Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Leroy42

DaniilKharms wrote: »

In other news:

"Trump Administration Quietly Cuts $213 Million in Funds to Prevent Teen Pregnancy"

https://www.thecut.com/2017/07/trump-cut-usd213-million-in-funds-to-prevent-teen-pregnancy.html?utm_campaign=nym&utm_medium=s1&utm_source=tw&utm_campaign=nym&utm_medium=s1&utm_source=tw

Yes but how useful was that money?

€213m is a lot of money and there should be clear outcomes for that sort of spend.

I was listening to a podcast recently that was dealing with this and one of the findings was that whilst teen pregnancy has reduced dramatically (in the UK and Ireland as well) one of the fastest impacts they saw was in response to the Teen Mom programs.

So maybe this money is no longer having the impact that it was set out to achieve (or has achieved it).

In saying all that, I mentioned earlier in the thread, that Trump seems to be going after all the social money. For a businessman he has shown little real ability to bring big savings across the state.

one thing that many people would expect from a businessman being in politics is that they would bring the efficiencies from the business world into politics (think Michael O'Leary in Ireland). Trump seems to have brought none of that.

Saving $213m will make no difference to the US budget

DaniilKharms

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes but how useful was that money?

€213m is a lot of money and there should be clear outcomes for that sort of spend.

I was listening to a podcast recently that was dealing with this and one of the findings was that whilst teen pregnancy has reduced dramatically (in the UK and Ireland as well) one of the fastest impacts they saw was in response to the Teen Mom programs.

So maybe this money is no longer having the impact that it was set out to achieve (or has achieved it).

In saying all that, I mentioned earlier in the thread, that Trump seems to be going after all the social money. For a businessman he has shown little real ability to bring big savings across the state.

one thing that many people would expect from a businessman being in politics is that they would bring the efficiencies from the business world into politics (think Michael O'Leary in Ireland). Trump seems to have brought none of that.

Saving $213m will make no difference to the US budget

The thing is, that's all fair and good, except that the GOP will probably just give that money to THEIR plan, which study after study shows INCREASES teen pregnancy: abstinence only education.

This is a bit like saying we shouldn't fight global warming, because government inefficiency makes the fight needlessly expensive, so instead let's spend that money on more coal power plants.

InTheTrees

Wouldn't you expect Mitch McConnell to resign at this point?

In any other country such a complete loser who fails to get anything done would be expected to do the right thing and resign and give someone else a chance.

DaniilKharms

InTheTrees wrote: »

Wouldn't you expect Mitch McConnell to resign at this point?

In any other country such a complete loser who fails to get anything done would be expected to do the right thing and resign and give someone else a chance.

Look, the Dems lost like 1000 elections in 8 years... Americans have to be pushed, because they're largely shameless.

Professor Moriarty

InTheTrees wrote: »

Wouldn't you expect Mitch McConnell to resign at this point?

In any other country such a complete loser who fails to get anything done would be expected to do the right thing and resign and give someone else a chance.

I dunno. Look at Theresa May. She's getting away with it so far.

For Reals

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes but how useful was that money?

€213m is a lot of money and there should be clear outcomes for that sort of spend.

I was listening to a podcast recently that was dealing with this and one of the findings was that whilst teen pregnancy has reduced dramatically (in the UK and Ireland as well) one of the fastest impacts they saw was in response to the Teen Mom programs.

So maybe this money is no longer having the impact that it was set out to achieve (or has achieved it).

In saying all that, I mentioned earlier in the thread, that Trump seems to be going after all the social money. For a businessman he has shown little real ability to bring big savings across the state.

one thing that many people would expect from a businessman being in politics is that they would bring the efficiencies from the business world into politics (think Michael O'Leary in Ireland). Trump seems to have brought none of that.

Saving $213m will make no difference to the US budget

This is a move to win over the backward conservative Republicans. No fiscal concerns beyond that.
It cost 150K a day to protect Trump Tower for the First Lady.
As I've mentioned on other threads, people like Trump and chums need welfare. The clearest example is Walmart were staff cannot afford to live on their salaries and many get state aid/welfare supplements. The system is eating itself.

Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#17b70156720b

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do wonder about where Trump actually stands on Healthcare. He said during the campaign that he would repeal ACA and replace it with something better. Cheaper, cover everyone etc etc. I actually believe him when he said that.

Why in the name of God did you believe him?

Billy86

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why in the name of God did you believe him?

Exactly, I know Leroy is far, far from any kind of Trump fan but the fact is Trump is a con man of the highest order. Been saying it for a good two years, it's best to assume anything he says is a lie and then to look into it after that.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why in the name of God did you believe him?

Because I think he thought it would be easy and he had no understanding of the role that the GOP played in creating ACA in the first place.

Remember he stated that no one knew healthcare was so complicated, he certainly didn't. Mostly because he never gave it a second thought. He copped on that saying ObamaCare was bad was a good strategy and then felt that since everything Obama and HC did was useless then anything he did would be better, and easier.

So when I say I believe him, its not that I believed he would be able to deliver, only that he himself was genuine in his statements. The fact that he was speaking from a position of total ignorance was also easy to see.

DaniilKharms

Billy86 wrote: »

Exactly, I know Leroy is far, far from any kind of Trump fan but the fact is Trump is a con man of the highest order. Been saying it for a good two years, it's best to assume anything he says is a lie and then to look into it after that.

The thing is, the best cons are a mix of fact and fiction.

If Trump had run his campaign based on the writings of David Icke he wouldn't be President.

Professor Moriarty

For Reals wrote: »

This is a move to win over the backward conservative Republicans. No fiscal concerns beyond that.
It cost 150K a day to protect Trump Tower for the First Lady.
As I've mentioned on other threads, people like Trump and chums need welfare. The clearest example is Walmart were staff cannot afford to live on their salaries and many get state aid/welfare supplements. The system is eating itself.

Does Walmart donate to conservative politicians? Hmmm. Let's see. Yes they do.

DaniilKharms

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Does Walmart donate to conservative politicians? Hmmm. Let's see. Yes they do.

Wellllllll....

Wal-Mart was the first major corporation to get behind Bill Clinton as well, and continued to donate to Clinton for decades. Hillary was even on their board briefly.

Wal-Mart is MASSIVE and doesn't care who they have to pay to get what they want.

Professor Moriarty

DaniilKharms wrote: »

Wellllllll....

Wal-Mart was the first major corporation to get behind Bill Clinton as well, and continued to donate to Clinton for decades. Hillary was even on their board briefly.

Wal-Mart is MASSIVE and doesn't care who they have to pay to get what they want.

Ostensibly, they donate equally between Dems and GOP and across the spectrum. However, if you drill down into the patterns, they favour the GOP and conservatives. From the article:

Of the donations made by both Walmart’s PAC and the Walton family since the 2000 election cycle, nearly 70 percent went to Republican candidates and committees

And:

And while Walmart’s PAC has made an effort to make its political donations equitable between parties, when analyzing donations from it and the Walton family on an issue-by-issue level, contributions from both tended to skew more toward the right, according to the report. Fifty-eight percent of the PAC’s donations and 76 percent of the Walton family’s contributions went to candidates endorsed by the pro-gun lobby between 2005 and 2012, the report said. During the same period, 77 percent of the PAC’s contributions to candidates went to those who either opposed or were silent on gay marriage, while 94 percent of the Walton family’s contributions went to candidates silent on or opposed to gay marriage.

Most tellingly:

The report also includes figures on contributions related to the issue that is perhaps closest to the company’s heart: workers’ wages. The report says that from 2005 to 2012. 59 percent of the Walmart PAC’s contributions to House members who voted on the minimum wage increase went to candidates who opposed the increase, while 95 percent of the Waltons’ contributions went to candidates who opposed the increase.

Billy86

If anyone has heard of a podcast called 'The Dollop' (highly, highly recommended and very entertaining too) they did a two parter recently about the history of opium in America, and pharmaceutical companies have both parties wrapped around their little finger. Purdue Pharma (who make Oxycontin) are a particularly disgusting company, and alone spend something like 6 times more money on lobbying than the entire gun industry.

Also highly recommended are their Enron, Uber and Iraw War episodes (which go into so much more depth than 99% of people will have heard before), or for a lightheated ridiculous story, 'Jet Pack Madness' and 'Rainbow Man' and probably the funniest one I have listed to 'Tylenol Man'.

DaniilKharms

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ostensibly, they donate equally between Dems and GOP and across the spectrum. However, if you drill down into the patterns, they favour the GOP and conservatives. From the article:

Of the donations made by both Walmart’s PAC and the Walton family since the 2000 election cycle, nearly 70 percent went to Republican candidates and committees

And:

And while Walmart’s PAC has made an effort to make its political donations equitable between parties, when analyzing donations from it and the Walton family on an issue-by-issue level, contributions from both tended to skew more toward the right, according to the report. Fifty-eight percent of the PAC’s donations and 76 percent of the Walton family’s contributions went to candidates endorsed by the pro-gun lobby between 2005 and 2012, the report said. During the same period, 77 percent of the PAC’s contributions to candidates went to those who either opposed or were silent on gay marriage, while 94 percent of the Walton family’s contributions went to candidates silent on or opposed to gay marriage.

Most tellingly:

The report also includes figures on contributions related to the issue that is perhaps closest to the company’s heart: workers’ wages. The report says that from 2005 to 2012. 59 percent of the Walmart PAC’s contributions to House members who voted on the minimum wage increase went to candidates who opposed the increase, while 95 percent of the Waltons’ contributions went to candidates who opposed the increase.

No doubt big business donates largely to Republicans, but it's worth noting the act that Dems happily accept this money as well, no matter what Wal-Mart does (unless there's a stink in the media, then they briefly stop, then start again).

A huge part of the problem with American politics is money, and until the left has as high standards for itself as they do for their opponents there not REALLY an alternative for voters that vote based on campaign finance issues.

Professor Moriarty

DaniilKharms wrote: »

No doubt big business donates largely to Republicans, but it's worth noting the act that Dems happily accept this money as well, no matter what Wal-Mart does (unless there's a stink in the media, then they briefly stop, then start again).

A huge part of the problem with American politics is money, and until the left has as high standards for itself as they do for their opponents there not REALLY an alternative for voters that vote based on campaign finance issues.

There might be an opportunity for a Sanders to ride the anti-Trump zeitgeist. Certainly, more of the same isn't the answer as the Dems found out with Hilary. Neither is a maverick outlier as the GOP is finding out with The Donald.

Thepoet85

Leroy42 wrote:

one thing that many people would expect from a businessman being in politics is that they would bring the efficiencies from the business world into politics (think Michael O'Leary in Ireland). Trump seems to have brought none of that.

He's had plenty of failures in the business world too.

If it wasn't for his dad's financial clout bailing him out several times, he'd be bankrupted.

I'm not sure the same business practices can be applied to running a country, although he seems to be trying, firing people on a whim!

DaniilKharms

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There might be an opportunity for a Sanders to ride the anti-Trump zeitgeist. Certainly, more of the same isn't the answer as the Dems found out with Hilary. Neither is a maverick outlier as the GOP is finding out with The Donald.

Sadly the Dems are divided between Sanders (the most popular and trusted politician in America, and in his home state) and the Clintons/Blue Dog Dems. Hillary is STILL polling worse than Trump btw.

The US is largely screwed.

For Reals

There was a documentary about a family of Trump supporters and how they were okay with repealing Obamacare if it was replaced with something better, however the husband's life literally depended on Obamacare for his medication, (lungs shot after lifetime in coalmine). Today's move to repeal it with no substitute will probably kill that man. But it's about ego and private profit. Just horrible.

Hande hoche!

Well the Obamacare straight repeal movement seems dead on arrival. Now if they are smart, the Trump administration will move on to infrastructure.

DaniilKharms

For Reals wrote: »

There was a documentary about a family of Trump supporters and how they were okay with repealing Obamacare if it was replaced with something better, however the husband's life literally depended on Obamacare for his medication, (lungs shot after lifetime in coalmine). Today's move to repeal it with no substitute will probably kill that man. But it's about ego and private profit. Just horrible.

Sure, this is happening in a country that has somehow reached the conclusion that 30K deaths a year at the end of a gun is the necessary price of freedom.

Trying to understand this sort of self-destructive behaviour ain't easy.

Then again the first mistake is trying to generalise too much.

Why anyone does anything is largely personal, often based on fear or lies, and that same person might choose differently once they realise the outcome of their initial decision.

Another big part of the problem in America is that the political system isn't really fit for purpose. 330M people is WAY too many for what the US has... but of course many Americans would see that as a personal insult so...

America is pretty screwed.

Billy86

For Reals wrote: »

There was a documentary about a family of Trump supporters and how they were okay with repealing Obamacare if it was replaced with something better, however the husband's life literally depended on Obamacare for his medication, (lungs shot after lifetime in coalmine). Today's move to repeal it with no substitute will probably kill that man. But it's about ego and private profit. Just horrible.

Can't say I feel an ounce of sympathy for him or his family that voted for Trump. The republicans have ran on getting rid of people's health care for years and Trump barely even tried to hide the fact he was bullsh**ting with his "top secret plan". If you vote to get rid of your health care, then you suffer the consequences, that's democracy in action.

DaniilKharms

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Well the Obamacare straight repeal movement seems dead on arrival. Now if they are smart, the Trump administration will move on to infrastructure.

Sure, their infrastructure bill is just as useless and partisan as their healthcare one.

It's basically a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to corporations, and in the end the infrastructure built will be privately owned.

It's all laid bare here:

http://robertreich.org/post/156280358595

Itssoeasy

So Donald trump is blaiming the democrats for being obstructionists and having no plan. Does the president not realise that the GOP have majorities in both houses of congress and don't need democrats votes to pass bills ? He also said that he thinks the senate should move to 51 votes instead of 60 votes. Am I right in thinking that 60 votes is only needed for cabinet confirmations and to stop a filibuster ?*

I mean If I know that off the top of my head, then shouldn't the US president know that or at least be told that ?


*I may be off on that

Billy86

It's filibuster but not cabinet appointments I believe; devos got voted in on 50/50 with pence casting the tie breaker.

Just more attempts to keep his deluded base believing the sky is green.

DaniilKharms

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So Donald trump is blaiming the democrats for being obstructionists and having no plan. Does the president not realise that the GOP have majorities in both houses of congress and don't need democrats votes to pass bills ? He also said that he thinks the senate should move to 51 votes instead of 60 votes. Am I right in thinking that 60 votes is only needed for cabinet confirmations and to stop a filibuster ?*

I mean If I know that off the top of my head, then shouldn't the US president know that or at least be told that ?


*I may be off on that

You're off on the 60 vote thing, but that's largely due to the fact that they're trying to use procedural tricks to pass a bill.

Some bits require 60 votes, others a simply majority.

This is just more of the incompetence of the GOP on display.

Itssoeasy

Billy86 wrote: »

It's filibuster but not cabinet appointments I believe; devos got voted in on 50/50 with pence casting the tie breaker.

Just more attempts to keep his deluded base believing the sky is green.

That's right she did. I did say I wasn't sure. But wasn't there so uproar over the GOP changing the rules to allow that to happen ?

Itssoeasy

DaniilKharms wrote: »

You're off on the 60 vote thing, but that's largely due to the fact that they're trying to use procedural tricks to pass a bill.

Some bits require 60 votes, others a simply majority.

This is just more of the incompetence of the GOP on display.

Okay, so what bills require 60 votes ? Finance bills ?

DaniilKharms

Itssoeasy wrote: »

That's right she did. I did say I wasn't sure. But wasn't there so uproar over the GOP changing the rules to allow that to happen ?

It's pretty complicated, because various bits of business in the Senate have various standards in order to succeed.

What the "nuclear option" is, is lowering the standard from the 60 votes to 50 votes on certain issues. It would allow the Senate to be like the House - mob rule.

Quin_Dub

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Okay, so what bills require 60 votes ? Finance bills ?

I think that the way they worked the 51 votes thing for Healthcare was that it was a modification of existing legislation and not "new" by some convoluted and arcane senate rules.

So as I understand it , procedural changes and updates to existing legislation require simply majority , New stuff needs the so called "super majority".

However I may be grossly over simplifying.

Billy86

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

It's filibuster but not cabinet appointments I believe; devos got voted in on 50/50 with pence casting the tie breaker.

Just more attempts to keep his deluded base believing the sky is green.

That's right she did. I did say I wasn't sure. But wasn't there so uproar over the GOP changing the rules to allow that to happen ?

I might be wrong but I don't think so - it was around the same time that the GOP went nuclear to push go rush through for SCOTS having robbed that appointment from the Obama administration. It's also why the demand should just go all out and go nuclear on every single last thing they want passed if they wind up back in majority in 2018. You You could bank wouldn't even be given odds in a bookies for the republicans doing the same again if the demand try to filibuster an aca repeal were that to get over 50 votes.

DaniilKharms

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Okay, so what bills require 60 votes ? Finance bills ?

No, it's not even that straightforward.

To pass a bill they need 50+1, BUT the Senate debate can't be stopped - that is a bill can't move to be voted on - without 60 votes.

BUT

Some things, like amending certain things, take 60 votes.

I don't know enough to explain it thoroughly, but basically, there's a LOT of ways to pass or amend or repeal legislation. Some of those things take 50 + 1 votes, some 60.

The President is suggesting a simple majority for EVERYTHING, which frankly would be a disaster, IMO.

But we live in the time of daily disaster in the US, so... who knows what fresh hell tomorrow will bring.

Billy86

The eight man in the collusion meeting between Russia and the trump p campaign has been unveiled as Ike Kavaldaze who was there in a capacity to represent Putin close ally Aras Agalarov. Ike previously worked as VP of real estate for Agalarov, who were working with Trump in an effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow before US sanctions hurt the Russian economy that killed the development (Russia's reaction was to cancel all adoptions programs to the US, which is part of what was talked about between the colluding parties).

DaniilKharms

Billy86 wrote: »

The eight man in the collusion meeting between Russia and the trump p campaign has been unveiled as Ike Kavaldaze who was there in a capacity to represent Putin close ally Aras Agalarov. Ike previously worked as VP of real estate for Agalarov, who were working with Trump in an effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow before US sanctions hurt the Russian economy that killed the development (Russia's reaction was to cancel all adoptions programs to the US, which is part of what was talked about between the colluding parties).

"A Congressional inquiry has found that it is ''relatively easy'' for foreigners to hide their identities and form shell companies here that can launder money through American banks.

In a a nine-month inquiry that subpoenaed bank records, the investigators found that an unknown number of Russians and other East Europeans moved more than $1.4 billion through accounts at Citibank of New York and the Commercial Bank of San Francisco.

The accounts had been opened by Irakly Kaveladze, who immigrated to the United States from Russia in 1991, according to Citibank and Mr. Kaveladze. He set up more than 2,000 corporations in Delaware for Russian brokers and then opened the bank accounts for them, without knowing who owned the corporations, according to the report by the General Accounting Office, which has not been made public."

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2000/11/29/business/laundering-of-money-seen-as-easy.html

Same guy, investigated for Russian money laundering.

And his response was that it was a Russian "witch hunt".

He was also at a 2013 party with Trump, with Emin et al.

Kaveladze graduated from the Moscow Finance Academy in 1989, which was at the time:

"a Soviet training ground for the ministries and state banks that ran the planned economy"

http://mprokhorov.com/media/inthenews/132/

Billy86

Even until a few weeks ago I would have been very skeptical on the whole "Manchurian candidate planned years in advance" talk and figured the Russians just saw him as an easy target and corrupt enough to cause some mayhem with when he got some traction in the Republican primaries. Now however, I'm a good deal more open to that thought.

Rob Goldstone who organised the meeting was also at that party in Russia; there is a video of them all at it on youtube (posted it a few days back).

DaniilKharms

Billy86 wrote: »

Even until a few weeks ago I would have been very skeptical on the whole "Manchurian candidate planned years in advance" talk and figured the Russians just saw him as an easy target and corrupt enough to cause some mayhem with when he got some traction in the Republican primaries. Now however, I'm a good deal more open to that thought.

Rob Goldstone who organised the meeting was also at that party in Russia; there is a video of them all at it on youtube (posted it a few days back).

Sure, if you REALLY wanna go down that rabbit hole:

"U.S. intelligence agencies starting in the spring of 2015 detected conversations in which Russian government officials discussed associates of Donald Trump, several months before he declared his candidacy for president, according to current and former U.S. officials. In some cases, the Russians in the overheard conversations talked about meetings held outside the U.S. involving Russian government officials and Trump business associates or advisers, these people said."

https://www.wsj.com/article_email/russian-officials-overheard-discussing-trump-associates-before-campaign-began-1499890354-lMyQjAxMTI3MjE5MjExMzI0Wj/

mcmoustache

DaniilKharms wrote: »

Hillary is STILL polling worse than Trump btw.

I must say, that is mad.

Billy86

mcmoustache wrote: »

I must say, that is mad.

Not really, 35% of Americans would approve of Trump raping their own mothers at this point. One just has to land below that number.

DaniilKharms

mcmoustache wrote: »

I must say, that is mad.

Only kinda.

LOADS of Democrats don't like or trust her. And EVERY Republican hates her.

Sure, I had to hold my nose to vote for her... though I did, and would again vs Trump.

Quin_Dub

Billy86 wrote: »

Not really, 35% of Americans would approve of Trump raping their own mothers at this point. One just has to land below that number.

##Mod Note##

Up the standard please , this isn't good enough.

Thanks

Billy86

Quin_Dub wrote: »

##Mod Note##

Up the standard please , this isn't good enough.

Thanks

Apologies.

35% of Americans would approve of Trump supporting the deaths of their grannies and mothers*, openly colluding with hostile nations and possibly committing treason at this point. One just has to land below that number.




*See: ACA repeal with no replacement.

JRant

Billy86 wrote: »

If anyone has heard of a podcast called 'The Dollop' (highly, highly recommended and very entertaining too) they did a two parter recently about the history of opium in America, and pharmaceutical companies have both parties wrapped around their little finger. Purdue Pharma (who make Oxycontin) are a particularly disgusting company, and alone spend something like 6 times more money on lobbying than the entire gun industry.

Also highly recommended are their Enron, Uber and Iraw War episodes (which go into so much more depth than 99% of people will have heard before), or for a lightheated ridiculous story, 'Jet Pack Madness' and 'Rainbow Man' and probably the funniest one I have listed to 'Tylenol Man'.

Great stuff Billy. I don't always agree with you but you know your stuff. I've subscribed to that podcast and will give it a listen.

Billy86

JRant wrote: »

Great stuff Billy. I don't always agree with you but you know your stuff. I've subscribed to that podcast and will give it a listen.

Cheers!

It's generally quite light hearted in nature, the improv guy shamelessly hates Republicans and is pro Democrat but the guy who does the research and tells the story is more down the middle (and to paraphrase just thinks "some more than others, they're all basically ****ing monsters").

Water John

'A two bit meeting, that came to nothing.'
That seems to have been a fair summation!!

DaniilKharms

If you'd like to see how the "alt-right" are responding to the Trumpcare fiasco, and enjoy a bit of casual schadenfreude, click here:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message3581522/pg1

It's crazy, this site, but if you REALLY have to know...

Billy86

DaniilKharms wrote: »

If you'd like to see how the "alt-right" are responding to the Trumpcare fiasco, and enjoy a bit of casual schadenfreude, click here:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message3581522/pg1

It's crazy, this site, but if you REALLY have to know...

About post number five:

He's [Mitch McConnell] married to a Chinese whore too. Didn't any of you know that? It's not enough just keeping foreigners from holding office, we should remove anyone who marries one too.

So much temptation to join just to post a screenshot of Melania's wikipedia page showing her place of birth as Slovenia. :pac:

DaniilKharms

Billy86 wrote: »

About post number five:

He's [Mitch McConnell] married to a Chinese whore too. Didn't any of you know that? It's not enough just keeping foreigners from holding office, we should remove anyone who marries one too.

So much temptation to join just to post a screenshot of Melania's wikipedia page showing her place of birth as Slovenia. :pac:

hahahaha...

Well, two things:

- you can post anonymously
- you can't embed images without paying for a membership

strandroad

Billy86 wrote: »

About post number five:

He's [Mitch McConnell] married to a Chinese whore too. Didn't any of you know that? It's not enough just keeping foreigners from holding office, we should remove anyone who marries one too.

So much temptation to join just to post a screenshot of Melania's wikipedia page showing her place of birth as Slovenia. :pac:

And Ivana's, she was born in Czechoslovakia.

mcmoustache

DaniilKharms wrote: »

If you'd like to see how the "alt-right" are responding to the Trumpcare fiasco, and enjoy a bit of casual schadenfreude, click here:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message3581522/pg1

It's crazy, this site, but if you REALLY have to know...

How in the name of all that is holy did you find that? It's like infowars and breitbart had a baby although it's not quite as sore on the eyes as r/The_Donald.

DaniilKharms

mcmoustache wrote: »

How in the name of all that is holy did you find that? It's like infowars and breitbart had a baby although it's not quite as sore on the eyes as r/The_Donald.

I've known it since about 2002.

It's a good one to shock people with.

It also happens to be one of the better breaking news and rolling news sites... but if you start to post you'll get banned almost immediately!

Unless you're a crazy racist nutter.