Who Do You Blame (The MOST) for 2016?

With_David_Bowie said:

Yours wasnt, why should mine? You can answer the question perfectly, surely.

Click to expand...

Your remake of the question is based upon a faulty premise that Republicans are equally as vocal and incensed as as the Democrats are when it comes to the great red menace that gave us Trump.

Get back to me when you can actually ask a serious question.

SpeareChucker said:

Your remake of the question is based upon a faulty premise that Republicans are equally as vocal and incensed as as the Democrats are when it comes to the great red menace that gave us Trump.

Get back to me when you can actually ask a serious question.

Click to expand...

Didn’t we just see something similar on another thread?

They all look alike to me.


I'm a wordist...

SpeareChucker said:

Your remake of the question is based upon a faulty premise that Republicans are equally as vocal and incensed as as the Democrats are when it comes to the great red menace that gave us Trump.

Get back to me when you can actually ask a serious question.

Click to expand...

Call me a four year old child.

WHY is it a faulty premise?

Learn to read.

Democrats are still convinced of Trump collusion.
Republicans are not convinced of Russian collusion.

On the other hand, Bernie is a big fan of Russia,
so if Democrats still have misgivings about Trump
perhaps they should also have misgivings about Bernie.

I was plain-spoken and clear from the first post whereas
you are obfuscating and trying to create a false equivalency.

Are you now going to try and pretend that that word confuses you greatly too?

SpeareChucker said:

Think about it.
Propaganda only works on those receptive to the message.
It's a lot like advertising. This poster has been gaga over Russian ads, on several occasions even being willing to inflate their numbers and import. There for a while the claim was millions of dollars a day, every day, of Russians changing the hearts and minds of people and causing them to elect Trump. All of this is ridiculous on the face of it unless you really and truly believe that you did not one thing wrong and had the election stolen from you by a con-artist in the deep pockets of a cadre of Russian Oligarchs and their agents.
It's a lot easier to believe that Hillary was done in by misogyny, the patriarchy and the Russians than it is to admit that she made mistakes in calculation and lacked the charisma, and hence the ability, to rally people to her vision of America (a deeply flawed place with far too many deplorables).

Click to expand...

It's equally as true to say propaganda works on those of weak mental capability.

Originally we had the propaganda that Trump is a Russian agent. Now we have a fact finding report which unequivocally says that "no American" helped the Russians.

Yet we still have the weak minded who insist that that's incorrect. Because Facebook ads.

Which naturally lead one to the position that if "no American" helped Russia, yet the hoax deniers insist that Trump did, then that means the report is wrong. As proof they cite that there were ad buys by Russia.

So, if that's the case that American's DID help Russia, how come we aren't pointing fingers at Zuckerberg? He's an American, right? And his company allowed the Russians to advertise on it's platform.

So, where are the howls of outrage against that? Shouldn't Zuckerberg legitimately be the bad guy here? After all, there is PROOF he "helped" the Russians.

What's worse, is that the weak minded should be behind Trump on this. After all, he's the victim here of Zuckerberg allowing the Russians to interfere. They're all about supporting the victims of oppression so where is their support for Trump against the evil corporate empire controlled by, and in bed with, the Russians?

Rightguide said:

~Yawn~

Looks like Harpy is kicking nut sacks into earrings again. Guess I'll have a cup of coffee out on the deck and check for survivors later.

Click to expand...

They've made everything here personal. They take every word personally as an affront against their "manliness". Even if they have to twist the hell out of those words to do it, that's what they do. And then they insert meaningless deflections, and assorted threats, as an attempt to show that somehow they're ARE still "manly enough".

It's pathetic. Really.

cowslinger64 said:

Try NOT thinking, for once. It's not doing you ANY good, mr birther.


The birther movement is now targeting Chief Justice John Roberts for impeachment if he swears in President Barack Obama for a second term later this month.

Craige McMillan, a columnist for the conservative publication WND.com, wrote a piece last week asking Roberts to not swear Obama in, because, according to McMillan, Obama does not meet the Constitution’s definition of a natural born citizen. In the piece, McMillan claims that Obama is not a citizen because his father was a citizen of Kenya and the United Kingdom, and that Obama cannot be “a natural born citizen” because his father was not an American citizen. Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was born and raised in Kansas by parents who were born in Kansas.

------------------

So uber right wing Chief Justice is in on the shenanigans.. and timmy is right there too.


Birthers, biggest idiots on the planet.

Kansas... biggest state in Kenya.

Click to expand...

I say also Obama is not eligible to be sworn in as POTUS, but that's because he has already completed two terms and is termed out. Regardless of what the Clinton campaign was claiming in 2008, I believe Obama was born in the USA.

Do you have a citation for this? I find it very hard to believe that anybody would say such a thing now.

ETA: Here is a citation, but it is from Jan. 2013, shortly before Obama was sworn into office to begin his second term: https://www.datalounge.com/thread/1...sperate-push-to-keep-obama-from-taking-office

That is funny. Post after post talking about how well propaganda works because I posted an article to prove Box wrong that mentioned how much propaganda the Russians were peddling.

Boxlicker101 said:

I say also Obama is not eligible to be sworn in as POTUS, but that's because he has already completed two terms and is termed out. Regardless of what the Clinton campaign was claiming in 2008, I believe Obama was born in the USA.

Do you have a citation for this? I find it very hard to believe that anybody would say such a thing now.

ETA: Here is a citation, but it is fro Jan. 2013, shortly before Obama was sworn into office to begin his second term: https://www.datalounge.com/thread/1...sperate-push-to-keep-obama-from-taking-office

Click to expand...

The issue that 'slinger has is that he doesn't understand nuance.

I have a problem with Obama's "Birth Certificate". It's a technical one; his "Birth Certificate" isn't a "BIRTH CERTIFICATE" it's a "Certificate of Live Birth" and was created several days after his birth.

Even someone as simple minded as 'slinger should be able to count and compare the number of letters and see that they don't match.

From there my argument was that I don't have a "Birth Certificate" either. I have a "Certificate of Birth Registration" (again, the number of letters doesn't match). My personal certificate actually SAYS on the back that it's not a "Birth Certificate" and that the "original is on file" at the applicable municipal archive.

I tried to obtain a copy of the "original" which is "on file" and all I received was a certified copy of my "Certificate of Birth Registration". The same document I already have.

It's still not a "Birth Certificate" it's a document which officially says there's a birth certificate "on file". Obama's certificate is, in my mind, the same. Others disagree and point to their own documents as evidence that a "Certificate of Live Birth" is a "Birth Certificate".

In their minds they are correct. However, they still can't seem to do something as simple as count the number of letters to see if they match.

Aglaopheme said:

That is funny. Post after post talking about how well propaganda works because I posted an article to prove Box wrong that mentioned how much propaganda the Russians were peddling.

Click to expand...

dudly, the point of the discussion is about whether your post was true or not. So, pat yourself on the back that you gave us something to talk about instead of trying to make it seem as if talking about stuff is meaningless.

Because if talking about stuff is meaningless, why are you here?

Not for your meaningless Trump propaganda you espouse to nth degree in every thread.

HisArpy said:

The issue that 'slinger has is that he doesn't understand nuance.

I have a problem with Obama's "Birth Certificate". It's a technical one; his "Birth Certificate" isn't a "BIRTH CERTIFICATE" it's a "Certificate of Live Birth" and was created several days after his birth.

Click to expand...

The problem with Obama's birth certificate controversy is the simple fact that the certificate posted electronically on the WH website was proven by several experts and entities, to be an electronic forgery. This doesn't prove he isn't a citizen, or that he wasn't born in the US. It only proves the version posted online was, and is, a demonstrable forgery. Obama could have ended the question by handing over his real long form birth certificate, he chose not to do so.

Did you get that teenager's birth certificate when you paid her in canned goods, Vetteski?

spacekowboy said:

Did you get that teenager's birth certificate when you paid her in canned goods, Vetteski?

Click to expand...

The perfect example of what I was saying here:
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=90801210&postcount=158

Rightguide said:

The problem with Obama's birth certificate controversy is the simple fact that the certificate posted electronically on the WH website was proven by several experts and entities, to be an electronic forgery. This doesn't prove he isn't a citizen, or that he wasn't born in the US. It only proves the version posted online was, and is, a demonstrable forgery. Obama could have ended the question by handing over his real long form birth certificate, he chose not to do so.

Click to expand...

Whether it was or wasn't isn't my point. What those like 'slinger want to do is ascribe the talking points of others as mine and then label me with that falsity. MY position is simple: It's NOT a "birth certificate". It may be socially equivalent to that for some people, but it's NOT a "Birth Certificate".

Rightguide said:

The problem with Obama's birth certificate controversy is the simple fact that the certificate posted electronically on the WH website was proven by several experts and entities, to be an electronic forgery. This doesn't prove he isn't a citizen, or that he wasn't born in the US. It only proves the version posted online was, and is, a demonstrable forgery. Obama could have ended the question by handing over his real long form birth certificate, he chose not to do so.

Click to expand...

He didn't have to show it. It's no one's business. He didn't break any law

LincolnDuncan said:

He didn't have to show it. It's no one's business. He didn't break any law

Click to expand...

The LEGAL challenge to his eligibility based on a claim that he is not a natural born citizen required that Obama PROVE he was eligible to assume the Office of President of the United States in all aspects necessitated by the Constitution.

So, dudly, contrary to your illogical thinking he DID have to "show it". Failure to do so would have meant he'd lose the lawsuit filed against him. Which would result in an OFFICIAL declaratory judgement that he is not a natural born US citizen and thus ineligible.

LincolnDuncan said:

He didn't have to show it. It's no one's business. He didn't break any law

Click to expand...

Actually, I believe he and any other candidate for POTUS are required to prove they are eligible for the office. Usually, this is done through documentation, including a birth certificate. In the case of Obama, I believe he proved it through birth announcements and other items in the newspapers in Honolulu, thus frustrating Hillary Clinton and her minions, who were claiming otherwise.

Article II of the Constitution establishes the requirements for the office. There is no specific mention of proof required and, as far as I know, nobody else has ever been challenged before. Apparently, Hillary was the first to ever make a issue of it.

LincolnDuncan said:

He didn't have to show it. It's no one's business. He didn't break any law

Click to expand...

Oh look...Lincoln shows us how little he knows about the USA again.

Shocking.

I knew that would set you guys off

HisArpy said:

The issue that 'slinger has is that he doesn't understand nuance.

I have a problem with Obama's "Birth Certificate". It's a technical one; his "Birth Certificate" isn't a "BIRTH CERTIFICATE" it's a "Certificate of Live Birth" and was created several days after his birth.

Even someone as simple minded as 'slinger should be able to count and compare the number of letters and see that they don't match.

From there my argument was that I don't have a "Birth Certificate" either. I have a "Certificate of Birth Registration" (again, the number of letters doesn't match). My personal certificate actually SAYS on the back that it's not a "Birth Certificate" and that the "original is on file" at the applicable municipal archive.

I tried to obtain a copy of the "original" which is "on file" and all I received was a certified copy of my "Certificate of Birth Registration". The same document I already have.

It's still not a "Birth Certificate" it's a document which officially says there's a birth certificate "on file". Obama's certificate is, in my mind, the same. Others disagree and point to their own documents as evidence that a "Certificate of Live Birth" is a "Birth Certificate".

In their minds they are correct. However, they still can't seem to do something as simple as count the number of letters to see if they match.

Click to expand...

I understand that you're a fucking idiot. Is that nuance enough for you?

You failed miserably last time you tried to make a point. If you wanna play silly semantics, go ahead. You're a birther, just like the other right wing nut jobs.


Hawaii Department of Home Lands

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

That's actually a misnomer, said Lloyd Yonenaka, a spokesman for DHLL. In order to be eligible for their program, you must prove that your ancestry is at least 50 percent native Hawaiian. And when he says native, he means indigenous. They don't even care if you were born in Hawaii. They use birth certificates as a starting point to look into a person's ancestry. Very different.

Here's what the DHLL site says now: "The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth."

When we spoke to a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, she said too much was being made of the difference between the so-called "long" and "short" forms.

"They're just words," said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. "That (what was posted on the Internet) is considered a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii."

"There's only one form of birth certificate," she said, and it's been the same since the 1980s. Birth certificates evolve over the decades, she said, and there are no doubt differences between the way birth certificates looked when Obama was born and now.

"When you request a birth certificate, the one you get looks exactly like the one posted on his site," she said. "That's the birth certificate."

As for the theory that Obama's original birth certificate might show he was foreign-born, Okubo said the "Certification of Live Birth" would say so. Obama's does not. Again, it says he was born in Honolulu.

LincolnDuncan said:

He didn't have to show it. It's no one's business. He didn't break any law

Click to expand...

Who said he broke the law?

HisArpy said:

Whether it was or wasn't isn't my point. What those like 'slinger want to do is ascribe the talking points of others as mine and then label me with that falsity. MY position is simple: It's NOT a "birth certificate". It may be socially equivalent to that for some people, but it's NOT a "Birth Certificate".

Click to expand...

You're a birther, timmy. Be a man about it, at least. You had MULTIPLE opportunities to deny it before. But didn't.

Hilary...LMAO!