Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Yes, Trump is Technically Kinda Sorta not Fully Impeached Yet" video.
-
4
-
People who took civics classes back in the day, were a lot better at assimilating information and making informed decisions about voting
That's ironic, considering your last statement, before...what was it...I'm blah blah not smart, yada yada...ok. But yeah...I never said anything opposing the statement quoted above [in bold]. In fact, I think civics not being taught in school is stupid. Next idiotic line of reasoning....
As far as your second comment, it really did not address what you think it did. It was just a bunch of nonsense, worded in a way that made you feel smart
I'm sure this comment is enough to evince for some people "how wrong I am" but could you actually suss for me how wrong I am by telling me where I was wrong? please?
People vote Democrat now days because they are not taught civics or economics on a way that they can understand that free stuff isn't free
Says you. That substantially gormless platitude of "dey don't know things aren't free" is a real non-sequitur. They know things aren't free, they simply don't care about taxes being too high, if they're told "it's for a good cause", I think that, maybe, could be a better sussing and argument for your position, but alas, I don't know why I'm helping you out. I mean, everyone is told what they are doing is for a good cause. You can simply look at religion for an example: who's right, the protestants or the catholics? see, you can't really tell me, can you? But the question is, who is more right in their assessment of what dictates should be followed in regards the education of a voting block, when they disagree on what money should be spent on and [what it] should not be spent on.
Add to that the "everything I disagree with is racist" aspect to modern public education, and many young voters don't have a clue. That's the point
That's it? You "added" at the last framing of your argumentation "the point". I don't think so, but sure, if you say so...a great lead-on. But alas, sure...no one said the "everything is racist" delusion was correct in anyway. But...I never said it was. I never mentioned it. Can you actually address what I said, with your "tall-order" and "reasoned" speeches, here?
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
Funny how you talk about "tall speaches" that's all you have really. You never seem to have a point, and you obviously can't read
I am asking you to continue, and that's funny? I don't see how. So you aren't going to give me a tall-order argument that shatters my own and is insuperable? I eagerly await your spectacular attempt.
I said "I don't think that you are as smart as you think you are." And you said that I said you were not smart. Obviously your fragile feelings were hurt because you seem to have lost your grip on what the conversation was about
I don't think so...get to the point.
But to your off topic question about religion, neither Catholicism nor protestantism are correct. Both are money making entities and have corrupted christianity in order to keep parishioners and make money
Correct. And that'll keep happening. So you still haven't evinced how I was wrong...I'm still waiting.
As to your nonsense about people "not caring that taxes will go up as long as they think the money is going where they want it to" (yes paraphrasing) you must not know any poor Democrats, because they think that only rich people will be taxed, and those people have enough money to pay for all their "free" stuff
No, they think that everyone will be taxed, and they don't give a shit. The ones who don't understand that are the sum few who are so abject that they are akin to the rural voter who simply thinks "if I vote republican they'll help me out, over here", which is not really the case. Trump was a good fit, but he's not pulling hard enough to really get anyone out of the spot they [as spread out across several states] are in. But that's neither here nor there; idiots will exist on both sides of the political aisle, and one doesn't care about taxes because they are comfortable in their metropolitan upbringing [or they are just parrots peddling for someone else], while the other doesn't care that they are constantly being hoodwinked by corporations at the benefit of a few. Trump is highlighting things that people simply aren't even willing to address, in full. Jobs are still going overseas, and this is a conflation of the two sides of the aisle into one conglomeration of an ideal: economic security. But what is also highlighted is the notion of "what's fair". Well, it's well known, and insuperably fact, that the US has led theaters of operations well out of their purview for a "fair" conception of what nations are "at liberty to do"; which has tended to have some good results for the world-at-large, but has led to the instance [like in England] of a substantial flow of immigration, hasn't it? yes, it has. Thatcherism or no, Trumpism, or no, they keep coming, and people, heads of agriculture, construction companies, etc., continue to hire illegal immigrants, at the behest of the shareholders of these groups gaining a greater profit.
Your arrogance and obvious youth, combined with your perception that all Democrats are college educated, give you away there
shakes head No, I never said anything about them "being collage educated", you are just pulling random things out of your ass, at this point. I don't approve of the Democrats, they are slimy; that's another thing, you keep insinuating I value the Democrats...I don't.
You suffer from typical college educated ignorance, you don't listen to people who know, you just believe your ideology that you've been indoctrinated with since you were a little kid
LOL, no. I quit school a long time ago.
My kids are all college educated but they were taught at a young age to think critically and question everything they were told. That's why they are conservative, because it is a way of thinking that works
You are making a lot of presumptions but this one is the greatest one. "That's how thinking works". You have the skinny on how thinking works? please, send your genius kids to the neurosciences department at the Mayo Clinic. Stat. You see, I'm being glib, because you almost don't deserve a response...I'm glad for your kids, but you are assuming everyone else has dumb kids who are just indoctrinated [derr] when that's sorta like saying that you know how everyone raises their kids, and that that is not indoctrination, when it clearly is a form of indoctrination ["let me tell you, what they'll teach you at school is tainted because they lie, and they are wrong, they don't know or don't want to know how thinking works but I'll tell you like my daddy told me...." - an example of indoctrination], and you clearly don't know how other parents taught their kids. You also presume that literally entire blocks of political struggle are just teaching their kids that "everything is free, go wild", when at once sending them to school to learn, to get a degree, to earn a living, because...OBVIOUSLY NOTHING IS FREE. You're just making this line up because you are being a parrot.
I studied history for more than 40 years, so my kids were privy to economic and government systems that work and those that do not. It's no coincidence that as civics, history, and economics have been removed from the education system, more people have turned toward the Democrats and socialism
Yes, as both the left-wing and right-wing in government continue to flood immigrants into your workforce, the notions of civics turns into social studies—and that of history and economics hasn't went away, and you're making that line up. But I digress—did you learn about Christian socialism? Charles Fourier? Hmm? Catholic distributism? I'm sure the Protestant work ethic ingrained in American society is so glorious as to be found in such a state that, now, money is worth more than the culture who aches for release....Fun times thanks to these people. Oh but...you don't really like to talk about that history, huh? just the contemporary history of the fin de siècle era, when socialists were given a push by soviet communism, and the social democrats in Germany fought the communists, and the Freikorps? want to get into when the capitalists bought off anarchists in the mining days, for insurance claims on their effectively blown-up mines? Do you want to get into any history that isn't biased in one perception favoring another?
People who think for themselves tend to do for themselves, instead of relying on government to do for them
The history of both the left-wing and the right-wing in America shews otherwise.
1
-
You are wrong because you said I couldn't answer that question, which I did, so now you're pulling the customary left wing bs of not acknowledging when you were wrong
No. You're still wrong, even right here. I asked you if you could tell me who was more correct. You amiably said "neither are correct", which was the correct answer. I didn't say you couldn't give the right answer. And then I said that you wouldn't be able to prove my point wrong: that you couldn't tell me who is more right in their assessment of what money should be spent on and [what it] should not be spent on — which is true, you haven't.
That speaks to your integrity
You're reaching.
As for the rest of your nonsense, I discovered long ago that people like you, whose ideology is like a religion, and you can't accept either the fallacy of that ideology, nor accept when you're wrong, it is pointless to attempt to converse with people like that
The ironic thing is you don't know what my ideology is, you're just assuming what it is, because that's what you parrots do. "You're a Dem, a communist, a leftist...", uhhh no...I'm not any of those things. Can you address what I'm saying, and confute it as 'wrong', or not?
So in conclusion, civics, history and economics should be taught in school in a non biased way so that people can make informed decisions about voting. You have provided no counter argument to that which can stand up to scrutiny
I didn't even disagree with those notions, nor did I even postulate any argument regarding them. You just invented this line that you and I have shared discourse on the subject by way of me bringing it up—at least that's what you are insinuating—but you brought it up, first...I didn't. I never even mentioned that "civics is x in schools"—all I mentioned was that the "reasoning" that "if you teach civics in school, Democrats would never get elected" is a foolish indication of the lack of reasoning; clearly [because civics were taught in schools in the past...when Democrats were indeed elected], and indicatively by way of fallacious "reasoning".
I know what poor Democrats think, the current economy is changing voters from Democrat to Republican because people with jobs tend to learn real lessons about the reality of taxes, social programs, and what kind of information put out by schools and the media
So you're a mindreader now? ok. Well, if the "current economy is changing voters (???) from Democrats to Republican, you've got some major concessions on the way, hopefully. Right? And yes, yes, platitudes and tergiversation about "right-wing people would never induce taxes on others...right-wing people would never engender the use of social programs [501(c)(4)s social welfare non-profits, tax-exempt, like Crossroads GPS, the organization co-founded by Karl Rove and its sister group American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS, all their spending done on behalf of Republican donations and influence],...right wing people would never put out mis- or disinformation in schools or the media ["WMDs in Iraq...."], no, we are good boys, never do nuffin' wrong".
Many say they would have voted accordingly if they hadn't been lied to for so many years
Dupes.
People believe what they were taught to believe, if that belief is wrong, or based on falsehoods, and reality is different than what they are taught, they change their way of thinking
No one is saying "Democrats are right". You've been brainwashed your whole life...the American dream is a lie. But you really believed it, and that sorta goes to your point, doesn't it? So, in the 60s, the boom time in the American dream, that is, after the 20s, the roaring twenties, remember? before the Great Depression. Then you got the 50s, economy is starting to really look up, 60s, booming...hence the BOOMERS, remember? lots of money, lots of families...what happened there? were there no Republican presidents in this time-frame? Actually, it's more Republicans by a total of 'two'.
You were hoodwinked by both parties.
It's not rocket science
You could say that again.
If what they were taught was based on facts, they will continue believe in what works
That is a ludicrous oversimplification. Mussolini and Hitler's "facts" "worked" too. Does that mean they were right? You tell me. And also, you could say, "meh, it didn't work". Fair enough: did American Republicanism continue to work thru thick and thin [an idiom where I mean 'thru all odds stacked against them']? Nope. Because ideas evolve, and as the technology advances, communications tech, especially, the consolidation of economic powers fall in to smaller hands, as industry advances take on new forms whereby the expansion of the state is unbounded and, as mentioned earlier, when immigration flows in [which all parties have been privy to, in their avarice, the ailments of the rural and those who are so inclined to denigrate on such bases that their ailments go unnoticed], which it does regardless of what party is in charge, thru contemporary history, you see economies soar, which is why it [this SOP] was allowed to persist thru-and-thru, Democrat or Republican alike, because it was big business. You missed the fucking memo, ie., the actual historical data.
it's why Democrats are panicking in the US today
They are panicking because they are the most open about their expansive propensities, whereas the Republican party only expand into territory when there is a market for it, or when they can create one [cf. Iraq War, Libya...].
Food stamps, Medicaid, and all that other "free" stuff makes you less free
Tell that to the elderly. You know, you're one of the most ironic people. So, you gonna enjoy that retirement when you are ready to start keeling over? You think maybe you'd pay into something for your kids, one day they're gonna need a home, and the market isn't getting any cheaper, maybe you should will them something for their future mortgage payments, then securities-backed currencies can continue to skyrocket, and they'll be working for big American steel or maybe even big tech, and then, you can tell them how much the old bastards out there don't really need any of that Medicaid, if they get stricken with dementia, or are bed-ridden with some other ailment...pfft, who needs to deal with the elderly, the government? pffft....NO, they need to be dealt with by their children. So hopefully yours are as hypocritical as you are, and they help you out, if you get stricken with something yourself, or even if you don't, that's grand, because you've helped pay for their mortgage, and the central banks of the world international love you for it, either way you spin it. Then more immigrants come...you catch my drift.
1
-
I'm too tired to respond in full, but for now..."edit what I said about religion" nothing...lol, you're clearly confused, or just making that up. I don't operate by "editing" things that I think will change my arguments. Not even. So good try.
Anyway, as I said before it is pointless to converse with someone like you
No, that's you. You are impossible to "converse" with. You haven't addressed a single solitary thing that's been argued, and you can only come up with non-substantiated claims of me "editing" things [which is a farce, truly].
And the fact that you changed your comment to hide the "I bet you can't" shows the voracity of all your comments
What the fuck are talking about? LOL, you're mentally deranged. I said clearly: You can simply look at religion for an example: who's right, the protestants or the catholics? see, you can't really tell me, can you? - That is a direct quote. I didn't say "I bet you can't". I said "you can't really tell me, can you?", and you're clearly misremembering.
Narcissism is a terrible thing, if you have to alter your comments so you can feel "right" it's a big problem. You're still wrong, and now you're a fraud also
Empty words coming from you. I didn't alter anything, and you're either a liar, or a dumbass. I edited my post to fix some typos, and if anything, I added this to it, following the aforementioned statements: But the question is, who is more right in their assessment of what dictates should be followed in regards the education of a voting block, when they disagree on what money should be spent on and [what it] should not be spent on - I have to remind you of what was said, cause clearly you aren't capable of having a comprehensive memory conducive to an intellectually honest discussion; which wasn't had. And you still haven't proven anybody "wrong", so...again...what now? another claim of me dubiously editing something? what now? what fiendish thing did I change to somehow seal the facade of my big long winded posts detailing all this dilemma? boy, I must be so clever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
No. No one "talks" like a Democrat, without putting up policy positions. Democrats don't have a "style of speech", you muffinhead. You dunderbrain. Now, when the right-wing elements of American politics were claiming at all levels that Obama was "not a native born American" before you had a show of evidence, was that not the same thing as what you're all raving about [willy-willy, ignoring your own compulsions to proceed the same ways as the left, impeachment, fake news, "shut it down", etc.], wasn't it actually just the same as that? I'll answer for you, since you can't be trusted to be realistic or honest...the answer is an unequivocal "yes".
1
-
I don't recall the Republicans impeaching Obama over the oddities with his birth certificate or his other violations, unlike Trump where Democrats voted to impeach over lacking or no substantial evidence
"Unlike where Democrats voted to impeach Trump"? I never said that, gorm. You're trying to flip the argument, which is stupid, cause that's putting the ball in my court. But thankfully, for you, I didn't actually say that. And, recall [if you dare] the many attempts to drive sentiment for impeaching Obama; which is what I said; I never said that they roundly impeached him. That would have been dumb, just like how it's dumb that the Democrats are trying to impeach Trump; "disrepute" is all one needs to even make the claim for impeachment, that doesn't mean that a: these things alleged can be proved, and b: that that exculpates Obama or any other president who has had controversies, from being used as a cudgel between such claims of "disrepute" and actual charges. So no, they didn't bring any articles of impeachment into juridical inquiry, but that's not what I alluded to, what I said was that you all drum up "impeachment, he should be impeached", just like the Democrats do, when you want to get your way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
have you ever stopped to think to yourself maybe people don't care to entertain anything you ask
Have you ever stopped to think? I never asked anyone anything, idiot. I have made statements. It's up to you whether you want to actually address them, or not.
you are a presumptuous, condescending and ignorant person who just throws around insults at people calling them names
You are also presumptuous and you are ignorant, that's for sure; and I can probably be more condescending than you, sure. Marring ridiculous statements and idiotic "memes" [very poor linguistic programming, in this instance] is just fun. Sorry about that.
then you sit here wondering why nobody takes you seriously and won't engage with you
Not really, it's all merely for rhetorical effect, that I insist that you actually engage with what I've said, rather than perusing very haphazardly what's been said, and like most other posters- who've addressed me, but not what I've said — have done, and that's to simply call me a "democrat" or call me names, or say "I'm wrong" with no argument to suppose just how I'm wrong. You've done nothing but this, just the same. Typically, you cannot actually address and refute anything I've said, otherwise you would have already, instead of trying to insinuate how mean I am. =(
Also, You use quotation marks for quoting someone not bold
You use quotation marks for lots of things, not just quoting someone. There are "air-quotes" too, you know. Plus, this way that I do it, makes the statement I'm addressing stand out, so people can identify it. Frankly, I have my reasons for using bold.
1
-
1
-
Not talking about impeachment. I'm talking about your actions as a constituency and as proponents of party politics, which pertain to the same tactics used, on both sides. That's the hypocrisy.
If your point is about one party slinging mud at another, you would be better served by considering to what scale
Scale isn't the relevant issue. It's that it happens at all, that's the issue. Sometimes you gotta wonder, who assassinated Kennedy? These people all work together. Hence...as a Trump supporter...I can't really engender too much faith in any of these parties. Trump is, essentially, an outsider, and even he can be usurped and used. It completely and utterly depends on factors that people like you or I have zero control over. If he really is a maverick, he's got a lot to prove, and a hope to inspire, down the line. That hope does not reside with the parties...period. They didn't have that "hope" until Trump....
But there's a huge difference between doing something, and kicking an idea around and ultimately deciding not to. In fact, they are opposites
Ok. Doesn't seem to be working out too well for the Democrats.
a fully partisan political action to delegitimize an election that has happened three years ago
What? You are acting like this is unprecedented. It's not. Trump is just a very big face for the scene. Nixon had more of a long face...not such a fat one, like Trump. My point is that Trump stands out more, most things do, nowadays, given social media as a presence, etc. But this isn't the first time people took seemingly "delegitimate" action against a standing president because of partisan political hack-jobs. Either on the left, or the right.
At least Republicans hold themselves to the standard of EVIDENCE. 'Rats do their shit on nothing but feelingz
See, at least Morpheus got the point. But alas, when the Republicans were clamoring to impeach and remove Obama from office, the only "evidence" they had was circumstantial and not truly evidential but more like a feeling or assumption, which they then tried to prove afterwards, after they already made the claim...and did they succeed in finding evidence to prove anything? nope.
1
-
1