Politics Thread

LachiusTZ

Date the ban will be lifted: Never
<Donors Crew>
3,727
12d 18h 47m
Reactions
4,359 332 0 0
Lendarios Lendarios

I think they make a mint one... Or someone does. That's my favorite.

Haven't quite gotten to the "fuck it I bring booze to work" level of apathy. Omw tho
 
9,693
20d 11h 24m
Reactions
12,525 1,100 0 0
i guess we'll have to agree to disagree, if Tucker had spent his time to rebutting CPL then he would have been shouted over by him. CPL was just blathering dumb shit and Tucker wanted him to come off as an idiot and he did rebut his stupid "Trump cheated while he had a 4 month old at home" by attacking his selective morals. you cant rebut every claim in a setting like that. one moment the guy is sticking up for his porn client then the next he's attacking Trump for having sex with a porn star. whats there to debate?
Yeah, we'll have to disagree here. I love me some Tucker and I think he does God's work exposing The Crazy every day, and you can argue that if he had actually argued CPL on fact rather than emotion it would have gone the same way, but ultimately Tucker is the host and he let Avanetti steer the discussion/debate. The whole thing descended into a mud slinging shitshow that was painful to watch, and the reality is that CPL being a bottom feeder has nowhere else to go but up, while imho Tucker demeaned himself. It was like WWE on the news. I have no doubt that edited clips will be sperged by CNN all day maximizing the stupidity of the interview.

Edit: I will admit the comeback of "I only watch torture porn, that's why I watch you on CNN" was a great, he should have held onto that one.
 
Last edited:
9,693
20d 11h 24m
Reactions
12,525 1,100 0 0
Nah, I'm good. If you can't see why him panning Avenatti over SJW issues was a good look there's no point in discussing anything with you regarding the subject.
Gotcha, you're too smart for me and have no time for explaining.
 

Chukzombi

Slayer of Kerafyrm
30,291
34d 3h 57m
Reactions
65,054 3,130 0 0
Yeah, we'll have to disagree here. I love me some Tucker and I think he does God's work exposing The Crazy every day, and you can argue that if he had actually argued CPL on fact rather than emotion it would have gone the same way, but ultimately Tucker is the host and he let Avanetti steer the discussion/debate. The whole thing descended into a mud slinging shitshow that was painful to watch, and the reality is that CPL being a bottom feeder has nowhere else to go but up, while imho Tucker demeaned himself. It was like WWE on the news. I have no doubt that edited clips will be sperged by CNN all day maximizing the stupidity of the interview.
he used the same talking points that that flaming fag, dick goodstein uses. its nonsense talking points and one thing has nothing to do with the other. bringing up cohen as some kind of gotcha when he knows nothing of the details in his plea deal (and neither does Tucker) was a bad argument to begin with and Tucker didnt fall for it. its like saying i lost an argument with you about colonising Mars when you tell me that i'm wrong because the moon is closer.
 

B_Mizzle

Trakanon Raider
1,293
5d 10h 59m
Reactions
1,867 33 0 0
Lit up for what? I have no doubt in typical Leftist style he failed some form of purity test, but imho I would figure that if they were rational they would be applauding his appearance since he more than held his own. I mean, anybody who didn't recognize Tucker getting schooled on the Cohen pleading by so transparently shuffling his papers, consulting his notes, and then throwing out a hail mary ad-hominem change of subject of "you're exploiting a poor woman that has to strp tonight while you wear a 1,000 suit". Beyond weak.
Schooled? Your take on that interview is very unique.

Tucker tried to make it a semi legit interview at the start and CPL decided to go down his list of talking points instead of answering questions about policy statements. So, Tucker took him down on a very legit point, exploiting a woman for political and financial gain. I'm pretty sure CPL wasn't used to that kind of treatment he's been living in a far left echo chamber for the past 2 years and getting softball CNN bullshit interviews.
 

Lenardo

<Donors Crew>
2,086
6d 10h 0m
Reactions
759 103 0 0
MY GROCERY store stopped selling the baileys creamers last week(for some reason),,, i am partial to the mudslide and the creme brulee` flavors personally. my wife like a different brand that is vanilla...
found out the baileys creamers are made by my local dairy (Hood) (major brand not "local dairy" but still)
 
9,693
20d 11h 24m
Reactions
12,525 1,100 0 0
Schooled? Your take on that interview is very unique.

Tucker tried to make it a semi legit interview at the start and CPL decided to go down his list of talking points instead of answering questions about policy statements. So, Tucker took him down on a very legit point, exploiting a woman for political and financial gain. I'm pretty sure CPL wasn't used to that kind of treatment he's been living in a far left echo chamber for the past 2 years and getting softball CNN bullshit interviews.
I agree he tried to start the interview by addressing his supposed run for President, as well as comparing his hyperbolic campaign statements comparing Russian election interference with 100,000 russian soldiers on the border. But Avanetti specified he had only agreed to come on the show to talk about his client and Tucker acquiesced to go that route. imho in any case, he failed to articulate the exploitation route well, just making empty appeals to moralism like "you're exploiting a woman dancing naked on stage tonight". How about delving into specifics if you want to go that route? How much money you making off her? When's your book deal? So you're maximizing her lawsuit for attention as part of your presidential run? All of that would be a lot better than comments about his expensive suit or how he's wearing nice shit while she strips. Tucker looked as cheap and petty as he did.

If he wanted to talk policy points he failed to keep his guest on that track, and if he wanted to have a shitslinging character attack he failed to capitalize on some great opportunities. Even his single policy question at the start, I was waiting for "so you are going to compare 100,000 soldiers on the border to $50,000 in facebook advertising?", but it never came. "Russian interference" was never defined and allowed to float out there like some undefined malevolent specter, rather than being defined as the joke it is/was.
 

sadris

Vizconde de la Reino
12,453
21d 17h 14m
Reactions
40,548 2,831 0 0
Bayou Renaissance Man: About that Puerto Rican hurricane death toll . . .

Just read the comments above, and think about them. The study did not count actual bodies on the ground, or look at how they died. It calculated the total number of deaths in the period under discussion, and compared them to death tolls in the same period in previous years, then classified the discrepancy as "hurricane Maria deaths". It did so without actual, physical evidence that the hurricane or its aftermath had actually caused the deaths in question - it simply assumed that. This was a purely statistical analysis.

What's more, the emphasis on emotion rather than fact - "Puerto Ricans do not deserve to have their pain questioned" - is complete and utter nonsense. You can't quantify emotion. You can - and should - quantify facts. If you don't, and you act according to wrong information, then on your own head be the consequences. Heinlein's dictum comes to mind.
 

Lanx

Baron of the Realm
14,944
28d 42m
Reactions
20,988 4,044 0 0

Drakurii

<Donors Crew>
5,768
46d 19h 40m
Reactions
14,928 921 0 0
9,693
20d 11h 24m
Reactions
12,525 1,100 0 0
Pat finally out with a video after a multi month reprieve. It's about Brexit, but he might as well as describing the differences between dems and repubs.

 

Comrade Araysar

Russian Turdgod
<Donors Crew>
31,657
Reactions
49,326 3,921 0 0

Dodsengel

Lord Nagafen Raider
108
3d 9h 18m
Reactions
305 25 0 0
I agree he tried to start the interview by addressing his supposed run for President, as well as comparing his hyperbolic campaign statements comparing Russian election interference with 100,000 russian soldiers on the border. But Avanetti specified he had only agreed to come on the show to talk about his client and Tucker acquiesced to go that route. imho in any case, he failed to articulate the exploitation route well, just making empty appeals to moralism like "you're exploiting a woman dancing naked on stage tonight". How about delving into specifics if you want to go that route? How much money you making off her? When's your book deal? So you're maximizing her lawsuit for attention as part of your presidential run? All of that would be a lot better than comments about his expensive suit or how he's wearing nice shit while she strips. Tucker looked as cheap and petty as he did.

If he wanted to talk policy points he failed to keep his guest on that track, and if he wanted to have a shitslinging character attack he failed to capitalize on some great opportunities. Even his single policy question at the start, I was waiting for "so you are going to compare 100,000 soldiers on the border to $50,000 in facebook advertising?", but it never came. "Russian interference" was never defined and allowed to float out there like some undefined malevolent specter, rather than being defined as the joke it is/was.
I agree with this. Avenatti made himself look like an idiot but he also made Tucker look like an idiot. Tucker failed to properly respond to Avenatti's quips about Russian election interference, the $50k in facebook ads comment would have been spot on but he didn't do it. Tucker failed to properly respond to Avenatti's characterization of Cohen's plea - easy response, "you're a lawyer, are you saying everyone that pleads guilty is guilty?" Also if you're going to call someone out on an expensive suit, it should cost more than $1k. I like Tucker but he dropped the ball on this one.