Support NeoGAF

[Wilsongt]

Trump fucked tweeted again.

2h
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
Somebody hacked the DNC but why did they not have "hacking defense" like the RNC has and why have they not responded to the terrible......


Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

things they did and said (like giving the questions to the debate to H). A total double standard! Media, as usual, gave them a pass.

1h
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
massive increases of ObamaCare will take place this year and Dems are to blame for the mess. It will fall of its own weight - be careful!


2h
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
like the 116% hike in Arizona. Also, deductibles are so high that it is practically useless. Don't let the Schumer clowns out of this web...


2h
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
Republicans must be careful in that the Dems own the failed ObamaCare disaster, with its poor coverage and massive premium increases.....


Schumer clowns...

Wow.

This man lives in a totally different reality.

 

[TestOfTide]

Trump fucked tweeted again.

2h
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
Somebody hacked the DNC but why did they not have "hacking defense" like the RNC has and why have they not responded to the terrible......


Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

things they did and said (like giving the questions to the debate to H). A total double standard! Media, as usual, gave them a pass.

1h
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
massive increases of ObamaCare will take place this year and Dems are to blame for the mess. It will fall of its own weight - be careful!


2h
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
like the 116% hike in Arizona. Also, deductibles are so high that it is practically useless. Don't let the Schumer clowns out of this web...


2h
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
Republicans must be careful in that the Dems own the failed ObamaCare disaster, with its poor coverage and massive premium increases.....


Schumer clowns...

Wow.

This man lives in a totally different reality.

As someone who personally knows Schumer's chief of staff:

FUCK YOU TRUMP

 

[numble]

Because they had no reason to. There was no Supreme Court nomination pending, nor was there any sign that a vacancy would occur anytime soon. It cost them nothing to carve out Supreme Court nominations and simply deal with them later.

It's also possible that they worried they might not be able to eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations in that situation, since (PDF):

and they needed such a ruling to implement the nuclear option. They had non-Supreme Court judicial nominations and executive branch nominations pending, but they had no Supreme Court nomination pending. Really, if it were just concern that they would be limiting their own power in the event of a Republican-controlled Senate and White House, why would they have eliminated the filibuster for any nominations?

You are both misreading that document and you also have the facts wrong. As long as there is any Rule XXII issue, they could move to reinterpret its application. They could have eliminated the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations in that situation. They eliminated the filibuster for executive-office appointments and federal district court justices when the only issue that was before the Senate was the appointment of 1 DC Circuit Court of Appeals judge.

On October 28, 2013, the Senate agreed to a motion by Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) that the Senate proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination of Patricia Ann Millett to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit; the majority leader immediately filed cloture on the nomination. On October 31, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the Millett nomination, immediately after the vote, the majority leader entered a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture had not been invoked.

On November 21, 2013, the majority leader moved to proceed (that is, asked the Senate to take up) the motion to reconsider the failed October 31 cloture vote on the Millett nomination. Since the question on which reconsideration was proposed—that is, a cloture motion—is itself not subject to debate, the motion to proceed to the reconsideration motion was also not subject to debate; therefore, after the yeas and nays (i.e., a rollcall vote) were requested and ordered, the Senate voted immediately on the motion to proceed to the reconsideration motion; the motion to proceed was agreed to, Having thus taken up the reconsideration motion, the majority leader moved to reconsider the failed cloture vote; this question of whether or not to reconsider the failed cloture vote was also not subject to debate. After rejecting an intervening motion to adjourn made by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Senate voted to reconsider the cloture vote, 57-43 (thus agreeing to bring the cloture motion back before the Senate).

The majority leader then raised a point of order that ”the vote on cloture under rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote."Consistent with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Rule XXII that provide for a three-fifths vote oncloture (in relation to all questions except a proposal to amend the text of the Senate standing rules), the chair ruled against the point of order. The majority leader appealed the ruling of the chair. Since this appeal was in relation to a non-debatable question (the cloture motion), the appeal itself was therefore treated as non-debatable. After the chair responded to a series of parliamentary inquiries from the minority leader, the Senate voted on the appeal; 52 Senators voted to overturn the ruling and 48 voted to sustain the chair.

 

[Got the Shakes]

Trump fucked tweeted again.

2h
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
Somebody hacked the DNC but why did they not have "hacking defense" like the RNC has and why have they not responded to the terrible......


Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

things they did and said (like giving the questions to the debate to H). A total double standard! Media, as usual, gave them a pass.

1h
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
massive increases of ObamaCare will take place this year and Dems are to blame for the mess. It will fall of its own weight - be careful!


2h
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
like the 116% hike in Arizona. Also, deductibles are so high that it is practically useless. Don't let the Schumer clowns out of this web...


2h
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
Republicans must be careful in that the Dems own the failed ObamaCare disaster, with its poor coverage and massive premium increases.....


Schumer clowns...

Wow.

This man lives in a totally different reality.

Unfortunately he lives in the reality that the media continues to allow him to create. Take yesterday for instance when places like ABC News were allowing him to take credit for stopping the ethics fiasco when in reality it was thousands of calls from angry constituents to Republicans that put a stop to it. Until mainstream media grows a pair and starts calling him on his bs or even better doesn't let him set the agenda for the day with his morning tweets, he's going to be able to continue making his own reality.

 

[Metaphoreus]

You are both misreading that document and you also have the facts wrong. As long as there is any Rule XXII issue, they could move to reinterpret its application. They could have eliminated the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations in that situation. They eliminated the filibuster for executive-office appointments and federal district court justices when the only issue that was before the Senate was the appointment of 1 DC Circuit Court of Appeals judge.

Perhaps so, but that still doesn't show that your reading of the situation is correct. Their conduct in 2013 is better explained by which nominations were pending than by concern over a Republican future. This is especially so in light of their pre-election comments about eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees and regrets over using the nuclear option post-election.

 

[dramatis]

I expect a future generation will remove this fine.

House Republicans vote to fine lawmakers who live stream from the floor

In a vote along party lines, House Republicans approved new rules last night that impose fines for live-streaming from the floor of the House, after lawmakers used apps like Periscope as a form of protest earlier this year.

Lawmakers can now be fined $500 for a first offense and as much as $2,500 for subsequent offenses under the new rules, which also include fines for still photography. Politico reports that the rules were slightly tweaked from an earlier form to include an appeal process.

Democrats staged a sit-in protest at the House in June after lawmakers failed to vote on gun control legislation. As the House left for recess, cameras were shut down, but Democrats — and C-SPAN — turned to live-streaming footage to broadcast the protest.

 

[studyguy]

I expect a future generation will remove this fine.

House Republicans vote to fine lawmakers who live stream from the floor

CSPAN gonna be expensive in 2017.

 

[kirblar]

Perhaps so, but that still doesn't show that your reading of the situation is correct. Their conduct in 2013 is better explained by which nominations were pending than by concern over a Republican future. This is especially so in light of their pre-election comments about eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees and regrets over using the nuclear option post-election.

The post-election regret thing is so dumb. The filibuster is going to die eventually. And that's ok.

 

[Plinko]

My favorite part of the ACA repeal is that premiums are going to start increasing at a higher pace afterward.

 

[Wilsongt]

I wonder what would have happened if Medicare and Medicaid were dismantled as soon as nixon got into office

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I wonder what would have happened if Medicare and Medicaid were dismantled as soon as nixon got into office

Didn't Nixon have a "I am not a conservative" moment like "the era of big government is over"? I remember that coming up in my history class when we were talking about postwar Keynesian liberal consensus.

 

[numble]

Perhaps so, but that still doesn't show that your reading of the situation is correct. Their conduct in 2013 is better explained by which nominations were pending than by concern over a Republican future. This is especially so in light of their pre-election comments about eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees and regrets over using the nuclear option post-election.

That doesn't make sense. Reid had to deliberately exclude SCOTUS justices in the motion, he did not have to name all types of nominations they were currently considering. If your logic was correct, their conduct, being motivated by pending nominations, would be to say “the vote on cloture under rule XXII for all DC Circuit Court nominations is by majority vote.” The ruling party's deliberate maintained the minority's power to block SCOTUS justices.

I don't see how the individual politicians speak to how a body as a whole votes, especially when your post-election comments are from different persons compared to your pre-election comments. Especially since your post-election quote is from Schumer, who specifically lamented the removal of the filibuster at the very day it was removed:
http://www.politico.com/states/new-...nst-a-filibuster-he-once-tried-to-save-009838

On Thursday afternoon, Senate Democrats ended the Senate Republicans' ability to filibuster many of the president's judicial and cabinet nominations.

And then, Chuck Schumer mourned.

"We all know that today is a sad day," Schumer told reporters in Washington, shortly after the Senate, following years of threats, exercised the so-called "nuclear option" to restrict the use of the chamber's storied filibuster.

After years of threats, triggered by increasingly regular use of the tactic by Republicans, the Democratic leadership finally amended the chamber's rules to keep the minority party from bringing the president's appointment process to a halt.

Schumer, who helped install his party in the majority over the course of two highly successful cycles as head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, had actually been among the more reluctant Democratic senators when it came to overhauling the filibuster rules. In fact, after 15 years in the Senate, Schumer seemed to have become something of an institutionalist, willing to use the nuclear threat as a trump card to exact short term deals that eventually got Democrats some incremental gains, without ever wanting to follow through.

Look, it is fine if the Republicans get rid of the filibuster on SCOTUS nominees as well, but it will be difficult to reinstate. But it will eliminate a key power that they had in their effective obstructionist approach going forward.

 

[whyamihere]

Seriously, Joe Manchin???

This is who he is!

 

[Holmes]

imho Hillary shouldn't run for governor of New York because she lost Michigan both in the general and primary. She'll just use her Brooklyn goons to run the campaign and not even leave New York City!!!

 

[Metaphoreus]

That doesn't make sense. Reid had to deliberately exclude SCOTUS justices in the motion, he did not have to name all types of nominations they were currently considering. If your logic was correct, their conduct, being motivated by pending nominations, would be to say ”the vote on cloture under rule XXII for all DC Circuit Court nominations is by majority vote." The ruling party's deliberate maintained the minority's power to block SCOTUS justices.

I don't see how the individual politicians speak to how a body as a whole votes, especially when your post-election comments are from different persons compared to your pre-election comments. Especially since your post-election quote is from Schumer, who specifically lamented the removal of the filibuster at the very day it was removed:
http://www.politico.com/states/new-...nst-a-filibuster-he-once-tried-to-save-009838

My logic doesn't require that they specify each and every office as to which cloture would be satisfied by majority vote; it only requires that they changed cloture only as to the types of nominations pending at the time of the rule change. And that's what they did. Your reasoning, on the other hand, would suggest that they shouldn't have changed the rule as to any nomination.

As to Reid's pre-election comments, it shows that he, at least, had no such concerns as you insist motivated the Supreme Court exclusion. Kaine's comment shows that eliminating the filibuster for the Supreme Court would have had the support of the president of the Senate, a point that can't be ignored. As for the post-election comments, had Schumer and Coons voted against the rule change, it would have failed, so their regrets are enough.

Look, it is fine if the Republicans get rid of the filibuster on SCOTUS nominees as well, but it will be difficult to reinstate. But it will eliminate a key power that they had in their effective obstructionist approach going forward.

Filibustering Supreme Court nominations is historically a tool of the Democrats (3 failed filibusters), not the Republicans (1 successful bipartisan filibuster). And, again, Republicans have no reason to believe that Democrats wouldn't eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations at a time when it would hurt Republicans, so why not do it themselves in the first place at a time when it can help them?

 

[SenorArdilla]

The sports team mentality that has afflicted politics is mind-boggling.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Drain the Swamp lol

More like Clog the Swamp.

How fucking stupid are people.

 

[kirblar]

Drain the Swamp lol

More like Clog the Swamp.

How fucking stupid are people.

Very https://t.co/C4urWjejMM

 

[Wilsongt]

Very https://t.co/C4urWjejMM

Ma'am, I'm afraid I have some bad news...

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

This Twitter thread on the Podesta hack is actually incredibly good....

https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/816621553643294720

 

[kirblar]

Ryan just went in on Assange - http://thehill.com/policy/international/312632-paul-ryan-calls-assange-sycophant-for-russia

I'm glad there's enough GOPers not willing to put up with this shit. This is going to get ugly fast.

 

[numble]

My logic doesn't require that they specify each and every office as to which cloture would be satisfied by majority vote; it only requires that they changed cloture only as to the types of nominations pending at the time of the rule change. And that's what they did. Your reasoning, on the other hand, would suggest that they shouldn't have changed the rule as to any nomination.

That's not correct. Where did I say they shouldn't have changed the rule as to any nomination? I think there is a distinct difference in eliminating the filibuster for executive positions (which are "term-limited") and lower level judicial nominations (which had historically been a formality decided by recommendation of local senators and congressmen anyway), and SCOTUS nominations, which effect plicy.

As to Reid's pre-election comments, it shows that he, at least, had no such concerns as you insist motivated the Supreme Court exclusion. Kaine's comment shows that eliminating the filibuster for the Supreme Court would have had the support of the president of the Senate, a point that can't be ignored. As for the post-election comments, had Schumer and Coons voted against the rule change, it would have failed, so their regrets are enough.

Senators have threatened the nuclear option throughout the years prior to 2013 as well, I don't put much credit to political puffery versus actual action.

Filibustering Supreme Court nominations is historically a tool of the Democrats (3 failed filibusters), not the Republicans (1 successful bipartisan filibuster). And, again, Republicans have no reason to believe that Democrats wouldn't eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations at a time when it would hurt Republicans, so why not do it themselves in the first place at a time when it can help them?

Obstruction as a tool in the current period is more linked with the Republicans, as the Garland episode has proves. The Republicans have reason to believe the Democrats won't eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations when push comes to shove because they saw that the Democrats did not eliminate it when they had the chance.

 

[studyguy]

Very https://t.co/C4urWjejMM

This is depressing.

 

[Got the Shakes]

"The American people want us to start over...with the kind of reforms that will give people more choices." - VP-elect @mike_pence

No, Mike. Literally like 66% of Americans don't want you to start over when it comes to health care and want the ACA either untouched or slightly tweaked.

 

[PantherLotus]

1. the quote was 'the era of BIG government is over' btw.

This Twitter thread on the Podesta hack is actually incredibly good....

https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/816621553643294720

2. thank you for this. excellent read.

3. Jeet scares the shit out of me sometimes

Jeet Heer
‏@HeerJeet

People in America are underestimating possibility things could get really weird and really scary really fast.

https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/816493758095114240

 

[Suikoguy]

This Twitter thread on the Podesta hack is actually incredibly good....

https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/816621553643294720

I'm a bit more sympathetic after seeing a reconstruction of that password reset page.

 

[ErasureAcer]

"The American people want us to start over...with the kind of reforms that will give people more choices." - VP-elect @mike_pence

No, Mike. Literally like 66% of Americans don't want you to start over when it comes to health care and want the ACA either untouched or slightly tweaked.

If 66% of Americans want tweaks but only 48% of the voting electorate vote for the candidate who will make those tweaks...or like 25% of the population. How many Americans are stupid?

66% of Americans want something yet only ~25% voted for Clinton who would have tweaked so hard it would have been the new twerk.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

1. the quote was 'the era of BIG government is over' btw.

whoopsies, thanks for the check

 

[PantherLotus]

whoopsies, thanks for the check

no worries. just a good reminder that capitulation to right wing talking points and conspiracies started long, long ago.

 

[VendettaRed07]

"The American people want us to start over...with the kind of reforms that will give people more choices." - VP-elect @mike_pence

No, Mike. Literally like 66% of Americans don't want you to start over when it comes to health care and want the ACA either untouched or slightly tweaked.

Most people are apathetic and will let Trump and the GOP fuck with it because the ACA doesn't do what it was supposed to do.

The ACA is not in the position of favorability where people will go fucking mental if they try to touch it.

 

[Got the Shakes]

If 66% of Americans want tweaks but only 48% of the voting electorate vote for the candidate who will make those tweaks...or like 25% of the population. How many Americans are stupid?

66% of Americans want something yet only ~25% voted for Clinton who would have tweaked so hard it would have been the new twerk.

I never claimed that Americans are smart when it comes to the candidates they voted for or by choosing not to vote.

This is from a month ago so I'm sure the data is a bit different today, but according to this NPR article and survey only 26% of people favor full repeal and replace with the number of Republican voters that favor repeal actually decreasing since October. But alas, people still voted for the guy that promised to wipe it out.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...of-americans-support-full-repeal-of-obamacare

 

[NYCmetsfan]

so the GOP introduced a bill to move the embassy to Jerusalem. This is problematic in a myriad of ways but they also included this gem

I'm old enough to remember when embassy security was a big deal

Lets start the third intifada and not adequately defend US diplomats.

But of course it won't be Tillerson's fault it will be "muslims"

 

[VendettaRed07]

We are going to get Gold plated Trump branded settlements in Jerusalem too probably

 

[Metaphoreus]

That's not correct. Where did I say they shouldn't have changed the rule as to any nomination? I think there is a distinct difference in eliminating the filibuster for executive positions (which are "term-limited") and lower level judicial nominations (which had historically been a formality decided by recommendation of local senators and congressmen anyway), and SCOTUS nominations, which effect plicy.

I'm not trying to divine what you believe, so I apologize if that's how I came across. I'm just saying that the reasoning you suggest the Republicans rely on in declining to eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations isn't as strong given the Democrats' elimination of the filibuster for other nominations. Even aside from petty tit-for-tat politicking, Republicans can't put much faith in the Democrats retaining the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees in the event Republicans become the minority party again and seek to use it to block a Democratic president's nominee. After all, the same forward-looking reasoning you propose could have stopped the Democrats regarding other nominations in 2013, but didn't. Given that that's the case, they may reason it's better to get rid of the filibuster when it helps them than wait to lose it when it hurts them.

Senators have threatened the nuclear option throughout the years prior to 2013 as well, I don't put much credit to political puffery versus actual action.

Sure, but Republicans are now in the situation where they have to discount puffery that has historically been followed up with action. That's a lot harder to do.

Obstruction as a tool in the current period is more linked with the Republicans, as the Garland episode has proves. The Republicans have reason to believe the Democrats won't eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations when push comes to shove because they saw that the Democrats did not eliminate it when they had the chance.

But when Democrats "had the chance," they also had no reason to eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees. Why think the outcome will be the same when they have a chance and a reason to eliminate it? And, if your "current period" extends at least to 2005, then the (attempted) filibuster-of-SCOTUS-nominees count stands at 1 for Democrats and 0 for Republicans, so it remains the case that Democrats have relied on that particular method of obstruction more than Republicans have.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

We are going to get Gold plated Trump branded settlements in Jerusalem too probably

I wonder how many troops we send to Turkey after ISIS bombs Trump Tower, Istanbul.

 

[thefro]

Sounds like, in theory, Democrats could indefinitely block the Obamacare repeal via reconciliation by having thousands of amendments ready.

Democrats also plan to take advantage of a special procedure called reconciliation which Republicans are using to repeal the law, which means the Senate will have to vote on an unlimited number of amendments. Democrats intend to use that process to delay repeal and force Republicans to take tough votes.

“They’re going to try to rush this through so fast that the American publican can’t see what they did,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “It’s in our interest to make this process go long enough so that people can see what a debacle this is.”

Easy targets would be amendments that preserve preexisting condition requirements “for each individual major illness in this country,” Murphy said.

The unlimited vote process “presents a very good opportunity to delay and extend the debate, and put a really big national focus on the debate highlighting stories of real people who would be affected,” said Topher Spiro, vice president for health policy at the liberal Center for American Progress.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/introduction-to-budget-reconciliation

While the special procedures limit the time for debate, they do not limit the number of amendments that can be offered during the Senate’s initial consideration of the bill. As a result, once the 20-hour limit has expired, remaining amendments are considered with little or no debate — a process known as a “vote-a-rama.”

In the Senate, any amendments offered to a reconciliation bill must be germane to the bill.[4] This prevents the process from getting bogged down by disputes over tangentially related or unrelated amendments, as often happens to other legislation under regular Senate procedures.

Obviously for most bills you couldn't make up thousands of amendments, but the Affordable Care Act is such a monster that you could probably delay everything indefinitely.

 

[studyguy]

Republicans a fucking mess.

 

[Wilsongt]

Poor Christie... He gets passed over for a spot on the Trump team in favor of one of his Bridgegate buddies.

 

[ezekial45]

Obama giving his final speech to the Armed Forces now.

https://www.facebook.com/WhiteHouse/videos/10155112398974238/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

 

[Finalizer]

Ryan just went in on Assange - http://thehill.com/policy/international/312632-paul-ryan-calls-assange-sycophant-for-russia

I'm glad there's enough GOPers not willing to put up with this shit. This is going to get ugly fast.

It's why I roll my eyes at folks claiming that the GOP are all gonna get chummy with Russia now that Trump's president. Plenty of them can see the mountain of shit that anyone on the Putin Plane are gonna fly into soon enough and aren't keen to join the fun.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Republicans a fucking mess.

The'll get their tax cuts then I think run against Trump.

 

[LostMyNarbles]

It's why I roll my eyes at folks claiming that the GOP are all gonna get chummy with Russia now that Trump's president. Plenty of them can see the mountain of shit that anyone on the Putin Plane are gonna fly into soon enough and aren't keen to join the fun.

I will continue to hold that opinion until the majority of the party actually does somebody about Russia instead of just hand-waving and talking without action. Reasonably speaking it seems pretty clear at this point that Trump/Putin have some sort of relationship going on that undermines the country, but lets see how many Republicans actually do anything about it aside from throwing a few insults here and there.

 

[B-Dubs]

The'll get their tax cuts then I think run against Trump.

We should be so lucky.

 

[SenorArdilla]

The'll get their tax cuts then I think run against Trump.

Ah yes. Take the money and run then leave Trump with the mess.

 

[Finalizer]

I will continue to hold that opinion until the majority of the party actually does somebody about Russia instead of just hand-waving and talking without action. Reasonably speaking it seems pretty clear at this point that Trump/Putin have some sort of relationship going on that undermines the country, but lets see how many Republicans actually do anything about it aside from throwing a few insults here and there.

It's not to say that they'll take a hard stance against Russia, I just mean that they wont hop on board with this nonsense so they have an out when things go south. Until such an event happens, I fully expect most of the GOP to stick with wagging their finger at the Trump/Putin relationship but not really do anything about it so long as it's convenient to their political agendas.

 

[Good Job Bob]

lmao

 

[Plinko]

Ryan just went in on Assange - http://thehill.com/policy/international/312632-paul-ryan-calls-assange-sycophant-for-russia

I'm glad there's enough GOPers not willing to put up with this shit. This is going to get ugly fast.

Republicans a fucking mess.

Ryan is trying to toe the line between offending Trump and staying on his good side, and it is going to go hilariously bad.

 

[PBY]

Does anyone think this Russia stuff is a loser?

Not sure how they ascended to boogeyman status so quickly, and not sure it helps to continuously hammer this point. They are a fucked up country with a fucked up leader.

There are a lot of countries like this. I understand that we are not crossing lines, but sprinting past them at this point, and its fine to criticize that. Just feel like the left has started down the path of a new cold war, whereas we deal with a lot of fucked up countries.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

lmao

The fact that I'm still wondering if this is real scares me to no end.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Does anyone think this Russia stuff is a loser?

Not sure how they ascended to boogeyman status so quickly, and not sure it helps to continuously hammer this point. They are a fucked up country with a fucked up leader.

There are a lot of countries like this. I understand that we are not crossing lines, but sprinting past them at this point, and its fine to criticize that. Just feel like the left has started down the path of a new cold war, whereas we deal with a lot of fucked up countries.

wtf are you talking about?