The Thread of Democrats

[Scot Dutchy]

Never mind what Trump charges the state for the use of his own golf course.

[Hermit]

I didn't bother verifying the numbers. I'm sure the cost of secret service protection for the President is high on golf courses - the relevant inquiry would be a comparison between the daily cost for other activities with the daily cost of being on the golf course. We can't know if it's excessive without knowing what the cost would be if he did other things. There is a cost to secret service even when he is sitting in the oval office.

Let's just recapitulate, shall we? OK, let's shall.

1.) Laklak sarcastically mentioned that that the investigation cost $35 million dollars with allegedly very little to show for it.
2.) I replied that trump's golfing activities cost a lot more. The implication was that this cost put the lack of benefits to tax payers in the shade.
3.) You cried out "bullshit".
4.) I furnished evidence that my assertion was not bullshit.
5.) You did a variation on the whatabout theme by commenting why Obama's golf costs to tax payers might have been cheaper. Yes, supposedly funny, but just a lame attempt at diverting from the issue.
6.) Realising the lameness of your previous attempt you try another diversion: We don't know the full facts.

In this you are correct. We are not in possession of the full facts. The articles I linked to said as much. Duh. Despite that, what we do know about costs makes it pretty fucking obvious that Trump's golfing activities have cost the US tax payer more than Mueller's investigation, especially since the latter turned a net profit, as L'Emmerdeur has pointed out to you a couple of days ago. To nobody's surprise both you and laklak ignored that.

[Scot Dutchy]

Trump has a win win situation when he plays golf. He owns the golf course and charges the American tax payer when he uses it. He wins as an owner and a player. The craziest situation. Talk about the Mexicans paying for the wall; the American tax payer is paying for his golf course twice over.

[Forty Two]

I didn't bother verifying the numbers. I'm sure the cost of secret service protection for the President is high on golf courses - the relevant inquiry would be a comparison between the daily cost for other activities with the daily cost of being on the golf course. We can't know if it's excessive without knowing what the cost would be if he did other things. There is a cost to secret service even when he is sitting in the oval office.

Let's just recapitulate, shall we? OK, let's shall.

1.) Laklak sarcastically mentioned that that the investigation cost $35 million dollars with allegedly very little to show for it.

Rather accurate. Of course, that's a matter of opinion. Depends on what one values.

2.) I replied that trump's golfing activities cost a lot more. The implication was that this cost put the lack of benefits to tax payers in the shade.

Whattaboutism. The waste of money on security for golfing activities - or expensive trips to Hawaii - or wasteful government spending programs, etc., say nothing about the value of the money spent on the special counsel investigation.

3.) You cried out "bullshit".

I did to the meme, not to the costs associated with Presidential security when the current president, like all previous Presidents for the last century, play golf (except GWBush, who stopped playing golf to keep up appearances).

4.) I furnished evidence that my assertion was not bullshit.

The meme was bullshit - the cartoon. Your "evidence" doesn't apply to the same thing. Moreover, there is nothing generally wrong with Presidents golfing. Most do. It's really just you holding Trump to another standard.

5.) You did a variation on the whatabout theme by commenting why Obama's golf costs to tax payers might have been cheaper. Yes, supposedly funny, but just a lame attempt at diverting from the issue.

I'm diverting from your diversion - this thread is about Democrats, not your whattaboutism about what Trump does - and then you call my redirection of the matter back to a Democrat's behavior as itself a diversion and whattaboutism. Dude this thread is about DEMOCRATS. Your diversion into Trump's wasteful spending is "whattaboutism."

6.) Realising the lameness of your previous attempt you try another diversion: We don't know the full facts.

Yours was the diversion. I am trying to keep this thread about Democrats. YOU are engaged in more Trump bashing here - and that's diversion and whattaboutism relative to the topic of this thread - "The Thread of Democrats."

In this you are correct. We are not in possession of the full facts. The articles I linked to said as much. Duh. Despite that, what we do know about costs makes it pretty fucking obvious that Trump's golfing activities have cost the US tax payer more than Mueller's investigation, especially since the latter turned a net profit, as L'Emmerdeur has pointed out to you a couple of days ago. To nobody's surprise both you and laklak ignored that.

Whattaboutism. Trump's security costing a lot of money doesn't add or detract to or from the issue of the waste of democrats.

[Forty Two]

Biden

biden 1.jpg (8.74 KiB) Viewed 3101 times

[Forty Two]

Biden

Biden 2.jpg (11.41 KiB) Viewed 3100 times

Hands, Biden! Hands!

biden 3.jpg (12.72 KiB) Viewed 3100 times

[Sean Hayden]

More dumb fuckery from Americans.

[Scot Dutchy]

What else do you get from them these days? Government.

[Forty Two]

More dumb fuckery from Americans.

[Forty Two]

[Forty Two]

[Forty Two]

[Sean Hayden]

I don't like it. I think it's the wrong approach to take. It really seems counterproductive to your fight against the insanity of the SJW crowd.

[Forty Two]

I don't like it. I think it's the wrong approach to take. It really seems counterproductive to your fight against the insanity of the SJW crowd.

LOL - it's joking. It's funny because it's Democrats reaping what their constituents are sowing.

You want "believe all women," and "yes all women," and "it's all men" - it's patriarchy - everyday sexism.

Everyday. Sexism.

In the language of the SJW, this is exactly what they talk about. Things that are not "big deals" are actually big deals. Microaggressions add up to huge things, which is why they are important. Things that are not "intended" to be offensive, are offensive, and the reason the offender doesn't see them as offensive is because he's white - cis - male - het - old - he doesn't get it, and it's because he is part of the patriarchy. Bodily integrity means that you don't hug anyone or kiss them without their consent - consent must be freely given and verbal - in fact, sometimes "enthusiastically" given. A man is not "entitled" to touch a woman, to invade her personal space.

You can't sell that line over and over again, and then pretend it doesn't apply when the guns are trained on your "side."

That's what makes this so funny. It's just like when a member of the religious right "fundies" is caught with his hand in the "cookie jar" so-to-speak. It's worse than normal defalcations, because it's coming from the side that moralizes. If you're the side doing the moralizing, it's natural for people to find it funny when your side fails to meet its own standards. (not meaning you personally - a general "you").

[Sean Hayden]

I get that, I know that's what you're doing. But you know that I defend people regardless of politics against SJW bullshit. I try to anyway.