• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump Brexit Idiocy and Irony

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
LegendKiller said:
Yeah, that's why Obama goes over there and within days Brexit surges.

LOL - bucks stops here? Which buck is that? Arab spring? Nope. Fast and Furious? Nope. IRS? Nope. Hillary? Nope. All the bucks just pass him by.

Face it, the derision and contempt for which the leftists and establishment have for pretty much everybody else has led them to this. They wanted to drag everybody else into their utopia of oligarchy, equal outcomes, and outbreeding and are now paying for their dismissal of any dissent. Instead of being a little bitch about it, perhaps you should learn and adapt, otherwise you *will* lose in Nov.
Click to expand...
They prefer to sink, before they'll try and discuss things with intelligence and facts. Your reply is very poignant, as you hit the nail on the head. They vie for equality, and pat themselves on the back when the results resemble a Castro style brand of equality. People are starving in Venezuela. But apparently instead of being appalled, they believe this is the definition of success. Why? Because Venezuela is run by a far left wing government. So all is well, because everyone is starving .......... equally!
 
LegendKiller said:
And the only thing that Hillary can offer is globalism and watering down of any value system beyond the State and it's utter contempt for the proles. That's why the totalitarian EU fits so well with liberals.

But hey, TPP is the "gold standard". Enjoy competing with Chinese jobs gained through shitty environmental controls, suppressed currency, State funding...etc. As in, you can't get any jobs because a Command Economy with unlimited State resources cannot hope to compete with anything but the same.

Which is ultimately the goal.
Click to expand...

Seems to be working well so far dipshit!


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-race-to-pass-u-s-as-world-s-biggest-economy
 
TheGardener said:
They prefer to sink, before they'll try and discuss things with intelligence and facts. Your reply is very poignant, as you hit the nail on the head. They vie for equality, and pat themselves on the back when the results resemble a Castro style equality. People are starving in Venezuela. But apparently instead of being appalled, they believe this is the definition of success, because it is a far left wing government. So all is well, because everyone is starving .......... equally!
Click to expand...

Oh hi! You must know lk from the other sites he frequents. Tell us more about Venezuela and how its a role model for the left. Be sure to use your right wing sources😉
 
ivwshane said:
Oh hi! You must know lk from the other sites he frequents. Tell us more about Venezuela and how its a role model for the left. Be sure to use your right wing sources😉
Click to expand...
Maybe you can link 10 quotes from devotees of Sanders and Clinton on this site, where they are critical of their Socialist regime. Not on any sites, where I would have read LK's thoughts. So find me 10 good left wing men in this forum critical of the government there.
 
LegendKiller said:
Yeah, they haven't even moved up in the world, at all. They are still a tiny economy and haven't grown since they suppressed their currency (with no repercussions), and were granted MFN by Billybob.

I mean, shit, they are still stuck in the 1600s, economically speaking.
Click to expand...

Well shit! That must have happened only a couple years ago right? When will our economy take a shit like you claim because it certainly hasn't happened yet! I want to know when all this doom and gloom will go into effect and because your track record of predicting things has been so awesome I want to hear it from you!
 
TheGardener said:
Maybe you can link 10 quotes from devotees of Sanders and Clinton on this site, where they are critical of their Socialist regime. Not on any sites, where I would have read LK's thoughts. So find me 10 good left wing men in this forum critical of the government there.
Click to expand...

Sorry bub it doesn't work that way, you made the claim now back it up. Go ahead and give me 10 quotes from posters here touting the qualities of the Venezuelans government.
 
LegendKiller said:
And the only thing that Hillary can offer is globalism and watering down of any value system beyond the State and it's utter contempt for the proles. That's why the totalitarian EU fits so well with liberals.

But hey, TPP is the "gold standard". Enjoy competing with Chinese jobs gained through shitty environmental controls, suppressed currency, State funding...etc. As in, you can't get any jobs because a Command Economy with unlimited State resources cannot hope to compete with anything but the same.

Which is ultimately the goal.
Click to expand...

1) What does 'watering down of any value system' even mean?

2) Competing with Chinese jobs? Where have you been for the last 4 decades? Look at the collar on your shirt, it probably says "made in China" if it doesn't say made in Vietnam, India, Mexico, or Bangladesh.

What jobs do you think we are going to reclaim from China, Mexico, and the rest and how much do you think they will pay? Do you really think we can go back to some 1950's fantasy utopia?
 
Last edited:
Balt said:
1) What does 'watering down of any value system' even mean?

2) Competing with Chinese jobs? Where have you been for the last 4 decades? Look at the collar on your shirt, it probably says "made in China" if it doesn't say made in Vietnam, India, Mexico, or Bangladesh.

What jobs do you think we are going to reclaim from China, Mexico, and the rest and how much do you think they will pay? Do you really think we can go back to some 1950's fantasy utopia?
Click to expand...

There's a difference - if you want fair trade, sure. However, that's not what we're talking about here, is it?
 
LegendKiller said:
Now, can you say that we have a clear example, while Trump is in a public office, that he has had the same *CLEAR* behavior?
Click to expand...
So you're basically admitting your real apparent defense is Trump has not actually held political office yet...

There is nothing more "creditable" than an EXACT example of the behavior that indicts Hillary in crystal clear behavior. And to say that those were not "serious" is fucking laughable. They have been vetted and reported by public media and are very serious and "creditable".
Click to expand...
We're talking about an issue which as actually addressed is obviously far less an issue than Trump's direct business interests. Bogus and clearly false claims aside, the evidence is the Clinton Foundation has served as a legitimate charity rather than a business interest of the Clintons. By contrast, Trump can easily directly financially benefit from his business interests and has not committed to do something like sell them.

And to address your edit. $145mm given to the Clinton Foundation by 9 men who benefitted the most from the Uranium mining transfers. Sure, Hillary was one of 9 on the board, but then again, we don't know where else the bread was buttered. How about this nuclear board, yet another pay for play to a donor. What about the Laureate school and Bill's $16.5mm of salary for an "honorary Chancellorship" and the massively increased grants given to Laureate and it's CEO's foundation?
Click to expand...
As has been established on this forum among other places, there were plenty of reasons to agree to agree to allow the mining transfer, including much of worldwide uranium comes from for instance Canada and Australia limiting strategic concerns, and the State Department was notably only one of many Federal Government organization which had to independently approve the business action before it could go through

In terms of the key claim you just made, the actual evidence is the university took advantage of the prestige of Bill Clinton's name rather than directly obtained advantages from governmental action as a quid pro quo or the like. In other words exactly the same thing that Trump routinely has done with various business interests of his, with the distinction being unlike Clinton who is no longer involved with the university group in question as a chancellor or the like, Trump still owns his various businesses.

With the rest of the claim, the obvious massive distinction again is the fact its money to a charitable foundation with the Clinton's name rather than direct financial benefit to the Clintons. Now if Hillary were running against a different candidate this could be a potentially more creditable issue to bring up, but in this case we're talking about Trump. Trump again has failed to effectively address the glaring conflict of interest issue of his direct interests in his businesses and what happens when he is President. (In terms of the potential transparency issue with Clinton, you have with Trump the fact he has not and refuses to release his tax returns or the full scope of his business interests which would even allow Americans to evaluate when a decision might have been improperly oriented to benefiting his businesses.)
 
Last edited:
Aegeon said:
So you're basically admitting your real apparent defense is Trump has not actually held political office yet...
Click to expand...
Sure. What's yours? You are *assuming* trump will create conflicts. In this case we have definitive proof that she is corrupt.

We're talking about an issue which as actually addressed is obviously far less an issue than Trump's direct business interests. Bogus and clearly false claims aside, the evidence is the Clinton Foundation has served as a legitimate charity rather than a business interest of the Clintons. By contrast, Trump can easily directly financially benefit from his business interests and has not committed to do something like sell them.
Click to expand...
Not sure how legitimate it is. We also know that the Clintons are benefitting not only from that, but the speeches, the "honorary" this or that, among others.

As has been establish on this forum among other places, there were plenty of reasons to agree to agree to allow the mining transfer, including much of worldwide uranium comes from for instance Canada and Australia limiting strategic concerns, and the State Department was notably only one of many Federal Government organization which had to independently approve the business action before it could go through.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter where the rest of the mining is. Those are US strategic assets. They should have remained so.

It's hilarious that Hillary says she will regulate Wall Street when she can't even conform to the same logic as say, insider trading, which the street has to undergo rigorous testing, regulations, compliance systems...etc even to avoid the *APPEARANCE* of impropriety. Yet she can't even do so herself. Why? Because she is corrupt as fuck. But we know that, on the other hand, you just assume it for Trump. Apply it fairly.

In terms of the key claim you just made, the actual evidence is the university took advantage of the prestige of Bill Clinton's name rather than directly obtained advantages from governmental action as a quid pro quo or the like. In other words exactly the same thing that Trump routinely has done with various business interests of his, with the distinction being unlike Clinton who is no longer involved with the university group in question as a chancellor or the like, Trump still owns his various businesses.
Click to expand...

Ohhh, and what about the significantly higher grants through the State Dept? I suppose that was just mere happenstance?

With the rest of the claim, the obvious massive distinction again is the fact its money to a charitable foundation with the Clinton's name rather than direct financial benefit to the Clintons. Now if Hillary were running against a different candidate this could be a potentially more creditable issue to bring up, but in this case we're talking about Trump. Trump again has failed to effectively address the glaring conflict of interest issue of his direct interests in his businesses and what happens when he is President. (In terms of the potential transparency issue with Clinton, you have with Trump the fact he has not and refuses to release his tax returns or the full scope of his business interests which would even allow Americans to evaluate when a decision might have been improperly oriented to benefiting his businesses.)
Click to expand...

If they had stopped raking in donations for the CF/CGI and their own personal wealth during that period I would give them the benefit of the doubt. instead, Bill ran around the world giving speeches in country's we were in negotiations with. Took jobs that accepted additional taxpayer money. Peddled influence globally. It is a *MASSIVE* conflict of interest and a clear violation of the rules that were set out when Hillary took the job.
 
LegendKiller said:
Sure. What's yours? You are *assuming* trump will create conflicts. In this case we have definitive proof that she is corrupt.
Click to expand...
You can point to comparatively MINOR ISSUES with Clinton versus the MASSIVE conflict interest issue which are absolutely GUARANTEED to occur with Trump unless he sells his businesses. To be blunt if you're not concerned about the issues with Trump in this area, its apparent you don't actually care about any of those issues with Hillary and bringing them up is purely an excuse on your part to bash her.

It doesn't matter where the rest of the mining is. Those are US strategic assets. They should have remained so.
Click to expand...
Why? This sounds like an unbelievably silly anti-free trade argument as formulated (with not even any disclaimers) at best. We're talking about something that can easily be imported from countries such as Australia and Canada for example, and unlike for example oil and its use in various areas, uranium for a nuclear power plant can last for a long time before needing to be replaced.

Furthermore, these are mines in the US so its not like they are suddenly going to run away. If somehow grossly implausibly a true uranium shortage crisis suddenly existed and the behavior of the business owners was clearly directly causing the problem on a strategic scale and refusing to stop acting in a clearly malicious manner, there are potential legal mechanisms in place for the US government (with the consent of Congress) for the government to temporarily take over the mines while compensating the owners. (While this would be an extreme step, refusing foreign ownership on the grounds this profoundly unlikely circumstance would ever come up would be an even more extreme step in key respects.) There clearly appear to be allot of areas of US business where foreign ownership would be of way greater concern than this one when you really look at the facts.
 
LegendKiller said:
And the only thing that Hillary can offer is globalism and watering down of any value system beyond the State and it's utter contempt for the proles. That's why the totalitarian EU fits so well with liberals.

But hey, TPP is the "gold standard". Enjoy competing with Chinese jobs gained through shitty environmental controls, suppressed currency, State funding...etc. As in, you can't get any jobs because a Command Economy with unlimited State resources cannot hope to compete with anything but the same.

Which is ultimately the goal.
Click to expand...

Good point on the TPP, you should pressure the close to 100% of Republican lawmakers who support it. I think Rand and some other guy were the only no votes.
 
Aegeon said:
You can point to comparatively MINOR ISSUES with Clinton versus the MASSIVE conflict interest issue which are absolutely GUARANTEED to occur with Trump unless he sells his businesses. To be blunt if you're not concerned about the issues with Trump in this area, its apparent you don't actually care about any of those issues with Hillary and bringing them up is purely an excuse on your part to bash her.
Click to expand...

And this just highlights what type of people are for Hillary. As long as she has a vagina and is a liberal it doesn't matter how much corruption and lies she has against her, everything is minor.

Why? This sounds like an unbelievably silly anti-free trade argument as formulated (with not even any disclaimers) at best. We're talking about something that can easily be imported from countries such as Australia and Canada for example, and unlike for example oil and its use in various areas, uranium for a nuclear power plant can last for a long time before needing to be replaced.
Click to expand...
Yes, protecting strategic nuclear material is anti-free trade. What the flying fuck are you smoking? Even more evidence that she can do no wrong in your eyes.

Furthermore, these are mines in the US so its not like they are suddenly going to run away. If somehow grossly implausibly a true uranium shortage crisis suddenly existed and the behavior of the business owners was clearly directly causing the problem on a strategic scale and refusing to stop acting in a clearly malicious manner, there are potential legal mechanisms in place for the US government (with the consent of Congress) for the government to temporarily take over the mines while compensating the owners. (While this would be an extreme step, refusing foreign ownership on the grounds this profoundly unlikely circumstance would ever come up would be an even more extreme step in key respects.) There clearly appear to be allot of areas of US business where foreign ownership would be of way greater concern than this one when you really look at the facts.
Click to expand...

Ohh, so as long as you deem it not too bad, relative other things, it's all good. Gotcha.

So you somehow think that handing strategic nuclear material to a company closely linked to a guy who is our #1 antagonist is just a-okay. lol.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Good point on the TPP, you should pressure the close to 100% of Republican lawmakers who support it. I think Rand and some other guy were the only no votes.
Click to expand...

Herein lies the rub, every single one of these shithead politicians are in on TPP. Why? Because they get paid by the Asians to be.

Who funds the "US" Chamber of Commerce?
 
ivwshane said:
Sorry bub it doesn't work that way, you made the claim now back it up. Go ahead and give me 10 quotes from posters here touting the qualities of the Venezuelans government.
Click to expand...
I guess you found 0 of 10. I think I have my answer. Don't criticize the Socialist party line. Bernie might want to have his picture taken with that failed state leader.
 
Artdeco said:
Well, the U.K. voted to exit, only 60% of Scotland wanted to stay, as a sub group, and his supporters at the rally/opening were likely Brexit supporters.

Scotland leaving the UK isn't a given at this point.
Click to expand...

Considering that they narrowly voted to stay in the UK because they thought it would stay in the EU I think it is highly likely they will exit the UK and stay in the EU.

There is talk of N. Ireland leaving the UK too.

The Brits likely just ended the UK.
 
Last edited:
LegendKiller said:
Yes, protecting strategic nuclear material is anti-free trade. What the flying fuck are you smoking? Even more evidence that she can do no wrong in your eyes.

Ohh, so as long as you deem it not too bad, relative other things, it's all good. Gotcha.

So you somehow think that handing strategic nuclear material to a company closely linked to a guy who is our #1 antagonist is just a-okay. lol.
Click to expand...
So how is it actually truly valid strategic material which needs to be treated that differently than most other things when you look at the facts versus hysteria associated with things nuclear? Its not like Russia even vaguely needs imports of Uranium for their military needs for example. If we were talking about a situation where primarily Russian ownership were to control 100% of US uranium mines, that would be a potentially different situation, but we're obvious not even remotely talking about something like that. (Actual US uranium needs associated with the military are really quite small by the way.)

Obviously the ownership in no ways prevents the US from imposing regulations preventing the companies owning the mines from selling the uranium to a country the US has designated as rogue as is worried about nuclear weapons proliferation or the like involving the country in question.

In other words the question is do you support unnecessary heavy handed government intervention into the affairs of private businesses in areas such as blocking who they can sell their companies to? (I personally at least believe such intervention should only apply to necessary cases where there is sufficient justification that can be actually articulated. In this case various government agencies did take the precaution of reviewing the sale and the actual justification for blocking it simply was not there.)
 
LegendKiller said:
And herein lies the dilemma of the lefty - the only way to view the world is in a binary prism (ironic since you are binary, as I have pointed out). Either you're with us, or you're a nazi. There is no spectrum, no middle ground, there's just 1s and 0s.

And with "us", it means you have to accept complete totalitarianism, or else.

I'll make it clear again. I don't care if you come here to fill an unfilled job that has been offered to an American, fairly. I don't care if you come here when we have a shortage of labor. However, when lower educated minorities need jobs and can learn a trade, why the fuck are we bringing in boatloads more immigrants? Because it suppresses wages.

The same goes for Brexit. Why the fuck are they importing shit tons of immigrants when so many need good paying jobs.
Click to expand...

This show how little you, other righties and voters over there don't know about Brexit. The UK negotiated as part of joining the EU to maintain control of their borders. People don't have free travel to and from The UK like they have in other member EU states. Their exit from the EU will not change that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top