alternative facts

[Gfted1]

Fortunately, I don't have to worry about that...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXZ2ElV8_U

[Wrath of Dagon]

Here's a guy who'd like some rectal probing: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/26/new-biography-young-obama-considered-gayness-amazon1/

[Calax]

 

What is in the minds of men?

 

Jimmy Carter saw a UFO.

 

Goddamn I'd like to encounter an alien. Not a scary tentacle alien, a Grey or maybe even a Reptoid.

 

From what I understand, they do things to people's butts.

 

I don't know if that's your cup of tea or not, just saying...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5Scg3rAwTQ

 

Thank you Obsidian!

[Chilloutman]

The slave owner with the big heart.

 

Like Washington?

[Chilloutman]

What is in the minds of men?

 

Jimmy Carter saw a UFO.

 

Goddamn I'd like to encounter an alien. Not a scary tentacle alien, a Grey or maybe even a Reptoid.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4nkIoZ46dM&t=12m55s

 

jump to 12:55

Edited May 2, 2017 by Chilloutman

[Gromnir]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/fact-check-trump%e2%80%99s-account-of-his-first-100-days-in-office/ar-BBAzgf5?ocid=spartandhp

 

so, trump's characterization o' his first 100 days were an enormous alternative fact.

 

...

 

as a conservative/libertarian, the polls would suggest a likelihood o' Gromnir support for trump.  baffling.  yeah, we sympathize with folks  disenchanted by ineffectual washington insiders who spout traditional political non-speak.  for decades the average working class american felt complete left-out o' the democratic process, and middle-class americans see their best years dwindling fast in the rearview mirror. folks want change.  the republican voice o' change during the election were trump.  in the absence o' a viable alternative, is understandable why folks gravitated to trump, but am baffled by trump supporters who continue to support in spite o' his lack o' any meaningful progress and his willingness to distort facts and make unsubstantiated accusations.

 

is this sunk cost fallacy at work? perhaps folks still see trump as the best o' nothing but bad alternatives.  sure, trump approval is low, but he nevertheless has maintained core support.  why?  don't the excess o' alternative facts and failure to make noticeable progress on campaign promises discourage even trump diehards?  

 

on paper, one would assume Gromnir would be a trump supporter, but am admitted left with cold chills when we think o' him as president. during the election we predicted trump would fail to achieve domestic change as he is not a consensus builder.  we noted how trump didn't seem to understand the limited role o' the President in domestic affairs. we worried trump would turn towards international affairs in light o' predictable domestic impotence.  where we is now is exact where we predicted we would be.  am just a bit surprised more conservatives haven't lost faith in trump.  if not alternative facts and impotence, what will it take to make trump supporters lose faith?  

 

oh well.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[HoonDing]

 

The slave owner with the big heart.

 

Like Washington?

 

According to AssCreed 3, Washington was a good man.

[Wrath of Dagon]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/fact-check-trump’s-account-of-his-first-100-days-in-office/ar-BBAzgf5?ocid=spartandhp

 

so, trump's characterization o' his first 100 days were an enormous alternative fact.

 

...

 

as a conservative/libertarian, the polls would suggest a likelihood o' Gromnir support for trump.  baffling.  yeah, we sympathize with folks  disenchanted by ineffectual washington insiders who spout traditional political non-speak.  for decades the average working class american felt complete left-out o' the democratic process, and middle-class americans see their best years dwindling fast in the rearview mirror. folks want change.  the republican voice o' change during the election were trump.  in the absence o' a viable alternative, is understandable why folks gravitated to trump, but am baffled by trump supporters who continue to support in spite o' his lack o' any meaningful progress and his willingness to distort facts and make unsubstantiated accusations.

 

is this sunk cost fallacy at work? perhaps folks still see trump as the best o' nothing but bad alternatives.  sure, trump approval is low, but he nevertheless has maintained core support.  why?  don't the excess o' alternative facts and failure to make noticeable progress on campaign promises discourage even trump diehards?  

 

on paper, one would assume Gromnir would be a trump supporter, but am admitted left with cold chills when we think o' him as president. during the election we predicted trump would fail to achieve domestic change as he is not a consensus builder.  we noted how trump didn't seem to understand the limited role o' the President in domestic affairs. we worried trump would turn towards international affairs in light o' predictable domestic impotence.  where we is now is exact where we predicted we would be.  am just a bit surprised more conservatives haven't lost faith in trump.  if not alternative facts and impotence, what will it take to make trump supporters lose faith?  

 

oh well.

 

HA! Good Fun!

The Supreme Court is back in conservative hands and illegal border crossings are down 70%, so he's not as ineffective is you claim. Consider the difference if the super shrew won. Republican weakness is that they're disunited against a united Democrat opposition, thus majority of Republicans have to yield to Dems because the far right is so intransigent they sabotage the good when they can't get the perfect.

[Guard Dog]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/fact-check-trump%e2%80%99s-account-of-his-first-100-days-in-office/ar-BBAzgf5?ocid=spartandhp

 

so, trump's characterization o' his first 100 days were an enormous alternative fact.

 

...

 

as a conservative/libertarian, the polls would suggest a likelihood o' Gromnir support for trump.  baffling.  yeah, we sympathize with folks  disenchanted by ineffectual washington insiders who spout traditional political non-speak.  for decades the average working class american felt complete left-out o' the democratic process, and middle-class americans see their best years dwindling fast in the rearview mirror. folks want change.  the republican voice o' change during the election were trump.  in the absence o' a viable alternative, is understandable why folks gravitated to trump, but am baffled by trump supporters who continue to support in spite o' his lack o' any meaningful progress and his willingness to distort facts and make unsubstantiated accusations.

 

is this sunk cost fallacy at work? perhaps folks still see trump as the best o' nothing but bad alternatives.  sure, trump approval is low, but he nevertheless has maintained core support.  why?  don't the excess o' alternative facts and failure to make noticeable progress on campaign promises discourage even trump diehards?  

 

on paper, one would assume Gromnir would be a trump supporter, but am admitted left with cold chills when we think o' him as president. during the election we predicted trump would fail to achieve domestic change as he is not a consensus builder.  we noted how trump didn't seem to understand the limited role o' the President in domestic affairs. we worried trump would turn towards international affairs in light o' predictable domestic impotence.  where we is now is exact where we predicted we would be.  am just a bit surprised more conservatives haven't lost faith in trump.  if not alternative facts and impotence, what will it take to make trump supporters lose faith?  

 

oh well.

 

HA! Good Fun!

This is where I remind everyone there were more names on your Presidential ballot than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

[Gromnir]

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/fact-check-trump%e2%80%99s-account-of-his-first-100-days-in-office/ar-BBAzgf5?ocid=spartandhp

 

so, trump's characterization o' his first 100 days were an enormous alternative fact.

 

...

 

as a conservative/libertarian, the polls would suggest a likelihood o' Gromnir support for trump.  baffling.  yeah, we sympathize with folks  disenchanted by ineffectual washington insiders who spout traditional political non-speak.  for decades the average working class american felt complete left-out o' the democratic process, and middle-class americans see their best years dwindling fast in the rearview mirror. folks want change.  the republican voice o' change during the election were trump.  in the absence o' a viable alternative, is understandable why folks gravitated to trump, but am baffled by trump supporters who continue to support in spite o' his lack o' any meaningful progress and his willingness to distort facts and make unsubstantiated accusations.

 

is this sunk cost fallacy at work? perhaps folks still see trump as the best o' nothing but bad alternatives.  sure, trump approval is low, but he nevertheless has maintained core support.  why?  don't the excess o' alternative facts and failure to make noticeable progress on campaign promises discourage even trump diehards?  

 

on paper, one would assume Gromnir would be a trump supporter, but am admitted left with cold chills when we think o' him as president. during the election we predicted trump would fail to achieve domestic change as he is not a consensus builder.  we noted how trump didn't seem to understand the limited role o' the President in domestic affairs. we worried trump would turn towards international affairs in light o' predictable domestic impotence.  where we is now is exact where we predicted we would be.  am just a bit surprised more conservatives haven't lost faith in trump.  if not alternative facts and impotence, what will it take to make trump supporters lose faith?  

 

oh well.

 

HA! Good Fun!

This is where I remind everyone there were more names on your Presidential ballot than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

 

yeah, is good to reminds us how 'cause o' electoral college, the fringe party voters in the three swing states o' pennsylvania, michigan and wisconsin, coupled with even a few more democrats actual voting in those states, coulda' made a difference in preventing a trump presidency.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Pidesco]

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/fact-check-trump’s-account-of-his-first-100-days-in-office/ar-BBAzgf5?ocid=spartandhp so, trump's characterization o' his first 100 days were an enormous alternative fact. ... as a conservative/libertarian, the polls would suggest a likelihood o' Gromnir support for trump.  baffling.  yeah, we sympathize with folks  disenchanted by ineffectual washington insiders who spout traditional political non-speak.  for decades the average working class american felt complete left-out o' the democratic process, and middle-class americans see their best years dwindling fast in the rearview mirror. folks want change.  the republican voice o' change during the election were trump.  in the absence o' a viable alternative, is understandable why folks gravitated to trump, but am baffled by trump supporters who continue to support in spite o' his lack o' any meaningful progress and his willingness to distort facts and make unsubstantiated accusations. is this sunk cost fallacy at work? perhaps folks still see trump as the best o' nothing but bad alternatives.  sure, trump approval is low, but he nevertheless has maintained core support.  why?  don't the excess o' alternative facts and failure to make noticeable progress on campaign promises discourage even trump diehards?   on paper, one would assume Gromnir would be a trump supporter, but am admitted left with cold chills when we think o' him as president. during the election we predicted trump would fail to achieve domestic change as he is not a consensus builder.  we noted how trump didn't seem to understand the limited role o' the President in domestic affairs. we worried trump would turn towards international affairs in light o' predictable domestic impotence.  where we is now is exact where we predicted we would be.  am just a bit surprised more conservatives haven't lost faith in trump.  if not alternative facts and impotence, what will it take to make trump supporters lose faith?   oh well. HA! Good Fun!

The Supreme Court is back in conservative hands and illegal border crossings are down 70%, so he's not as ineffective is you claim. Consider the difference if the super shrew won. Republican weakness is that they're disunited against a united Democrat opposition, thus majority of Republicans have to yield to Dems because the far right is so intransigent they sabotage the good when they can't get the perfect.

I would suggest that if people are suddenly choosing to stay in Mexico instead of moving to the US, things must be getting pretty bad in the US.

[Gfted1]

[Wrath of Dagon]

I would suggest that if people are suddenly choosing to stay in Mexico instead of moving to the US, things must be getting pretty bad in the US.

Bad for them, good for us.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/fact-check-trump%e2%80%99s-account-of-his-first-100-days-in-office/ar-BBAzgf5?ocid=spartandhp

 

so, trump's characterization o' his first 100 days were an enormous alternative fact.

 

...

 

as a conservative/libertarian, the polls would suggest a likelihood o' Gromnir support for trump.  baffling.  yeah, we sympathize with folks  disenchanted by ineffectual washington insiders who spout traditional political non-speak.  for decades the average working class american felt complete left-out o' the democratic process, and middle-class americans see their best years dwindling fast in the rearview mirror. folks want change.  the republican voice o' change during the election were trump.  in the absence o' a viable alternative, is understandable why folks gravitated to trump, but am baffled by trump supporters who continue to support in spite o' his lack o' any meaningful progress and his willingness to distort facts and make unsubstantiated accusations.

 

is this sunk cost fallacy at work? perhaps folks still see trump as the best o' nothing but bad alternatives.  sure, trump approval is low, but he nevertheless has maintained core support.  why?  don't the excess o' alternative facts and failure to make noticeable progress on campaign promises discourage even trump diehards?  

 

on paper, one would assume Gromnir would be a trump supporter, but am admitted left with cold chills when we think o' him as president. during the election we predicted trump would fail to achieve domestic change as he is not a consensus builder.  we noted how trump didn't seem to understand the limited role o' the President in domestic affairs. we worried trump would turn towards international affairs in light o' predictable domestic impotence.  where we is now is exact where we predicted we would be.  am just a bit surprised more conservatives haven't lost faith in trump.  if not alternative facts and impotence, what will it take to make trump supporters lose faith?  

 

oh well.

 

HA! Good Fun!

This is where I remind everyone there were more names on your Presidential ballot than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

 

yeah, is good to reminds us how 'cause o' electoral college, the fringe party voters in the three swing states o' pennsylvania, michigan and wisconsin, coupled with even a few more democrats actual voting in those states, coulda' made a difference in preventing a trump presidency.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Then we'd be discussing a Clinton Administration. It's hard to see how we'd come out ahead on that score. I am definitely no fan of Trump but at least we got a decent Supreme Court Justice out of it. He's not who I would have picked but from a libertarian viewpoint he's pretty good. I would not have been able to say that about any Clinton nominee.

 

I don't think Gary Johnson or Jill Stein had any business being President. But I know the Libertarian and Green Party candidates should be allowed in the debates and have access to the same campaign and ballot access resources ans the elephants and jackasses.  The best way to make that happen is by voting for them. Both Clinton and Trump were unacceptable to a lot of people. The greatest failing of the two party choice is the day was coming when they only choices amounted to either being bitten by a snake or stung by a scorpion. The only productive votes that were could be cast were for third party candidates in the hopes they would get enough to open the door in 2020.

[Pidesco]

 

 

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/fact-check-trump’s-account-of-his-first-100-days-in-office/ar-BBAzgf5?ocid=spartandhp so, trump's characterization o' his first 100 days were an enormous alternative fact. ... as a conservative/libertarian, the polls would suggest a likelihood o' Gromnir support for trump. baffling. yeah, we sympathize with folks disenchanted by ineffectual washington insiders who spout traditional political non-speak. for decades the average working class american felt complete left-out o' the democratic process, and middle-class americans see their best years dwindling fast in the rearview mirror. folks want change. the republican voice o' change during the election were trump. in the absence o' a viable alternative, is understandable why folks gravitated to trump, but am baffled by trump supporters who continue to support in spite o' his lack o' any meaningful progress and his willingness to distort facts and make unsubstantiated accusations. is this sunk cost fallacy at work? perhaps folks still see trump as the best o' nothing but bad alternatives. sure, trump approval is low, but he nevertheless has maintained core support. why? don't the excess o' alternative facts and failure to make noticeable progress on campaign promises discourage even trump diehards? on paper, one would assume Gromnir would be a trump supporter, but am admitted left with cold chills when we think o' him as president. during the election we predicted trump would fail to achieve domestic change as he is not a consensus builder. we noted how trump didn't seem to understand the limited role o' the President in domestic affairs. we worried trump would turn towards international affairs in light o' predictable domestic impotence. where we is now is exact where we predicted we would be. am just a bit surprised more conservatives haven't lost faith in trump. if not alternative facts and impotence, what will it take to make trump supporters lose faith? oh well. HA! Good Fun!

The Supreme Court is back in conservative hands and illegal border crossings are down 70%, so he's not as ineffective is you claim. Consider the difference if the super shrew won. Republican weakness is that they're disunited against a united Democrat opposition, thus majority of Republicans have to yield to Dems because the far right is so intransigent they sabotage the good when they can't get the perfect.

I would suggest that if people are suddenly choosing to stay in Mexico instead of moving to the US, things must be getting pretty bad in the US.

Yes. The decrease in bank robberies after new security system is installed is a sign that things get pretty bad in the bank. F... logic.

 

 

The better analogy would be a new security system that works so well it reduces the number of new clients the bank welcomes on a daily basis.

 

 

And then the bank gets robbed by an existing customer, anyway.

 

Edit: I'm sorry, I completely dropped the ball here. Let me correct this.

 

And then the bank gets robbed by the CEO. And then the bank gets robbed by the branch manager. And then the bank gets robbed by the security contractor. But now, at least the money is safely always within the bank, under the control of fewer and fewer customer while the rest of the customers see their assets decreasing in value over time.

[Malcador]

Seems odd to tout Gorsuch, given the way Congress is set. I guess every review needs that fluff task

[Wrath of Dagon]

If they didn't get rid of filibuster, Gorsuch wouldn't have made it. Now they need to get rid of filibuster all together, or the Dems will kill them.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

You gotta love the liberal mental meltdowns.

 

 

Do you feel that lashing out with insults helps your argument? It would seem to do the opposite, simply setting up an us versus them mentality. This seems to be par for the course in both liberal and conservative camps right now. Shouldn't the goal be to convince others, instead of just furthering the divide?

[Gfted1]

^How do you debate with a disingenuos post such as he replied to? Its a pissing contest, you see.

[Guard Dog]

If they didn't get rid of filibuster, Gorsuch wouldn't have made it. Now they need to get rid of filibuster all together, or the Dems will kill them.

The thing is in the future, perhaps as soon as 2020, we may have cause to rue their use of the "nuclear option". Folks who enjoy seeing their "team" exercise power and stick to their enemies need to remember one day that power will be in the hands of someone else. The left wingers of this country were loving the way Obama spent eight years usurping power from the Congress, from the States, from thin air. Now all that power and more importantly the precedent to do even more is in the hands of Donald Trump.Politics is cyclical. Right now the Republicans hold all the cards. Withing the next 8 years that might all reverse. In fact it's even likely it will. That is one of the biggest arguments against allowing the government to expand it's power. The Republicans should be cutting down the size and scope so the next Democrat admin and Congress can't do as much damage. Instead they are out Democrating the Democrats. Rush Limbaugh even asked the Vice President yesterday "What is the point of even voting Republican?" He's right.

 

Had I been Trump I'd have sacrificed Goresuch and in his place nominated someone even more unacceptable to the left. Like Janice Rogers Brown as an example. And let them know if they filibuster her the next one will be even worse for them. At some point public pressure will force them to drop the filibuster and the 60 vote cloture rule would still exist. That is thinking strategically. 

[Hurlshort]

^How do you debate with a disingenuos post such as he replied to? Its a pissing contest, you see.

 

Sure, Pidesco was clearly being glib when he made his original statement. That's why it was probably not worth reacting to. But Sharp_One jumps into attack mode very quickly whenever someone has an alternative opinion on an issue. I know we all have our moments when we go for the petty dig instead of the genuine discourse, but I'd like to think we can strive to be better.

[Gromnir]

Seems odd to tout Gorsuch, given the way Congress is set. I guess every review needs that fluff task

if a single person were to be deserving credit for gorsuch being on the Court, it would be mitch mcconnell.  trump's contribution were picking a name from a list and then failing to build consensus for a relative moderate textualist with no genuine questions 'bout his competence.  failure of trump to build consensus resulted in the nuclear option, which both parties will be regretting at some point in the future.  both democrats and republicans lamented the nuclear option. yeah, the democrats actual went "nuclear" during the obama administration, removing filibuster for all appointees save for the Court, so republicans no doubt saw Gorsuch as a kinda eye-for-an-eye kinda scenario, but why give trump credit for failing in a similar fashion as obama?

 

in the absence o' a republican or libertarian President, we woulda' likely seen a more activist judge on the Court.  we observed more than once during the election year that the only reason we could see voting for trump were to prevent a more activist Court.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

If they didn't get rid of filibuster, Gorsuch wouldn't have made it. Now they need to get rid of filibuster all together, or the Dems will kill them.

The thing is in the future, perhaps as soon as 2020, we may have cause to rue their use of the "nuclear option". Folks who enjoy seeing their "team" exercise power and stick to their enemies need to remember one day that power will be in the hands of someone else. The left wingers of this country were loving the way Obama spent eight years usurping power from the Congress, from the States, from thin air. Now all that power and more importantly the precedent to do even more is in the hands of Donald Trump.Politics is cyclical. Right now the Republicans hold all the cards. Withing the next 8 years that might all reverse. In fact it's even likely it will. That is one of the biggest arguments against allowing the government to expand it's power.

 

The Democrats don't buy that argument though, so it doesn't help if Republicans do. As far as filibuster, there's no way Democrats would keep the filibuster if it didn't suit them in the future. Harry Reid already showed the way. Republicans holding on to filibuster is just wishful thinking and unilateral disarmament. Besides, as I said before, filibuster made some sense when the two parties got together occasionally for the good of the country, but these days only leads to complete paralysis while the house is on fire.

The Republicans should be cutting down the size and scope so the next Democrat admin and Congress can't do as much damage. Instead they are out Democrating the Democrats. Rush Limbaugh even asked the Vice President yesterday "What is the point of even voting Republican?" He's right.

As I said a little while back, the Republicans are divided thus they were forced to negotiate with the Dems, and negotiating with Dems means Dems get everything they want, as they know any government shut down would be blamed on the Repubes.

Had I been Trump I'd have sacrificed Goresuch and in his place nominated someone even more unacceptable to the left. Like Janice Rogers Brown as an example. And let them know if they filibuster her the next one will be even worse for them. At some point public pressure will force them to drop the filibuster and the 60 vote cloture rule would still exist. That is thinking strategically.

And you'd get nothing. Public pressure doesn't work because most people don't care, and Dems don't give a rat's ass what Republican voters think. Republicans paid no price for opposing Garland, and Dems wouldn't pay a price either, especially if Trump nominated someone they could easily portray as "far right" and extreme. Edited May 3, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Valsuelm]

The following happens far more often than most think. In fact, at some if not most media outlets, such things are very much the norm...

 

 

 

I have a few friends in the industry as the result of going to a university reputed to have one of the best if not the best communications schools in the nation. Two of those friends are actually Emmy awards winners at this point. The **** they'd tell you would blow many of your minds, and turn many of your world views inside out and then on it's head .

 

The world is not as advertised.

 

 

Worth a watch if you've never seen it:

Edited June 6, 2017 by Valsuelm

[Gromnir]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/factcheck-shows-trumps-climate-speech-was-full-of-misleading-statements/

 

“Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of 1 degree — think of that, this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100.”

 

White House officials said this figure came from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Researchers from the Climate Interactive project, which collaborates with MIT, quickly refuted Trump's point.

 

In fact, the MIT research to which the president referred showed that the Paris Agreement could lower the expected temperature increase by 0.6 to 1.1 C.

 

is easier to pick out the few trump accuracies from his climate speech than to identify all the alternative facts.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 6, 2017 by Gromnir