I would be cool with not hearing about the Russia collusion until after Mueller releases his report in two years.

If the Mexico border were a straight, flat highway, and you were able to drive it non-stop at 60MPH it would take over 33 hours to traverse it.

Now factor in deserts, mountains, rivers and other waterways, a ton of private property, the extreme weather conditions, no running water, no electricity, no access roads over the vast majority of it, and also the fact the wall would end up having to run along extremely corrupt and criminal cities like Juarez.......

And you are ****ting on me for trying to inject some reality into the conversation?

I've done my homework guys. Ant's the dude trying to over-simplify and dumb down things to fit his narrative - not me.

Mexican border is 1,989 miles.

Boston to Chicago is 984 miles.

Dallas to Miami is 1,313 miles.

Paris to Rome is 883 miles.

Just think about the magnitude of what Trump and his enablers are trying to get you people to swallow.

1: you are not being shat on, your ideas are being challenged.
2: you definitely oversimplify things you don't agree with, much like Ant.
3: no one here thinks that your self-assigned homework assignments are reliable
4: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
5: injecting reality into the situation is very out of character for you. Your style has more of a self-aggrandizing parrot approach to it.

Bonus: I wish you actually understood the sides of people you were arguing against. If you look at my post I actually pointed out the outlandish cost of the wall as it is, which some might consider to be the same as agreeing with you on some level. Plus, DWV's post is not a statement on the abstract concept of the economic/pragmatic nature of wall itself, just that particular issue that you raised with it. There is a big difference. I guess that brings it back to number two.

So it's better to let do Russia whatever they want in future elections as opposed to putting something in place that might hold them to some level of accountability? Elphenor-logic...:thumb:

Neither you nor Chula seem to understand any of my actual positions on any given subject, so expecting you to do so now would be a long shot that would require you to give more than a few seconds of thought to whatever is being discussed.

Lots of fancy words and postulation Frowny.

I'm 100% certain you'll do the same with this response even though you have zero experience compared to me.

I've been doing mechanical engineering, product development, cost analyzing, and project management for over 3 decades.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/don-belanger-2375943/

What I'm doing is the absolute opposite of oversimplifying. I've been able to consider the Mexican wall in ways that you simply can't consider. Thirty years of experience in this game buys you that calling card. The idea is simply a disaster waiting to happen and will drain our economy for years if it ever gets green lighted.

I just want someone to look at me the way that Anteater looks at Trump.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/im...EeaQPZsR7X2NKg

And I try to avoid people who look at me like Chula looks at Trump.

https://s.yimg.com/iu/api/res/1.2/hn...c8b84c01ee.jpg

It's like a Renaissance painting.

I don't like Trump though. I just saw the reality from the beginning that he's a complex individual, even if its easier to pretend that he isn't in order to simplify the narrative. He doesn't play by either party's playbook where you think he would, which is why when you look at anything he does it has to be done on a case-by-case basis. I grew to dislike Obama after eight years, but I never thought of him as the Anti-christ.

Dude. We get that. That's not even the part of your post that was criticized. You brought up barren parts of the border as evidence of the inefficacy of making the wall solar. That's a fractional aspect of what the wall would cost to begin with and a flaw in your argument.

The wall is retarded. So is a solar wall. That idea is simple enough to put forward on its own without having to focus on things that marginally affect the issue, such as that very specific topic that was addressed in DWV's post do you understand what I'm getting at here or will I have to make this sentence run on forever because I'll do whatever it takes to help both of us reach a better understanding of the truth in a time where it's so unstable goddamn.

The funny part is that Kushner says so little that it's not certain of whether or not he's into Trump either. He's even kind of wincing in the photo (I like sad-looking girls).

He's pretty liberal so I doubt he loves Trump....least not the daddy lol...

Don't matter when you're making that $$$$.

trump is a child. a person not to take serious.

a joke, a laughing stock, an embarrassment to America

https://boxden.com/smilies/4gk3CmS.png

^ Posted on thread page # 666. Frownland is either observant or being controlled by spooky cosmic forces.

The ironic thing is that if Chelsea Clinton owned 666 5th Avenue and Hilary was president this would be less of a meme and more of an incontrovertible proof that the Clintons are in league with the devil. One shouldn't play by the same rules as these people but it's instructive to point out rank hypocrisy, no matter who's at fault.

I still think the single most egregious example is Mitch Mcconnell's 'Obamacare was made in the dark and rammed through Congress' rants while attempting to change 1/6th of the federal budget in a month. In a bill written by 13 men. Of one party. In secret. Thank goodness he wasn't able to gin-up enough votes to guarantee its passage. Still nervous he'll pull some von Bismarck-esque realpolitik though.

To Ant's continued defense of, if not Trump personally, the general positions his administration is taking, what policies are you happy about? You seem to be taking a contra-Chula/elphenor position more than a pro-Trump one. I respect the role of contrarian, and lord knows this thread is already echo chamber-y, but our country is led by a child. A child who thinks he's a king. A child who launches military action based on photos of a sad looking orphan, the same orphan who would be covered by our child-in-chief's travel... stoppage (unless there is an age exemption I'm not aware of). A child convinced of the malfeasance of his former political opponent, based on circumstantial evidence that seems fishy, while failing to realize THE EXACT SAME KIND OF EVIDENCE exists to implicate his campaign with untoward Russian state actors. A child who promulgated a race-baiting lie about the former's president's natural citizenship while loudly demanding evidence that he's 'MURICAN', when he simultaneously refused and continues to refuse to allow for an accounting of his assets and physical interests in countries he now interacts with as the leader of the American people.

I don't get what there is to be proud of. A solar powered wall? It's like he caught something on the Discovery Channel while trying to find FOXHD and decided it's now his administration's policy. We need STABLE leadership. We need CONSIDERED leadership. We have neither. So I ask again, what policies, pronouncements, projects, etc. are you happy about with respect to the Donald?

It was on page 666 so I sold my post as ad space to NYT :wave:.

Can you just time out the troublemakers so the rest of us can continue to have discussions? I get your concern, but it's kind of a hard thread to lock or topic to say can't be discussed on the forum.

Mitch McConnell is a stooge and needs to go back to the crypt they excavated him from.

In regards to the Trump administration, I'm glad he's cracking down on sanctuary cities and implementing policies in that field that actually work to enforce our immigration laws. His ongoing feud with the media has also proven fruitful in some unexpected ways as well, shining a light on the hypocrisies of both government and the massive media enterprises themselves. Maybe if things go particularly well in this arena we could see the death of CNN AND Fox News within the next eight years. :tramp:

Other than those things, I'm not any happier about this administration than I was about Obama. Especially with how they continue to bungle health care. But at the end of the day, I feel like we don't have a complete picture at the actual state of Trump's administration anyway because you have such an overwhelming degree of polarization (culturally) that forces the viewer/reader/listener to peel back more layers than usual if they want a complete picture of what's happening at any given time.

What a lot of Trump's independent base wanted when they memed him into office was someone who would trigger enough people to potentially shift the status quo and create enough disgust for both the conservative + liberal superelite that a serious candidate could get elected in 2020. But that strategy might end up backfiring if this is what we'll end up with:

https://pmctvline2.files.wordpress.c...-tom-hanks.jpg

I got personally attacked by at least two people for presenting a positive opinion about the solar border wall idea. Is that fair?

You forgot TPP.

While I agree with the concept for sanctuary cities (the actual concept, not the hyperbolized version that many present it as), they're unconstitutional because immigration is a federal issue. Arizona got **** for taking things into their own hands, the same logic ought to apply to sanctuary cities. Unless it makes it all the way to the Supreme Court and a new precedent of states (and by extension, cities) having freedom to make their own immigration laws.

I prefer not to ban people to be honest, and the people in question seemed to act just fine when the thread was locked, but I'll take your ban suggestion under consideration.

We approach the impact of illegal immigration differently, which is fine. I'll admit my bias when criticizing his actions on sanctuary cities, but it's mostly borne out of the Donald's demonstrable bias against people from Latin America (not to mention many of his voters - good lord, deplorable doesn't come close).

I fundamentally disagree with his media feud being a good thing. He's questioning the existence of journalistic integrity when facts/narratives don't align with his own. It's not only stupid, it's actively dangerous. CNN, for all its flaws, publishes retractions. Brietbart and its ideological kin, do not. Journalistic institutions are like every other institution, full of problems, but there for a reason. The resourcing, the internal and external accountability, the prestige gained, and lost, through thorough or shoddy reporting - these are all lacking in the new world of alt-right "journalism". For instance the "3 million illegals voted" story from this past November. I did a complete breakdown on an AV Club comment thread which I won't repeat here, but the gist was far-right publications were all quoting unsourced, or single source material, as fact - a cursory examination of where they got the info from showed just how much bull**** was being shoveled, but you won't get a "sorry, we overstated the problem" or "our source wasn't reliable" - it's right on to the next Pizzagate/Benghazi/'Russia is our best friend, who told you otherwise?' story.

(I can track down the details of my dissembling the 3 million illegal votes claim if you're interested)

So I'm less positive that we're seeing or approaching a glorious rebirth of truth and media ethics.

We have a bully in the White House and it looks like 30-40 million people, roughly half of Trump's voters, love it. The Paris Agreement and it's completely voluntary standards and contributions that were meant to foster knowledge sharing and a competitive spirit among developed countries? **** THAT, 'MURICA. I have yet to see one cogent argument, not built on a lie (like Trump's claims of forced payments, China being allowed to build 100s of coal plants but we're not - no forced payments, and we can build whatever the hell we want... seriously so tired of him selling his lies to millions and millions of people).

I'd rather have technocrats in office than whatever Trump, Bannon, Kuschner, Miller, etc. are. Yeah, bit frustrated today. But thanks for engaging constructively. I just don't know what you're basing your 'forest fire clearing away the detritus' argument on.

Don't ban me, bro!

My argument in regards to the "forest fire" idiom you mentioned is partly based on this little snippet from a Slate interview with Trump's biographer Michael Kranish.

Why Donald Trump is like this.

The part that I bolded there is the key. Trump is not a traditional politician who is driven by some consistent political ideology based around party lines. Simply by running, winning and doing what he's currently doing he's disrupting the status quo enough to inevitabliy bring about the kind of reform that people hoped for from, say, a candidate like Bernie Sanders, who was also supposed to be a "real" Democratic leader as opposed to what Obama represented. So, in a weird way, Trump is the first Independent to actually win the POTUS even if he didn't win under some third party banner. He won't make "America great again", but it will wake enough people up to where 2020 could bring about something amazing.

In regards to your comments on the media, I'm not disputing that the "alt right media" are seriously lacking in validity. At the same time however, you see EVERY conservative news source being demonized even if they actually have something interesting to point out. There's no room for diversity of thought in a media environment where the vast majority of big players are stacked up against the administration in a hostile manner, from subjects as massive as climate change to stupid garbage like "Trump gets two scoops of ice cream and guests only get one!111". Yeah Fox News aren't helping that situation, but in that case the liberal media should be the "adult" in this scenario and be the bigger man. But they aren't, and that's going to be the impetus to their eventual demise.

What we're seeing is more like a war between differing corporate agendas rather than a fight for the preservation of truth. There won't be a "glorious rebirth" of truth or media ethics, but you'll definitely see some key players in the mainstream media start to tank as ratings continue to fall because they are seen as obstructionist to Trump trying to make America a "safer" place or whatnot. But just remember: the media created Trump and put him where he is right now. And what's worse is, they can't put the genie back in the bottle. The more you look at it, the more inevitable our current situation seems to be.

Definitely. If there's anything that's dictatorial about Trump, it's branding everything negative about him as fake.

And though the alt-right specifically rose recently, there's just as much yellow journalism on the left RE: Buzzfeed, Gawker (they play both sides), etc.

I don't see a return to form coming for a while, at least not for the MSM. The truth doesn't sell nearly as much as pandering directly to your market. It's a lot easier to make a title that ignores the nuance of a situation by proclaiming it to be an imminent threat to all that exists and will ever exist, and it's a lot easier to get scared people to read hyped up headlines. It's all so ****ed.

It's a shame that the honest and unbiased sources of the alternative media are drowned out by fearmongerers and idiots.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8wGBOKS6SFE/hqdefault.jpg

https://68.media.tumblr.com/c045b0be...8164o1_500.gif

So was it Pizzagate that amped up the use of the term "fake news" recently or was there things that lead up to that?

He's referring to Donald Trump Jr. and the "Kremlin lawyer" who baited him with "compromising information about Hillary Clinton and her ties to Russia".

Where things get funny is that it turns out this lawyer worked for Fusion GPS....who happen to be the firm that the DNC colluded with to build the fake Trump dossier.

That explosion .gif is appropriate though: watching an argument self-destruct before it even starts is lulzy.

Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr linked to investigation group behind salacious Steele Dossier | The Independent

Uh, cool but I asked was it Pizzagate that amped up the use of the term "fake news" recently or were there things that lead up to that?

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote:
Good morning
Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.
What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.
Best
Rob Goldstone

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:
Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?
Best,
Don


Collusion 101.

It was the Fusion GPS / Christopher Steele dossier about the Russian hookers pissing on him that started the whole "you are fake news" position from the Trump administration.

Would you consider Trump and friends to be a reliable source? I don't. I'll wait for Mueller's report before making a verdict. Everything up until that point is just noise and potential distractions.

Not really directed at you btw, just rather annoyed with this story taking up such a huge priority in the media.

"According to a representative of Trump's legal team".

And? If that one little thing is correct, your entire narrative is jettisoned. Assuming you know their history in relation to the dossier. They also have ties to the people Jr. was corresponding with in the email.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...s-with-kremlin

That being said, Fusion GPS themselves are claiming ignorance here. But they are no more trustworthy than Trump's legal team I suppose, so this is a stalemate without more information.

Sorry about your annoyance, but this is a HUGE bombshell considering how long the Trump team have been proclaiming NO COLLUSION.

The leader of the Senate Intelligence Committee was making some pretty serious statements. And even a Trump spokesperson replied to a reporter, "My mind is blown!".

In July 2016 Trump Jr. said on camera that "we should bring back the electric chair for the reporters who were making false accusations about Russian involvement."

What do these emails (which may or may not be reliable) provide that is prosecutable? It seems that unless perjury or bribery is involved with this situation, collusion is legal. You could call it treason but that absolutely won't hold up in court let's be honest.

It's really not even about the Russian chick. It's about someone contacting Trump Jr. with the offer of information to hurt Clinton and help Trump Sr.

And instead of contacting the FBI, Trump Jrs. response is I'd LOVE that.

Read up on Federal Campaign Rules and Regulations.

Edit to Frown: Trump Jr. released the emails himself because he knew the NYTs had them as were about to release them. And foreign government collusion in a US election is illegal.

Oh **** did they give him money? Or do you mean something else? Be more clear please.

I'm still wary of its reliability tbh. Could be kompromot.

A former Federal Prosecutor summed it up really well a while ago. The rules read "money or other things of value that can influence a campaign". Information to damage your opponent, and aid you, is a thing of value.

And Junior already acknowledged the emails are legit. His defense is that "nothing really came of the meeting, is was basically gibberish".

The Prosecutor used the analogy that "just because you break into a bank and find out there's no money, doesn't absolve you of a crime".