President-Elect Meets With Silicon Valley Elite

Status
Not open for further replies.
Krenum said:
Or how about, Dems to Trump, that he has to accept the election outcome, Then they lose, only to start riots & create General Mayhem. I guess acceptance only goes so far, eh? :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
"Donald Trump Will Destroy America If He's Elected!" - Liberals

Trump gets elected, and the first thing they do is literally go out to try and destroy America, wrecking public and private property.

*facepalm*
 
My favorite , favorite part of this whole thing is that the Hollywood "elite" still can't grasp just how much of America really can't stand them. They genuinely think this will help their cause.



How is it possible for a group to be both so hypocritical and out of touch as this.
 
Am I seeing arguments that the 3/5 compromise was there to help slaves? Damn when we rewrite history that much no wonder we are where we are today.

The slave-owning states wanted slaves to count, so they would have more representation in the House of Reps, in order to keep slavery going.

I also love the right's argument that, god forbid more actual living, breathing people have votes, because then "the land" wouldn't have as much say. So I live in Nowheresville, ND, with 10,000 acres, thus my vote should count 4x more because...right.


Anyway, it's great. We spent the last 8 years losing our minds because a black Muslim Kenyan terrorist who was going to take all our guns and implement sharia law - now a billionaire draft dodger actively supported by an enemy of the state, Putin, is a true patriot and blue collar champion.

"He tells it like it is" lol

paul-noth-he-tells-it-like-it-is-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg
 
Ducman69 said:
It might have been close!

Kidding aside, I'm so glad we are investing in infrastructure, as its long overdue and its perfect timing with these low interest rates.
Click to expand...
I feel like we're in different realities here, maybe you can clear it up for me. While Krugman is hardly right on everything, this claim seems relatively valid to me:

http://www.alternet.org/economy/krugman-why-trumps-infrastructure-proposal-huge-scam

It's not a normal infrastructure plan. It's tax breaks for companies to invest in infrastructure that they get to profit off of afterwards. So that would only prioritize infrastructure development in areas that would be profitable to operate in and essentially do nothing in areas that badly need it, but are already impoverished. And hey, most of it on the taxpayer's dime. It sounds like more neoliberalism to me; government intervention to help companies make additional profit at the expense of money that would go to public resources. If this analysis is all wrong, please, I'd be happy to see a rebuttal.
 
Remember when all those Progressives freed Cuba from the dark yoke of Imperalism, which allowed that island nation and its people to truly flourish the past 50 years? And remember when the Progressive movement finally saved Venezuela from itself and allowed the country to become an oil-rich economic powerhouse on the world stage whos people enjoy a prosperity beyond measure........
 
Dahkoht said:
My favorite , favorite part of this whole thing is that the Hollywood "elite" still can't grasp just how much of America really can't stand them. They genuinely think this will help their cause.



How is it possible for a group to be both so hypocritical and out of touch as this.
Click to expand...


When they say, "Im not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton". It means, I'm asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton. We're not stupid.
 
tetris42 said:
I feel like we're in different realities here, maybe you can clear it up for me. While Krugman is hardly right on everything, this claim seems relatively valid to me: http://www.alternet.org/economy/krugman-why-trumps-infrastructure-proposal-huge-scam
Click to expand...
I'd question your source, when literally the first thing they say is, "Donald Trump’s chief strategist is a white supremacist and purveyor of fake news".

Most of the outlets complaining about "fake news" are just that, and throwing around the "white supremacist" crap makes it pretty obvious this blogger has an agenda.
tetris42 said:
It's not a normal infrastructure plan. It's tax breaks for companies to invest in infrastructure that they get to profit off of afterwards. So that would only prioritize infrastructure development in areas that would be profitable to operate in and essentially do nothing in areas that badly need it, but are already impoverished.
Click to expand...
Nope. That would be completely retarded, I agree... its also nonsense. The government decides what projects to undertake, when, and in what order, of course! And absolutely, the worst roads and bridges and water systems get priority, as that would only make sense. The question is who is going to build the projects (private sector through bids, or government workers) and for major projects like this will the extra revenue stream come from tax exempt bonds or tax credits to investors. Most recognize that private sector construction is generally higher quality, completed faster, and closer to budget than government run projects.

Your source is a liar, and I would be pissed if it were true, but the source your own source quotes, explains it quite well regarding revenue stream: http://peternavarro.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/infrastructurereport.pdf

My guess is he was counting on the fact that most of his readers won't actually read what he's basing his online rant over, and take his word for it. The only real concern I have is that the private sector contractors get fair bids and the best for the job wins... far too often, especially on government projects, you have stuff going to a private contractor because they are minority or female owned or far worse were donors to campaigns and so this is the reward and no one oversees costs and you end up with $400 hammers. That's where the "drain the swamp" part comes in, and hopefully we see delivery on that. :)
 
HeadRusch said:
Remember when all those Progressives freed Cuba from the dark yoke of Imperalism, which allowed that island nation and its people to truly flourish the past 50 years? And remember when the Progressive movement finally saved Venezuela from itself and allowed the country to become an oil-rich economic powerhouse on the world stage whos people enjoy a prosperity beyond measure........
Click to expand...

Say what? No, nobody remembers that because it never happened.
 
Since we gave up on the topic long ago, speaking of Castro, can anyone understand why the left was praising Castro like he was a hero and romanticizing the hell out of him as some kind of liberator revolutionary? That was pretty mind boggling.

He was a ruthless dictator that attacked homosexuals, political dissidents, and put in socialist policies that subjected the population to crippling poverty and backwardness with old soviet style control of the economy. I mean, should be common sense that tens of thousands of people didn't risk life and limb to escape Cuba to the United States because everything was so nice there.
 
Okay, here is a lesson for some butt hurt liberals, communists, progressives or whatever the hell you call yourselves.

Explain Venezuela!!!

Why would you people subject your kids and families to the horrors of economic collapse and hunger???

America has problems and it is fixable.......going hard core socialism is the end of monetary and sound government.
 
TwistedAegis said:
I also love the right's argument that, god forbid more actual living, breathing people have votes, because then "the land" wouldn't have as much say. So I live in Nowheresville, ND, with 10,000 acres, thus my vote should count 4x more because...right.
Click to expand...
Exactly what mechanism in the constitution inflates the value of a vote in regards to land? Hint: There isn't any. No one is arguing landowners should have inflated votes.
 
No matter how you slice it, its just simple sore losers whining.

No democrats complained about the electoral college when they thought they had the victory in hand. Everything was perfect... until their world was rocked and they lost. Its not the electoral college that suddenly went bad, its the result, they just don't like the result. So they whine and moan and cry (literally).

Fact is, Democrat fraud aside, neither Hillary nor Trump were competing for a popular vote win, but for an EC win, because that's how the system has always worked (including the 8 years it worked for Obama). If they were competing for a popular vote win, both, including Trump, would have campaigned differently (most likely ignoring rural America entirely and campaigning exclusively in the mega-cities). So the Democrats whining now are like playing a little kid in chess, and after you have checkmate she throws a tantrum and insists that she still won because she has more pieces left. That's not how the rules of the game work honey, and you knew that.
 
TwistedAegis said:
We spent the last 8 years losing our minds because a black Muslim Kenyan terrorist who was going to take all our guns and implement sharia law - now a billionaire draft dodger actively supported by an enemy of the state, Putin, is a true patriot and blue collar champion.
Click to expand...

So you didn't care that Obama was buddies with actual terrorists like Bill Ayers, actual criminals like Tony Rezko...but you do care that one intelligence agency has claimed connections twixt Trump and Russia, despite the disagreement of the FBI and ODNI?

In other words, you're proud to be no better than those you mock. Just talk about how he's a fascist authoritarian who's going to ban all Muslims and ban gays and establish a dictatorship and all the other dumb crap I've heard from the hysterics that are putting the Obama-conspiracy nutjobs to shame.
 
Ducman69 said:
"Donald Trump Will Destroy America If He's Elected!" - Liberals

Trump gets elected, and the first thing they do is literally go out to try and destroy America, wrecking public and private property.

*facepalm*
Click to expand...
To be fair that kind of crap happens whenever the local sports team in (insert any professional sport) wins the championship. I was quite pleased that the streak of 3 SF Giants World Series victories on even years ended.
 
I don't know if others defended it, but I did. I didn't say it helped slaves. What I said was that slaves were people too. Thus they HAD to be counted. The north wanted them to not be counted at all. Slavery was legal back then, and it was also socially accepted in most of the world. You can't look back with today's social rules and judge them. Ignoring the slaves was not the correct solution. Making them not slaves was the correct solution.

Regarding your "draft dodging" comment. It's false to begin with, but even if it was true, Vietnam wasn't a war. Our government forced 1000's of innocent fathers and sons to their deaths in Vietnam. Men who had no desire to go to war (in a foreign country against an enemy who never attacked us directly*). And our government couldn't even bother to vote on calling it war*. I don't blame anyone who felt their life was worth more respect than that.

I think you made a reference to the failure of the popular vote as well, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

* As we would find out decades later, not only did our government not have the decency to declare war, but the triggering Gulf Of Tonkin incident wasn't even real.

TwistedAegis said:
Am I seeing arguments that the 3/5 compromise was there to help slaves? Damn when we rewrite history that much no wonder we are where we are today.

The slave-owning states wanted slaves to count, so they would have more representation in the House of Reps, in order to keep slavery going.

I also love the right's argument that, god forbid more actual living, breathing people have votes, because then "the land" wouldn't have as much say. So I live in Nowheresville, ND, with 10,000 acres, thus my vote should count 4x more because...right.


Anyway, it's great. We spent the last 8 years losing our minds because a black Muslim Kenyan terrorist who was going to take all our guns and implement sharia law - now a billionaire draft dodger actively supported by an enemy of the state, Putin, is a true patriot and blue collar champion.

"He tells it like it is" lol

paul-noth-he-tells-it-like-it-is-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Stiletto said:
I also find it highly irritating that the same people who said voter ID is silly and unnecessary and racist are now claiming that the election was stolen. One minute, voter fraud doesn't exist, the next federal investigations need to happen and wars need to start over the election. The hypocrisy is pouring out of this election like water from a burst dam.
Click to expand...

Krenum said:
Or how about, Dems to Trump, that he has to accept the election outcome, Then they lose, only to start riots & create General Mayhem. I guess acceptance only goes so far, eh? :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

Yeah. Usually if you find a Democrat internally consistent, it's by accident.
And if you find a regressive leftie who's internally consistent, you've just essentially found a unicorn...
 
Dahkoht said:
My favorite , favorite part of this whole thing is that the Hollywood "elite" still can't grasp just how much of America really can't stand them. They genuinely think this will help their cause.



How is it possible for a group to be both so hypocritical and out of touch as this.
Click to expand...


lol they disabled up/down votes for the video in addition to the comments. fucking cowards
 
Pusher of Buttons said:
That's true. I can't think of any president-elect that's taken such a proactive approach to destroying my faith in democracy before even taking office. Kudos to you Mr. President-Elect!
Click to expand...

Well, since we are not nor ever have been a democracy, it does not matter anyways. And no, a Constitutional representative Republic is not the same or even similar to a democracy.
 
ManofGod said:
Well, since we are not nor ever have been a democracy, it does not matter anyways. And no, a Constitutional representative Republic is not the same or even similar to a democracy.
Click to expand...

People just don't get the "Representative Republic" thing. Liberals would be just fine to call it Socialism and wipe the constitution off the map. Because "It's for the children".
 
Chas said:
Yeah. Usually if you find a Democrat internally consistent, it's by accident.
And if you find a regressive leftie who's internally consistent, you've just essentially found a unicorn...
Click to expand...
I for the most part consider myself a Democrat, but "regressive leftie"? WTF is with all these crazy new labels? Is calling people Liberals not enough anymore?
 
DocSavage said:
I for the most part consider myself a Democrat, but "regressive leftie"? WTF is with all these crazy new labels? Is calling people Liberals not enough anymore?
Click to expand...
There's little communication at all now. "Liberal" could mean almost anything:

classic liberal = for strong safety nets, regulation of business, protection of environment, etc. This is the kind Bernie Sanders / Jill Stein were representative of.
SJW = complete asshat of a person disingenuously focused on fringe social issues and manufacturing outrage / offense
Modern Democrat = essentially moderate Republicans of the past except with some socially liberal views. Hillary Clinton is representative of this.

I mean you say you're a Democrat, but do you really support Hillary being extremely hawkish, being soft on Wall Street, her past support of trade agreements, and insisting single payer health care is impossible? An actual liberal hates all of that, yet the mainstream left supports all of it, yet from the right, both camps are all lumped in as the "left", depsite having diametrically opposed views on lots of core issues. It makes communication almost impossible now.
 
tetris42 said:
I mean you say you're a Democrat, but do you really support Hillary being extremely hawkish, being soft on Wall Street, her past support of trade agreements, and insisting single payer health care is impossible? An actual liberal hates all of that, yet the mainstream left supports all of it, yet from the right, both camps are all lumped in as the "left", depsite having diametrically opposed views on lots of core issues. It makes communication almost impossible now.
Click to expand...
Good post, and no I don't agree on any of those Hillary stances.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Am I seeing arguments that the 3/5 compromise was there to help slaves? Damn when we rewrite history that much no wonder we are where we are today.

The slave-owning states wanted slaves to count, so they would have more representation in the House of Reps, in order to keep slavery going.

I also love the right's argument that, god forbid more actual living, breathing people have votes, because then "the land" wouldn't have as much say. So I live in Nowheresville, ND, with 10,000 acres, thus my vote should count 4x more because...right.


Anyway, it's great. We spent the last 8 years losing our minds because a black Muslim Kenyan terrorist who was going to take all our guns and implement sharia law - now a billionaire draft dodger actively supported by an enemy of the state, Putin, is a true patriot and blue collar champion.

"He tells it like it is" lol

paul-noth-he-tells-it-like-it-is-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg
Click to expand...


I prefer to give the man a chance, with the way the media persecuted him, I can't tell what was true about the man and what wasn't.

So I'll wait and judge him on what he does, and not on what others who hate him, or hate Religion, or whatever it is they hate, have to say about him.

Putin is not an enemy of the state. Putin is a foreign leader who has his own nation's best interests in mind and can be expected to act accordingly. Treating him like an enemy is only going to get you what you seem to want, an enemy. On the other hand, treating him like what he is allows both countries to work toward common goals where appropriate and stay clear where you can without being propelled into open warfare without real need.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem pulling out the "big stick" but I see no reason to restart the cold war when better options exist. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

The best way to make war with Russia unnecessary, is to create some shared interests that are worth more than what can be gained through conflict.

If those shared interests are also humane and don't fly in the face of our nation's principles of freedom and self-determination all the better.

Survival is rooted in conflict whether that is military, economic, or ideological, competition is a given. And with competition, there are winners and losers. I would rather win and if I need others to help me win that's fine. If I win big enough I can throw my friends a bone too. The dynamics haven't changed that much in my life, over half a century, it still comes down to China, Russia, the US, and who can amass the most friends.

I heard honey works better than vinegar. It's on the internet, I swear.
 
Ducman69 said:
No matter how you slice it, its just simple sore losers whining.

No democrats complained about the electoral college when they thought they had the victory in hand. Everything was perfect... until their world was rocked and they lost. Its not the electoral college that suddenly went bad, its the result, they just don't like the result. So they whine and moan and cry (literally).

Fact is, Democrat fraud aside, neither Hillary nor Trump were competing for a popular vote win, but for an EC win, because that's how the system has always worked (including the 8 years it worked for Obama). If they were competing for a popular vote win, both, including Trump, would have campaigned differently (most likely ignoring rural America entirely and campaigning exclusively in the mega-cities). So the Democrats whining now are like playing a little kid in chess, and after you have checkmate she throws a tantrum and insists that she still won because she has more pieces left. That's not how the rules of the game work honey, and you knew that.
Click to expand...


That video was so awesome. I find it amazing that these actors are going to appeal to the electoral college to override the popular vote with the claim that they would be saving our country from a despot.

I'm just glad I have never had the need to like an actor personally in order to like their work. I sure don't buy their movies for their political views and I mostly don't care what they do in their personal lives. I know most of them are such degenerates.

Still, there are some that will surprise, and some are truly humble and quietly not like the rest.
 
Ducman69 said:
No matter how you slice it, its just simple sore losers whining.

No democrats complained about the electoral college when they thought they had the victory in hand. Everything was perfect... until their world was rocked and they lost. Its not the electoral college that suddenly went bad, its the result, they just don't like the result. So they whine and moan and cry (literally).

Fact is, Democrat fraud aside, neither Hillary nor Trump were competing for a popular vote win, but for an EC win, because that's how the system has always worked (including the 8 years it worked for Obama). If they were competing for a popular vote win, both, including Trump, would have campaigned differently (most likely ignoring rural America entirely and campaigning exclusively in the mega-cities). So the Democrats whining now are like playing a little kid in chess, and after you have checkmate she throws a tantrum and insists that she still won because she has more pieces left. That's not how the rules of the game work honey, and you knew that.
Click to expand...

And if either side wants to challenge the legitimacy of the system, it cannot be allowed to be done by the loser. Would anyone really care about the loser saying the rules aren't fair and thats why they lost? It has more impact and less feel of bias if the winners are the ones that say the rules have issues and need fixed to be more fair. But in truth it would need challenged by someone not affected by the rules. Everyone knows a recount would just show that Vermin Supreme won!
 
lcpiper said:
Putin is not an enemy of the state. Putin is a foreign leader who has his own nation's best interests in mind and can be expected to act accordingly. Treating him like an enemy is only going to get you what you seem to want, an enemy. On the other hand, treating him like what he is allows both countries to work toward common goals where appropriate and stay clear where you can without being propelled into open warfare without real need.
Click to expand...

"Give Putin a chance! He won prizes in gradeschool for his horse drawings!"

Now just imagine if Hillary had won the EC vote, and was now buddying up with Putin and shamelessly installing the CEO of one of the biggest oil companies as Sec of State along with an absolute cronyist clown car of cabinet picks -- the absolute bloody murder that right wingers would be screaming now about Commie-Loving-Hillary etc.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ncjoe
like this
If I was a billionaire, first order of business is to buy an island to wall it off from society. You people can just be depressing! :joyful:
 
DPI said:
"Give Putin a chance! He won prizes in gradeschool for his horse drawings!"

Now just imagine if Hillary had won the EC vote, and was now buddying up with Putin and shamelessly installing the CEO of one of the biggest oil companies as Sec of State along with an absolute cronyist clown car of cabinet picks -- the absolute bloody murder that right wingers would be screaming now about Commie-Loving-Hillary etc.
Click to expand...

The other real issue here is that what if the Russians are hacking and influencing elections or whatever. No matter who it hurts, Dem/Rep, it really hurts us/US. Shouldn't we want to make sure it either is or is not happening? I mean, is it ok for any foreign country to have the ability and capability to create fervor and hate in our own population? I'm fairly certain there are movies about this kind of shit. We have more defense than the next two countries combines but yet we aren't sure if they are hacking us or not. And if they are, we aren't doing much about it, except arguing among ourselves on which is worse, turd sammich or giant douche...
 
ob1 said:
The other real issue here is that what if the Russians are hacking and influencing elections or whatever. No matter who it hurts, Dem/Rep, it really hurts us/US. Shouldn't we want to make sure it either is or is not happening? I mean, is it ok for any foreign country to have the ability and capability to create fervor and hate in our own population? I'm fairly certain there are movies about this kind of shit. We have more defense than the next two countries combines but yet we aren't sure if they are hacking us or not. And if they are, we aren't doing much about it, except arguing among ourselves on which is worse, turd sammich or giant douche...
Click to expand...
It's only fair. The CIA routinely influences politics in other countries all across the globe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zuul
like this
Dahkoht said:
My favorite , favorite part of this whole thing is that the Hollywood "elite" still can't grasp just how much of America really can't stand them. They genuinely think this will help their cause.



How is it possible for a group to be both so hypocritical and out of touch as this.
Click to expand...


Crap, what kind of shit is this! LOL (The video is what I am speaking of, of course.) I am not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton but, I am asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton. Hope I remember those faces so I do not see or support any of their crap TV shows and movies anymore.
 
ob1 said:
The other real issue here is that what if the Russians are hacking and influencing elections or whatever. No matter who it hurts, Dem/Rep, it really hurts us/US. Shouldn't we want to make sure it either is or is not happening? I mean, is it ok for any foreign country to have the ability and capability to create fervor and hate in our own population? I'm fairly certain there are movies about this kind of shit. We have more defense than the next two countries combines but yet we aren't sure if they are hacking us or not. And if they are, we aren't doing much about it, except arguing among ourselves on which is worse, turd sammich or giant douche...
Click to expand...

If, if, if, if, if, if........... Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever but hey, when did that ever stop anymore, amirite? (Not directed at you ob1, just the general idea.)
 
DPI said:
"Give Putin a chance! He won prizes in gradeschool for his horse drawings!"

Now just imagine if Hillary had won the EC vote, and was now buddying up with Putin and shamelessly installing the CEO of one of the biggest oil companies as Sec of State along with an absolute cronyist clown car of cabinet picks -- the absolute bloody murder that right wingers would be screaming now about Commie-Loving-Hillary etc.
Click to expand...

You really do not give two shits about people, do you? Read what he wrote or do you really want an enemy and a war?
 
DPI said:
"Give Putin a chance! He won prizes in gradeschool for his horse drawings!"

Now just imagine if Hillary had won the EC vote, and was now buddying up with Putin and shamelessly installing the CEO of one of the biggest oil companies as Sec of State along with an absolute cronyist clown car of cabinet picks -- the absolute bloody murder that right wingers would be screaming now about Commie-Loving-Hillary etc.
Click to expand...


Old tale, it goes like ;

Boy sat on a Tiger, Tiger eats boy, villagers want to kill the Tiger for eating the boy, Monk says to leave the Tiger alone, he was only being a Tiger.

I wasn't saying make Putin our best friend. I was saying to take Putin for what he is. No need to vilify him or kiss him, just keep your eyes open and deal with what's in front of you.
 
DocSavage said:
I for the most part consider myself a Democrat, but "regressive leftie"? WTF is with all these crazy new labels? Is calling people Liberals not enough anymore?
Click to expand...

Basically the "regressive left" are the ones out there labeling everyone racist, sexist, etc, etc. They're the ones trying to conflate words with violence so they can feel justified responding to other opinions and attempts at dialog with real violence. They're the ones who think that shouting someone down or beating them down or having a group of people force them to leave constitutes "victory". They're the imbeciles who keep screaming for safe spaces and segregation.

Basically, take most of the things that Democrats and lefties think of as virtues. Now drag them into crazy-land, and think about the ways in which those things could be twisted and misused in oppressing people who aren't like you and don't share your opinions.

That's basically what the regressive left is. It's not enough that they disagree with you. You must be silenced. You must be shamed. You must have your life wrecked as thoroughly and as permanently as possible. Hell, if they can assault you, or cause someone else to assault you and harm you (so long as there are no witnesses), they're TOTALLY cool with that too!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top