HOME | DD
jollyjack β Logic
#trumpydumpydodah
Published: 2019-02-16 00:03:04 +0000 UTC; Views: 61846; Favourites: 1074; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Related content
Comments: 763
Can't we just put up a wall around all of the US, and let them fester in their own misery? We let the smart ones out, of course. No papers or anything needed, you just need to pass a basic IQ test.
π: 0 β©: 0
Welcome to USM the united states of Mexico
π: 0 β©: 1
Did you know that that is the actual name of Mexico?
π: 0 β©: 0
Now for the part when he realizes the wall is there to keep Mexicans out... of Canada, apparently!
π: 0 β©: 0
you see the state the US is in right now and can't help but think that is the punishment a country should suffer for letting dumb, ignorant and hateful people like Trump to run for president and, above that, grant them the presidency even though they lost the popular vote, which is the only f$#king requirement for a damn democracy to be such. and don't get me started on Brexit. the UK themselves out of the EU, one of the greatest political achievementsΒ in the history of our species, for no justifiable reason. the only thing that prevented the scots from leaving the UK. soon they will have to change United for Brocken.
π: 0 β©: 1
We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. The Electoral College is exists to ensure states other than New York and California have a say in political elections.Β
π: 0 β©: 2
the majority of the population is the one who should have the only say. not states. I also live in a republic andΒ we follow the rules of democracy. these are not exclusive terms.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
The problem with that over here is that the majority of the populace of the US lives in 3 cities: New York; Los Angeles; and Chicago; so if we implemented Majority Population those three cities would rule over the entire country. That means that the people who live in other cities in other states don't matter anymore: which is why we have the system we have. It's also why Hilary lost: because she refused to understand that the rest of the country matters too.
π: 0 β©: 0
because it makes sense for a state with a smaller population than a single city have more electoral power than highly populated states
π: 0 β©: 1
It actually does, to some degree. But I dare say that the reasoning doesn't apply anymore, as the division is more prevailing than actual discussion or logic when it comes to these choices. It's not about being democrat or republican in their leaning, as it is now. But it should be about factual, informed decisions, that seem to not really be relevant anymore. Take man made climate change. 97% of scientists say that it is true, and 3% says it isn't. Those 3% have been debunked, but it is still treated as an open case of discussion, and thus the views are treated equally.Β
The electoral college is suppose to safeguard against these sort of things, but it doesn't work. So, yes. It does make sense, but it clearly doesn't work as intended anymore.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's the reason, I think it's Colorado, wants to change the law regarding how they give out their Electoral College points.
π: 0 β©: 1
they want to give the points to who(m?)ever wins the national popular vote
π: 0 β©: 1
Better than the current system.
π: 0 β©: 1
yeah, the person with the most votes winning seems like a novel concept
π: 0 β©: 0
this is worthyΒ of becoming a memorable meme.
π: 0 β©: 0
For anyone who disagrees with Jack here:
Don't bother being mad.
You're not going to change your mind and you're not going to change his, so if you don't like it: just walk by and ignore it and save everyone from another sterile debate where everybody stands their ground.
As for the ones who like it and find it funny, well laugh but don't be dicks about it.
A good day to everyone and may you be happy.
π: 0 β©: 1
Nice sentiment, but there are people who don't feel alive unless they have something to be pissed about and there are those who get amusement by watching pus-brains scream their imponent rage. Politics aside, many people find President McMushroom such a loathsome object reinforced by his inept, insulting, demeanor that they cannot help making him an object of scorn. Β Β
π: 0 β©: 0
-"Dude... Let it go. Just... Let it go. This wall-thing really turn you mad.
Try something new, go get some fresh air... What about a little golf-game? You love golf-game. You'll feel so much better after that.
And let this wall go."
π: 0 β©: 2
"Dude... Let it go. Just... Let it go."Β
That's part of Trumps problem. He can't let it go. The man is a spotlight whore. He wants everyone to see him as a very stable genus and great leader. He made a lot of promises during the campaign and "Build the Wall and Mexico will pay for it!" was the one that got him the most cheers. He had not the faintest idea how to actually do this. I also don't believe Trump actually expected to win the election. He looked scared election night. Now he trying to bull-shit his way thru the presidency like he has tried to bull-shit his way through life.
He CAN"T let it go. Β Β
π: 0 β©: 0
I have no idea why but i see a guy pulling out dog treats and giving Trump the dog whistle to follow :]
π: 0 β©: 0
Hey Jolly wanna make a mockery of Commie Cortez's insane and laughable "green deal" too?
π: 0 β©: 2
Ya mean Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? I don't find any "Commie" with speedsearch...
Developement of renewable energy, end of subsidies on coal and oil industries, creation of new job with the ecological transition, creation of a universal public health system, free of charge from public universities, federal guarantee of finding a job...
π: 0 β©: 1
She stated on live broadcast that and I quote "literally a communist". What is in her green deal can not be achieved at all there isn't enough manpower on the planet let alone in the USA. And yes she does state the removal of air traffic and removal of cars for "eletric ones" which are pretty much useless. She is trying to sneak in socialism nothing more.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
You said that like "socialism" is a bad thing.
Plus, saying "This is not humanly possible" is the better way to do nothing.
We have only one planet and oil/charcoal, which are fossils, are not eternal... Sooner or later, we'll need to do without them. Better idea to trying to do it as soon as possible.
π: 0 β©: 1
Socialism is a bad thing look at Venezuela (massive inflations, people suffering etc). You not having the slightest clue of how money and work hours work doesn't mean a failed ideology should be done again in another country. What she is suggesting is wasting money for something that can't be achieved.
π: 0 β©: 1
And what about liberalism? Economical crisis, people chased away from their own house, break in labor law, job insecurity, law of the (financial) jungle...
Sound like "failure" to me, no? Who determine if an "ideology" win, anyway?
Does the situation in Venezuela is due to "Socialism"... or just politics failure? And what about the famous "boys of Washington", by the way?Β
Maybe the world is just more complex than a single fight between "socialism" and "liberalism". Maybe "socialism" and "liberalism" are more complex than being ideologies.
Seeing how USA can "waste money", i don't think invest in green tech is a big problem...
That's actually the definition of investment: giving money with the idea of a later benefit. And there is no doubt than we will need that tech one day.
Sound more interesting than a stupid wall in the desert, no?
π: 0 β©: 0
You have brain damage
π: 0 β©: 1
No, that's Commie Cortez, with such insane plans of abolishing air and car travel just to name something from it.
π: 0 β©: 2
Sure.
Seek professional help.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm perfectly fine, maybe look into her idiotic plan before defending it.
π: 0 β©: 0
Please link us to where it is said that she intend to abolish air and car travel.
π: 0 β©: 1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ1HWIβ¦
Do watch the whole thing
π: 0 β©: 2
Well, I did. Cortez sort of laid it out in the beginning though. It deals in principled goals, not individual mandates. So it is broad and includes a lot of things they feel that the US needs to improve upon. The rest just seemed to be the presenter putting straws into a scarecrow.
To say that nothing is wrong, even though one disagree with another, just makes one a contrarian. Do you have a link to someone that presents alternatives instead of. . . well, this sort of video?
π: 0 β©: 1
That's the whole issue with this green deal it doesn't go into specifics just says broad and vague terms over everything, that's not how this works. If it isn't certain and properly explained for all you know they can use that 10 years (and need I remind that Cortez already had her let me spook the people with an "in 12 years the world will end" gig) for making a private mansion for Cortez and her crew from all the money and resources. Also are you seriously trying to defend the whole removal of air traffic and the insane and literally impossible to achieve construction plans? How was the guy putting straws when he was highlighting the massive issues with her childishly stupid deal? Or are you just defending her for being a woman?
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, you need to provide links to the claims about the private mansion stuff, and the video wasn't highlighting issues with the plan. As far as I could make out, he was fearmongering about things in the plan that would affect the common man, without actually backing up if it actually would. Cortez won't come for your personal grill, or your stove. Saying that she is, is indeed the same as putting straws in the argument.
In addition, you will have to link me the 12 years until the world will end thing too. I can't really see her doing so, unless as a thought experiment to explain the world changes that we are seeing. (And if you don't believe them, I really suggest reading up about it. Because climate change is real, and the implications of what it can cause is much more scary than anything in recent memory.)
Edit: Also, I might be a bit slow, but I did notice that you haven't really made a single supported argument that she is a communist.
π: 0 β©: 1
That was just a random example you dense twat...pointing out how vauge and broad phrasing could get any result in the end. Also, her own fucking words
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHk8nnβ¦
Didn't deny anything about climate change BUT we have been constantly given "the world will end in x years" deadlines since the 70's (when they said in 20 years the air will be unbreathable on the whole planet) or need I bring up Al Gore's predictions that were horribly wrong?
As for the communist part, okay I admit I mixed it up with a diferent woman who said it on TV but she still wants socialism and panders to social justice (which is a subset of communism)
π: 0 β©: 1
What do you know, she did say the world could end in 12 years, but looking at the whole thing (Had to search up the original And you should watch it. She is on from around 00:14:30 min until 1:05:00 min. It's a long interview, but not all of it is about politics. www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3-Qvo⦠), it puts it in more context of the discussion. Such as that she is making an example on how young progressives sees the current political discussion (it is between the 00:53:00 until the 00:55:07 mark). I could not find anything about a private mansion though, so I can't take that claim seriously until I actually get some context. To make a summary of it. Your link provides a false narrative and is just another example of fear mongering. Congratulations.
We have been warned for a long time about climate change, but that doesn't mean that is isn't happening. We can still breathe the air most places on earth, that is quite true, so that prediction didn't come to fruition in other places than in cities that are hounded by smog. But you can't deny that there are more tropical storms now, and flash weather changes that moves into the extreme. The fear now, I think, is that it will affect food production around the world. And that includes in the US, which have some of the biggest crop production areas in the world. Stephen Merchant put it quite well, even if he was on Bill Maher's show when he said it: "Even if it's not true, let's assume it is, on the off chance, and do something about it. Because if it is true, then we're all f***ed."
As for the socialism part, it is important to point out that she is arguing for social democracy, which is not a subset of communism. AKA, not a post capitalist society, but a society that have social safety for it's citizen that pays the taxes to support that society. That includes military spending, fire departments and police which is already social programs that are in place in the US. It's not actually radical politics either. In many ways, it is quite centrist politics, when you look at it from the rest of the world's perspective.
π: 0 β©: 0
Did she say it after the five minute mark? Cuz there's definitely nothing about abolishing car and air travel before that, and i stopped caring about what this guy says around then.
You were asked for evidence, not a biased screed.
π: 0 β©: 1
Wow, you literally didn't even bother, how was it biased then? It was a review of her non-sense green deal.
π: 0 β©: 1
I watched half of it and it was some dude showing off how much of a smartarse he is. I don't give a fuck about his review, show me where she actually said she's abolishing air and car travel like YOU claimed.
π: 0 β©: 2
It was past the halfway point actually but since you are so butthurt over Cortez's plan being ripped apart you couldn't handle it.Β youtu.be/fQ1HWI_RCEk?t=339
And car thing is literally in the first minute, you clearly didn't even open the video longer than 30 seconds. Or have a horrible lack of focus.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ok, thanks for finally backing up your claims properly.
Here's an interesting thing. Your buddy there references a fact sheet from Feb 7. That was retracted as being a mistake (which I admit isn't a good look) by Feb 11. The video was published on Feb 12 and he still treats the retracted material as current fact.
So either he's dishonest or not so up on political news as he wants you to believe.
Hmmm.
π: 0 β©: 0
I'd like a timestamp myself. Just to be fair, here's one where Trump clearly said Mexico will pay for the wall:Β youtu.be/XBHApZSyeDo?t=1450 See? That's not too difficult.
π: 0 β©: 1
See, that's how you do it.
π: 0 β©: 0
I love you, Phil. Thanks for making me laugh so much!
π: 0 β©: 0
I donβt know why everyone is so shocked about this. Trump is a businessman after all, and they know only two things;
1. Make money
2. Screw everyone else over
π: 0 β©: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>