Let's All Do Something Nice For Donald Trump

[Tessera]

true; for Trump 

I'm having a hard time figuring you out, canine. Why are you a Trump supporter..? Do you feel that lifetime felons make the best presidents..?

And why are you attacking AOC..? So far, you haven't given us a single good reason. You said she was stupid. Cylnar proved to you that she isn't.

So what's the problem..? And make it a good reason... or I'll lose my temper. I mean it. Mindless AOC bashing pisses me off.

Is it because she's hot..? Is it because she's a rising star..? Do you feel threatened by her for some reason..?

This is tessmage.com... not 4chan. I tend to expect a more intelligent discourse on this board.

[caninelegion]

true; for Trump 

I'm having a hard time figuring you out, canine. Why are you a Trump supporter..? Do you feel that lifetime felons make the best presidents..?

And why are you attacking AOC..? So far, you haven't given us a single good reason. You said she was stupid. Cylnar proved to you that she isn't.

So what's the problem..? And make it a good reason... or I'll lose my temper. I mean it. Mindless AOC bashing pisses me off.

Is it because she's hot..? Is it because she's a rising star..? Do you feel threatened by her for some reason..?

This is tessmage.com... not 4chan. I tend to expect a more intelligent discourse on this board.

No; and if you want him gone, the last thing you want is a socialist candidate as that would provide him an easy win.  It's like if the Republicans had run Palin against Obama.  Maybe this is more clear:  https://www.usnews.com/news/the-run/articles/2019-02-08/under-siege-centrist-democrats-still-see-a-pathway-for-victory-in-2020.  What I see is that for the last decade, polls asking people if they were liberal, conservative, etc had conservative outnumber liberal by a lot (generally 23% to 50%).  That's likely high for conservatives because many who call themselves conservative are not viewed that way by some other conservatives.  Even so, to win, a candidate needs his/her party's moderates and independents.  Someone like Cortez would scare them off and they'd either not vote or vote a minor candidate (and in the case of Hillary, a lot of Democrats voted for Trump who wouldn't have otherwise).   Members of smaller groups often think themselves more numerous then they are because everyone they know thinks like they do.  It's the reason why some Libertarians such as Ron Paul joined the Republican Party - they knew they didn't have the numbers so, to get their message across, joined a major party. 

[Tessera]

Canine, please be kind enough to actually read my entire response...

First of all, AOC is not eligible to run in 2020, and no one has suggested that she should. The minimum age requirement for presidents is 35. AOC is only 29. She wouldn't be eligible to run until 2024.

I'd love to see any poll that shows that there are more conservatives than liberals in America. The Republican party... the last bastion of conservatism in America... has dwindled down to being a mere 24% of all registered voters. About 33% of voters are Democrats (it seems to vary by a couple of points) and the remainder... the majority... are Independents like myself, most of whom identify as being left-of-center. So whatever poll you were looking at was obviously conducted improperly... probably by some conservative group with an agenda. Use your head... if most Americans were conservatives, then most Americans would be Republicans. The last time this country took a significant swing to the right was 35 years ago, during the 80's. It has been slowly drifting back toward the left ever since.

Regarding socialist candidates in general: I need to inform you that back in 2016, numerous "what if" polls were taken, by various different organizations and agencies, including Fox News and many others. On the question of "Who would you vote for: Donald Trump, or Bernie Sanders," damned near every single poll taken, by every single organization, showed Sanders winning by double digits.

If you doubt me, you can still find those 2016 polls on the web. You may have to hunt around a bit, but you'll find them. The right-wing goons at Fox did their best to downplay theirs, and it was a major embarrassment for them.

Furthermore, Bernie Sanders just happens to be the most popular politician in Congress right now (based upon overall approval ratings). Although rising star AOC just might grab that number one spot away from Sanders soon, given how fast her popularity has been increasing. Both of them happen to be democratic socialists.

You're living in the past, my friend. People don't have the same Pavlovian reaction to socialism as they used to. Especially in this stressful age, when late-stage capitalism is bankrupting the middle class and forcing more and more people to work two, or even three jobs... just to keep up with housing and medical costs.

Democratic socialism is not communism. There are too many people out there who equate the two, out of sheer ignorance.

Currently, the nation which is consistently rated as having the highest standard of living and overall quality of life is Norway -- a democratic socialist country. Look it up.

So if you seriously dislike socialism, then can I have your social security checks..? Social Security happens to be a democratic socialist program. So is welfare. So are food stamps. So are publicly funded schools. So are government grants for college students. So is government subsidized housing for the poor. So is Medicare. Please tell me... which of those socialist programs would you like to abolish..? All of them..? Some of them..? I'm betting that your answer is "None of them."

Sanders and AOC are not advocating anything more than simply taking those successful programs and improving them. More of a good thing is a better thing, yes..?

[caninelegion]

I did read it all but condescending  isn't discussion.  I replied to the parts needing reply.  I can say the same as it appears you didn't digest what I wrote.  No more politics.  Out. 

[Tessera]

I did read it all but condescending  isn't discussion.  I replied to the parts needing reply.  I can say the same as it appears you didn't digest what I wrote.  No more politics.  Out.

Dude, I read every single word that you wrote. And disagreeing with you is not being condescending. C'mon... we're all friends here.

Very simply put, I happen to be of the opinion that you are clinging to ideas that are rapidly becoming passe. And you should keep in mind that I'm not some young kid talking to you... I'm an older man and I've been around the block a few times.

Listen... and I've said this before... every time we have a national election, people jump up and down and shout "WE WANT CHANGE! WE WANT CHANGE!" So isn't it odd that when some actual, substantive change finally does come along, everyone pulls back from it in fear and starts saying things like "Why do we need to change anything..? It's been working just fine up until now." First they want change and then they're afraid of it.

I think many Americans are thinking that we've indulged in capitalism for several centuries and so far, all it seems to have led to is a tiny number of obscenely wealthy people... and several hundred million other people, who are busting their asses just to stay above water. In a closed system with finite resources, it couldn't possibly work out any other way. We don't have unlimited wealth, so it's not possible for everyone to be rich. And if the rich insist upon being richer, then they MUST take more money away from the people in lower income brackets. Ultimately they buy their own islands... and the rest of us go bankrupt. We're talking about a parasitic system that rewards greed... and punishes honesty.

This isn't prosperity for all... this isn't the American dream... this isn't progress. This is serfdom. This is imperialism.

Honestly, I don't know whether democratic socialism would be better or worse. No one does, because it has never been tried in America before. But I do know that we have several existing success stories... primarily in Scandinavia. If the Norwegians and the Swedes are smart enough to make it work, then so can we. This is America. We have more resources than they do and a helluva lot more people who can kick into that type of system. I say it's worth a try, since we're not getting anywhere with the current model. If it turns out to be not so hot, then we can always go back. Nothing is permanent.

[caninelegion]

Truly, I don't care if people agree with me or if I can change their minds (other then when it becomes an exercise in futility).  This is why I don't like discussing politics - no matter who or where, whether or not I'm participating or not, it breaks down.  What got my gore and made me feel like I was being disrespected was this:  "Is it because she's hot..? Is it because she's a rising star..? Do you feel threatened by her for some reason..?"  Give me a break!  You don't see that as condescending?  Be that as it may, I blame nobody here - it's the nature of the beast.  I also told you flat out when asked that I am not a Trump supporter ("No; and if you want him gone ---- ") - then you tell me that I am ("Why are you a Trump supporter..?") so, yeah, I didn't feel like what I said was being read.  Any comment about a person's overall wisdom is a perception and thus an opinion - it can't be proved.  That why I didn't respond to Cy.  That video wasn't very convincing either; certainly not proof.  It was an interesting concept and I liked it but she took a lot of leaps from fact to conclusion ((again, perception is by nature an opinion - it just didn't convince me) which made what good have been great into mediocre.  I'm certainly no friend of PACs but they are special interest groups, some which are corporate, some environmental based, some civil rights, some international based (which should be illegal more then the rest IMO), etc and corporations DO have first amendment rights:  Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010 (US Supreme Court).    I'd hate to see groups like the NRA silenced the more information thrown out there, the better but it does favor those with deep pockets and that is not good.  One thing that might help is not allowing the backers to hide behind a made up name - if the backers are the old Standard Oil companies (Chevron, Amoco, Exxon, Sohio, Mobil, etc) then I need to know that. 

Well, you asked    It does look like I was about two years out of date - this isn't something one continuously checks.   The second two relate to the first.  I saw many others but I'm not inclined to do an all night search.  I hope for something at "real clear politics" (it's where I first saw the several polls) but it isn't current enough and the search brought up unrelated items.  Also remember that socialists are a part of the liberal movement, not the whole.  I have no idea at what percentage.  I never mentioned Sanders - I'm much more comfortable with him then Cortez except for his age.  If he ran, he'd be the oldest candidate on record (I don't have time to source that - I read it somewhere, OK?  The article was pro-Sanders so I believe it).   

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245813/leans-conservative-liberals-keep-recent-gains.aspx
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/424280-most-democrats-identify-as-liberals-for-first-time-gallup
http://www.oleantimesherald.com/commentary/are-americans-conservative-progressive-or-both/article_d30521e6-6b42-11e8-8c4e-47d78099be0f.html

Anyway, less I make my mistake again (plus it's past 3 AM), I'm going to leave it here.  I won't reply again on this thread - it's not out of disrespect; it's just well past time.  Well, at least it generated some action!  Lighter stuff is fun; politics is not. 

[Tessera]

Well, Bernie's age is not really a factor for me. We're all aware that the average human life span is increasing. So it was inevitable that sooner or later, we'd arrive again at the "He's the oldest candidate in history" point. Back in 1980, we reached that milestone with Ronald Reagan. Fact is, people are living longer nowadays. I would imagine that a century from now -- maybe sooner -- there will be a president who is still in office at the age of 100.

Regarding AOC... the point I was trying to make is that she is doing remarkably well, for a 29-year-old ex-bartender who has never run for office before. Of course she lacks experience... we can't expect her to perform with the same poise and confidence of a veteran like Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. But considering that AOC has only been in office for one month, I'd say that she's doing remarkably well. Let's all give her a chance to settle into the job.

Just recently, director and activist Michael Moore referred to AOC as being the de-facto leader of the Democratic party. I'm not sure that I would go that far... not yet, anyway... but she certainly is making her mark.

Oh... and I apologize for the digs that I gave you regarding AOC. In my own defense, let me point out that this is not the only board that I am active on. Lately, I've been running into quite a few petty little InCel wankers, whose major motivation for bashing AOC seems to be stemming from the fact that she's really hot looking, so they're frustrated because she's unattainable (for them) and they can't fuck her. They pretend that they have various other reasons for putting AOC down... but when I've held their feet to the fire, they usually end up screaming in frustration and scurrying back into their rat holes. I've gotten into some HUGE fights with those punks during the past several weeks. So far, I haven't lost any of those fights. It's been fun to dissect them, actually.

[caninelegion]

Well, Bernie's age is not really a factor for me. We're all aware that the average human life span is increasing. So it was inevitable that sooner or later, we'd arrive again at the "He's the oldest candidate in history" point. Back in 1980, we reached that milestone with Ronald Reagan. Fact is, people are living longer nowadays. I would imagine that a century from now -- maybe sooner -- there will be a president who is still in office at the age of 100.

Regarding AOC... the point I was trying to make is that she is doing remarkably well, for a 29-year-old ex-bartender who has never run for office before. Of course she lacks experience... we can't expect her to perform with the same poise and confidence of a veteran like Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. But considering that AOC has only been in office for one month, I'd say that she's doing remarkably well. Let's all give her a chance to settle into the job.

Just recently, director and activist Michael Moore referred to AOC as being the de-facto leader of the Democratic party. I'm not sure that I would go that far... not yet, anyway... but she certainly is making her mark.

Oh... and I apologize for the digs that I gave you regarding AOC. In my own defense, let me point out that this is not the only board that I am active on. Lately, I've been running into quite a few petty little InCel wankers, whose major motivation for bashing AOC seems to be stemming from the fact that she's really hot looking, so they're frustrated because she's unattainable (for them) and they can't fuck her. They pretend that they have various other reasons for putting AOC down... but when I've held their feet to the fire, they usually end up screaming in frustration and scurrying back into their rat holes. I've gotten into some HUGE fights with those punks during the past several weeks. So far, I haven't lost any of those fights. It's been fun to dissect them, actually.

I lied; I just responded.  As far as Sanders, if he is nominated, he's still only a few (perhaps four?) years older then the Trump.  It's just that I'm 61 and I see how much my thinking process (especially memory) has degenerated.  That's a one data point conclusion - not very scientific.  Oh, and while I do know the minimum age for a President and AOC's age, I didn't put one and one together.  Thanks for pointing that out before I made even more of a fool of myself. 

[Tessera]

As far as Sanders, if he is nominated, he's still only a few (perhaps four?) years older then the Trump.  It's just that I'm 61 and I see how much my thinking process (especially memory) has degenerated.  That's a one data point conclusion - not very scientific.  Oh, and while I do know the minimum age for a President and AOC's age, I didn't put one and one together.  Thanks for pointing that out before I made even more of a fool of myself.

I think Sanders is 7 or 8 years older than Trump. But that's okay. Back in New York, I knew an old Jewish guy who was 92 years old and he was still out jogging every morning.

Anyway, I don't think you've made a fool of yourself. I think we sometimes cling to the way things were when we were young... and when something new and different comes along, we regard it with suspicion or even distaste. I'm guilty of doing that many times in my life. I can't tell you how many times I've had to smack myself in the face, and be reminded that I'm the guy who always says that he's a futurist. Nostalgia is an easy trap for me to fall into.   

I just think we all need to start thinking in different ways. The tried-and-true and business-as-usual is starting not to work. At this point, I'm ready to try anything that's new and radical, just to see if it can pull us all out of this tailspin. In a dilemma, it is helpful to change any variable and then step back and re-examine the situation. I do know this much: capitalism has reached the point where it's causing more harm than good.

[Blankspace]

Lawsuits filed against Trump's national emergency declaration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fGtqh1Vppw

It's one thing after another.

[Tessera]

Lawsuits filed against Trump's national emergency declaration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fGtqh1Vppw

It's one thing after another.

And it's not just a few lawsuits, either. Trump is soon going to be hit with at least 30 lawsuits.

One of the most significant will be the State of California versus Trump. That's a biggie.

[Tessera]

I'm watching Michael Cohen right now, testifying before the House.

It's ongoing at the moment, so I'll just quickly say this:

(1) Predictably, the House Republicans are not really asking any relevant questions and instead, they are simply trying to discredit Cohen.
(2) They're failing. Miserably.
(3) Trump is screwed.

[Tessera]

Another funny exchange on YouTube...



Tessmage Tessera
42 minutes ago
You must be very afraid. I don't blame you. Because after we get rid of Trump, we'll be coming after all of you Nazi traitors next.

uncle Ricky
39 minutes ago
@Tessmage Tessera not scared, my guns are LOADED!


Tessmage Tessera
14 minutes ago
@uncle Ricky  Good. And when the first F18's flying out of California blast your shitty little trailer park into atoms, I want you to stand out there on your front stoop, next to the old Chevy up on cinder blocks, and defiantly fire your pea shooter at the sky. We could all use a good laugh.

[StarWrecker]

You know, I like guns. Shooting is fun and I agree with the right to bear arms in principle.

I still think it's hilarious when someone who uses their weapon as a penis substitute thinks that it makes them look like a big man when they back up their ill-thought-out political statement with firearms.

Almost as if they don't really believe in democracy.

[Tessera]

You know, I like guns. Shooting is fun and I agree with the right to bear arms in principle.

I still think it's hilarious when someone who uses their weapon as a penis substitute thinks that it makes them look like a big man when they back up their ill-thought-out political statement with firearms.

Almost as if they don't really believe in democracy.

I'm not anti-guns. As a matter of fact, I'm on record on this forum board, telling people to "Buy guns -- and learn how to use them" on many occasions in the past. My general position is that the only thing worse than guns is not having a gun when you need it. The police can't be everywhere at once.

As for the Trumptards... you hit it on the head: they DON'T want democracy. Most of their comments make it abundantly clear that what they really want is a totalitarian, all-white, all Christian America. The Fourth Reich, basically.

[Tessera]

"Oh my god... this is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked."

~ Donald Trump, upon hearing that Mueller would be investigating him

[StarWrecker]

Just for general information:

This is a really really good explanation of the report's idiosyncracies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f71Rasj_0JY

If the options for conclusion of the report are "not guilty" and "not not guilty", you don't get to say that "not not guilty" is an exoneration.


My dad still thinks Trump will be re-elected, he says all of the Democratic candidates are too vulnerable to red-baiting from the Republicans.

I hope he's wrong :/

[Tessera]

My dad still thinks Trump will be re-elected, he says all of the Democratic candidates are too vulnerable to red-baiting from the Republicans.

I hope he's wrong :/

Trust me -- he's wrong. Trump's election in 2016 was a total fluke... and flukes almost never happen twice in a row.