The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: CC27 on October 08, 2024, 01:20:39 PM
-
JT45242 (2,723 posts)
Had an encounter with a MAGAt yesterday and now the wife is angry with me
Let me preface this by saying that this happened after church -- immediately after this dude's wife gave a lovely sermon about our need to listen to God and help with healing people, feeding people, and meeting their needs in the spirit of Jesus' having compassion with people in the story of feeding the the 5000. (Iowa City location)
Someone else asked if he was voting for Kamala. He was rather non-committal. Then he said "Politics is too contentious with people on the extremes, I miss the days when people used to compromise and get things done."
Original woman said -- "YOu mean like the bipartisan border bill that Trump ordered republicans to kill after a Republican Senator from Oklahoma wrote it that had all the things the republcans said they wanted in the bill."
Dude says "I don't think it happened like that."
Original woman then says "You would vote for a convicted felon and rapist..."
Dude says -- "If they can go after Trump for that, then they could go after any of us."
I can't take it anymore and say -- "Yep, you're right. Who among us has not paid off a porn star over $125,000 for sex and then claimed it as a business expense. Yep, they could certainly get us all for that kind of fraud."
My wife yanked me away and said that I was being an asshole and that I wasn't going to change his mind that way.
My response -- " NOthing is going to change hs mind and I am sick and tired of them thinking they can't be fact checked when they lie all the time."
She was VERY ANGRY -- he was being respectful and you were a jerk.
Am I the asshole or is my wofe making excuses?
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219543062
Yes, you are an asshole for sure.
-
So, let's see if I understand the scenario. "Dude" expresses wish for partisan hostilities to be lessened. "Original woman" pushes back with a hostile partisan claim. "Dude" politely points out that her partisan claim is untrue. "Original woman" avoids his point and pushes back with another hostile partisan claim. "Dude", still politely, calls out the problems in the claim. JT45242 decided to make a scene with another false partisan claim and to change the dispute to a two-on-one pile-on.
"Original woman" and JT45242 decided that church was a perfect venue to spew their partisan venom. Pause and think on that for a moment. Among Jesus' original 12 disciples were a Zealot and a tax collector, polar opposites in their political views. The details of what Jesus said to them is not revealed, but somehow He got across to Simon the Zealot and Matthew that He, His mission, and what He was calling His disciples to be and do was bigger than the politics of their day. Fast-forwarding just 5 or 10 years, Peter the fisherman and Paul, who had the 1st Century Jewish equivalent of a Doctor of Divinity degree, worked together in the church. What they were and were doing was greater than their very different economic and educational status.
I'm not minimizing the importance of politics, which affect how we all live, but what "Original woman" and JT45242 did was outrageous, diametrically opposite from what a church should be and be about.
-
Yea, and the Lord sayeth unto me, bullshit, this never happened.
One thing I do not understand is the obsession with "paying off a porn star." Um, yeah: it was a transaction: Trump probably noted that as long as a film crew is around, she got a thou or so for letting a man saw his penis in and out of her anus. There are scores of videos on the internet to that very effect. I mean, I wouldn't put a petri dish of chlamydia next to her for fear that she'd give it herpes, but I guess Trump wanted some. And she wanted to provide it, for a fee, of course. Transaction complete.
I thought such PIV and PIA matters were private arrangements between adults. Why, as I write this, I'm sure some man somewhere is gazing at the cash he left on the dresser as he empties his gonads on the face of exactly such a woman, or a liberal man is grimacing in delight as his lunchtime Tinder hookup plows his colon. I thought liberals called this "sex work," and "sex work is work." When it comes to Trump, however, they get very protective of the woman who otherwise spends the morning giving herself enemas so her anus will look good on film.
Make it make sense.
-
Am I the asshole or is my wofe making excuses?
According to your own account of what happened, yes, it sounds like the person you were talking to was respectful, and you weren't (which would be consistent with you referring to him as a "MAGAt").
-
I keep hearing them, bring up the bipartisan border bill. I don’t know what was in it. It was probably something like the inflation reduction act that had nothing to do with reducing inflation only inflating the pockets of Democrat downers.
-
I keep hearing them, bring up the bipartisan border bill. I don’t know what was in it. It was probably something like the inflation reduction act that had nothing to do with reducing inflation only inflating the pockets of Democrat downers.
Anytime either party says the other killed bill, the first thing in my mind is always "What did the other side tack on to it?"
Looking back, it looks like this was barely a boarder bill.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-unveils-118-billion-bipartisan-bill-tighten-border-security-aid-2024-02-04/ (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-unveils-118-billion-bipartisan-bill-tighten-border-security-aid-2024-02-04/)
In addition to $20.23 billion for border security, the bill included $60.06 billion to support Ukraine in its war with Russia, $14.1 billion in security assistance for Israel, $2.44 billion to U.S. Central Command and the conflict in the Red Sea, and $4.83 billion to support U.S. partners in the Indo-Pacific facing aggression from China, according to figures from Senator Patty Murray, who chairs the Senate's Appropriation Committee.
That looks like good enough reason to vote against it right there. Want to send $60 billion to Ukraine, that should be it's own bill, not attached to boarder security.
-
Anytime either party says the other killed bill, the first thing in my mind is always "What did the other side tack on to it?"
Looking back, it looks like this was barely a boarder bill.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-unveils-118-billion-bipartisan-bill-tighten-border-security-aid-2024-02-04/ (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-unveils-118-billion-bipartisan-bill-tighten-border-security-aid-2024-02-04/)
That looks like good enough reason to vote against it right there. Want to send $60 billion to Ukraine, that should be it's own bill, not attached to boarder security.
I've tried to look into, too, but like most government stuff, it's a lot of convoluted BS. To me, it's a basically a spending bill. I may be wrong, but from what I can gather, the main border related portion was to hire more agents to facilitate more people coming into the country.
-
When nearly every Republican votes against a bill then it's not bipartisan at all.
-
All the bills biden signed did exactly nothing for what they were calling them and what they were supposed to do.
-
When nearly every Republican votes against a bill then it's not bipartisan at all.
I may be wrong, but from what I've seen the vote against it was kind of bipartisan.