITAID. It’s all in black and white, and unlike the fraudulent Trump foundation (currently under investigation by the NY AG), the Clinton Foundation received an ‘A’ rating from CharityWatch, and a ‘4 out of 4’ stars from Charity Navigator.

The donation information is located right on the foundation's website. It's not like it's some dark, hidden, conservative ejaculating secret:

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=Greater+than+%2425%2C000%2C000

All you need to know is what comes out of Trump's mouth:

Dark Elf, you use rhetoric to say I didn't post facts. It's easy to say I didn't post facts. A five year old could say that. Who made Dark Elf the God of judging all news sources?

"Oh no the news source doesn't meet Dark Elf's standards...Shut down the presses."

Yes, it's easy to say I didn't post facts. However, Dark Elf, you won't find it easy to prove I didn't post facts. Prove it Dark Elf.

I've posted many facts and evidence over many posts. Maybe you should research the posts? Did you think about that? I've quoted many news sources. If you had read all my sources, then you would have noticed. Who am I suppose to quote? CNN? They're a national joke! Did you not read the New York Times retractions I posted. Or associative press? Oh, I got so many Trump related retractions posted by MSM. I could confetti a parade with the retractions.

Before I go on...If you're so confident that Trump Russia collusion happened then let's make a bet. If any evidence of Trump- Russia collusion is proved I will delete my membership to Progarchives. However, if no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion is proved then you delete your membership to Progarchives. I don't think you'll take my bet Dark Elf because deep down you know I'm right.

Let's start with Robert Mueller. Did you know Robert Mueller delivered Uranium to Russia?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-19/hillary-clinton-told-fbis-mueller-deliver-uranium-russians-2009-secret-plane-side-ta

Did you know Robert Mueller hired the attorney for the Clinton Foundation to investigate Trump? All the attorneys that Robert Mueller hired are Obama donors. Mueller is real independent! lol

http://www.trump-conservative.com/news/robert-mueller-stacks-counsel-with-obama-donors-and-former-clinton-foundation-lawyer/

Did you know Robert Mueller is close friends with Comey? Even CNN reported that...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/23/politics/trump-mueller-pelosi/index.html

Another topsy turvy thing about this Trump witch hunt... Rod Rosenstein wrote a recommendation to Trump requesting Trump fire James Comey. After Trump fired Comey like Rod Rosenstein asked, then Rosenstein hired Robert Mueller to investigate Trump for following Rod Rosenstein's recommendation that Trump fire James Comey.

What is the power of Robert Mueller? It's like having a 24/7/ 365 search warrant on Trump and his associates. Investigation creep allows Mueller to go though everything Trump has ever done. Income taxes, decades old deals, everybody Trump has ever met. This extends to Trump's family and everyone in Trumps camp. Mueller is Big Brother. Investigation Creep is the process of the investigation moving from Russian Collusion to everything Trump. Why wasn't Hillary investigated for email scandal. Or Obama when he sent billions of dollars secretly to Iran?

Mueller is clearly close to Obama, Comey, and Hillary. I could post hundreds of articles documenting this and much more. However, it's up to you to prove I'm wrong about the evidence I've produced. I will accept evidence given under oath. I have a bunch of that evidence given under oath I'm holding back. I'm require evidence given to direct questions under oath. Not opinions under oath! So, do your research Dark Elf.

Edited by omphaloskepsis - July 06 2017 at 09:10

omphaloskepsis View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 6343

Posted: July 06 2017 at 09:07

progaardvark wrote:

omphaloskepsis wrote:

progaardvark wrote:

Donald Trump's file: 69% mostly false to pants on fire; another 15% half true

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Trump's lies: the definitive list:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

Good god Aardvark. Must I spoon feed you like an middle school teacher? Can you read your own article aardvark? 16% pants on fire! not 69!

However I will put a gold star by your name for using a fun sexual number and zodiac sign...69.

Did you check out Trump supposed lies? CNN ratings down. Well that depends over which time period you check CNN's ratings. And that's a pants on fire lie?

Did you check out Obamas lies. You will be able to keep your doctors. Your health care premiums will remain low.

What's more important? CNN ratings or Promises kept and broken to American Voters?

Obvious democrat bias on lies. However check out the promises kept to American Public from the same website. Not so easy to to mask bias creep on that. Trump has only broke 3% of campaign promises. While Obama broke 24% of campaign Promises. Yep. That's the same website you quoted.

You did good on addition aardvark. Yep 21+32+16=69 Another gold star by your name. Now move on to percentages. I think your ready.... I see a silver star in your future!

"Oh no, Trump said CNN's ratings are down. Impeach him!"

omphaloskepsis View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 6343

Posted: July 06 2017 at 09:50

Dark Elf wrote

1) Newspapers and Broadcast networks retract stories when the sources are not up to their standards. Retractions, if anything, are a sign of integrity. So when you say "MSM has retracted the Russian -Trump collusion story. It's over!" that is simply silly. It's a single story against an avalanche of other stories regarding the same subject that have proven to be true. Meanwhile, Robert Mueller just hired Preet Bharara, a noted US Attorney who busted organized crime in NY. It's not a stretch to consider that Trump and/or Trump associates like Paul Manafort and Felix Sater are tied to the Russian Mob. Follow the money, as the saying goes. I won't play smoke and mirrors, I'll wait for Mueller's report.

1. Retractions would be a sign of integrity if MSM posted them on front page. However, MSM maintains a dirty practice of placing Trump-Russia retractions buried deep in stories that have headlines like

"Is Trump Mentally Competent? " or " Russian Investigation Close to Evidence Trump Colluded"

Oh yeah, that's journalistic integrity -Dark Elf style!

I'm sure Preet Bharara is unbias!

http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/02/24/preet-bharara-lead-prosecutor-dinesh-d%E2%80%99souza-case-former-obama-donor

You tell me how many lies Breitbart ( whom I've never quoted) and Fox ( check quote above) have told. So when Fox news makes a retraction, it's a lie. But when CNN or the New York Times buries a retraction deep on page 34, it's journalistic integrity according to Dark Elf. You tell me how many lies FOX has reported. You brought FOX into this conversation...I didn't. It's your story...not mine. You provide the proof to back up your story and then I will reply.

Infowars has made 3 retractions in it's entire history! Only 3. The New York times buried three retractions this week. Dark Elf can you prove Infowars should retract any other stories?

Infowars has actually been ahead of the curve. Infowars reported that there was no evidence of Trump Russia Collusion, months before CNN and the New York Times retracted stories on Trump Russia Collusion.

( I don't think I've ever quoted Inforwars....I'll have to check out Infowars more often)

Your Trump Lie List counts Trump saying CNN ratings are down as a lie. Give me a break. Let's talk lies and campaign promises. Answer me a question Dark Elf. For a moment, Let's pretend Trump told all the lies in your list. Just pretending.... Answer me this Dark Elf.

Which is more important to the American Voters? Campaign Promises Kept and broken? Or all the lies any President has told in during his lifetime?

Which one matters more Dark Elf? Which one effects the Voter's pocketbook, free speech, and right to privacy?

Do you think you can answer that Dark Elf? Or will you obfuscate and deflect again? My guess? Dark Elf will accuse me of not posting facts. Then, Dark Elf won't back his claim with any hard evidence.

Or.... Dark Elf- "God and Judge of all Media Sources" will send down an Edict, a Pronouncement, a Proclamation from Mount Doom declaring my sources invalid.

I'm sure Dark Elf's opinion is more valid then this Recent Harvard Trump News Study. It's seems that 93% of all CNN and NBC coverage was negative on Trump. Do you think CNN and NBC are biased Dark Elf? I'm waiting with bated breath to hear your Edict Dark Elf. We won't know what to think until you tell us Dark Elf.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/

Edited by omphaloskepsis - July 06 2017 at 10:20

The Dark Elf View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13065

Posted: July 06 2017 at 10:23

Onomotopeia, you are deflecting all over the place. You were wrong regarding the partial stake of a Canadian mining firm sold to a Russian firm, and you were wrong regarding Russians contributing $140 million to the Clinton Foundation. It never happened, and no amount of poorly written neo-con fodder will make it so. Please refer to government records rather than Alex Jones, who believes NASA is running a child slave colony on Mars. Tinfoil hats obviously constrict blood flow to the brain.

...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...

omphaloskepsis View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 6343

Posted: July 06 2017 at 10:48

The Dark Elf wrote:

Onomotopeia, you are deflecting all over the place. You were wrong regarding the partial stake of a Canadian mining firm sold to a Russian firm, and you were wrong regarding Russians contributing $140 million to the Clinton Foundation. It never happened, and no amount of poorly written neo-con fodder will make it so. Please refer to government records rather than Alex Jones, who believes NASA is running a child slave colony on Mars. Tinfoil hats obviously constrict blood flow to the brain.

Again your wrong Dark Elf. Here's the video. Alex Jones explains how MSM twisted story. Why would Dark Elf's sources do such a thing? Because Alex Jones disagrees with them. The MSM took the story out of context here's the proof. Watch the opening 30 seconds...

Are you wearing a tinfoil hat Dark Elf? How else can you agree with conspiracy theories such as Alex Jones believes in Mars slave colonies? What are you smoking?

Edited by omphaloskepsis - July 06 2017 at 11:04

twseel

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 15 2012
Location: abroad
Status: Offline
Points: 22767

Posted: July 06 2017 at 11:03

Omphalo, please, could you calm down, stop picking new arguments and just respond to the points I made in my long post at all? Bombarding everyone with more and more new subjects and piles of unrelated articles does not really help your point if you're not sticking to a discussion...

SteveG

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20609

Posted: July 06 2017 at 11:06

Waiting on Dark Elf's reply. Oh boy, oh boy!

omphaloskepsis View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 6343

Posted: July 06 2017 at 11:25

twseel wrote:

Omphalo, please, could you calm down, stop picking new arguments and just respond to the points I made in my long post at all? Bombarding everyone with more and more new subjects and piles of unrelated articles does not really help your point if you're not sticking to a discussion...

I did respond to your post. Did you not read it? You talked of Trump's promises. I proved Trump is keeping his promises. You said you disagreed with what Trump promised. You don't like his polices. Fair enough.

However, enough American voters agreed with Trump's policies to elect him President of the United States. That's the American system. You can disagree with it. You can try to get the laws changed. Until then,Trump is keeping his Promises at a record breaking rate.

Obama broke 24% of his campaign promises. Compare that to 3% of broken Promises by Trump.

Twseel, I respect you for stating your opinion and claiming it is an opinion. It's OK to be biased. Just be honest about your bias.

I understand many folk here don't like Trump. Most don't like him personally. They think Trump is obnoxious or stupid. Fair enough.

But that doesn't mean that Trump isn't keeping his promises. That doesn't mean that Trump colluded with Russia. That doesn't mean that Trump is guilty of any crime.

If you look back at posts, you will see that I was polite till the other poster called me an idiot or some other derogatory term. Go look. I responded in kind. Socrates said,

'When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.'

I'll back off if the other folks back off. Simple as that. I'll even take a two week sabbatical and not post at all, provided I don't receive posts asking me to prove my position. All they got to do is Let It Be....

Edited by omphaloskepsis - July 06 2017 at 11:46

twseel

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 15 2012
Location: abroad
Status: Offline
Points: 22767

Posted: July 06 2017 at 11:33

omphaloskepsis wrote:

Obama broke 24% of his campaign promises. Compare that to 3% of broken Promises by Trump.

Twseel, I respect you for stating your opinion and claiming it is an opinion. It's OK to be biased. Just be honest about your bias.

I understand many folk here don't like Trump. Most don't like him personally. They think Trump is obnoxious or stupid. Fair enough.

But that doesn't mean that Trump isn't keeping his promises. That doesn't mean that Trump colluded with Russia. That doesn't mean that Trump is guilty of any crime.

If you look back at posts, you will see that I was polite till the other poster called me an idiot or some other derogatory term. Go look. I responded in kind. Socrates said,

'When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.'

...and then I clarified that I wasn't arguing about him keeping his promises at all. It's not an opinion to point out that his plan is flawed, it's an arguing point. If you were to address my post, you would have to talk about how his promises are/are not useful or smart in solving the problems they are meant to address. That's the only thing I was talking about and I have clarified this a number of times. You have avoided this issue to bring up something else entirely, so I am not satisfied. This still has nothing to do with bias or opinions at all, it's a point of logical political reasoning.

omphaloskepsis View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 6343

Posted: July 06 2017 at 11:42

twseel wrote:

omphaloskepsis wrote:

Obama broke 24% of his campaign promises. Compare that to 3% of broken Promises by Trump.

Twseel, I respect you for stating your opinion and claiming it is an opinion. It's OK to be biased. Just be honest about your bias.

I understand many folk here don't like Trump. Most don't like him personally. They think Trump is obnoxious or stupid. Fair enough.

But that doesn't mean that Trump isn't keeping his promises. That doesn't mean that Trump colluded with Russia. That doesn't mean that Trump is guilty of any crime.

If you look back at posts, you will see that I was polite till the other poster called me an idiot or some other derogatory term. Go look. I responded in kind. Socrates said,

'When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.'

OK. Did you read the entirety of my previous post? I pointed out you don't agree with Trump policy. Hell, you quoted it back at me on this post. First few sentences? How did you miss that?

Anyway, I can agree on arguing points. However, it seems you want me to do all the work. I'll tell you what....You pick a Trump policy and argue, 'Why it won't work" .... Afterwards, I'll either agree or disagree with you and defend my position.

I refuse to rewrite the entire Trump platform and defend it. That would take years.

Edited by omphaloskepsis - July 06 2017 at 11:45

twseel

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 15 2012
Location: abroad
Status: Offline
Points: 22767

Posted: July 06 2017 at 12:33