Joe does not look like he has a fake tan, and I think his hair is real.
Joe does not look like he has a fake tan, and I think his hair is real.
It is funny how liberals are all for protecting certain "women" from "Microagressions" from the GOP, but dish out the most vile comments when it suits them. Would they call Hillary half the names they've called Hillary?
They're trolls, not liberals. Well, there can be a certain amount of overlap, but they are explicitly posting most of that crap for the sole reason that it is inflammatory.
I'm waiting to hear your stunning takedown of his accurate points.
She thinks that Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and the Emirates are our allies, while Russia is an adversary. She's still locked in a time warp in the 80s,
I... what? Are you saying Russia is not an adversary? If Carly is locked in the 80s, then that's pre-Putin thinking there. Russia IS an adversary, in no small part because Putin has tried to bring Russia back into a more cold-war power balance, with Russia exerting its influence over Eastern Europe, by force if necessary.
I'd agree with Saudi Arabia, they are "in name only" allies. Turkey, Qatar, and the Emirates are US allies, at least compared to all the other non-Jordanian countries in that section of the world.
She's trended above 5% before, which is why she was in the major debates, as opposed to the under-card. She hasn't polled high enough to be in the last few debates, which is what's happening to Carson now as well.
Censorship is about removing information upon order of a government. This does not happen here at all. "Right to be forgotten" only obliges databases indexers to remove things, not the original websites. And it's not the government who asks for it, it's the very person mentioned in the case.
If a law requires it, and a law enforces it, then it is government censorship. It doesn't matter if the request comes on behalf of a private individual.
You're kidding, right? I'm starting to think the whole network is run by the Democrats, as spelled out on the NoAgendaShow. Bush and Rubio are the only guys those jerks ever promote. They're firmly establishment, and spend as much time bashing Trump and Cruz as they do Bernie Sanders.
Fox did a great job radicalizing the base, until they elected guys who couldn't be as easily controlled. Trump isn't beholden to them, so they're not fond of him. Carson never had much going on. Cruz is hated by just about everyone, for many good reasons. Rand Paul is too Libertarian for a corporate power like Fox to be too wild about. That leaves Bush and Rubio, maybe Christie, who they'll support as long as they don't make the same mistakes against conservatism that GWB did.
Being able to win the Republican primary and being able to beat the Democrats in the general election are two very different things. Ironically, being better at the first these days means you're worse at the second.
Lack of voter participation in the primaries really matters. You have to appeal to the extremes in a primary because they're the ones who turn out. Then for a general election, you have to shift more towards the middle, or at least appear to.
He wants to have america have a "spiritual rebirth" and he's making Bushlike pronouncements from aircraft carriers.
Are you sure you're not confusing Rand Paul with Ted Cruz? Sure, Paul gave a campaign speech on an aircraft carrier to make himself look tough, but Cruz is the Dominionist here talking about spiritual rebirths.
The best thing about Sanders's economic policy is that it's utterly fantastic, impossible thinking, entirely ungrounded in reality. Which means Congress won't go for it unless it's a Democrat majority, so that's a NOOP.
Oh. Uhhhh.. huh. That's actually an interesting way of looking at it. Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders might be the best candidate for the Libertarians, because he's aligned more with that crowd on the only issues that as President he would have much chance of enforcing.
I have the feeling that this is too simple of an outlook, as a president has a lot of ways of getting things done outside of Congress. And if somehow the Democrats got congressional control back in '16 or '18 (stranger things have happened) then the plan REALLY backfires.
Won't happen. One word: China.
Why do you think China would care if the US counterattacks after a NK attack? China doesn't want NK refugees or any fallout entering China. That's pretty much what they care about. China and NK aren't exactly "friends."
If NK attacked the US with nuclear weapons, there is nothing that would stop us from responding in kind. If whomever was President at the time didn't have the balls to counter attack, they'd likely be impeached until someone who would was in office.
There will be retaliation, it just won't be nuclear. Whatever we might think of US military leadership, they're not that stupid, and firing nukes at NK would be a pretty stupid action.
The US is perfectly capable of taking out North Korea completely through conventional means. If NK launched a nuke, the US would probably be joined by China. Not responding with a nuke would give the US a high moral ground of the sort it hasn't had since World War II (or maybe Afghanistan). The US's allies in the region would hate the US dropping one on NK, since dropping a nuke is like peeing in a public pool; fallout won't just stop at the border. Nuclear weapons are flashy, but they're not exactly practical or desirable from the US's perspective.
This is a poor analysis. The DPRK would quickly lose any conventional war with the US/SK, but they are much stronger than Iraq, and have the ability to inflict massive casualties. Within the first hour of war, literally millions of people would be killed in Seoul, as it is within artillery range of the DMZ. And does the North Korean government know this? Absolutely, and they have thousands of bunkers right along the border, ready to rain death on Seoul.
I like to think that the US has been paying very close attention to the situation in Israel, not just for the obvious reasons, but as a testbed for the practicality of a "shield" system capable of destroying incoming rockets. Conventional wisdom 15 years ago was that at the time such systems just weren't functional, but the Iron Dome has been pretty successful in the last five years. Expect to see something similar on the Korean border, capable to taking out any nuclear-armed missile. Seoul can only be a smoldering hole if the payload can actually get there.
I think it's a just a good reason why a lot of reasonable people don't want to browse the site below the threshold of 1 (or 0). Too many dickweeds who think their trolling says something.
Though I'd love a setting where replies to -1 threads get filtered out as well. I've seen, over the decades, that trolls can be easy to ignore. A less-easily-solved problem is the people who feed them and keep their trolling efforts alive.
Do you have any way to actually counter his arguments other than loudly yelling nonsense?
A meeting is an event at which the minutes are kept and the hours are lost.