|
I'm kinda jealous, our politicians don't even bother with resigning.
|
Originally Posted by Godless Commie
(Post 1585425)
On a completely unrelated note, President of the Turkish Central Bank was, um, replaced at 2 am on Saturday.
Are more serious things afoot? |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1585388)
Who said anything about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Do you see any reference to that in my post? (Ignore the fact that the forum shows that post was edited just now. That's a random glitch. Happens sometimes.)
If I may digress back into the war is hell train of thought, my maternal grandfather was in WWII. He never talked about his service. I do know from research that he was in from 1943-45. He was older (mid-30's IIRC) when he enlisted and as near as we know from the one picture of him in uniform, he was in a Hellcat tank destroyer unit. His unit apparently liberated a concentration camp and he had pictures of what they saw. The only way I know about this is from my aunt via my sister, who told her that our mom had come across the pictures and was caught looking at them. Whatever he said was strong enough that she never even mentioned it to us kids. My oldest spent six months in Iraq with his Guard unit doing convoy escort duties around six years ago. He has never talked about what he saw either. That is the side of conflict you never consider when you are young. |
Originally Posted by Godless Commie
(Post 1585399)
I guess 58000 American troops were killed in the Vietnam disagreement then.
|
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/h...-that-matters/
No modern presidential candidate has refused to concede. Here’s why that matters.The formal concession speech has played a vital role in even the most divisive U.S. elections, from the Civil War to Bush v. Gore.BY AMY MCKEEVERPUBLISHED NOVEMBER 8, 2020 https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/0mAAA...hsV/s-l400.jpg |
I find it interesting to watch as the Republicans pivot between:
1: "See, we told you the election was rigged," 2: "The election isn't over," and 3: "See, we told you that Covid was a Democrat conspiracy to rig the election." My feeling is that some variant of the above is going to dominate the political discourse on social media for the next few weeks. Possibly months, if some more lurid theory does not arise. |
We had to hear about Russia for 4 years. It took 37 days to decide FL in the courts -- give us a few days here, bro...
The election is still ongoing. I believe about a month ago I said Nov 7 was going to be the day the virus ended. I wasn't wrong apparently. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1585444)
3: "See, we told you that Covid was a Democrat conspiracy to rig the election."
Come on Joe you know damn well that the Democrats played covid for all it was worth against Trump. |
Originally Posted by Bajingo
(Post 1585452)
Come on Joe you know damn well that the Democrats played covid for all it was worth against Trump.
But a strategy isn't a conspiracy. That's what annoys me. People with red hats running around shouting "Conspiracy!" act to discredit all conservatives. |
It fits the definition. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy
would you prefer we start using the term colluding? |
Originally Posted by Bajingo
(Post 1585454)
It fits the definition. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1585449)
The election isn't over.
The virus is over. The story today is that the virus is far from over, and that unfortunately, we still have to deal with two more months of anti-leadership from Trump, during which time billions will die, before the glorious new democratic president can cure the disease. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1585457)
Serious question: If the marketing department of a company forms a plan to produce a TV commercial, and then have that commercial aired on various TV stations, with the goal of wanting to make you buy a product, and several different people and companies all act together to make this happen, would you refer to that as a conspiracy?
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1585458)
I think you may find that facts do not support that latter assertion.
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...7d0d3ad2c4.png |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1585461)
I trust the facts:
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...e3f1f6a890.png |
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1585370)
Not only does the US love to commit military and economic resources to interfering in the affairs of foreign nations, but we are also affected by the policies and actions of other nations
Without it, The Great Depression would look very desirable. |
Originally Posted by Bajingo
(Post 1585454)
It fits the definition. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy
would you prefer we start using the term colluding? Pretty much every dictionary definition of conspiracy, including the one you linked to (click through to the definition on "conspiring"), explicitly involves an unlawful or treacherous act, and an element of secrecy. Neither of those tests are met by openly blaming everything up to and including the weather on a sitting President. It certainly was not done in secret, and one might argue (based on one's political leanings) that slandering the President is in some way nefarious, it is far from unlawful or treacherous. The standards for political speech are extremely liberal. |
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:20 PM. |
|
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands