Trump MAGAthread X - Follow the Money

[The East Marches II]

My solution is to go to the store once a week and try a new liquor.

If you ever see a good cinnamon mead let me know, I keep trying to find one but to no avail and I can't brew my own yet.

>mead

Absolutely barbaric

[Washington Resistance Army]

If you ever see a good cinnamon mead let me know, I keep trying to find one but to no avail and I can't brew my own yet.

>mead

Absolutely barbaric

>said the Turk

[The East Marches II]

>mead

Absolutely barbaric

>said the Turk

That plum shit they drink isn't much better tbh. That's awful too.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Trump's approval rating makes him least popular first-year president on record

538 and Gallup daily back this up I think

Well, these type of situations are solved, by having a little or big war, just keep blaming Iran for everything then fire missiles at them. Trump's approval rating will go up soon after.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Which I guess only increases the chances of him doing something stupid. Especially if it's a desperate push for that War President boost.

A war would really only make him more unpopular considering his stupidity would have started it.

A bit old news but "No other president has averaged less than 49% approval during his first year in office."

Yeah, he really is that unpopular.

Bush got a high approval rating soon after his wars with Afghanistan and even with Iraq for a short while.

[Valrifell]

Trump's approval rating makes him least popular first-year president on record

538 and Gallup daily back this up I think

Well, these type of situations are solved, by having a little or big war, just keep blaming Iran for everything then fire missiles at them. Trump's approval rating will go up soon after.

I don't think it would be as big or last as long as other war-bumps, though. Considering that we're still involved in the Middle East and the memory of Iraq is really fresh in people's minds.

[Colbert Super PAC]

Trump's approval rating makes him least popular first-year president on record

538 and Gallup daily back this up I think

Well, these type of situations are solved, by having a little or big war, just keep blaming Iran for everything then fire missiles at them. Trump's approval rating will go up soon after.

Trump starts the biggest wars. It's going to be yuuuuuge!

[Parti Ouvrier]

Well, these type of situations are solved, by having a little or big war, just keep blaming Iran for everything then fire missiles at them. Trump's approval rating will go up soon after.

I don't think it would be as big or last as long as other war-bumps, though. Considering that we're still involved in the Middle East and the memory of Iraq is really fresh in people's minds.

You might be right, meanwhile it would be the Iranian people who suffer for the possibly short-term rise in approval for the reactionary Trump.

[Parti Ouvrier]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
Last time a president fired a special counsel, that president was forced to resign. They won't get away with firing Mueller.

That would really make it "Stupid Watergate".

Whilst I wouldn't rule out Trump getting impeached, it's worth bearing in mind, his 'wing-nut' vice president is a Temple fundamentalist.
'Trump's Jerusalem Syndrome: Whose End of Days Messiah Does He Think He Is?' Haaretz
read more: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.827558
Also, Vice
https://news.vice.com/story/evangelical ... -jerusalem

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

A war would really only make him more unpopular considering his stupidity would have started it.

A bit old news but "No other president has averaged less than 49% approval during his first year in office."

Yeah, he really is that unpopular.

Bush got a high approval rating soon after his wars with Afghanistan and even with Iraq for a short while.

Yeah, but then we found out why leaving a big ol power vacuum in Iraq was a dumb idea and also before that elected a president who wanted to end the Iraq war.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

That would really make it "Stupid Watergate".

Whilst I wouldn't rule out Trump getting impeached, it's worth bearing in mind, his 'wing-nut' vice president is a Temple fundamentalist.
'Trump's Jerusalem Syndrome: Whose End of Days Messiah Does He Think He Is?' Haaretz
read more: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.827558
Also, Vice
https://news.vice.com/story/evangelical ... -jerusalem

He's gonna have a hard act to follow up.

Who's up for two impeachments in a row?

[Seangoli]

So the phrase "arbitrary and capricious" has no meaning here? They can do whatever the fuck they want as long as they have the authority to do so and follow procedure?
According to other sources I have heard they actually do need to give fact-based reasoning and that a change in ideology isn't enough. So what does "arbitrary and capricious" mean here?

It does mean something, but not what you think it means. It means that if he were to change it, he would have to have a reason that serves the public good; he reasoned for doing this is that it entice ISPs to build infrastructure to better serve more people. Like it or not, that is a purpose that serves the public good. The concept is honestly grey, and there are multiple ways something can serve the public good. Just because the Obama administration found it in the public's interest to enforce net neutrality does not mean that this is the only opinion on the subject. The world is a hell of a lot more complicated than that. If the courts side against Pai, they will not do so by saying that Title II protections must be applied. Rather, they will say that the manner in which Pai acted was against legal procedure. He will then have to go back to the drawing board, and do it legally. The Courts will not, and cannot, say that this move in concept is illegal. They have no authority to do so.

I get the advice, try voting these smucks out of power like the denocracy we are. What do I do in the meantime?

Breathe deeply, research shit, discuss the topics at hand rationally. We have a particularly stupid administration right now. Crying "Apocalypse" at ever turn only emboldens political opponents who already think our side is being ridiculous. Overblowing what issues are about equally make us look ridiculous. Discussing things in terms and concepts that they disagree with will not help you. Going to be blunt on this one: Talking about this in the concept of a Freedom of Speech or Human rights issue is going to get you ridiculed, and it is going to fall on deaf ears particularly with Republicans. You need to hit Republicans where it hurts, and where it hurts is the wallet. I've found that when I explain that this could very easily make their internet service more expensive, they tend to start listening. This is why they are deaf to arguments on Obamacare; people frame the arguments in a manner that doesn't apply to them. When you start talking about the negative impacts it could have on them, they become a lot more receptive than you may think.

Revolution means great change. We need to radically change how our government functions so stupid shit like this doesn't happen ever again.

[/quote]

The byzantine structure of our government exists for good reason. The abuses and problems that exist without the bureaucracy and procedure that keep in check is far, far, far worse than a move to make internet more annoying at the customer's expense.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

That would really make it "Stupid Watergate".

Whilst I wouldn't rule out Trump getting impeached, it's worth bearing in mind, his 'wing-nut' vice president is a Temple fundamentalist.
'Trump's Jerusalem Syndrome: Whose End of Days Messiah Does He Think He Is?' Haaretz
read more: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.827558
Also, Vice
https://news.vice.com/story/evangelical ... -jerusalem

Pence's proposed policies (as far as I know):
. Ban all abortions
. Ban weed
. Ban pornography
. Ban contraception
. Pro-creationism
. Anti-vax
. Pro-war
. Anti-same sex marriage
. Anti-science
. Anti-stem cell research

[The Flutterlands]

So the phrase "arbitrary and capricious" has no meaning here? They can do whatever the fuck they want as long as they have the authority to do so and follow procedure?
According to other sources I have heard they actually do need to give fact-based reasoning and that a change in ideology isn't enough. So what does "arbitrary and capricious" mean here?

It does mean something, but not what you think it means. It means that if he were to change it, he would have to have a reason that serves the public good; he reasoned for doing this is that it entice ISPs to build infrastructure to better serve more people. Like it or not, that is a purpose that serves the public good. The concept is honestly grey, and there are multiple ways something can serve the public good. Just because the Obama administration found it in the public's interest to enforce net neutrality does not mean that this is the only opinion on the subject. The world is a hell of a lot more complicated than that. If the courts side against Pai, they will not do so by saying that Title II protections must be applied. Rather, they will say that the manner in which Pai acted was against legal procedure. He will then have to go back to the drawing board, and do it legally. The Courts will not, and cannot, say that this move in concept is illegal. They have no authority to do so.

That is a lie though. ISPs are inherently evil because throughout history they have had the business and even political incentive to block throttle and favor websites to make more profit than they don't need. The Courts know this, I know this, and you know this.

And I mean evil because extorting people for money is pretty evil and why else would ISPs want rules against throttling, blocking and discrimination gone?

A bigger problem is Ajit Pai will be able to get away with lying to the courts should they side with him.

[Vendecati]

I'm just here to vent and say that the "you're all immigrants" argument is bad and should never be used.

A) most of us are not immigrants, and you using that word that way degrades the meaning. Someone is not an immigrant if they were born in a country. Millions of people here have great grandparents that were born in this country, let alone themselves. Anchor babies are U.S. natives no matter their race, even if their parents are natives of another country and don't have U.S. citizenship.

B) literally goddamn every country other than Greece then is entirely immigrants if this train of logic is pursued. Including the American native populations and the Africans.

C) We're here now and we've established a place that isn't killing/outright/systemically oppressing person of race/sex X, so as an example why would we then take on 20,000 people whose holy book literally commands these same things, and of all things for the sake of "feminism" and "racial equality"?! These aren't your middle class white Muslims from Kansas, they're raised in a culture that has a literal and devoted fundamentalist view of the Qur'an.

This argument is usually coupled with the "you killed all the natives" argument, which is also easily refuted:

A) Who, me? I wasn't alive five hundred years ago. I highly doubt you were, either. Are you suggesting we blame the over repentant to the point of culturally suicidal modern day people over things that happened fifteen generations ago? Fifteen sets of parents to get from the 1640s and 1650s to now. Even if you start your count from the Trail of Tears, that's seven generations.

B) We didn't even kill most of them intentionally, at least not initially. The grand majority died of disease that we didn't intend to send, but nevertheless came over with us.

To get back on topic, I'm glad net neutrality is dead. If nothing else the companies who don't follow it get BTFO by the ones that do alongside newcomers. Then, maybe then, we can start to improve our national disgrace of an internet infrastructure.

[MERIZoC]

Bush got a high approval rating soon after his wars with Afghanistan and even with Iraq for a short while.

Yeah, but then we found out why leaving a big ol power vacuum in Iraq was a dumb idea and also before that elected a president who wanted to end the Iraq war.

Save the various Indian wars, the only wartime president who ever failed to be reelected was Taft, and that "war" was peripheral US involvement in the Mexican civil war. I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Seangoli]

That is a lie though. ISPs are inherently evil because nowadays they have the business incentive to block throttle and favor websites to make more profit than they don't need. The Courts know this, I know this, and you know this.

Neither here nor there. The Courts do not determine if something is "evil". Legality is not about morality. We allow a lot of amoral shit to happen. There are reasons which can legally justify this, and the FCC reasonings does give them a compelling argument so long as they can reasonable prove it to the courts that they actually anticipate ISPs to lay more line.

I also wouldn't use evil in this context. Evil is screwing people over because you can. THis is amoral. The ISPs are tryng to maximize profits. They aren't dicking with customers because they find it fun. There is a subtle, but important, difference here.

And I mean evil because extorting people for money is pretty evil and why else would ISPs want rules against throttling, blocking and discrimination gone?

Well, yeah. Of course. I'm pretty sure the FCC even more or less admits this. That said, this doesn't mean that allowing them to do this can't serve the public good, just as Title II protections does not mean that these moves serve the public good in all senses. There are pros and cons to both sides, to be absolutely blunt. It's not "All Better" and "All Worse". That's what you need to actually understand. There are rational arguments that can be made that this move will serve the public good. Not that this is morally "good"; the courts do not give two flying shits about morality. But rather that it can have some benefit to the public at large.

You are arguing a moral standpoint, and you need to realize that the courts do not give two flying shits about morality. They care about legality. When they talk about the public good in terms of common carriers, they are not speaking in abstract moralistic terms. They are saying that something, somehow, needs to serve the public interest in some manner. It's not even that it needs to serve the public interest in all matters, either, because that is impossible.

[Valrifell]

Whilst I wouldn't rule out Trump getting impeached, it's worth bearing in mind, his 'wing-nut' vice president is a Temple fundamentalist.
'Trump's Jerusalem Syndrome: Whose End of Days Messiah Does He Think He Is?' Haaretz
read more: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.827558
Also, Vice
https://news.vice.com/story/evangelical ... -jerusalem

He's gonna have a hard act to follow up.

Who's up for two impeachments in a row?

If it's after 2018, and assuming Dems control the House, I'd be more game.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I'm just here to vent and say that the "you're all immigrants" argument is bad and should never be used.

A) most of us are not immigrants, and you using that word that way degrades the meaning. Someone is not an immigrant if they were born in a country. Millions of people here have great grandparents that were born in this country, let alone themselves. Anchor babies are U.S. natives no matter their race, even if their parents are natives of another country and don't have U.S. citizenship.

B) literally goddamn every country other than Greece then is entirely immigrants if this train of logic is pursued. Including the American native populations and the Africans.

C) We're here now and we've established a place that isn't killing/outright/systemically oppressing person of race/sex X, so as an example why would we then take on 20,000 people whose holy book literally commands these same things, and of all things for the sake of "feminism" and "racial equality"?! These aren't your middle class white Muslims from Kansas, they're raised in a culture that has a literal and devoted fundamentalist view of the Qur'an.

This argument is usually coupled with the "you killed all the natives" argument, which is also easily refuted:

A) Who, me? I wasn't alive five hundred years ago. I highly doubt you were, either. Are you suggesting we blame the over repentant to the point of culturally suicidal modern day people over things that happened fifteen generations ago? Fifteen sets of parents to get from the 1640s and 1650s to now. Even if you start your count from the Trail of Tears, that's seven generations.

B) We didn't even kill most of them intentionally, at least not initially. The grand majority died of disease that we didn't intend to send, but nevertheless came over with us.

To get back on topic, I'm glad net neutrality is dead. If nothing else the companies who don't follow it get BTFO by the ones that do alongside newcomers. Then, maybe then, we can start to improve our national disgrace of an internet infrastructure.

No-one was making this argument. You're kind of playing yourself by wasting time on an argument that no-one here made.

[Vendecati]

I'm just here to vent and say that the "you're all immigrants" argument is bad and should never be used.

A) most of us are not immigrants, and you using that word that way degrades the meaning. Someone is not an immigrant if they were born in a country. Millions of people here have great grandparents that were born in this country, let alone themselves. Anchor babies are U.S. natives no matter their race, even if their parents are natives of another country and don't have U.S. citizenship.

B) literally goddamn every country other than Greece then is entirely immigrants if this train of logic is pursued. Including the American native populations and the Africans.

C) We're here now and we've established a place that isn't killing/outright/systemically oppressing person of race/sex X, so as an example why would we then take on 20,000 people whose holy book literally commands these same things, and of all things for the sake of "feminism" and "racial equality"?! These aren't your middle class white Muslims from Kansas, they're raised in a culture that has a literal and devoted fundamentalist view of the Qur'an.

This argument is usually coupled with the "you killed all the natives" argument, which is also easily refuted:

A) Who, me? I wasn't alive five hundred years ago. I highly doubt you were, either. Are you suggesting we blame the over repentant to the point of culturally suicidal modern day people over things that happened fifteen generations ago? Fifteen sets of parents to get from the 1640s and 1650s to now. Even if you start your count from the Trail of Tears, that's seven generations.

B) We didn't even kill most of them intentionally, at least not initially. The grand majority died of disease that we didn't intend to send, but nevertheless came over with us.

To get back on topic, I'm glad net neutrality is dead. If nothing else the companies who don't follow it get BTFO by the ones that do alongside newcomers. Then, maybe then, we can start to improve our national disgrace of an internet infrastructure.

No-one was making this argument. You're kind of playing yourself by wasting time on an argument that no-one here made.

Nobody here, no. I was just coming off an entirely different site with people that were.

[Parti Ouvrier]

No-one was making this argument. You're kind of playing yourself by wasting time on an argument that no-one here made.

Nobody here, no. I was just coming off an entirely different site with people that were.

Then why didn't you stay on that site and make those arguments there?

[Unified Heartless States]

Putting my bets on mullboy getting canned soon

_____ Night Massacre when?

I'm feeling Tuesday, seems right.

[Vendecati]

Nobody here, no. I was just coming off an entirely different site with people that were.

Then why didn't you stay on that site and make those arguments there?

Mostly lack of any sort of account with 30 hoops to go through if I did want to make one, ultimately just to ever use it a handful of times.

[Unified Heartless States]

Nobody here, no. I was just coming off an entirely different site with people that were.

Then why didn't you stay on that site and make those arguments there?

Because America, land of the free.

[The Alma Mater]

Then why didn't you stay on that site and make those arguments there?

Because America, land of the free.

But this site is Australian