Originally posted by Robtard
Question: Why did you freak out over Smollet before anything solid was known about his possible hoax involvement?
I'll be glad to answer your question once you answer mine.
Surely you're not a weasel who'd ignore a question and then demand an answer to their own question.
Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't say anything about "fake news", sport. So your question does not pertain to me.
I'm wondering about your opinion on the BS tactic the OP tried to pull. Once you answer my question I'll answer yours. There is no alternative route here, either you'll answer or we'll move on. Up to you 👆
Read back, PL didn't say anything really crazy or far fetched, certainly nothing a normal person wouldn't flip out over and DMB even commented on this in regards to PL when he defended his points and positions. /answered
PL in fact noted that you did the "I'm not defending Trump!" but somehow still defended Trump, which was accurate and funny as it was expected.
So, the question I asked?
Originally posted by Robtard
Read back, PL didn't say anything really crazy or far fetched, certainly nothing a normal person wouldn't flip out over and DMB even commented on this in regards to PL when he defended his points and positions.PL in fact noted that you did the "I'm not defending Trump!" but somehow still defended Trump, which was accurate and funny.
Ah so you chose the "moving on" option. Okie dokie!
I won't even ask you to prove your lies of me defending Trump here, I wouldn't wanna get you banned when you're unable to do it! You certainly aren't so utterly stupid you think pointing out people did worse is a defense of Trump, which is good 👆
Originally posted by Robtard
No, I chose the 'answered your question directly and used an example of a poster you tend to always agree with to note that PL didn't do much of anything crazy' approach.So, going to dodge my question it seems. Figured as much.
Nah it is dumb as f*ck to say you're crying fake news cuz you ask for evidence. This ain't up for debate.
Originally posted by Robtard
This is an unfair comparison; here's why:The US-Iran deal was not done in secrecy to being with like this deal was apparently and the main purpose of the deal was so Iran wouldn't seek nukes, ie giving Iran a few billion in their frozen assets back in return that they abide by a no-nuke weapon policy. Win for them, win for the US.
When Trump pulled out of the deal, Iran got to keep its billions in assets while no longer having to abide by the no-nuke agreement. Trump literally gave Iran the best deal, they got everything and the US got nothing in return.
You are definitely right about this. Obama had a relatively good deal in place, and Trump foolishly nixed it, creating the exact scenario the deal was created to avoid.
What is not an unfair comparison is Obama's connections to the Saudis: https://jacobinmag.com/2018/10/obama-saudi-arabia-trump-appeasement-coddle
Now this is not to excuse Trump's Saudi connections:
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/exclusive-donald-trump-made-millions-saudi-government-article-1.2777211
or Trump's hypocrisy regarding calling out the Saudis:
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-clinton-foundation-224287
I think that my biggest gripe with all of this is that Trump ran on a clear anti-Islamic campaign, making clear that it was a barbaric religion, and then went on to cancel the Iranian deal to prevent Islamists from attaining nukes, as well as legitimize Jerusalem, two attempts to reduce Islamic power in the region. Now, however, he is making deals with the perpetrators of 9/11, and seemingly trying to ensure that they have nuclear weapons. IMO, he has completely bytched out of his anti-Islamic stance, and had thus lost some of the respect I had for him. He was America's best chance of actually fighting Islam, and now he has completely sold America out to them by granting them the world's most powerful weapons.
I also don't think it's fair that Trump supporters are getting attacked in this thread. I haven't seen a single Trump supporter come out in favor of this, and I think it's absolutely fair to say that Trump supporters views towards this Saudi deal are the exact same as Obama supporters views towards his Saudi deal, I.e. it's phucking corrupt political bullshit. As such, instead of throwing around whataboutism's, how about we all try to think of an optimal hypothetical solution to this scenario in a bipartisan manner? What kind of policies can the next administration, Democrat or Republican, implement that can reduce if not erase America's ties with Islamist theocratic states?
Agreed with just about everything you said, except with the attacking Trumpers, that's absolutely fair here, they manage to not support Trump on something, yet support it, their MO. Anyhow, in good faith though.
America needs to up it's game in renewable energy just enough so we can then shift that amount of domestic oil and/or imported oil from places like Canada or Mexico where it's needed and ween ourselves from Middle Eastern oil, which in total is about 19%, one those countries being KSA, I think around 9%.
But that's not going to happen anytime soon, as OPEC and especially the Saudis have their fist and dollars shoved so far up US political asses you can't tell where one starts and the other ends. Maybe Bernie Sanders, but that's even a long shot.
Originally posted by Surtur
It's unconfirmed news. Do we not need evidence now? Is that the point we're at?I want you to confirm for me you don't need to see actual evidence for this.
Of course evidence is important, but the sad state that we find ourselves in is just internet media in general. It's a problem that for just about any opinion you can possibly imagine there is probably a source on the internet to support it (this becomes strikingly clear when my dad still sends me links to non-evolution believing sites like Answers in Genesis, ugh). We now have been somewhat conditioned to instantly distrust something because it's on the internet. But we just can't fact-check every minute detail in every story released. I've seen multiple (at least semi) respectable sources (NPR, Politico, NBC, etc) talk about this, but like the old days of newspapers it's basically buried back on the last page that no one will see, meaning it's probably not plastered all over CNN/Fox/etc. (I actually don't know, maybe it has gotten some mainstream coverage, but I highly doubt it).
So let's just spend all our time demanding hard first-hand evidence for everything? It's not possible.
Like Rob pointed out, it's probably true, because it fits in line with the other corruption Trump and co. and many others (even democrats) are associated with.
Originally posted by Lestov16
I think that my biggest gripe with all of this is that Trump ran on a clear anti-Islamic campaign, making clear that it was a barbaric religion, and then went on to cancel the Iranian deal to prevent Islamists from attaining nukes...
This. It's just further proof that all his campaign rhetoric was just hot air to say what people want to hear and he's clung to this wall thing to try and muster some semblance of trust with his supporters.
Originally posted by Robtard
America needs to up it's game in renewable energy just enough so we can then shift that amount of domestic oil and/or imported oil from places like Canada or Mexico where it's needed and ween ourselves from Middle Eastern oil, which in total is about 19%, one those countries being KSA, I think around 9%.But that's not going to happen anytime soon, as OPEC and especially the Saudis have their fist and dollars shoved so far up US political asses you can't tell where one starts and the other ends. Maybe Bernie Sanders, but that's even a long shot.
Yup. It's not about Right vs. Left. That's what the media makes everything so we'll always be at each other's throats, but it's about the Top vs the Bottom. Corruption. Because as has been pointed out, Obama and Trump are both guilty of some corrupt dealings. Although, it seems clear to me that Repubs seem to ramp up the evil corruption to 11, but hey...
Originally posted by Patient_LeechGood post 👆
Of course evidence is important, but the sad state that we find ourselves in is just internet media in general. It's a problem that for just about any opinion you can possibly imagine there is probably a source on the internet to support it (this becomes strikingly clear when my dad still sends me links to non-evolution believing sites like Answers in Genesis, ugh). We now have been somewhat conditioned to instantly distrust something because it's on the internet. But we just can't fact-check every minute detail in every story released. I've seen multiple (at least semi) respectable sources (NPR, Politico, NBC, etc) talk about this, but like the old days of newspapers it's basically buried back on the last page that no one will see, meaning it's probably not plastered all over CNN/Fox/etc. (I actually don't know, maybe it has gotten some mainstream coverage, but I highly doubt it).So let's just spend all our time demanding hard first-hand evidence for everything? It's not possible.
Like Rob pointed out, it's probably true, because it fits in line with the other corruption Trump and co. and many others (even democrats) are associated with.
This. It's just further proof that all his campaign rhetoric was just hot air to say what people want to hear and he's clung to this wall thing to try and muster some semblance of trust with his supporters.
Yup. It's not about Right vs. Left. That's what the media makes everything so we'll always be at each other's throats, but it's about the Top vs the Bottom. Corruption. Because as has been pointed out, Obama and Trump are both guilty of some corrupt dealings. Although, it seems clear to me that Repubs seem to ramp up the evil corruption to 11, but hey...