Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)
-   -   Odds that Russia has something on Trump? (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/92155-odds-russia-has-something-trump.html)

Cuthbert 07-22-2018 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls (Post 1978900)
Did you read anything after that?

"Welcome to the era of extreme fame leverage"

Also, curious what isn't self made about her.

Yes I did read the whole post and the words on the article thanks mate.

DwnWthVwls 07-22-2018 05:25 PM

Do you have some kind of arbitrary dollar amount that one can not receive in order to be considered self made? Idk anything about her, but if she just got some money and did all the leg work, I'm not gonna shit on her for it.

The Batlord 07-22-2018 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls (Post 1978900)
Did you read anything after that?

"Welcome to the era of extreme fame leverage"

Also, curious what isn't self made about her.

I've never been a follower of the Kardashians but is she not just coasting on the fame of her sister which originally was because of a sex tape? She wasn't even an adult when the show began.

DwnWthVwls 07-22-2018 05:27 PM

I thought she was doing a bunch of business ****.. I dont think she's on her way to being a billionaire and making more than the rest of her family off that lame show.

Frownland 07-22-2018 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls (Post 1978904)
Do you have some kind of arbitrary dollar amount that one can not receive in order to be considered self made? Idk anything about her, but if she just got some money and did all the leg work, I'm not gonna shit on her for it.

No thanks, I'd rather sit around and be mad about it.

DwnWthVwls 07-22-2018 05:32 PM

You jelly cause she wasting money on dumb shit instead of buying dispensaries, breweries, and distilleries.. I feel ya.

Cuthbert 07-22-2018 05:34 PM

I am surprisingly tranquil.

DwnWthVwls 07-22-2018 05:35 PM

Fluff is literally his avatar right now.

Cuthbert 07-22-2018 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls (Post 1978920)
Fluff is literally his avatar right now.

I've been meaning to change it.

DwnWthVwls 07-22-2018 05:44 PM

Don't you dare!

Frownland 07-22-2018 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fluff (Post 1978921)
I've been meaning to change it.

https://i.imgur.com/WNBpdiT.png

Cuthbert 07-22-2018 05:52 PM

Don't like that one Frown.

Trollheart 07-22-2018 05:53 PM

In honour of their survival....
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lla_logo16.png

Chula Vista 07-22-2018 07:16 PM

Her worth is mostly from her cosmetics company. The rest is from endorsements, modeling, doing ad work, TV salary, and appearance fees.

But rest assured, being associated with the K name when that show was at the height of its popularity opened most of the doors. She was more than savvy enough to take advantage though.

Neapolitan 07-22-2018 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1977881)
Even before yesterday's stunning announcement, Trump has spent his entire presidency sticking up for Putin, heaping praise on Putin, refusing to say anything negative about Putin, having 2 hour closed door meeting with Putin and not briefing his top intelligence people,

:laughing: Funny thing that during the Reagan years the left blasted the Reagan and the Republicans for the Cold War. Now that Trump triumphantly won the 2016 elections - a decisive win over Hillary Rodham Clinton - they desperately want that Cold War back.

The Batlord 07-22-2018 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1978946)
:laughing: Funny thing that during the Reagan years the left blasted the Reagan and the Republicans for the Cold War. Now that Trump triumphantly won the 2016 elections - a decisive win over Hillary Rodham Clinton - they desperately want that Cold War back.

I don't think getting less votes but winning on the technicality of the electoral college counts as decisive. The majority of Americans don't want him.

Neapolitan 07-22-2018 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1978950)
I don't think getting less votes but winning on the technicality of the electoral college counts as decisive. The majority of Americans don't want him.

"The technicality of the electoral college" was brought to bare by our Founding Father as to ascertain the equality of share interest in governance between rural and urban population of this country of ours. Nay, to those who disagreeth.

The Batlord 07-22-2018 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1978957)
"The technicality of the electoral college" was brought to bare by our Founding Father as to ascertain the equality of share interest in governance between rural and urban population of this country of ours. Nay, to those who disagreeth.

Mostly so smaller states would maximize their influence and actually sign off on the damn Constitution. The only reason conservatives support the electoral college is because it disproportionately benefits them. America is not as conservative as elections would have you believe but we still have to deal with backwards conservative nonsense.

Neapolitan 07-22-2018 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1978961)
Mostly so smaller states would maximize their influence and actually sign off on the damn Constitution. The only reason conservatives support the electoral college is because it disproportionately benefits them. America is not as conservative as elections would have you believe but we still have to deal with backwards conservative nonsense.

Half of the US population lives in nine states. If it was by population, then it's possible only cities in California, Texas, Florida, and New York would be making the decisions. All those small states, and small town wouldn't have any say. If it swings back and forth between Republican and Democratic every one or two presidential elections, than it must be achieving what it's suppose to do.

Anteater 07-22-2018 08:21 PM

Who would want to live in a country where everything is basically decisively decided by California and N.Y. every election though? Texas is the only "big" red state that's worth anything serious in the electoral college, and even if Florida swung red every election...well, it doesn't turn out well for the red states.

I'm all for a new system if it makes sense. I just don't think the popular vote being everything is a viable alternative to what we have now. :)

The Batlord 07-22-2018 08:28 PM

Yes let's decide policy by landmass and not population. Makes total sense. Montana is ****ing big, yo, who cares if there's only a million people there. Cause looking at a map makes LA and New York City look small and who gives a ****?

Neapolitan 07-22-2018 08:35 PM

Seriously ask yourself this question: do you live in the United States of America, or in the United Population of America?

The Batlord 07-22-2018 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1978968)
Seriously ask yourself this question: do you live in the United States of America, or in the United Population of America?

At this point states aren't even federal anymore. They're just administrative districts of the central government. States are no longer their own quasi-countries where the vision of the people of that state is only hindered by issues that would threaten the union of those states. That experiment failed and we fought a war over it. We're a population.

Neapolitan 07-22-2018 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1978970)
At this point states aren't even federal anymore. They're just administrative districts of the central government. States are no longer their own quasi-countries where the vision of the people of that state is only hindered by issues that would threaten the union of those states. That experiment failed and we fought a war over it. We're a population.

The only time that happened was during Confederate States of America. I know you're from the South and all, but please fast-forward to the present.

I think you mean the control over States leans more toward the federal level than the state level.

The Batlord 07-22-2018 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1978971)
The only time that happened was during Confederate States of America. I know you're from the South and all, but please fast-forward to the present.

I think you mean the control over States leans more toward the federal level than the state level.

I don't think you know what "federal" means. "Federalism" is when the central government has equal power with states, provinces, or whatever. That is no longer the case because the central government has seized more and more powers from the states, making the US a de facto, weak unitary country.

Anteater 07-22-2018 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1978966)
Yes let's decide policy by landmass and not population. Makes total sense. Montana is ****ing big, yo, who cares if there's only a million people there. Cause looking at a map makes LA and New York City look small and who gives a ****?

Do you have dyslexia or something? Just curious.

Chula Vista 07-22-2018 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1978963)
Half of the US population lives in nine states.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1978968)
Seriously ask yourself this question: do you live in the United States of America, or in the United Population of America?

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
People vote, not states. Letting states decide an election is asinine. Especially in the age of advanced gerrymandering.

2016

HRC: 48.2% of the vote
DJT: 46.1% of the vote

We the people????


*live

Neapolitan 07-22-2018 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1978972)
I don't think you know what "federal" means. "Federalism" is when the central government has equal power with states, provinces, or whatever. That is no longer the case because the central government has seized more and more powers from the states, making the US a de facto, weak unitary country.

Quote:

"Federalism is the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) Federalism country.
Yeah, that is how I used the term as in "the central or 'federal' government."

Are you trying to say states are so control by the federal gov't, the states aren't federal anymore?

I don't know what you mean and it doesn't make sense to me. Not the part where the federal gov't has more control. The part where you think the state government isn't federal anymore.

The Batlord 07-23-2018 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1978976)
Yeah, that is how I used the term as in "the central or 'federal' government."

Are you trying to say states are so control by the federal gov't, the states aren't federal anymore?

I don't know what you mean and it doesn't make sense to me. Not the part where the federal gov't has more control. The part where you think the state government isn't federal anymore.

I already explained. Federalism is at least half-dead so all this states rights business is pissing in the wind. The United States is and longer are.

Chula Vista 07-23-2018 03:01 PM

Clinton won by almost 3 million votes.

2,868,686 to be exact.

That's a lot of "We, the People".

Trollheart 07-23-2018 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1978992)
I already explained. Federalism is at least half-dead so all this states rights business is pissing in the wind. The United States is and longer are.



Huh?

Neapolitan 07-23-2018 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1979220)
Clinton won by almost 3 million votes.

2,868,686 to be exact.

That's a lot of "We, the People".

That's not even 1% of the total population of the US. So don't act like she won by a land slide. :rolleyes:

Trump won cause he worked more diligently than Rodham-Clinton did on the campaign trail. While Hillary was hacking green globs into a glass of water, playing the absentee candidate. Trump was out there having rallies and winning votes. Endearing himself to the American People. Making America Great Again!

Cuthbert 07-23-2018 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1979229)
Trump was out there having rallies and winning votes. Endearing himself to the American People. Making America Great Again!

:D

You a Trump fan Nea?

Anteater 07-23-2018 04:49 PM

It's actually pretty darn impressive. California and N.Y. were never going to seriously go for a Republican candidate, even if you put a nuclear warhead to their heads. He got states that hadn't voted Republican in years. Practically nobody saw it coming, which is why there was such an uproar to begin with.

Clinton had a shot at winning despite all the email stuff, but Bernie wouldn't have lost Wisconsin.

The Batlord 07-23-2018 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart (Post 1979223)
[/B]

Huh?

It's an American thing. Before the Civil War the states considered themselves mini countries who were all experiments in democracy with the right to their own particular vision (the United States "are" because it was a plural concept) and after that idea was destroyed by the war once it was made clear by the US government that this was a singular country where you couldn't opt out if you didn't like being a part of it anymore, meaning that states were not singular entities banding together for mutual benefit but a part of a whole (the United States "is").

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1979229)
That's not even 1% of the total population of the US. So don't act like she won by a land slide. :rolleyes:

Getting less votes is not decisive. Getting enough votes to have a public mandate is decisive. In no way did Trump do that. He won through electoral math.

Quote:

Trump won cause he worked more diligently than Rodham-Clinton did on the campaign trail. While Hillary was hacking green globs into a glass of water, playing the absentee candidate. Trump was out there having rallies and winning votes. Endearing himself to the American People. Making America Great Again!
Trump won because he appealed to people's basest instincts rather than their logic. He appealed to nationalism, he appealed to anti-establishment sentiment to a people who felt that their nationalism wasn't being represented, he appealed to the promise of stability in an uncertain political landscape through blunt statements whether or not they made sense, but most importantly he appealed to the authoritarian desire to have a strong leader who projected strength and made his constituency feel like they had someone who would protect their desires (i.e. protect them like a parent).

Trollheart 07-23-2018 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1979245)
It's an American thing. Before the Civil War the states considered themselves mini countries who were all experiments in democracy with the right to their own particular vision (the United States "are" because it was a plural concept) and after that idea was destroyed by the war once it was made clear by the US government that this was a singular country where you couldn't opt out if you didn't like being a part of it anymore, meaning that states were not singular entities banding together for mutual benefit but a part of a whole (the United States "is").



Yeah, okay, thanks. But I think you missed out a "no". It says "The United States is and longer are". Shouldn't that be "no longer are"? I would have kind of understood that. If not, then I'm lost.

DwnWthVwls 07-23-2018 06:02 PM

The united states are ****.. Alaska ftw.

OccultHawk 07-23-2018 06:31 PM

Can we start calling the Civil War CW1 in anticipation for the even more exciting sequel?

The Batlord 07-23-2018 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 1979284)
Can we start calling the Civil War CW1 in anticipation for the even more exciting sequel?

No because then it will remind me of The Vampire Diaries.

Neapolitan 07-23-2018 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater (Post 1979240)
It's actually pretty darn impressive. California and N.Y. were never going to seriously go for a Republican candidate, even if you put a nuclear warhead to their heads. He got states that hadn't voted Republican in years. Practically nobody saw it coming, which is why there was such an uproar to begin with.

Clinton had a shot at winning despite all the email stuff, but Bernie wouldn't have lost Wisconsin.

Very impressive indeed. Trump won states that the media refused to consider swing states, assuming they were in Hillary Rodham-Clinton's pocket. The media had everyone brainwashed that Rodham-Clinton would win it was like "wowie zowie he won?" Unbelievable!

He put so much effort in his campaign. Talking to wonderful people on the campaign trail. Trying to Make America Great Again.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:16 PM.


© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.