• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The 2019 Trump Presidency Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Politicians and presidents in particular, are but mouthpieces of those whom they serve. It doesn't matter which clown shouts from the TV screen, what matters is whose agenda they're advocating for.
15482
 
Trump makes a lot of people mad. This combined with improved security(who doesn't want to feel safe at home) and a booming economy would make me put all me coin on Trump for 2020. The heavy police presence really makes me feel secure... Can't say that about before Trump.
 
Trump makes a lot of people mad. This combined with improved security(who doesn't want to feel safe at home) and a booming economy would make me put all me coin on Trump for 2020. The heavy police presence really makes me feel secure... Can't say that about before Trump.

I'm not surprised he makes a lot of peopld mad. Thankfully I am not a US citizen so this doesn't effect me, but I also would be angry with someone pissing away my tax money doing Israels dirty work..and I wont even start on him allowing Israel to continue to milk the US tax payers for there hard earned cash threw 'Aid payments' whilst Tel Aviv continues to thrive and prosper as a rich high tech savvy developing city.

Israel taking US aid money (The most of anyone in the world) is exactly like a wealthy successful businessman bullying a kid every year for X% of its pocket money.
In 2019 people have no Idea just how wealthy Israel is. If things were fair and legit Israel should if anything be a donating country in terms of aid. Not recieving!!
 
I also would be angry with someone pissing away my tax money doing Israels dirty work..
SkinnyNewBlacklemur-size_restricted.gif


Thankfully I am not a US citizen
474.gif

tenor.gif
 
right. but you are and that's my point.
If I've been guilty of hypocrisy before and updated my beliefs or behavior in an attempt to avoid it, that doesn't make me a hypocrite.
You routinely engage in hypocrisy because you don't care and don't see it as a negative thing, when in fact is invalidates almost all of your opinions.

that's a ludicrous generalization.

Nope, it's actually pretty accurate based on the insane behavior and regurgitated beliefs of modern-day Leftists.
 
it's actually pretty accurate based on the insane behavior and regurgitated beliefs of modern-day Leftists.
how do you even begin to measure something like that? who are you defining as "modern-day leftists"? approximately how many people - ballpark guess is fine - are you putting in this category?

alasdair
 
how do you even begin to measure something like that? who are you defining as "modern-day leftists"? approximately how many people - ballpark guess is fine - are you putting in this category?

For example the ones who yell at us to "listen to the science" when it comes to global warming yet deny the science or basic biology when it comes to biological sex and differences between the sexes. But I could produce many examples like this. The Left today holds many hypocritical political stances.
 
The Left today holds many hypocritical political stances
who are you even talking about? seriously, define "the left".

my friend - we'll call her jane for privacy - lives in san francisco. she'd certainly identify as a lefty. is she a hypocrite? if so, why?

if not. q.e.d.

this is without a doubt your wildest claim.

alasdair
 
Ever Been Told to ‘Check Your Privilege?’ Here’s What That Really Means

Against a blue background, the words Check your privilege are written in blackSource: Everyday Feminism @schizopath
The first time I was told to “check my privilege,” I’ll be honest, I was angry. I was defensive. And most of all, I was offended.
It’s not like my life had ever been particularly easy. Growing up with bipolar disorder and being queer, I often felt like I was fighting an uphill battle.
So for someone to suggest that I was privileged?
“Oh please,” I said to myself, “They have no idea what my life has been like.” In no uncertain terms, I told that person to go kick rocks.
And now, years later, I can say without a doubt that I was wrong.
I do have privilege.
And chances are, so do you. Because we all carry around privilege of some kind.
Simply put, this means that we may, unknowingly, have certain advantages over others. And this is only because there are aspects of our identity that society values over others.
For example, growing up, I came from a middle-class background. I never experienced food or financial insecurity. I didn’t have a job while I was in high school, and I was able to attain a good education. It was assumed, by default, that I would be high-achieving. As a result, my teachers invested a lot in my success.
In contrast, poorer classmates that I knew experienced near-constant food and financial insecurity. As a result, this impacted their focus, their emotional wellbeing, and their grades. Teachers simply assumed that they were “lost causes” that didn’t care about their schooling. Consequently, they didn’t spend as much time mentoring those classmates as they did mentoring me.
Does this mean I didn’t struggle, too? No. Does it mean that I’m a bad person? Nope.
It simply means that I gained an unearned advantage, in comparison to other people – by no fault of my own, but rather, because of prejudice.
We, unfortunately, live in a society that carries a great deal of prejudice on many different levels – and this impacts the way that we are treated.
Often times, our laws and other institutions can reflect this prejudice, too. And the result is that people end up with advantages and disadvantages, depending on their intersecting social statuses – things like disability, race, a/sexuality, gender, class, and much more.
And this – only this! – is where the idea of “checking your privilege” comes from.
When someone asks you to “check your privilege,” what they’re really asking you to do is to reflect on the ways that your social status might have given you an advantage – even if you didn’t ask for it or earn it – while their social status might have given them a disadvantage.
Yes, it’s okay if your initial reaction to being asked to check yourself was not a pleasant one. It can be uncomfortable to be asked to reflect on these issues. It can be especially uncomfortable if, like me, you just didn’t know how.
 
If your friend holds those 2 stances...
and you move the goalposts again. first it's all leftists then...
...(and I'd bet a large % of self-proclaimed leftists would...
of course you would. there's no practical way of measuring it so you just claim victory based on an assumption.

'the left' appears to be some nebulous entity comprised of people you disagree with or who disagree with you. it's an imaginary army of enemies who don't exist. I don't think even you know who precisely you're talking about. it's such a vague generalization it's next to useless (except for demonizing and dividing).

In our constitution it says the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed" or something. That's where the controversy is.
from another thread:

there is a case to which those who aggressively trumpet the importance of the 2nd amendment often point: district of columbia vs. heller

they point to it because they believe it takes their side on the issue of individual gun ownership depending on membership of a "well regulated militia". they believe the case proves that the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. that's some pretty important case law, right? i mean it went to the u.s. supreme court! and the opinion was written by republican antonin scalia. so this case is important right? and right right?

here's an excerpt from the opinion of the court. not the dissent - the opinion:

"E.III Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

that's a little hard to read with those inline footnotes so here is just the text:

"E.III Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

there it is.

"...or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." it's right there in black and white in antonin scalia's opinion for the court.

so, for example, background checks are constitutional.

"curtail" means to "reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on". the government could impose restrictions on the sale of arms which a pro-gun individual might characterize as severe curtailment but which the court could decide were perfectly legal based on the heller decision.

alasdair
 


"...if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!)."

who talks like this? he's such a buffoon.

alasdair
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top