The New American Politics thread

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by peter12

Going to have to walk me through this one.

It was a joke, see. In Fight Club (spoiler alert) the narrator and Tyler Durden are the same person. Buster stopped posting the minute you came back all gangbusters into the thread. I thought it was rather straightforward.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by peter12

Going to have to walk me through this one.

It's a reference from the movie fight club where Ed Norton think he has a best friend in Brad Pitt's character Tyler Durden. Then towards the end of the movie you get your mind blown by finding out that the Tyler character was just a figment of his imagination and it was really him with a subconscious alter ego.

I guess a more mainstream example is Clark Kent / Superman. Never in the same place at the same time type thing.

edit - res beat me

[peter12]

Oh, I wasn't aware that he was even posting in the thread, but I did just wake up in my bathtub a few hours ago.

[V]

Dude, spoilers.

[Street Pharmacist]

My favourite term today heard on POTUS on XM was "Trumpster Fire

[Drak]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

My favourite term today heard on POTUS on XM was "Trumpster Fire

I also enjoy TrumpelThinSkin and Trumpty Dumpty.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by fatso

so this thread traded Buster for Peter12?

If you are going to trade me for Peter, there would be a significant haul of top end prospects coming back along with him.

[Senator Clay Davis]

So holy ####ing ####, the Trump campaign is seeing if they can dig their grave all the way to China on the Khan issue. Now one of his lackeys is saying that it's probably Obama's fault the Khan's son was killed, because of a change Obama made in the rules of engagement. Of note, the Khan's son died in 2004. This has to be one of the worst cases ever of simply not letting something go. And Trump of course could have said nothing to begin with and he'd be fine. A 69 year old is easier to bait than a 13 year old. Astonishing.

[2Stonedbirds]

SCD, I think an easier argument could be made that while Khan chastised Trump for not making a sacrifice, much to the delight of his democrat handlers, the queen bee herself voted FOR the war in Iraq, where he died, and then voted to pull out (snicker) and essentially hand over the hard fought land and political gains for nothing.

So she essentially sacrificed his son, and then gave away everything that sacrifice and others earned for... Nothing.

Which is worse?

Now before everyone freaks out and Tinordi calls me a bigot, this isn't a position I hold, but rather feel it would be a more effective tactic rather than the one presented by SCD.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

SCD, I think an easier argument could be made that while Khan chastised Trump for not making a sacrifice, much to the delight of his democrat handlers, the queen bee herself voted FOR the war in Iraq, where he died, and then voted to pull out (snicker) and essentially hand over the hard fought land and political gains for nothing.

So she essentially sacrificed his son, and then gave away everything that sacrifice and others earned for... Nothing.

Which is worse?

Now before everyone freaks out and Tinordi calls me a bigot, this isn't a position I hold, but rather feel it would be a more effective tactic rather than the one presented by SCD.

You're missing the point again though. The war here is superfluous from the issue at play. The issue at play is:

Mr Kahn felt Trump did not honour the sacrifices Muslims like his son make for the country. Mr Trump felt like Mr Kahn had no right to say that.


Why are you discussing who voted for the war?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

SCD, I think an easier argument could be made that while Khan chastised Trump for not making a sacrifice, much to the delight of his democrat handlers, the queen bee herself voted FOR the war in Iraq, where he died, and then voted to pull out (snicker) and essentially hand over the hard fought land and political gains for nothing.

So she essentially sacrificed his son, and then gave away everything that sacrifice and others earned for... Nothing.

Which is worse?

Now before everyone freaks out and Tinordi calls me a bigot, this isn't a position I hold, but rather feel it would be a more effective tactic rather than the one presented by SCD.

That's the a rational politician would have span it. Every solider makes great sacrifices for our country and your son made the ultimate sacrifice to protect what we all believe in. As President I will ..... So that future young men and women aren't sacrificed in wars without a purpose.

Trumps Narcisism means he can't just let the attack go and re focus on his opponent.

[ResAlien]

I like how Hillary personally sacrificed his son. That's a nice touch. Since almost every single Republican in office voted for the same war I suppose we should also then say that the entire Republican party murdered their son.

See, it's a dumb line of reasoning.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

SCD, I think an easier argument could be made that while Khan chastised Trump for not making a sacrifice, much to the delight of his democrat handlers, the queen bee herself voted FOR the war in Iraq, where he died, and then voted to pull out (snicker) and essentially hand over the hard fought land and political gains for nothing.

So she essentially sacrificed his son, and then gave away everything that sacrifice and others earned for... Nothing.

Which is worse?

Now before everyone freaks out and Tinordi calls me a bigot, this isn't a position I hold, but rather feel it would be a more effective tactic rather than the one presented by SCD.

Impossible! The Iraq mission was accomplished in 2003.
But seriously, if you/they think his speech was about assigning blame, you/they weren't listening.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Has anyone ever seen both of them in the same place at the same time? Maybe it's a Tyler Durden sort of situation.

Originally Posted by Buster

That would be an excellent thesis topic for a PhD candidate.

And, just like that, Buster instantly comes back. Very suspicious. I don't know that they're the same person, but a lot of people are saying that. A lot of people.

As of today, I am proposing a ban on both Buster and Peter12 until we can figure out what the hell is really going on.

[2Stonedbirds]

Again, I never said its a position I hold or that it even makes sense, but it's a hell of a lot stronger argument than the one presented by Trumps staffers as brought up by SCD.

Put the pitchforks away, Christ.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by fatso

And, just like that, Buster instantly comes back. Very suspicious. I don't know that they're the same person, but a lot of people are saying that. A lot of people.

As of today, I am proposing a ban on both Buster and Peter12 until we can figure out what the hell is really going on.

I'm not saying both of them are rapists and drug dealers, some of them may be good people.

[AltaGuy]

Somebody needs to ask Buster if his girlfriend attends the best - the very best - law school West of Toronto.

Buster?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

SCD, I think an easier argument could be made that while Khan chastised Trump for not making a sacrifice, much to the delight of his democrat handlers, the queen bee herself voted FOR the war in Iraq, where he died, and then voted to pull out (snicker) and essentially hand over the hard fought land and political gains for nothing.

So she essentially sacrificed his son, and then gave away everything that sacrifice and others earned for... Nothing.

Which is worse?

Now before everyone freaks out and Tinordi calls me a bigot, this isn't a position I hold, but rather feel it would be a more effective tactic rather than the one presented by SCD.

First of all, this line of thinking has to stop. It's as if you're saying Hillary herself sent them to war (GOP controlled everything), or that she was the deciding vote on the war (it passed with 75 votes), that there wasn't false evidence presented (or do we forget that part of it?) or that Trump was a pacifist in this case (he supported the war in 2003). So it's a stupid argument and just doesn't hold any weight at all.

The withdrawal argument is...I don't know? Should the US have stayed forever in Iraq? That costs tons and tons of money and gets more soldiers killed. A bad political play if there ever was one. The only conceivable argument that makes sense here is to have never gone into Iraq to begin with. Which again, was a GOP controlled decision (that apparently should fall 100% on Hillary).

There is no tactic here. Trump is a mentally ill, 69 year old man that is easier to bait than 13 year olds in YouTube comment sections. You take even the slightest shot at him, and he comes back over the top like a child would. His lackeys are simply out there trying to save face and shift any sort of blame away from them. Yet not only is it not working outside the already dedicated Trump core, it's horribly backfiring with any moderate Republicans, who Trump desperately needs to win. This is just a rank ####ing amateur political outlet run by a bunch of liars, morons, and other assorted losers. I wish people would stop acting like there's some genius in any of this, or a plan.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

SCD, I think an easier argument could be made that while Khan chastised Trump for not making a sacrifice, much to the delight of his democrat handlers, the queen bee herself voted FOR the war in Iraq, where he died, and then voted to pull out (snicker) and essentially hand over the hard fought land and political gains for nothing.

So she essentially sacrificed his son, and then gave away everything that sacrifice and others earned for... Nothing.

Which is worse?

Now before everyone freaks out and Tinordi calls me a bigot, this isn't a position I hold, but rather feel it would be a more effective tactic rather than the one presented by SCD.

The weakness of this line of arguement is pulling out of Iraq was overwhelmingly popular in the U.S. even in the GOP base, it's what Obama campaigned on, it's a large part of why he was elected, he and congress and senate had a responsibility to obey the voters wishes at that point.
The reason the GOP's Hawks are wasting their time with this arguement is no one in the U.S. wants to get involved in any of the Middle East's problems, and no one thinks any of this mess is anyone's fault but Bush's.

Essentially the GOP is trying to argue that Hillary and Obama did a lousy job of cleaning up the huge dump that the GOP took on the carpet, there's no way to make that arguement politically that doesn't remind everyone that the GOP took a huge dump on the carpet, while lying about why they were taking a dump to the world in general and the U.S. Voters in particular. It's a stupid arguement politically and a sign that they are not talking to anyone outside of their own whack job supporters, most of whom are nuts.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Buster

If you are going to trade me for Peter, there would be a significant haul of top end prospects coming back along with him.

Yup, definitely an Oiler fan. Only an Oiler fan would over rate his own prospects like that.