MovieChat Forums > MavKilledGoose > Replies
MavKilledGoose's Replies
Don't you think it's odd that Democrats somehow lost seats in the House, and failed to "steal" the Senate? Has it not occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, Trump ran a shit campaign? He blew through over 700 million dollars. They spent a million bucks on ads in DC! (For an audience of one.)
He behaved like a coked up seal at the first debate. A deadly disease killed over 200,000 Americans. He barely, barely won in 2016. You can't wrap your little mind around Trump (who was NOT a favorite) losing the election?
What impossibilities? Be specific. Who are the dead people who voted? What is your evidence?
There was a Trump supporter claiming she was denied the right to vote. It turns out she was trying to vote (you guessed it) a second time. The most notorious recent case of ballot-boxing stuff came courtesy of a Republican from South Carolina.
The 2021 GOP Congressional delegation will have more QAnon supporters than African-Americans.
What is your evidence? Where are there irregularities?
Trump had the advantages of incumbency, the Electoral College, and a uniquely stupid electorate (i.e., the American people).
Legal adoption *could* be an option, but you're right about age as a factor (as I recall, the Parkland shooter's mother had to use a shady, but legal agency since she was over 50 when she adopted; she died and homeboy flipped his lid). Nevertheless, as noted, Freeman had alternatives. If he insisted on an illegal route, he could set up a straw-adoption for less hassle (and downside).
It's not framed as a solution; there's going to be suffering regardless. Freeman's actions are sub-optimal. In fact, they're probably, on the whole, downright bad. He has other options.
This is impressive in its ineptitude.
Freeman simply wanting this child is not an argument; it's an assertion. You've gone head-past-sphincter if you think he's offering a "rebuttal."
"and since your first argument made almost no sense and was borderline complete conjecture"
Silliness. There are children in every major city who are orphaned, molested, and so on. There are almost certainly other children available for saving. I don't know how you did it, but you managed to surpass Gordon in cluelessness.
"If you want $10mil, go make $10mil...like how when Freeman wanted to save the girl, he did."
Jesus. If you want to be at least a little consistent then you should say, "If you want ten million dollars, go steal it." We can also turn it around as per the OP: If Freeman wants to save a child, he can go save a child. He doesn't need to save THAT child. Just because somebody wants something does mean they're entitled to it. You have to generate a moral argument.
The pregnant woman was clever enough to slap water onto window and then cover it with newspaper.
Oh. My. God.
You have no idea how someone becomes the General Secretary. You just have a thesis -- because Reagan -- and then strain to invent a cause for an effect.
Let's bring back context.
Me: Reagan Debt.
You: Congress deserves blame.
Me: Yeah, for going along with Reagan's tax cuts.
"You think cutting taxes alone causes debt, not spending."
We had Democratic control of the House during the Carter years without sky-rocketing debt. What changed? You're also unable to keep your propaganda straight: "Supply-Side Economics" contended that tax cuts would INCREASE government revenue. However, as it turns out, tax increases without spending cuts typically lead to tax hikes on future generations.
Your bullshit inferences do not end there. You went on an ill-advised digression about Afghanistan. Who said anything about the Taliban? All of this is misdirection for your face-plant -- criticizing Carter and praising Reagan when the former began the policy continued by the latter.
"By the late 80s Reagan knew things were going our way."
Reagan justified military expansion by claiming we were losing ground to the mighty Soviet Union, but then he signed treaties because he knew we had them? Uh-huh. He wasn't at all reacting to the domestic political situation (mounting debt/tax reform, Iran-Contra, S&L scandal). It's not like Republicans lost control of the Senate in '86. Slobbering hagiography is not history.
Thanks for the laugh.
The Democratic House certainly deserves blame for the Reagan Debt -- they passed the tax cuts. Your comic book revisionism here reminds me of Hollywood: For any grand event in history, just say Americans did it. You want to talk about the fall of Communism and mention Gorbachev only once, and in passing. Protestors do not get mentioned at all. I hope you copy/pasted. The only way someone could type all of that nonsense is if he were going for a blackbelt in cluelessness. You want to say the Soviet economic system is fundamentally flawed, but it dies from unique exogenous pressure by Saint Reagan. The Democrats are blamed for spending -- and Reagan's credited for outspending Communism. What an incoherent mess.
Reagan gets credit for "flip[ping] the tables in Afghanistan." Well, he certainly compared the Mujhadeen to America's Founding Fathers (thanks, Bin Laden), but that policy began in Carter's era of "stupid naivete," and was continued under Reagan. You omit mention of Reagan pissing off hardened anti-Communists when he "naively" trusted Gorbachev for arms control agreements.
I'm going to save your posts. They could be useful if I ever need to assassinate a serious historian.
[quote]The above comments are called propaganda. It's similar to the propaganda created by Trump and his support network who lie about the virus being a bioweapon created in a Chinese lab.[/quote]
The Chinese tale is somewhat more plausible than stateside retards who believe China deliberately infected their own people (making Wuhan ground zero) just to fuck with the world.
Strong man regimes need enemies to divert attention from their own corruption. Us-Against-Them Nationalism works. For a while.
He's been consistently inconsistent.
Trump and Pence reportedly spoke to the governor separately and encouraged the re-opening. Medical experts probably talked to them and they changed their tune.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajps.12234
Also, I'm not a Democrat, and I do not generally vote for Democrats. The Democratic Party does an effective job of marginalizing the left and being a pro-corporate, pro-elite party. Republicans have more difficulty controlling their nut-jobs, and famously failed when it came to Trump. Their presidential candidate's political claim to fame was that Obama had been born in Kenya. QAnon, the Deep State, Seth Rich's "assassination," the bullshit above, most of the conspiratorial nonsense comes from right-wingers. It's unimaginable that you'd have a Democratic nominee, or anyone in the party of significance, saying President Bush "knew" about 9/11 in advance, or he carried out the atrocities.
This is a false balance bias.
As left-wing people become more informed, they're LESS likely to believe in conspiracy theories.
As right-wingers get more informed, they're MORE likely to believe in conspiracy theories.
Yes, there are idiots and extremists on both sides, but as a Democratic operative ominously once remarked, "We're better at controlling ours."
You're obscene.
Here's a more extensive quotation:
[quote]I believe, because, sort of, the blinders have been taken off, because of this COVID crisis, I think people are realizing, “My Lord. Look at what is possible. Look at the institutional changes we can make – without us becoming a ‘socialist country,’ or any of that malarkey – that we can make to provide the opportunities to change the institutional drawbacks ...” from education, all the way through to all the other things we talked about.[/quote]
How you infer communism from such an anodyne comment is absurd. Barack Obama was also supposed to turn us into a communist country (thank God the Tea Party saved us). Biden has always been a centrist.
Reagan's a three. He was appropriately christened an "amiable dunce."
His most memorable and lasting "accomplishment" will be the Reagan Debt. He sold the public on voodoo economics, which still haunts us. Cheney famously observed, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." The Republican Party went all-in on the redistribution of wealth -- except they chose to redistribute from future generations. A little bit of intergenerational tyranny that each succeeding cohort now wishes to exact on the children of tomorrow.
The poster above had a hilarious satirical post when he credited Reagan for defeating communism with "Rollback" -- as if the US had for not decades offered official and covert support to third world countries and insurgents. Reagan's distinguished because he secretly sold arms to Iran -- and by secret I mean without notifying Congress -- then used the proceeds to fund death squads in Nicaragua (which was famously "three days drive from Texas" -- meaning we needed to worry about invasion). I think it was someone in Reagan's cabinet who said RED DAWN was the most realisitic movie about the Cold War ever made. Anyway, Iran Contra was a bigger scandal than Watergate, and Reagan got away with it by plausibly pleading he was a remiss executive who didn't know what was happening on his watch. He did, after all, fall asleep in meetings and confused movies with real life.
My goodness... do you have any evidence to support this at all?
Trump is far more mercurial than Biden, so where are your delusional conspiracy theories about the Orange Menace?
Yeah, completing the Obamunism. You remember Obama? He wanted to bail out Detroit manufacturers, but his real plan was that socialism would doom them, and then the government could take over. Capitalism was too strong, and the loans were paid back.
Biden's a communist? He was a Senator from Delaware. He's pro-banker! Why are right-wingers such retards? Incredibly, it's getting worse.
I'll agree that it's sad you voted for him and plan to do so again.
Other stuff, not so much.
What was the good Trump performed for the country? His signal "accomplishment" was the economy. Never mind the economy is cyclical, he grew the deficit every year. He feuded with his own fed appointee to further cut interest rates. What does all of this mean? The economy was relatively juiced, so that if a recession did strike, we wouldn't have as many fiscal and monetary tools available. Oh, and he started a trade war with China (so easy to win), which served as indirect tax on working Americans.
As for stopping travel from China, his "ban" had more holes than swiss cheese. Also, it wasn't a measure that was politically difficult for [i]him[/i]. What's politically difficult for Trump is not urging a re-opening of America by Easter.
Not all of the arguments against Trump are the usual partisan hyperbole, "Clinton is the most socialist president since FDR." "Obama is the most socialist president since FDR." Trump's unusually corrupt, comically narcissistic (in a job that attracts titatnic egos), and a most brazen liar.
He downplayed the threat of it. Constantly.
In the same infamous remarks he called the impeachment a hoax. It's his unusual way of speaking. The impeachment happened; it's not something that was made-up. By "hoax" he means that it had a bogus basis, and for the Coronavirus he similarly meant that it was much to do about nothing. His phone call was "perfect," and his response to this crisis would be perfect (as always).
If Trump ever admits his response is imperfect, it's because nobody could've known (like how nobody could have known health-care could be so difficult). He's a braying baboon, and his response to the pandemic has been terrible.
He claims total authority but takes no responsibility. He toggles between saying he's done everything and potentially saved the world from ending to saying it's a state matter, so if things go bad, blame the governors. Perfectly steady leadership: consistently inconsistent.