US US Politics General 2: Hope Edition - Discussion of President Trump and other politicians

Wyróżnienie
General Trump Banner.png ​

Should be a wild four years.

Helpful links for those who need them:

Current members of the House of Representatives
https://www.house.gov/representatives

Current members of the Senate
https://www.senate.gov/senators/

Current members of the US Supreme Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

Members of the Trump Administration
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/
 
Ostatnio edytowane przez moderatora:
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
SaidNoOneEver powiedział(a):
How many lies does it take before you're willing to question other things you've been told your whole life by the same people?
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
How many trucks of peace, rapes and/or beheadings would I need to change your mind in this issue?

Do I really need to invoke, and Allah forgive me for uttering these words, the United Kingdom's day-to-day life to show you that these sandniggers want nothing but your destruction?
 
Necrosan powiedział(a):
How many trucks of peace, rapes and/or beheadings would I need to change your mind in this issue?

Do I really need to invoke, and Allah forgive me for uttering these words, the United Kingdom's day-to-day life to show you that these sandniggers want nothing but your destruction?
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
The UK is fucking insane to me. A country with the landmass of Wyoming, 70 million crammed inside, and then you add Muslims to the mix. Just endless rape
 
My Facebook feed has switched from filling with paid content about how America is totally losing in Iran to paid content about how the SAVE Act will disenfranchise 6 gorillion married women and people too poor to afford ID.

Is there a good chance it's gonna pass? I thought it was looking poor after Fetterman predictably reneged.
 
Fanatical Pragmatist powiedział(a):
My Facebook feed has switched from filling with paid content about how America is totally losing in Iran to paid content about how the SAVE Act will disenfranchise 6 gorillion married women and people too poor to afford ID.

Is there a good chance it's gonna pass? I thought it was looking poor after Fetterman predictably reneged.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
If they keep with the fillabuster, doubtful. It will make the dems have to actually take public positions on why you don't need to give an ID to vote when you need to give your ID, Social Security, background check, just to work at McDonald's
 
Mullin is doing his confirmation hearing today, Rand Paul called him a liar because Mullin called him a snake in the grass years ago (truth), Mullin responds with this and calls out little Randie Paulie for attacking his side more than the dems:

KWJ280.jpg



He's probably still going to vote NO just because he's a petty little bitch.
 
mandatorylurk powiedział(a):
Mullin is doing his confirmation hearing today, Rand Paul called him a liar because Mullin called him a snake in the grass years ago (truth), Mullin responds with this and calls out little Randie Paulie for attacking his side more than the dems:

Wyświetl załącznik 8718380

mullinpaulbicker.mp4

He's probably still going to vote NO just because he's a petty little bitch.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Rand called him a liar because he lied. You can dislike Rand but don't misrepresent things. Rand created an amendment that would strip 5 BILLION in refugee welfare from government spending and Mullin opposed it. When asked about this by his constituents, he said:

“I respect Bernie Sanders because he’s an open socialist, and you know that he’s a communist so you know what you’re getting. Rand Paul’s a freaking snake. And I understand completely why his neighbor did what he did. And I told him that to his face. It stirred people up like Cheryl, who don’t know the backstory. And then that night Rand sends out a fundraising letter on it. It’s a gimmick,” Mullin added.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

So, the claim that Rand calls him a liar over is that he supposedly told him to his face that he supported him being attacked and seriously injured by his unhinged neighbor. The attack happened, but the 'telling to his face' part didn't, so Rand called him out:

“You chose to lash out at me. You went on to brag that you’d already told me to my face that you completely understood and approved of the assault. Well, that’s a lie. You got a chance today. You can either continue to lie or you can correct the record,” Paul said.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

 
woduqu powiedział(a):
Rand called him a liar because he lied. You can dislike Rand but don't misrepresent things. Rand created an amendment that would strip 5 BILLION in refugee welfare from government spending and Mullin opposed it. When asked about this by his constituents, he said:



So, the claim that Rand calls him a liar over is that he supposedly told him to his face that he supported him being attacked and seriously injured by his unhinged neighbor. The attack happened, but the 'telling to his face' part didn't, so Rand called him out:



Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
I don’t get it. Why should I trust one or the other? Is there some proof either way? Anyone can call someone a liar.
 
Catch The Rainbow powiedział(a):

Wyświetl załącznik 8718178

That was fast
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
crazy the guy that interviewed him when he was running for congress gets the first interview post quitting. It would be wild if he went on a top five viewed podcast too!!

Good on you for not shitting on the catholic event he's speaking at (tomorrow i think) Prejean is gonna be there too, which is fine, but i hate that they invited crazy candy owens.. Wasn't aware she was a catholic.
 
George Lucas powiedział(a):
I don’t get it. Why should I trust one or the other? Is there some proof either way? Anyone can call someone a liar.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Believe who you want, but there'd have to be some place and time when this event supposedly happened, right? Mullin would have the burden of providing that while Rand can't prove a negative, obviously. Also, the whole point of calling Mullin out was because Rand knew he couldn't give the specifics. In any case, the topic of being a liar revolves around that and not the subjective designation of someone as a "snake".
 
woduqu powiedział(a):
Rand called him a liar because he lied. You can dislike Rand but don't misrepresent things. Rand created an amendment that would strip 5 BILLION in refugee welfare from government spending and Mullin opposed it. When asked about this by his constituents, he said:

So, the claim that Rand calls him a liar over is that he supposedly told him to his face that he supported him being attacked and seriously injured by his unhinged neighbor. The attack happened, but the 'telling to his face' part didn't, so Rand called him out:

Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Here are some more details on the Rand Paul-Markwayne Mullin feud:
Earlier this year, Paul bucked the party on the summer spending package, earning harsh criticism from Trump and his GOP colleagues.

The Kentucky lawmaker also joined six other Republicans in voting against advancing a six-bill funding package last week.

The package failed in a 45-55 vote that would have required Democratic support for approval.

Mullin further addressed his decision to vote against Paul’s amendment, which called for removing $5 billion from the bill for refugee welfare programs, at the Saturday event.

“The question is why did I vote to give illegals more money? I didn’t. The president made it very clear he wanted appropriation bills passed. If any amendment passes, it kills the whole bill. Rand Paul’s amendment sounds good, right? The problem is Rand knew that if that bill passed, it would kill the other eleven appropriation bills, which would throw us into the shutdown,” Mullin told the group.

“Rand doesn’t ever vote with [Republicans] when it comes to appropriation bills. I had to vote against it because if that would have passed, not only would it have killed the bill, but it would also have killed the farm bill which is tied to social programs. If you change the ratio you must redo the entire farm bill,” he added.

Mullin continued, “What Rand was trying to do was trying to kill the farm bill because he’s trying to legalize hemp for drinks in Kentucky because of tobacco industry shifts. There is always a backstory.”
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

Paul has a history of doing foolish things in the name of libertarian ideology and Mullin has a habit of over the top bellicose behavior. Perhaps it may be best to be wary of both.
 
woduqu powiedział(a):
Believe who you want, but there'd have to be some place and time when this event supposedly happened, right? Mullin would have the burden of providing that while Rand can't prove a negative, obviously. Also, the whole point of calling Mullin out was because Rand knew he couldn't give the specifics. In any case, the topic of being a liar revolves around that and not the subjective designation of someone as a "snake".
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Oh so there is no proof and you’re just making up some reason to make a Trump appointee look bad, got it. I don’t believe Rand because I don’t see any reason for Mullin to lie about something like that.
 
Sammich powiedział(a):
Good on you for not shitting on the catholic event he's speaking at (tomorrow i think) Prejean is gonna be there too, which is fine, but i hate that they invited crazy candy owens.. Wasn't aware she was a catholic.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
why would I care to shit on it? It's not my business. RE: Owens, her husband attends Mel Gibson's Sedevacantist Catholic church but seems to accept Vatican II.

I don't like Prejean but that's obvious, her shitting on Trump is a new low considering how he saved her ass:


1773845186230.png
 
George Lucas powiedział(a):
Oh so there is no proof and you’re just making up some reason to make a Trump appointee look bad, got it. I don’t believe Rand because I don’t see any reason for Mullin to lie about something like that.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
You really struggle with basic logic and that's not a personal attack, but something you need to work on improving. If a person, a Trump appointee or literally anyone else on the planet, makes a claim about doing something, it would have to happen in an actual specific time and specific place that they would have the burden of establishing.

Another person who was alleged to have been in that same event, but says it didn't happen, cannot prove that it didn't happen unless every millisecond of their life is recorded and they're willing to submit it for public review. Obviously no one has done that nor would be willing to do that. So, again, the burden lies on the person making the positive claim.
 
Wyróżnienie
Musisz się zalogować lub zarejestrować, aby odpowiedzieć.
Wstecz
Top Na dole