dont want NATO abolished either. Ironically neither does President Trump. He just wanted countries to pay their long-ago agreed upon share of GDP. Yet Macron and Merkel are out and about ranting for a “combied European army to fight USA China and Russia” (errr wat)



lmao hey lady im glad the youth/people in our age group are getting more active in politics (even if i disagree with their views) but +25k jobs is nothing to sneer at (along with all the associated growth with the building of the plant along with other businesses flocking to the area etc.) and in the long run most likely this will create moar taxes for you to redistribute to pay for your plan for free healthcare

This post was edited by excellence on Nov 13 2018 11:45am

i think they're just adopting the Trump Doctrine. make outlandish statement and/or action in an attempt to force a renegotiation of a deal you're not happy with. pretty smart tbh, if they get NATO abolished they can renegotiate year by year on a needs based system, or better yet just renegotiate NATO to a more needs based system. NATO right now is like a fucking loot crate, each month they get a box of stuff someone told them they need.

true that. she does have at least some point though. luxury condos and gentrification indeed do not benefit the people already living in an area. what she fails to see, however, is the amount of jobs and tax revenue amazon is gonna bring to her district. of course amazon moving to her district will be a huge net positive for the district, even though there are some downsides. but she doesnt want to see that, because hurr durr corporations bad.

in general, she doesnt see hard work, jobs, opportunities as a way to make the lives of poor and working families better. no, the only way she sees to improve people's lives is for them to stay poor and get more government handouts which are paid for by someone else's taxes. what an unamerican attitude.
she's fully indulged in her class warfare worldview. in a certain sense, she's a less smart and more attractive version of inkanddagger.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 13 2018 12:05pm

i find the whole situation terrible ironic.

Bezos owns WSJ and is the sjw hero, but also an evil corporation owner that must be stopped. Amazon coming to town is good, and she knows it, but she feels she can fudge the numbers and get more tax revenue. when in reality she'll likely run them out of town at worst or have zero effect at best (for Amazon). meanwhile the WSJ will report her ignorant mud slinging, and make corporate profits for the big papa corporate overlord all paid for by SJW subscribers. what a fucking ball of knots.

She wants to negotiate terms of employment before they pick a city. This opportunity would have never happened under her leadership, amazon would have just walked away.

She's amazingly bad at this.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/13/media/cnn-sues-trump/index.html

this boys and girls is why you don't use Infowars doctored videos to bar someone. It's the same as Trump saying he fired Comey for not shutting down the Probe. You start from grounds, legally, where you're untouchable (just fire or bar them based on their actions alone) and muddy the waters, legally, with questionable motives. Does it rise to the level of illegality, likely not, but being embroiled in such litigation can cause for a lot of embarrassing leaks in evidentiary discovery.

I don't really understand your perspective on this at all. It seems like you are saying cnn is doing a good job here?

lol, no. that's not even close to my stance here but i see how u could get that.

the subject of my perspective isn't CNN, or in the other example i used Comey, it's Trump's WH. They released a doctored video as partial motivation for barring Acosta from the WH. Legally you put yourself in hot water when you use incorrect information to motivate something like a firing or barring someone from the press core. and as a result leave yourself open to scrutiny and/or litigation. In the case of Acosta, if the WH didn't give credibility to that video, then further send kelly ann conway out to argue over it, they'd be less open to a lawsuit. in the case of Comey mentioning the investigation at all was a mistake, they'd have been better off claiming it was job performance related stemming from his release pre-election and the be vague about a straw that broke the camels back situation. simple mistakes that lead to lawsuits that should be tossed out not getting tossed out and instead making it to evidence discovery.

i dont like frivolous lawsuits, but worse yet i really dont like people being ignorant and shooting themselves in the foot.

provide the specifics of DoCtOrIng, what was doctored