Knowing What You Know Now, Would You Still Support Trump for President?

josevolution · March 2019

foodshop65 said:

CA will be purging 1.5 mil voters off the roles thanks to judicial watch. CA gives illegals voter registration when they get their drivers licenses. there's 33 mil people in CA about the size of all of Canada. So did she really win the popular vote or just the most in the highest density 2 states, CA/NY. my response was about storm drain and people's selective moral outrage. you just hate Trump

Hey admire folks who own up to their voting for an idiot 👍 keep it up ..

foodshop65 · March 2019

and still the only response is that you hate Trump. hopefully a new PJ might help with TDS

brianlux · March 2019

foodshop65 said:

and still the only response is that you hate Trump. hopefully a new PJ might help with TDS

A new PJ? What's quitting or being added? Dang me! That's news!

TDS: Trump Derangement Syndrome-

A very common malady, actually. Anyone who hasn't been afflicted is either out of the loop, apathetic, extremely stoic, or brain dead.

my2hands · March 2019

foodshop65 said:

and still the only response is that you hate Trump. hopefully a new PJ might help with TDS

I'm not being a smart ass.... i'm seriously interested

What do you like about what Trump has done as POTUS so far? Why does he enjoy your support? What things don't you like

Bentleyspop · March 2019

brianlux said:

foodshop65 said:

and still the only response is that you hate Trump. hopefully a new PJ might help with TDS

A new PJ? What's quitting or being added? Dang me! That's news!

TDS: Trump Derangement Syndrome- A very common malady, actually. Anyone who hasn't been afflicted is either out of the loop, apathetic, extremely stoic, or brain dead.

TDS: trump derangement syndrome defined by unending support for an immature, lying, misogynistic, narcissistic, racist, xenophobic, white nationalist
A trump supporter is a person whose life and beliefs are driven by fear, hate, ignorance, jealousy, and lies.

benjs · March 2019

foodshop65 said:

CA will be purging 1.5 mil voters off the roles thanks to judicial watch. CA gives illegals voter registration when they get their drivers licenses. there's 33 mil people in CA about the size of all of Canada. So did she really win the popular vote or just the most in the highest density 2 states, CA/NY. my response was about storm drain and people's selective moral outrage. you just hate Trump

First, I do hate Trump, I really really do, I think he’s a waste of oxygen on the planet, but I can still form a logical opinion based on facts.

Next, it's not wise you default to entirely unprovable premises like 'illegals voter registration when they get their drivers licenses' being responsible for swaying the popular vote results materially (edited to finish the thought, and to soften my tone because I was about to be rude).

If you think the voter roll purge is important, are you saying there's a mass wave of 'illegals' (and probably 'dems' too) currently stealing the identity of deceased or out-of-state Americans to unlawfully vote, risks of being apprehended for that and also being 'illegals' be damned? Otherwise, the voter roll is just the list of eligible voters - not the votes - and this would have no bearing on the last or any future elections. The indirect impact of the purge is to those who just made honest mistakes, and of course there have to be real situations with ill-intent, like 'illegals' using others' ID to be fair on this.

On the 33 million people in California as well, your implication is pretty clear: these are people of such poor moral character that you can count on an epidemic of them voting illegally because they can. You seem to think these cases are everywhere, but I really don't think that community is collectively void of character like that behaviour would require. Usually, people are just trying to get by.

I just want to understand where you're coming from. Am I missing something or do I have it wrong?

foodshop65 · March 2019

so just to be clear. the dems voted against illegals NOT being able to vote in our elections this week.

I just want to understand where you're coming from. Am I missing something or do I have it wrong?

josevolution · March 2019

foodshop65 said:

so just to be clear. the dems voted against illegals NOT being able to vote in our elections this week.
I just want to understand where you're coming from. Am I missing something or do I have it wrong?

lol who told you that Hannity keep being misinformed..

benjs · March 2019

foodshop65 said:

so just to be clear. the dems voted against illegals NOT being able to vote in our elections this week.
I just want to understand where you're coming from. Am I missing something or do I have it wrong?

You must be talking about the portion in the bill about automatically being opted into being a voter, as opposed to by default being opted out, and the ID requirements being too lax to fairly gauge that a person is an American citizen. How does that become “the dems voted against illegals NOT being able to vote in our elections (which, with a few less double negatives, could simply be written “the dems voted FOR illegals being able to vote in our elections”)”?

In addition, any authentically pro-democracy politician should take a proposal which attempts to get more people voting and say “let’s work this into something that expands our ability to engage our citizens in arguably their most important role, while still assuring that our election is securely and exclusively open to Americans”. Instead, you get McConnell saying this is DOA. No matter what belief system you come from, I find it disturbing that politicians are so openly combatting the pursuit of necessary improvements to democracy, and I find it more disturbing how few people seem to give a flying fuck.

Halifax2TheMax · March 2019

benjs said:

foodshop65 said:

so just to be clear. the dems voted against illegals NOT being able to vote in our elections this week.
I just want to understand where you're coming from. Am I missing something or do I have it wrong?

You must be talking about the portion in the bill about automatically being opted into being a voter, as opposed to by default being opted out, and the ID requirements being too lax to fairly gauge that a person is an American citizen. How does that become “the dems voted against illegals NOT being able to vote in our elections (which, with a few less double negatives, could simply be written “the dems voted FOR illegals being able to vote in our elections”)”?

In addition, any authentically pro-democracy politician should take a proposal which attempts to get more people voting and say “let’s work this into something that expands our ability to engage our citizens in arguably their most important role, while still assuring that our election is securely and exclusively open to Americans”. Instead, you get McConnell saying this is DOA. No matter what belief system you come from, I find it disturbing that politicians are so openly combatting the pursuit of necessary improvements to democracy, and I find it more disturbing how few people seem to give a flying fuck.

Particularly the Senate Majority Leader.

The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has been openly hostile to the anticorruption package since its inception. This week he made clear that he would refuse even to bring it up for a vote.

Think of H.R. 1 as the Merrick Garland of reform legislation.

Mr. McConnell called the bill the “Democrat Politician Protection Act” (and a “turkey”) and predicted that lawmakers who back it will suffer come re-election time. As political logic, this is questionable. If the Republican leader really thought the package was a loser, he would absolutely bring it to the floor to force Democratic lawmakers to own it — which is, notably, the path he has pledged to pursue with the Green New Deal, which is supported by many Democrats. The Green New Deal, an assortment of ideas for fighting climate change and remaking the economy, is even more sprawling and amorphous than the For the People Act. Mr. McConnell is panting to have members vote on it.

Asked this week why the two measures were being handled so differently, the Republican leader didn’t bother making up excuses. He said simply, “Because I get to decide what we vote on.”

This grade-school taunt masks a deep current of fear and loathing. Loathing, because Mr. McConnell is a longtime enemy of campaign finance reform. Killing such efforts can seem like his singular legislative passion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/opinion/mcconnell-hr1-democrats-ethics-voting-rights.html

brianlux · March 2019

benjs said:

foodshop65 said:

so just to be clear. the dems voted against illegals NOT being able to vote in our elections this week.
I just want to understand where you're coming from. Am I missing something or do I have it wrong?

You must be talking about the portion in the bill about automatically being opted into being a voter, as opposed to by default being opted out, and the ID requirements being too lax to fairly gauge that a person is an American citizen. How does that become “the dems voted against illegals NOT being able to vote in our elections (which, with a few less double negatives, could simply be written “the dems voted FOR illegals being able to vote in our elections”)”?

In addition, any authentically pro-democracy politician should take a proposal which attempts to get more people voting and say “let’s work this into something that expands our ability to engage our citizens in arguably their most important role, while still assuring that our election is securely and exclusively open to Americans”. Instead, you get McConnell saying this is DOA. No matter what belief system you come from, I find it disturbing that politicians are so openly combatting the pursuit of necessary improvements to democracy, and I find it more disturbing how few people seem to give a flying fuck.

Thank you, Ben! I was trying to figure out what the heck that statement meant.

And you are so right, expanding (let alone simply re-securing) democracy does not seem to be on a huge number of politicians agendas, especially (OK to say "no shit" here!) politicians on the right.

Halifax2TheMax · March 2019

brianlux said:

benjs said:

foodshop65 said:

so just to be clear. the dems voted against illegals NOT being able to vote in our elections this week.
I just want to understand where you're coming from. Am I missing something or do I have it wrong?

You must be talking about the portion in the bill about automatically being opted into being a voter, as opposed to by default being opted out, and the ID requirements being too lax to fairly gauge that a person is an American citizen. How does that become “the dems voted against illegals NOT being able to vote in our elections (which, with a few less double negatives, could simply be written “the dems voted FOR illegals being able to vote in our elections”)”?

In addition, any authentically pro-democracy politician should take a proposal which attempts to get more people voting and say “let’s work this into something that expands our ability to engage our citizens in arguably their most important role, while still assuring that our election is securely and exclusively open to Americans”. Instead, you get McConnell saying this is DOA. No matter what belief system you come from, I find it disturbing that politicians are so openly combatting the pursuit of necessary improvements to democracy, and I find it more disturbing how few people seem to give a flying fuck.

Thank you, Ben! I was trying to figure out what the heck that statement meant.

And you are so right, expanding (let alone simply re-securing) democracy does not seem to be on a huge number of politicians agendas, especially (OK to say "no shit" here!) politicians on the right.

All dem house members have it on their agenda. The repubs? Not so much.

foodshop65 · March 2019

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said the United States must not suppress the vote of newly arrived legal immigrants — including those foreign nationals who arrive en masse at the U.S.-Mexico border.

During a press conference in Austin, Texas this week, Pelosi admitted that the goal for the country’s mass illegal and legal immigration system is to ensure the more than 1.5 million new arrivals who come to the U.S. every year are on the voter rolls.

Pelosi added that it is immigrants, not American citizens, who make the nation “more American.”

When we talk about newcomers, we have to recognize the constant reinvigoration of America that they are, that we all have been – our families. And that, unless you’re blessed to be Native American – which is a blessing in itself that we respect – but that constant reinvigoration of hope, determination, optimism, courage, to make the future better for the next generation, those are American traits. [Emphasis added]

And these newcomers make America more American. And we want them, when they come here, to be fully part of our system. And that means not suppressing the vote of our newcomers to America. [Emphasis added]

Halifax2TheMax · March 2019

foodshop65 said:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said the United States must not suppress the vote of newly arrived legal immigrants — including those foreign nationals who arrive en masse at the U.S.-Mexico border.
During a press conference in Austin, Texas this week, Pelosi admitted that the goal for the country’s mass illegal and legal immigration system is to ensure the more than 1.5 million new arrivals who come to the U.S. every year are on the voter rolls.
Pelosi added that it is immigrants, not American citizens, who make the nation “more American.”
When we talk about newcomers, we have to recognize the constant reinvigoration of America that they are, that we all have been – our families. And that, unless you’re blessed to be Native American – which is a blessing in itself that we respect – but that constant reinvigoration of hope, determination, optimism, courage, to make the future better for the next generation, those are American traits. [Emphasis added]
And these newcomers make America more American. And we want them, when they come here, to be fully part of our system. And that means not suppressing the vote of our newcomers to America. [Emphasis added]

Why is this in this thread? Start a Nancy Pelosi thread. Source of the above?

josevolution · March 2019

foodshop65 said:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said the United States must not suppress the vote of newly arrived legal immigrants — including those foreign nationals who arrive en masse at the U.S.-Mexico border.
During a press conference in Austin, Texas this week, Pelosi admitted that the goal for the country’s mass illegal and legal immigration system is to ensure the more than 1.5 million new arrivals who come to the U.S. every year are on the voter rolls.
Pelosi added that it is immigrants, not American citizens, who make the nation “more American.”
When we talk about newcomers, we have to recognize the constant reinvigoration of America that they are, that we all have been – our families. And that, unless you’re blessed to be Native American – which is a blessing in itself that we respect – but that constant reinvigoration of hope, determination, optimism, courage, to make the future better for the next generation, those are American traits. [Emphasis added]
And these newcomers make America more American. And we want them, when they come here, to be fully part of our system. And that means not suppressing the vote of our newcomers to America. [Emphasis added]

Ugh dude you have to be an American citizen to vote and please post a link where she states that Immigrants who just crossed the border should be able to vote ..

Bentleyspop · March 2019

Halifax2TheMax said:

foodshop65 said:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said the United States must not suppress the vote of newly arrived legal immigrants — including those foreign nationals who arrive en masse at the U.S.-Mexico border.
During a press conference in Austin, Texas this week, Pelosi admitted that the goal for the country’s mass illegal and legal immigration system is to ensure the more than 1.5 million new arrivals who come to the U.S. every year are on the voter rolls.
Pelosi added that it is immigrants, not American citizens, who make the nation “more American.”
When we talk about newcomers, we have to recognize the constant reinvigoration of America that they are, that we all have been – our families. And that, unless you’re blessed to be Native American – which is a blessing in itself that we respect – but that constant reinvigoration of hope, determination, optimism, courage, to make the future better for the next generation, those are American traits. [Emphasis added]
And these newcomers make America more American. And we want them, when they come here, to be fully part of our system. And that means not suppressing the vote of our newcomers to America. [Emphasis added]

Why is this in this thread? Start a Nancy Pelosi thread. Source of the above?

I googled the first bolded section. Every result on the first page, except for Pelosi's own site, was from a right wing regressive conservative lying sack of shit source.

Here is what she said....

"So, when we talk about newcomers, we have to recognize the constant reinvigoration of America that they are, that we all have been, our families. Unless you are blessed to be Native American, which is a blessing in itself, which we respect. But that constant reinvigoration of hope, determination, optimism, courage to make the future better for the next generation – those are American traits – and these newcomers make America more American. And we want them, when they come here, to be fully part of our system and that means not suppressing the vote of our newcomers to America."

josevolution · March 2019

I bet foodshop would has no problem with all European illegals staying here and voting , people act like all immigration is from our southern borders ...

benjs · March 2019

foodshop65 said:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said the United States must not suppress the vote of newly arrived legal immigrants — including those foreign nationals who arrive en masse at the U.S.-Mexico border.
During a press conference in Austin, Texas this week, Pelosi admitted that the goal for the country’s mass illegal and legal immigration system is to ensure the more than 1.5 million new arrivals who come to the U.S. every year are on the voter rolls.
Pelosi added that it is immigrants, not American citizens, who make the nation “more American.”
When we talk about newcomers, we have to recognize the constant reinvigoration of America that they are, that we all have been – our families. And that, unless you’re blessed to be Native American – which is a blessing in itself that we respect – but that constant reinvigoration of hope, determination, optimism, courage, to make the future better for the next generation, those are American traits. [Emphasis added]
And these newcomers make America more American. And we want them, when they come here, to be fully part of our system. And that means not suppressing the vote of our newcomers to America. [Emphasis added]

First, if you've got nothing to hide, proudly share your source (Breitbart). Technically without it, what you did there is plagiarism. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/07/watch-nancy-pelosi-new-immigrants-must-not-have-their-votes-suppressed/

Next, for anyone who wants to watch the original source and gives two shits about context, here's the actual presentation. The soundbite being incorrectly represented as an endorsement for illegal voting occurs roughly 3 minutes from the end of the video, but I recommend starting a few minutes prior to that to understand where Pelosi is coming from. I apologize that this is a Facebook link, I apologize more that it's a Fox News video (though to their credit it's an uninterrupted broadcast of her speech), and I apologize most that anyone who watches will have to ignore the vile comments and shockingly off-base conclusions from Fox News viewers. Disclaimers out of the way, go ahead. https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/videos/255374345371894/

Finally, I agree with Pelosi with respect to ensuring votes aren't suppressed, and I feel that 'newcomers' should only include documented newcomers. I also feel pretty confident that she meant the same, and hope she explicitly confirms that to cut out this nonsense being spewed exclusively on right-wing media networks and spread by people who will spread first and validate second such as yourself.

Ultimately, I feel if you think the DNC-controlled Speaker of the House is foolish or anti-progressive enough to endorse undocumented immigrants receiving the right to vote, you're not thinking logically. What strategy would that serve?

EDIT: On the Breitbart link, there's an outright lie just underneath what foodshop quoted:
"The “newcomers” who should be fully able to participate in voting, Pelosi said, include the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and border crossers who arrive at the southern border every year." This was not said at all.

Halifax2TheMax · March 2019

benjs said:

foodshop65 said:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said the United States must not suppress the vote of newly arrived legal immigrants — including those foreign nationals who arrive en masse at the U.S.-Mexico border.
During a press conference in Austin, Texas this week, Pelosi admitted that the goal for the country’s mass illegal and legal immigration system is to ensure the more than 1.5 million new arrivals who come to the U.S. every year are on the voter rolls.
Pelosi added that it is immigrants, not American citizens, who make the nation “more American.”
When we talk about newcomers, we have to recognize the constant reinvigoration of America that they are, that we all have been – our families. And that, unless you’re blessed to be Native American – which is a blessing in itself that we respect – but that constant reinvigoration of hope, determination, optimism, courage, to make the future better for the next generation, those are American traits. [Emphasis added]
And these newcomers make America more American. And we want them, when they come here, to be fully part of our system. And that means not suppressing the vote of our newcomers to America. [Emphasis added]

First, if you've got nothing to hide, proudly share your source (Breitbart). Technically without it, what you did there is plagiarism. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/07/watch-nancy-pelosi-new-immigrants-must-not-have-their-votes-suppressed/

Next, for anyone who wants to watch the original source and gives two shits about context, here's the actual presentation. The soundbite being incorrectly represented as an endorsement for illegal voting occurs roughly 3 minutes from the end of the video, but I recommend starting a few minutes prior to that to understand where Pelosi is coming from. I apologize that this is a Facebook link, I apologize more that it's a Fox News video (though to their credit it's an uninterrupted broadcast of her speech), and I apologize most that anyone who watches will have to ignore the vile comments and shockingly off-base conclusions from Fox News viewers. Disclaimers out of the way, go ahead. https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/videos/255374345371894/

Finally, I agree with Pelosi with respect to ensuring votes aren't suppressed, and I feel that 'newcomers' should only include documented newcomers. I also feel pretty confident that she meant the same, and hope she explicitly confirms that to cut out this nonsense being spewed exclusively on right-wing media networks and spread by people who will spread first and validate second such as yourself.

Ultimately, I feel if you think the DNC-controlled Speaker of the House is foolish or anti-progressive enough to endorse undocumented immigrants receiving the right to vote, you're not thinking logically. What strategy would that serve?

EDIT: On the Breitbart link, there's an outright lie just underneath what foodshop quoted:
"The “newcomers” who should be fully able to participate in voting, Pelosi said, include the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and border crossers who arrive at the southern border every year." This was not said at all.

I figured it was what you stated or Putin on the ritz’s trolling so I googled it as well and came up with the same no basis in reality sources. Still nice to see someone go through the effort you did to discredit the poster. And I’m the sucker? ‘Murica, woot!

benjs · March 2019

Halifax2TheMax said:

benjs said:

foodshop65 said:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said the United States must not suppress the vote of newly arrived legal immigrants — including those foreign nationals who arrive en masse at the U.S.-Mexico border.
During a press conference in Austin, Texas this week, Pelosi admitted that the goal for the country’s mass illegal and legal immigration system is to ensure the more than 1.5 million new arrivals who come to the U.S. every year are on the voter rolls.
Pelosi added that it is immigrants, not American citizens, who make the nation “more American.”
When we talk about newcomers, we have to recognize the constant reinvigoration of America that they are, that we all have been – our families. And that, unless you’re blessed to be Native American – which is a blessing in itself that we respect – but that constant reinvigoration of hope, determination, optimism, courage, to make the future better for the next generation, those are American traits. [Emphasis added]
And these newcomers make America more American. And we want them, when they come here, to be fully part of our system. And that means not suppressing the vote of our newcomers to America. [Emphasis added]

First, if you've got nothing to hide, proudly share your source (Breitbart). Technically without it, what you did there is plagiarism. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/07/watch-nancy-pelosi-new-immigrants-must-not-have-their-votes-suppressed/

Next, for anyone who wants to watch the original source and gives two shits about context, here's the actual presentation. The soundbite being incorrectly represented as an endorsement for illegal voting occurs roughly 3 minutes from the end of the video, but I recommend starting a few minutes prior to that to understand where Pelosi is coming from. I apologize that this is a Facebook link, I apologize more that it's a Fox News video (though to their credit it's an uninterrupted broadcast of her speech), and I apologize most that anyone who watches will have to ignore the vile comments and shockingly off-base conclusions from Fox News viewers. Disclaimers out of the way, go ahead. https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/videos/255374345371894/

Finally, I agree with Pelosi with respect to ensuring votes aren't suppressed, and I feel that 'newcomers' should only include documented newcomers. I also feel pretty confident that she meant the same, and hope she explicitly confirms that to cut out this nonsense being spewed exclusively on right-wing media networks and spread by people who will spread first and validate second such as yourself.

Ultimately, I feel if you think the DNC-controlled Speaker of the House is foolish or anti-progressive enough to endorse undocumented immigrants receiving the right to vote, you're not thinking logically. What strategy would that serve?

EDIT: On the Breitbart link, there's an outright lie just underneath what foodshop quoted:
"The “newcomers” who should be fully able to participate in voting, Pelosi said, include the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and border crossers who arrive at the southern border every year." This was not said at all.

I figured it was what you stated or Putin on the ritz’s trolling so I googled it as well and came up with the same no basis in reality sources. Still nice to see someone go through the effort you did to discredit the poster. And I’m the sucker? ‘Murica, woot!

With respect to 'was it America or someone else', I think (or at least hope) it's both. If you watch some of that Facebook video, it actually shows the comments as they came in as they were live streamed, and I think it's likely that troll farms were posting at least some, possibly many of them. That said, I don't think the presence of a troll farm necessarily limits the nefarious act to Russia, and I suspect while we're all critical of them for that behaviour, I wouldn't be remotely surprised to see it from American lobbies and/or politicians either.

Regarding the effort - the sad thing was how little investigation it took. If foodshop had had any commitment to finding and sharing truths instead of sharing his preconceived viewpoints (and shaping evidence to fit his narrative), he'd have discovered these same realities in five minutes or less.

Knowing What You Know Now, Would You Still Support Trump for President?

Comments

Categories