Jump to content

CAWs.ws
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Feed

AONO.

Member Since 29 Oct 2011
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 10:46 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: CM Punk Returns for WWE Backstage Show on FOX

16 November 2019 - 11:03 PM

 

Do you know what nitpicking is?

Because I literally said it wasn't a big deal to me. I've been very clear in what I said.

 

 

Yes I do know what nitpicking is. But, my bad, I did't see that earlier post. 

 

Still, I didn't mean nothing offensive, but could have worded it better. Apologies. 


In Topic: U.S. Politics Discussion

16 November 2019 - 05:41 PM

 

I'm intrigued though, what good did he do? As far as I know, a lot of good that he takes credit for started under Obama, and all Trump can really be credited for is not *censored*ing it up. 
 
Shame there are so few right wingers who know better than to support Trump at all.


The economy would certainly be up there and I assume that's what you were talking about with Obama. And if you want to give Obama partial credit with it I'm fine with that. But everyone on from CNN and MSNBC said that as soon as Trump got into office the economy would tank. So if you are going to put 100% blame on Trump if the economy tanked then you can't give him 0 credit when the economy continues to soar. And as long as the economy remains healthy and unemployment rate stays are huge lows, its going to be a huge reason why he gets reelected. 

 

Other things are probably more controversial and based on opinion but I'd say things like pulling out of Paris Climate Accord and Iran nuclear deals. Along with announcing Jerusalem As Israel’s Capital which is something every president from George Bush Sr to Obama promised they'd do but never did.

 

 

Pulling out of Paris Climate Accord and Iran nuclear deal has done more harm than good. It's not just an opinion that those were terrible decisions by the Trump administration. And there is a good reason why announcing Jerusalem as Israel's Capital wasn't done before. 

 

The waters are murky, and there are a lot of variables to include. As it says here, some decisions probably helped the economy not stopping to look good, short term that is. Trump administration got a hold of a rising economy, Obama administration got a devastated economy. And let's not forget an idiotic trade war with China, the second largest economy, the true effects of that are still to be fully revealed. 

The fact of the matter is this, yes, the economy is fine, it has not tanked... yet. And to say it's greatest in history is not true, that's a fact. Unemployment rate is tremendously low, good job Mr Trump for not *censored*ing it up... those are some high standards we have. GDP is also on the rise, but it's not soaring nor booming, all of the sudden. It's a  steady growth. And that grow is expected to slow down in 2019. The thing is though, that growth mainly benefited the rich, as the lower class and low to mid class wages have been stagnant for a while. The economy also depends a lot on that, and on that and their ability to spend. The stock market is also very uncertain. 

They focus on just 1 or two points, to exaggerate the state of he economy while also ignoring the warning signs. 

 

The thing is though, if it was so great and he would be campaigning just on that, especially if that's a "huge reason why he will get reelected". And that's far from the truth, and always has been. So you can't also easily claim that he will get reelected. 

 

Again if Trump should get "praised" for all that, those are some low standards. But standards for his presidency in general is absurdly low anyway, judging by the state of the affairs for the last 4-5 years. 


In Topic: U.S. Politics Discussion

16 November 2019 - 02:39 AM

Are you trying to say that even if hypothetically the Biden's were doing something wrong, Trump shouldn't be allowed to use aid for quid pro quo (even though quid pro quo's for aid happen all of the time) to investigate the Biden's because Joe Biden happens to be his political opponent?

 

That seems pretty out there.  That would mean that anytime an incumbent is up for reelection, the other candidate can do whatever they want because they are immune from investigation at the federal level.

 

Hypothetically, he doesn't just happen to be his direct political opponent. You've put it together wrong. Hypothetically, no, Trump shouldn't be allowed to use vital military aid as a bargaining chip to serve his private interest. We are not talking about alleged "quid pro quo" in various foreign policy negotiations. Military aid to Ukraine wasn't just a gift because of benevolence, Ukraine is a strategic ally. And yes, I have my opinions about the foreign policy in general, during Obamas administration and Trumps, and before, and so on... but that's not the issue. Trump didn't do it serve national interests, it was for his political gain. Does his opponent have the possibility of using federal resources and diplomatic back channels to gain dirt on him? He doesn't. Also, I forgot to mention in my earlier points, it's also tax payers money. And should tax payers money be used for his political gain? No it shouldn't. 

He could have send some of his croneys to do the dirty work privately...I mean, well, he did, he used Rudy Gulliani, which is also another issue.... but no, he used his power as the POTUS. And he abused that power. That is the issue. 

 

And no, that's backward logic and it's is not what it would mean, and I just explained a part of it. They are not immune to investigation, that is nowhere being said, and I have no idea where did you come up with that. Joe Biden has no kind of immunity. They acted on an assumption and conspiracy theory. Context is also very vital, which is established by witnesses that you can hear during the public hearing (or could have so far).  

 


In Topic: WWE Show Discussion

16 November 2019 - 01:35 AM

no it isn't much better it looks like a *censored*ing toy :lol:

thats horrendous

In Topic: U.S. Politics Discussion

16 November 2019 - 01:20 AM

 

What evidence would that be exactly? This impeachment basically comes down to 2 arguments. The left is arguing based on a lot of hearsay that Trump bribed Ukraine into getting him information on Biden that he could use against him in the election. Trump meanwhile says that he was looking into Joe Biden and corruption involving him and the democrats. Which isn't all that crazy, or illegal, considering the fact that there is a justice department investigation involving the Obama Administration and Ukraine and their involvement into the 2016 election. 
 
Which circles back to why I think its a waste of time. The first being we are a year away from the election. If you want Trump gone....beat him. But I don't believe the democrats think they can. But even if there wasn't an election coming up. The evidence isn't strong enough to impeach Trump. Again, you are welcome to present information that leads you to believe otherwise. And last but not least, even if there was enough I don't thik the democrats want to go deep enough down the rabbit hole because they know their finger prints are all over Ukraine too. 
 
But moving on and focusing on your statement about the Republicans holding a secret vote. What motivation would they have to hold a legit vote and remove Trump? That argument simply doesn't make sense. It would be foolish on their end and its not going to happen.  
 
And I find it funny how you see me as some ultra GOP supporter and how I think they're invincible despite the fact that I said in 2016 that Trump was going to lose to Hillary and I said in the last big election that the Democrats were going to take control of the house. Personally I think I'm pretty fair but if anything it seems I give the left too much credit. 
 
Putting that aside, and to clear things up yet again: In 2016 I voted third party. I don't even remember what person I voted for to be honest with you. I simply didn't want to vote for Clinton or Trump. Next year I'll probably vote Trump but it depends on who he's facing. Someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren? Yeah...I'll take Trump. And I have no problems with 4 more years of Trump if that happens to be the case.  I don't like everything he's done as president but if people want to sit here and pretend like he's done nothing good and he's "not my president" than thats on them. 

 

 

No it really doesn't boil down to those two arguments. "The left" (nothing left about Democratic liberals really), doesn't argue bribery. It argues that Trump withheld military aid to an allied nation, that was approved by congress to solicit them into an investigation about a political opponent. I explained how is that an abuse of his power and clearly against any kind of democratic election principle. 

An ongoing investigation? I'm not sure what you are talking about. 

 

Call transcripts and multiple witness corroboration is not hearsay. And there is a vastness of detail and context presented, which I guess you wish to ignore. Again, they are putting a lot out there, but the GOP and Trumps defense is nowhere to be seen other than stonewalling, trying to pressure people in every way imaginable to not testify, attacking democrats on ridiculous assumptions and petty notions... and to claim there is nothing to be seen, that it's all a "sham", while every day can't provide any evidence to the contrary of what is being said  They had a chance to question the witnesses on public hearings, but the line of questioning was non existent. Trying to out the whistleblower in every imaginable possible way and failing, Trump calling him out for treason, while at the same time saying treasonous crimes should be punishable by death. They want him to testify. I've never seen an innocent man act like this, and he has a chance to testify.

Trump and his republican supporters and being fact checked every single day, with ease. 

Trumps only defense tactic is gaslighting, which is also done from day one. 

 

What evidence by you, would be strong enough? That's the thing they are counting on you to believe the fact that it's nothing, by distorting facts, by creating an alternative reality and alternative facts. That's what the Trump campaign has been doing from the start, supported by the interests of wealthy conservatives and alt right and far right groups. 

 

The motivation of a GOP member to remove Trump would be his authoritarian, erratic, and mentally unstable presidency. And to provide a candidate who yes, would of course serve their interest, but be the opposite of Trump so they can continue with their agendas. Maybe they are not doing that because they can't? Same thing you said for the dems could be said for them really. They would have a hard time if any chance if they didn't accept Trump in 2016, and there was a lot of reluctance about that, let's not forget. But they decided to chose a neccessary evil. And now, they are very much risking a lot if he stays in power for another 4 years. Trump has peaked and burned every bridge possible. If they are so sure that the Democratic party is so weak, then they would easily beat them with Pence or another new candidate. 

 

I never said you are a "ultra GOP" supporter, so laugh all you want, but don't put words in my mouth. I thought you were a third party conservative, and a Trump supporter who has no problem with his wrongdoings, lies and disastrous way of leading the country. Maybe I am half right about that, but I am right that you support him. That's the only thing I asked you, and that's what you always avoid to say. I didn't even think you voted for Trump, and I never asked who you vote for, but thank you for confirming that assumption. And it's a cool thing you didn't vote for either of them. Which doesn't mean I saw you as a stereotyped Trump supporter either. And you and I have obviously very different ways of defining the "left", so don't lump me into that one either.

It's not about ousting, it's about having an honest conversation. 

I never even used conservative as an insult. And I am just saying that because people will say it's about that. People have their right to do anything, as long as they do not trample on others rights.  

And I said this for like fifty times, every times when someone chooses to make a "funny" assumption. I even said it to you a couple of times, but you chose to ignore it. I don't support the democratic party, Bernie Sanders is not my savior. For the longest time, there was the notion and a mutual agreement that politicians are corrupt and that they whole system is corrupt and that it doesn't matter who is president. A reality show president changed that. Trump administration changed that. Me attacking him and wanting to see him getting removed from office doesn't mean that I somehow naively think that a glorious system is in place. I had no problem critiquing Obamas presidency, the foreign policy in Syria and the middle east during that time, and the whole gun waiving and looking for a war with Russia even more so with Hillary basically campaigning on that. 

And I have a huge problem with nationalist and far right ideology behind Trump, who in return empowers that ideology. 

 

With that being said, his presidency is more than a "partisan issue" or "left vs right". It's anything but that.