President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
I played a single game of werewolf in SE many years ago. I got so tilted I had to quit posting for a few days.
Seems out of character for you.
I played a single game of werewolf in SE many years ago. I got so tilted I had to quit posting for a few days.
Give it another go plz.
Both Twitter and Facebook received regular requests to suppress information from both sides. The requests were so frequent and insistent that they kept a log of Republican requests.
Again, this is all very public information and maybe you guys should read what happened
It's even simpler than that, and I'm not sure why people on the left can't just state this as plainly as it should be stated:
Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon shopped stories to the press about contents and scandals in Hunter Biden's laptop. When press outlets asked to verify the laptop's contents, or chain of custody, Giuliani refused. Hence, it didn't meet sufficient standard newsroom verification thresholds, and that close to an election, they decided not to run an unverified story. Especially considering both Giuliani and Bannon's known propaganda past.
Giuliani then got the NY Post to run his unverified story in the middle of October 2020. Social media sites like Twitter and Facebook restricted distribution under their misinformation or hacked-materials policies. They later testified they felt this was a mistake.
In the end, the latop provided a big nothingburger and was not at all what Giuliani and Bannon claimed it proved, which was that Joe Biden was on the take for Ukraine, through his son's role on the board at Burisma.
What the laptop did show was Hunter Biden pursued business deals in Ukraine and China, leveraging his families name. It showed he was on the board of Burisma at $50k/mo. And it had damming pictures of Hunter doing drugs and other stupid ****.
Now compare that FAIRLY to what Trump's family is doing, and how they are using the government to enrich themselves... and have a nice day.
I played a couple of games of Secret Hitler on here ages ago I think (superior game to WW).
liberals always end up supporting fascism in the end
I did not think I’d live to see the day where NATO repositions its assets to deter an American invasion.
I did not think I’d live to see the day where NATO repositions its assets to deter an American invasion.
Or the day American citizens are required to produce papers verifying their identity without probable cause other than skin color?
I know the ****sticks like to freak out when Trump is compared to Hitler, but requiring "others" to produce papers is absolutely NaziGermany level bullshit.
I never realized you could trade a Nobel prize to become a head of state. This is like a huge Monopoly game.
Or the day American citizens are required to produce papers verifying their identity without probable cause other than skin color?
I know the ****sticks like to freak out when Trump is compared to Hitler, but requiring "others" to produce papers is absolutely NaziGermany level bullshit.
Europe is strongly geared to remembering how the nazis operated and what they did. America forgot (willfully)
This is so cringy hilarious. Any other person would have it eat at them every time they look at it knowing it's bullshit, but I think Trump is dumb enough to think he earned it.
He can put it next to his FIFA trophy, his Purple Heart, medal of honor, man of the year, and all the Super Bowl rings he's purchased.
The next time someone tries to sell you on the superiority of The West remind them that for all our so called innovation and advancement we can do no better than voluntarily be subject to the narcissistic whims of a single insane orange colored man as he destroys our social services and the foundations of our justice engineered over centuries. I guess those foundations weren't so strong after all if they not only allowed a transparent criminal to ascend and rule the world but also cannot stop him as he tries to destroy it.
People get technology confused with progress. Trump? That is what cave people would do, "do what aggro man say because aggro man papa have most coconut on island". This is the level of thinking reigning in our society. I'm sorry but we are nowhere. All of our technology like cell phones, developed under our socialist development hubs not by private anything, only help us do dumb things faster.
The next time someone tries to sell you on the superiority of The West remind them that for all our so called innovation and advancement we can do no better than voluntarily be subject to the narcissistic whims of a single insane orange colored man as he destroys our social services and the foundations of our justice engineered over centuries. I guess those foundations weren't
The question you are asking doesn't have much to do with West v. East imo. You essentially are asking a primitivist question of whether our technology has made us better off. The arrival of the technology was inevitable, regardless of which nations were calling the shots over the last 200 years. I guess the timeline might not have been exactly the same, but it wouldn't have been different enough to matter on a macro scale.
Deuces, can you explain what social services GOAtrump has destroyed?
You mention something about how he is trying to take over the world. How does that thought go with the fact that he has done more than any US president in recent memory to limit his (and future presidents) power by doing things like supporting school choice, allowing state to make their own rules during covid instead of making sweeping federal laws like nearly every Dem wanted him to, making abortion a state issue, cutting taxes, cutting regulation and trying to cut the size and scope of the federal government? All of these things drastically reduces the power of the Fed gov't and gives that power to states (which he does not control) or back to the people.
The question you are asking doesn't have much to do with West v. East imo. You essentially are asking a primitivist question of whether our technology has made us better off. The arrival of the technology was inevitable, regardless of which nations were calling the shots over the last 200 years. I guess the timeline might not have been exactly the same, but it wouldn't have
The technological innovations of The West have largely been in pursuing greed, not concerned with helping people or pursuing truth or anything like that. We spend billions developing weapons technology and the offshoots of that tech are turned into cell phones and the internet and other consumer products. But whether it's weapons or consumer culture it's all greed driven, not truth and justice driven.
The West isn't enlighten values and the scientific method. It's the pursuit of greed above all else, and that has generated all the existential crises we are now accelerating towards with this orange maniac jamming the pedal through the floor. We say we are better than some remnant hunters and gatherers because we have all this technology. But we only have it because we're greedy, and we only use it for greed, and this is creating threats to our existence which are not being managed in any way so who is really better? If one human modality has sustainability and another doesn't, the one with sustainability is automatically superior without any other considerations. Of course you could say if we go then they go so ultimately they are no more sustainable than us.
The technological innovations of The West have largely been in pursuing greed, not concerned with helping people or pursuing truth or anything like that. We spend billions developing weapons technology and the offshoots of that tech are turned into cell phones and the internet and other consumer products. But whether it's weapons or consumer culture it's all greed driven, not t
I'm not sure how this is responsive to what I wrote. I didn't say anything one way or the other about Western enlightenment. And I never suggested that technological innovation, regardless of where it originates, is motivated mainly by altruism.
The question you are asking doesn't have much to do with West v. East imo. You essentially are asking a primitivist question of whether our technology has made us better off. The arrival of the technology was inevitable, regardless of which nations were calling the shots over the last 200 years. I guess the timeline might not have been exactly the same, but it wouldn't have
And someone is forgetting the dance of history, which is 2 steps forward, 1 1/2 steps back.
Are we better off than our feudal ancestors? Of course.
We are, whether we like it or not, perpetually engaged with a segment of society whose thinking is anchored less in reflection or abstraction and more in instinct, emotion, and immediate threat perception, what might be described as a persistent reliance on the brain’s most primitive survival circuitry.
