It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Greven
Well, yeah I did actually, and I didn't see people running around with severed heads of Obama, major networks (read CNN) condoning the assassination of Obama and gleefully discussing the order of ascension. I didn't see every single network, non-stop for 18 months, go full-on retard trying to lash out at Obama. Every late night show flat-out assailing Obama, 3/4 of Hollywood going on vein popping tirades on Awards shows about Obama.
No, I didn't see ANY of that...did you?
originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: Greven
I don't think you are dumb. That means you are intentionally being disingenuous. You know that it requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation, yet you pretend that isn't reality.
As bad as you feel now, prepare for things to get worse. The liberal movements reach has exceeded its grasp, and there will be a centrist backlash.
Moderate democrats are leaving the party.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: kaylaluv
I have, many times.
Just go look through the mud pit. You won't have to look far to find all kinds of them. People gloating about NK continuing to manufacture nukes following the summit. People gloating about Harley Davidson moving manufacturing off shore. Every time the NYSE drops one point there will be threads gloating about that.
I think you are mistaking anger and frustration with gloating. People are angry and frustrated because Trump followers are talking about him as if he were the second coming, and that he is solving all our problems. Pointing out the problems that haven’t been solved is not gleeful or gloating - it’s pointing out that Trump has not solved our problems.
I could say the same thing with Obamacare. Many Obama haters have been quick to point out the failings of Obamacare. Gleeful gloating? Or anger and frustration that the problems of healthcare in this country haven’t been solved?
originally posted by: Riffrafter
originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: Greven
I don't think you are dumb. That means you are intentionally being disingenuous. You know that it requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation, yet you pretend that isn't reality.
As bad as you feel now, prepare for things to get worse. The liberal movements reach has exceeded its grasp, and there will be a centrist backlash.
Moderate democrats are leaving the party.
Not true.
You only need a simple majority to pass legislation in the U.S. Senate. And the VP - who is also the president of the senate - is brought in as the tie breaking vote if required. Pence has already done it on more than one occasion.
To confirm a Supreme Court nominee does requires 60 votes.
At least as of today...
Maybe you got those two different types of Senate votes confused?
originally posted by: face23785
originally posted by: Riffrafter
originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: Greven
I don't think you are dumb. That means you are intentionally being disingenuous. You know that it requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation, yet you pretend that isn't reality.
As bad as you feel now, prepare for things to get worse. The liberal movements reach has exceeded its grasp, and there will be a centrist backlash.
Moderate democrats are leaving the party.
Not true.
You only need a simple majority to pass legislation in the U.S. Senate. And the VP - who is also the president of the senate - is brought in as the tie breaking vote if required. Pence has already done it on more than one occasion.
To confirm a Supreme Court nominee does requires 60 votes.
At least as of today...
Maybe you got those two different types of Senate votes confused?
You're a little confused here. It takes a simple majority to pass the legislation, yes, however it takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster to actually bring the bill up for a vote. So to pass any new legislation does actually take 60 votes. Supreme Court nominations only takes a simple majority, they changed that last year with the Gorsuch nomination.
ETA: The votes you're thinking of where Pence had to come in to break the tie were votes on bills they were bypassing the filibuster with using budget reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority. But new legislation can still be filibustered, and it takes 60 votes to bring them to the floor for a vote, which is why it takes 9 Democrats to get most things done.
A filter bubble is the intellectual isolation that can occur when websites make use of algorithms to selectively assume the information a user would want to see, and then give information to the user according to this assumption.
Websites make these assumptions based on the information related to the user, such as former click behavior, browsing history, search history and location. For that reason, the websites are more likely to present only information that will abide by the user's past activity.
A filter bubble, therefore, can cause users to get significantly less contact with contradicting viewpoints, causing the user to become intellectually isolated.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
I haven’t seen anyone say they are gleeful for nuclear war because it will make Trump look bad. Quote please?
originally posted by: loam
Are they calls for assassination? No. But since the left seems to find dog whistles under every rock, I wonder why they don't hear those examples?
originally posted by: The GUT
originally posted by: loam
Are they calls for assassination? No. But since the left seems to find dog whistles under every rock, I wonder why they don't hear those examples?
I believe that some of these, and various MSM talking points that 'advertise' the sentiment so to speak, are probably psychological operations (psy-ops.) There was a period there--around the time of Snoop's video--where it had the feel of a concerted effort to trigger the unbalanced. Either way that's some disturbed and bad juju from folk.
Can we and all nations not live in peace? In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. And yet, I ask you, is not an alien force already among us? What could be more alien to the universal aspirations of our peoples than war and the threat of war?
originally posted by: BomSquad
I think one of the problems in America today is that we have no external foe to unite us. Since we lack this foe, we find or manufacture internal ones.