son of witless wrote:
Wow you're a live one. Are you still trying to win ?
LOL... there's no winning in this game, you know that. I've made my point... some people got it, some people didn't.
son of witless wrote:
Actually I will be kind to you because in your own way you at least do me the courtesy of addressing my individual points. That makes you a freaking genius compared to all of the other Liberals on OPP.
I wouldn't say that... I think there are some pretty smart liberals on this site. But I appreciate your gesture.
son of witless wrote:
But to address some of your points. " At least I can SPELL judgment. " Believe it or not when I was in elementary school I was a spelling bee Champion. Me and two girls were always 1,2, and 3. However, since then my spelling has deteriorated to the point where I intentionally misspell just to get attention.
so... you're spelling has deteriorated... but it's intentional?
son of witless wrote:
However, since you wish to go into unimportant things like my spelling, let me point out that you are not quite as smart as you think you are. Judgement or Judgment are both technically correct. Some spell checkers allow both. Some not. You are correct that Judgment is the more common spelling, it just is not the only acceptable spelling.
It's really not my wish to go into unimportant things like spelling... When I said "at least I can SPELL judgment" it was more of a passing remark in response to your "behind-my-back" insult when you told jack... "He knows just enough to be dangerous, which is far less than what he needs to know to make sound judgements on economics and politics." See the context now? As for your information on the spelling of judgment vs judgement, I will concede, I didn't know "judgement" was acceptable. I learn something every day and you finally scored a point on an "unimportant" issue ;)
son of witless wrote:
" If they were best buddies why were the Russians so interested in making sure Trump won? " They didn't. If you knew what you think you know you would know it isn't true. The Russians did not care who won. What they did was support the weaker candidate. That is what they always do. They did not want one candidate to win big. They want a divided America. They made the same mistake Y'all made. They believed the lying polls that said Hilly in a landslide. So they wanted Trump to cut into her victory margin, but they did not care who won.
br " If they were best buddies why were the ... (
show quote)
That's an awful lot of conjecture there witless. I mean if any of that is true Mueller really needs to call you in for an interview because no one else seems to have that much insight into Russian motives. LOL
Aside from pointing out that Trump was the weaker candidate none of the rest of what you said makes any logical sense. You're essentially saying that Russia wanted to even things out to keep America divided. First of all, America has always been divided politically and it never mattered if an election was a landslide or a nail-biter. Secondly, none of that has any impact on Russian interests anyway. It makes more sense to assume that our foreign policy is more of a concern to Moscow than the nature of domestic squabbling in America and to that end the choices were between a President with previous experience as a Secretary of State with direct experience in Syria and an egotistical TV celebrity with no military experience, no diplomatic experience and an already proven weakness for temptation.
son of witless wrote:
" Oh, so now we're admitting Russian interference, as long as Trump isn't implicated right? " Obama interfered in the Israeli election because he hates Bibi. Why is that different than what Putin did ?
It's different because Obama's State Department gave $233,500 to OneVoice a non-profit organization based in New York that represents Jewish AND Palestinian interests in a two-state solution. There was nothing secret about it, the funding was reported appropriately and explained as an effort to help OneVoice raise awareness of the two-state solution that NuttyYahoo is trying to silence. There was no computer hacking, there was no secret meetings with campaign managers... The similarities are pretty much non-existent.
son of witless wrote:
The point is, it doesn't matter what the Russians or Trump did. No legally it does not matter except if they acted in concert. That is Collusion and you and yours got squat on that.
Actually, it does matter. We have actual laws that say it matters. But you're right about there being no evidence (yet) of direct collusion, but keep in mind, YOU were the one that brought up the Russians not me.
son of witless wrote:
Logically, if you were capable of thinking logically, you would know that if Putin had coordinated with Trump he would have the evidence and he would make it public. Putin only cares about weakening America. What better way than to give evidence that would get Trump impeached. The crisis would weaken America and that helps Vlad. Since Vlad has not done it, he has no evidence.
You making a huge assumption here that impeaching Trump would weaken America. A more prevalent perspective is that keeping Trump in office is the best way to weaken America, in which case Putin's job is done and there's no need to reveal any evidence of anything.
son of witless wrote:
"The Democrats were never in need of a patsy witless, the moment Trump won the electoral vote, they already had one... Hillary even came up with a name for them... "deplorables". Why blame the Russians when the deplorables were the ones that voted for the idiot? "
Us Deplorables are a known quantity.
Yes, about 24% and it's been pretty consistent. No one else is joining you.
son of witless wrote:
We hated Hillary and Obama.
Gee, I couldn't tell.
son of witless wrote:
We were outvoted in 2008 and 2012. Our demise was joyfully predicted by the media. We were disappearing.
Don't get ahead of yourself... No one thought the deplorables were disappearing just because they were being outvoted by a larger majority of Americans.
son of witless wrote:
Hillary did not even try to appeal to us because we were yesterday's news.
That's not the reason... Seriously, what sense would it make for her to spend precious time and money on appealing to a crowd that makes it very clear how much they hate her? When crowds a chanting "Lock Her Up" that's sufficient reason to spend efforts elsewhere.
son of witless wrote:
Low and behold Trump wins. No way can Democrats admit that we were strong enough to win.
You weren't strong enough to win... You lost the popular vote by 3 million. In case you didn't know, the popular vote is the one you actually participate in. Trump won because of the way the Electoral College voted, which has nothing to do with your vote. The only politicians that are actually elected by the people are the representatives in Congress. The president is not elected by the people, the president is elected by Congress, using special electors, one for each congressional district. The general expectation is that the electors will vote for the candidates chosen by the popular votes in their respective district, but depending on the state that may not be a rule. Electors in some states can vote for whoever they want and sometimes they vote for the candidate that the people in the district did NOT vote for, these are called "faithless electors" and there were a number of them in 2016, mostly from districts that voted for Clinton who went ahead and voted for third party candidates anyway.
So, as far as I'm concerned, if the Russians had any pro-Trump influence on the 2016 elections it was only to to minimize what may have been a far greater loss than 3 million on the popular vote. As for the official election, you should be thanking the Electoral College.
son of witless wrote:
" Be careful witless... for you know, this site could be run by Russians. " That cannot be true. If it was Vlad would fire most of the liberals because they are pathetic in their arguments against my boy Trump.
I said Russians, not Vlad.
son of witless wrote:
" I would LOVE to hear you try to describe their economy. I bet you think they're still 100% communist. "
They ARE Communist in all except name. Russia is mostly a natural resources economy. Oil, Gas, and minerals. When Putin took over he quickly reinstated Central Control over most of the economy. Putin is a Communist. He does not know any other way. Just as Central Economic Control strangled the old Soviet Union's economy, so Putin's State Capitalism will continue to strangle Russia's. He cannot allow Private Capitalism to fix his economy because it would threaten his power.
br " I would LOVE to hear you try to describ... (
show quote)
It's not just that you're wrong, it's that your blatantly wrong about something that is so easily verifiable. Russia is almost entirely capitalist now, the ONLY sectors still under central control is energy and defense. Industry and agriculture has been privatized since the 90's. Maybe you should look a few things up every now and then instead of making up stories about the private motivations of world leaders.
son of witless wrote:
" I think the fantasy you just spun more than disqualifies you from making any assessments about anyone else's command of history witless " Perhaps. I don't spin fantasies, but if I chose to, you are not smart enough to catch it.
LOL - I catch 'em every time.
son of witless wrote:
" so if you have a point I'm sure I don't know what it is. " That you do not know history at all. World politics has always been conducted by each country looking out for it's own interests.
We don't live in history witless. We MAKE history. It's important to understand this because sometimes patterns change and you're not going to see that if you're constantly expecting history to repeat itself verbatim. These changes are why history get's divided into eras. If you go back far enough, humans were nomadic and there WERE no countries, but politics, being a function of human behavior, existed anyway with power being a matter or merit. Countries didn't happen until humans shifted to an agrarian existence where power was granted through land titles. From the Renaissance onward power has been shifting from land to capital.
Today, capital accounts for almost all the power in the world. Unlike land titles, capital is fluid. This makes your assessment that countries are the functional units of politics antiquated at best. The problem we are increasingly running into is that while capital is flowing all over the world at light speeds, humans are for the most part trapped in their locations because of human things like family, friends, jobs, schools etc... It this contrast that underlies the problems we see today such as off-shoring... which is where capital is free to find cheaper labor elsewhere in the world leaving the American worker searching for jobs in the location he is fixed in. Countries are loosing their significance as political units. We see this more and more now on the battlefields as we find conflict with an increasing array of stateless organizations. The list of transnational corporations is also increasing then there is of course the NWO that some of you folks are constantly ranting about.
Even now I'm watching you folks cheering the slow the death of our own Republic as you push for smaller government and more privatization. You folks get so caught up in ideologies and your assumptions that private business is more efficient than government that you don't realize that between the two, it's the private company that can be owned by foreign nationals and that our constitution only applies to our government. These are facts that may never be realized by someone who assumes all politics are conducted by each country looking out for it's own interests.
son of witless wrote:
The United States is in a competition with China, Russia, and Iran in that order.
Competition for what?
son of witless wrote:
The Chinese because of their growing economy are the strongest long term threat. They are very smart and very ruthless. Obama had no clue in dealing with them or Putin. Trump does.
You can say what you want about Obama vs Trump, but the evidence so far indicates that Obama got results, so far all Trump has given us is entertainment.
son of witless wrote:
"China wasn't actually screwing us. They were just one of the few trading partners with the power to NOT be screwed by America. "
That statement proves my point that you are clueless.
THAT statement proves my point yet again, that you are delusional.