Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿

[The Last Stand]

In a just world, that would be true.

But in the real world we all live in..... they do, no matter what you or I think of it.....

That's like saying "No respectable person would stoop to sex work for a buck"

Maybe, but, economics and human nature means some do and consider the pros (whatever is being offered) fair trade for what they're selling (dignity, autonomy in relationships) up and down the economic scale, attractive women with pedigrees and clout sell out for a Soccer star or Saudi Prince, desperate women with drug addictions sell out to anyone with a pulse for $30.


The difference between a moralist and a regular person is the regular person says "You shouldn't" when it comes to a certain behavior, but leaves it at that. The moralist says "Only evil people do, and if YOU are one of those, I"ll see you crushed" and commits the fundamental error of thinking a just world can be created by destroying the ultimate justice of all: free will.

Interesting how the two parties hold those ideas, and, in the last 20 years, have done the unthinkable and switched sides.

The right went from "You heathen devilspawn Satanists will ruin the country with your drugs and rock music!" to "People will act in self-destructive ways when they don't have good jobs and stable lives, we should try and make life better rather than more rule-filled"

And the left wen from "People gonna be people, you can't legislate morality" to "GET IN LINE OR YOU'RE CANCELED! RACISTS! WE'LL SEE YOU BURN IF YOU DEFY US! "

The Democrats in particular going from "Blowjobs in the Oval Office are no big deal" to "Impeach the pussy-grabber" in a decade is proof of this.

Perhaps I was a bit harsh. My logic wasn't there.

Each their own. I'm sure we've done things that we may not like but to get by.

I can't judge.

 

[Cast Iron Pan]

Twitter with a big fuck you to Trump on his birthday. These friggin' people, man.

I'm not Null, but from what I seen from "right wing" users on here, they jump to the globohomo, Jew conspiracy bandwagon. They just blurt out "nigger" and 13/50 as an excuse to rip on Black people. They inject politics in other sections that don't belong; they end up isolating others if you disagree with Trump. Almost like an echo chamber which we make fun of.

Remember when Section 230 was about to be revoked, damn near everybody jumped on the Trump defense train to the extent that Null flipped out on the state of his website.

I see where he's coming from. We need to conduct ourselves better.

Spotted the faggot jew.

Spoiler: I see you.

Still a slimeball if you ask me.

Men do talk shop like that among other guys. It's all pretty harmless. Did I ever tell you about the time I banged the one-legged hooker from Saskatchewan? That hooker's name: Alfred Einstein.

Hell, Victoria's Secret is damn near a bordello with how they whore out the models of the runway shows.

Wasn't it revealed that they were literally acting as a bordello for Jeffrey Epstein? Pretty sure that was one of the revelations that came from that all too brief episode.

 

[Ebonic Tutor]

Wasn't it revealed that they were literally acting as a bordello for Jeffrey Epstein? Pretty sure that was one of the revelations that came from that all too brief episode.

Epstein's first bit of cash came from Wexner who owned Victoria's Secret at the time.

 

[Some Random Soul]

View attachment 1375657

It's even better that he's doing this during 'Pride' Month because everyone has forgotten about it thanks to the riot bullshit.

 

[TowinKarz]

It's even better that he's doing this during 'Pride' Month because everyone has forgotten about it thanks to the riot bullshit.

Except the car I was behind at the gas pump yesterday that had a soap-scrawled message on the back glass:


PRIDE RAGE MONTH 2020
# CAN'T BREATHE!


Intersectioanlism will be the doom of the left, the progressives are 10 ton anchors you strap to yourself to prove a point, and then wonder how, exactly, are you supposed to move now?

 

[heyitsmike]

Not defending loonies, but I am curious how much media plays into this. Random rightish loony says something, the media will blast it from shore to shore. Meanwhile leftish loonies are either ignored or rationalized as not being loony at all.

I'm black and part of the reason I find left wing loonies to be more dangerous is that the left doesn't know how to deal with its crazies as well as the right. Some people may say the right doesn't deal with its loonies well, and maybe so, but it's miles ahead of the left.

You have loonies on the right calling for segregation. But they're marginalized and people know they're crazy. But on the left you have mainstream colleges with minority only safe spaces. That's de facto segregation.

You also have have loonies on the right espousing white supremacy. Well on the left you have the concept of white privilege, which says that it's always more advantageous to be white than black. The idea that you'd rather be a poor white person than a rich black person is a white supremacist idea.

This is mainstream and accepted on the left. Those holding extreme ideas encompass about 5% of the right, but at least 50% of the left. Yet the entire mainstream right gets judged by the ideas of the fringe while the dangerous ideas of the mainstream left are apparently fine, even though they're often the same as the fringe right!?

 

[X Prime]

This is mainstream and accepted on the left. Those holding extreme ideas encompass about 5% of the right, but at least 50% of the left. Yet the entire mainstream right gets judged by the ideas of the fringe while the dangerous ideas of the mainstream left are apparently fine, even though they're often the same as the fringe right!?

That's what happens when your side holds all the institutional power. The institution protects its own.

It's no different from what happened with the Catholic Church, except the institutions I am talking about are not exactly waning.

 

[mandatorylurk]

So the big thing yesterday was Trump using two hands to drink a cup of water (like they do in asian countries, so diversity!) and having a general help him down a ramp which may or may not have been slippery? And this is their Blue Eyes White Dragon to destroy Trump? Let me know when Trump is carried by security detail and tossed into a van in September and then you'll have something. Or better yet, he sucks his wife's finger during a rally.

Fuck, these people are just so tiring.

 

[No Ma'ams Land]

Any woman with self respect wouldn't subject themselves to such sleaze for a buck.

Nonsense. Harvey Weinstein couldn't have existed in an environment where his "clients" valued their bodies. Hollywood culture's sexual marketplace had been an open secret for decades. The only reason he received any of the attention he did was because he is visually disgusting. Had a 90's era Brad Pitt type also been a financier and pervert, the entire scenario would be a flash in the pan.

Let's also not forget that Trump was a prime player in the 80s, even while married. If Mick Jagger could get a bunch of free pussy, you don't think those kind of women would flock to a man made of New York money?

It's precisely why his comment rang true, and why people are disgusted with such truth. "They let you do it."

 

[Some Random Soul]

So the big thing yesterday was Trump using two hands to drink a cup of water (like they do in asian countries, so diversity!) and having a general help him down a ramp which may or may not have been slippery? And this is their Blue Eyes White Dragon to destroy Trump? Let me know when Trump is carried by security detail and tossed into a van in September and then you'll have something. Or better yet, he sucks his wife's finger during a rally.

Fuck, these people are just so tiring.

Isn't that like when CNN reported that Trump got two scoops of ice cream but everyone else only got one?

I'm black and part of the reason I find left wing loonies to be more dangerous is that the left doesn't know how to deal with its crazies as well as the right. Some people may say the right doesn't deal with its loonies well, and maybe so, but it's miles ahead of the left.

You have loonies on the right calling for segregation. But they're marginalized and people know they're crazy. But on the left you have mainstream colleges with minority only safe spaces. That's de facto segregation.

You also have have loonies on the right espousing white supremacy. Well on the left you have the concept of white privilege, which says that it's always more advantageous to be white than black. The idea that you'd rather be a poor white person than a rich black person is a white supremacist idea.

This is mainstream and accepted on the left. Those holding extreme ideas encompass about 5% of the right, but at least 50% of the left. Yet the entire mainstream right gets judged by the ideas of the fringe while the dangerous ideas of the mainstream left are apparently fine, even though they're often the same as the fringe right!?

That analogy is actually quite accurate, for one reason:

Steve King, after he made fringe remarks? IMMEDIATELY denounced and stripped of his committee assignments by his Republican colleagues (their resolution SPECIFICALLY mentions him too). As for Ilhan Omar? Democrats failed to denounce her specifically and instead their resolution was just whitewash trash condemning other bullshit besides Omar.

 

[Godzilla@1989]

So ATT is being pressured by shareholders to dump non core assets like WB Interactive to decrease debt. I sadly don’t see CNN being dumped.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Another round won by Trump. The next round will be interesting, call for a pizza if popcorn isn't enough.

Hillary Clinton lost her appeal, order stands to testify on private server and Benghazi emails

Amid the chaos and anarchy across blue-city America that exclusively possessed public attention for the last couple of weeks, it was not hard to miss any other bit of news — especially if that news has not appeared or been even briefly mentione...

www.americanthinker.com

http://archive.vn/NiS8Z

June 14, 2020
Hillary Clinton lost her appeal, order stands to testify on private server and Benghazi emails
By Veronika Kyrylenko
Amid the chaos and anarchy across blue-city America that exclusively possessed public attention for the last couple of weeks, it was not hard to miss any other bit of news — especially if that news has not appeared or been even briefly mentioned by any major mainstream media outlet. Take for example the news of Hillary Clinton, who lost her appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on June 2, where she tried to avoid testifying under oath about her emails and the Benghazi case.
The hearing in the D.C. Circuit came in the case Judicial Watch v. Clinton, a public records case involving a request for State Department documents and communication about the 2012 terror attack at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack.

The case also involves Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state. Judicial Watch, a conservative activist watchdog group that files Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to investigate claimed misconduct by government officials, uncovered another 756 pages of emails the FBI was able to retrieve that were part of Hillary Clinton's unsecured server revealing communications between some prominent Washington figures and classified emails sent by former prime minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair. The emails were part of the batch "Clinton tried to delete or destroy," Judicial Watch stated in its press release. It showed that Clinton had asked Blair to continue using her private email after her confirmation and also revealed that Blair was sending classified information on her unsecured server. Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified information, as ex–FBI director James Comey carefully and rather mildly concluded in July 2016, announcing there would be no charges against her. Judicial Watch did not drop the case.
On June 2, Clinton's lawyers challenged a March 2 order from U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who ordered Clinton to testify:

P.5: "The Court is not confident that State currently possesses every Clinton email recovered by the FBI; even years after the FBI investigation, the slow trickle of new emails has yet to be explained. For this reason, the Court believes the subpoena would be worthwhile and may even uncover additional previously undisclosed emails. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS this request."
P. 10: "The Court GRANTS Judicial Watch's request to depose Secretary Clinton on matters concerning her reasons for using a private server and her understanding of State's records management obligations."
P. 10–11: "The Court holds that Secretary Clinton and Ms. Mills [Counselor and Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton during her whole tenure as United States Secretary of State] cannot be questioned about the underlying actions taken after the Benghazi attack, but they may be questioned about their knowledge of the existence of any emails, documents, or text messages related to the Benghazi attack. Such inquiries would go to the adequacy of the search without expanding the parameters…Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART this request."

Clinton had argued that she shouldn't be required to testify because she was a former high-level government official and that the FBI already tried to retrieve her emails. Clinton's lawyers even mentioned some "indisputable right" allowing her not to appear in court, according to Judicial Watch. Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president, said Clinton's lawyers' petition practically states that "she's too important to have to testify to us." "She's desperate to stop this questioning by Judicial Watch because no one has asked her questions like this before[.] ... We know what the issues are, and the court wants specific questions answered, but now she's seeking this extraordinary emergency intervention to stop us."

 

[SBG]

Net neutrality offers protection for the consumer so that companies don't overreach and gouge their customers with shady practices.

People have a right to be concerned.

Trump outright claimed that climate change was a "hoax" for the Chinese to get ahead of the United States.

I'm not saying to be all climate doomer but regulations are out in place to decrease our pollution output in the United States.

The hoax is the hysteria around climate change, which has allowed other countries like China to engage in industries like manufacturing more easily than the United States. Which means we aren't really lowering pollution with a lot of the regulations in place, but rather exporting it. One example of this is when it comes to recycling, which can cause a fuck ton of pollution due to all the contaminated waste that goes along with it plus the hazardous chemicals used to reprocess it. It's part of why countries like Malaysia and the Philippines tries taking a stand last year against taking in the world's garbage, causes a fuck ton of problems for them to engage in the business of letting countries like the United States pretend they're being nice environmentalists by recycling or at least having to suffer dealing with the garbage they create being tossed in their own landfills.

The fact that it still has to be repeated after at least three World War 3 scares (North Korea, Syria, and Iran) that what Trump threatens to do or get done is not necessarily what Trump actually does or gets done is mind-boggling to me.

Trump only really causes happenings when it's not what anyone could have predicted, even his allies and those who support him.

Feel like it's worth mentioning that I talked to a guy in the past that was in the army (if I remember right), who during the Rocket Man fiasco, was set along with others, in a boat with live ammo off the coast of North Korea ready to invade if they didn't back down. Lot of the threats towards North Korea at the time were likely to get them to recognize that shit was close to getting real.

 

[Cast Iron Pan]

Bill Moyers on how Trump isn't Hitler, but darn if he isn't close:

https://archive.is/niVrp

We Hold This Truth to Be Self-Evident: It’s Happening Before Our Very Eyes

At 98, historian Bernard Weisberger has seen it all. Born in 1922, he grew up watching newsreels of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler as they rose to power in Europe. He vividly remembers Mussolini posturing to crowds from his balcony in Rome, chin outthrust, right arm extended. Nor has he forgotten Der Fuehrer’s raspy voice on radio, interrupted by cheers of “Heil Hitler,” full of menace even without pictures.

Fascist bullies and threats anger Bernie, and when America went to war to confront them, he interrupted his study of history to help make history by joining the army. He yearned to be an aviator but his eyesight was too poor. So he took a special course in Japanese at Columbia University and was sent as a translator to the China-Burma-India theater where Japanese warlords were out to conquer Asia. Bernie remembers them, too.

In time, we became colleagues on a series of broadcasts about the 20th century. As we compared the leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler in an episode titled The President and the Dictator, Bernie kept reminding the team that the most cunning demagogues “are never more than a few steps fbecoming dictators.” Not surprisingly, the subject came up again when Trump was elected. No, we didn’t think he was Hitler, or the Republicans Nazis, but both of us acknowledged a deep unease over the vulnerabilities of democracy, which had led to Trump’s election in the first place. Inspired by Bernie and unnerved by Trump, I decided to take a deeper look at democracy under stress and began reading what is now more than a dozen books on Europe in the 1930s. The most recent is a compelling and chilling account of Hitler’s First Hundred Days, by the historian Peter Fritzsche – a familiar story revisited by the author with fresh verve and insight.

Hitler was a master of manipulation, using propaganda, violence, intimidation, showmanship, and spectacle — and above all, fear. By demonizing “the other” – Jews, social democrats and communists – Hitler won the hearts and minds of the masses, consolidating his power, and turning Germany into a one-party Nazi state.

I had just finished the book when I received a short email from Bernie, who had been watching on television the events following the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis. He wrote, “All this open talk by Trump of dominance is pretty undisguised fascism. He’s inciting chaos to set the stage for the strong man to ‘rescue’ the nation.”

There was no doubt who would be Superman riding to America’s rescue. When Trump promised to end what he called “American carnage” – a crisis of “poverty in our inner cities, rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation, crime and gangs and drugs” — he did not ask for our help. He did not ask that we put our faith in each other or in our democratic values or even in God. Donald J. Trump would be our savior, the new Messiah — because “I alone can fix it.”

Bernie’s note triggered a recollection, sending me across the room to retrieve from a file drawer an essay written two years ago in The New York Review of Books by the American legal scholar Cass Sunstein. Reviewing three new books about ordinary Germans and the Nazi regime, he concluded: “With our system of checks and balances, full-blown authoritarianism is unlikely to happen here.”

I had admired Sunstein’s work for years and found reassuring his judgment that the rule of law would check a would-be tyrant. But many found that assurance disquieting. One dissenter was Norman Ravitch, emeritus professor of history at the University of California, Riverside. Responding to Sunstein, he wrote: “The normal concern of people of all sorts with their daily lives, family, work, leisure, and so on indicates that only those in certain areas of work and life could possibly notice the slow but relentless advance of authoritarian and totalitarian policies by the government. The Nazis knew how to appeal to people who did not have the ideological concerns but only normal human concerns. They knew how to conceal their real goals and how to make passive individuals active supporters.”

So does Trump. He understands that most Americans are concerned with little more than the economy, health care and jobs. They respond positively to politicians who promise action on these priorities, whether or not they know if those promises will ever be fulfilled. Ravitch pointed out that like Hitler and like Mussolini, Trump knows how to appeal to a variety of concerns with promises that can be both attractive and contradictory. Because no population is educated enough, sensitive enough, or ethical enough to see through the deception, “the danger is very great indeed. It may in fact be one of the chief weaknesses of democracy that democracy can lead to tyranny just as well or perhaps even more than other political systems.”

Two years have passed since that exchange between scholars, and in those two years Trump has doubled down. This president is no friend of democracy.

He has declared himself above the law, preached insurrection by encouraging armed supporters to “liberate” states from the governance of duly elected officials, told police not to be “too nice” while doing their job, and gloated over the ability of the Secret Service to turn “vicious dogs” and “ominous weapons” loose on demonstrators — to “come down on them hard” if they get too “frisky.

He has politicized the Department of Justice while remaking the judiciary in his image.

He has stifled investigations into his administration’s corruption, fired officials charged with holding federal agencies accountable to the public, and rewarded his donors and cronies with government contracts, subsidies, deregulations, and tax breaks.

He has maligned and mocked the disadvantaged, the disabled, and people of color.

He has sought to politicize the military, including in his entourage the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs (dressed in combat fatigues), as his orderlies unleashed chemical fumes on peaceful protesters – all so that the president could use them as stage props in a photo op, holding up a Bible in front of a historic church, just to make a dandy ad for his re-election campaign.

He has purged his own party of independent thinkers and turned it into a spineless, mindless cult while demonizing the opposition.

He has purloined religion for state and political ends.

He has desecrated the most revered symbols of Christian faith by converting them to partisan brands.

He has recruited religious zealots for jobs in his administration, rewarding with government favors the electoral loyalty of their followers.

He has relentlessly attacked mainstream media as purveyors of “fake news” and “enemies of the people” while collaborating with a sycophantic right- wing media – including the Murdoch family’s Fox News — to flood the country with lies and propaganda.

He has maneuvered the morally hollow founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, into compromising the integrity of the most powerful media giant in the country by infusing it with partisan bias.

And because truth is the foe he most fears, he has banned it from his administration and his lips.

Yes, Bernie, you are right: the man in the White House has taken all the necessary steps toward achieving the despot’s dream of dominance.

Can it happen here?

It is happening here.

Democracy in America has been a series of narrow escapes. We may be running out of luck, and no one is coming to save us. For that, we have only ourselves.

Bill Moyers is out of his damn mind! I hate that I used to respect him.

 

[Sekirodiealot]

It's even better that he's doing this during 'Pride' Month because everyone has forgotten about it thanks to the riot bullshit.

WAIT! THERE'S MORE:

 

[The Last Stand]

Can somebody here defend the decision to appeal insurance or medical work to LGBT+ people? Health care in this country is a gamble.

 

[Shaka Brah]

Can somebody here defend the decision to appeal insurance or medical work to LGBT+ people? Health care in this country is a gamble.

It was an executive decision adding text to a law, and it was vacated (ruled illegal) by a court in 2016 and again in 2019. They're just removing the old language in the updated legal paperwork. It was never actually in force to begin with.

To explain in slightly more detail, Obamacare defined sex as biologically male or female, for the purposes of Title IX protections. Obama's later EO tried to rewrite that section (which Presidents cannot do) to make sex into anything you wanted it to be.

 

[SBG]

Can somebody here defend the decision to appeal insurance or medical work to LGBT+ people? Health care in this country is a gamble.

Pretty sure gay guys aren't getting denied treatment for strep throat or bisexual women getting denied mammograms or anything like that. The recent rule bullshit is mostly about sex reassignment surgery, which is still debatable whether it even helps with anything, especially when somewhere between 60%-90% of people that experience some sort of gender dysphoria grow out of it.

 

[ForTheHoard]

Can somebody here defend the decision to appeal insurance or medical work to LGBT+ people? Health care in this country is a gamble.

He promised to deregulate the medical industry, and has been doing it little bits at a time. It only makes headlines when it involves a protected class. Nobody was pissed when he ripped up regulations that inhibited "right to try" drug trials. Some of the libertarian groups I frequent have been bombarded with leftist refugees lately and this argument keeps coming up. "If you believe in rights, then why would you support this?" Because everybody is sick of paying for your hormones and being called evil for disagreeing. Just appreciate the deregulation and move on.

 

[The Last Stand]

He promised to deregulate the medical industry, and has been doing it little bits at a time. It only makes headlines when it involves a protected class.

Outright refusing service against people because of their sexual orientation is not "liberating." Not to mention it's still expensive.