CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Society › Politics › Close to Politics › Donald Trump, Al Capone, and Eric Adams running together?

Donald Trump, Al Capone, and Eric Adams running together?

Started by Angela Wright3 · · 👁 7 views · 58 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Angela Wright3slybison8casualtrucker72Jonathan Reed4Richard Wilson4Emily Lee2Arthur Anderson49Jonathan Fisher78goldenpilot20Harold Wright6stormysailor7vividraven26steeleagle70redeagle42Henry Morris3Morgan Rodriguez57Timothy Castillo6steelskipper5goldengull3jadetinker85John Ramirez46Sandra Nguyen3Jamie Price4Jesse Ortiz71 …
steelskipper5 steelskipper5 Active Member
176 messages
joined Feb 2010
#41 ·
Timothy Castillo6 said:America is being run by one single person:
He’s got a mind that’s just plain twisted.
In this country, everything is upside down,
where social democrats are basically shaking hands with big business.

Hardly anyone in this nation actually puts in any work,
even the farmers are just growing crops for the government to snatch up.
Teachers are broke while the thieves are living large,
the smart people stay hidden while the idiots run the show.

The administration is nothing but a collection of freaks;
if you want to know about potato salad, go ask the Prime Minister.
The Secretary of Health has a face as red as a beet,
claiming he's fixing healthcare while he's busy shutting down hospitals.

People here love their neighbors like brothers,
yet they’re constantly at each other's throats in some fratricidal war.
While the crooks are busy lining their pockets everywhere they turn,
people are still getting worked up over old civil war politics.

But this whole mess is going to hit a wall pretty soon,
once the international courts finally step in.
Europe will eventually deal with this weird person,
and then they can take him exactly where he deserves to go.

------------------------------------------

ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!! Get this sent to the papers immediately. 👍

It’s pretty obvious you don't really get how American journalism works.
Let me break it down for you.
Let's say journalists aren't lurking on this forum. Some might—honestly, they use sites like this for leads and inspiration all the time—but political reporters usually find way too much noise in the signal here.
The next step is just someone copy-pasting this whole little poem, maybe even adding a line of their own, and then passing it along. Within a few rounds of sharing, it’ll land right in front of a reporter (at the latest, it'll reach me).
Then, all we have to do is wait for some writer to run out of things to say. Or, you know, run out of column ideas.
Jacob Allen Jacob Allen Member
22 messages
joined May 2003
#42 ·
Angela Wright3 said:😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

The worst part—I can actually see them pulling in a ton of votes. 😢

We need the Republican Party, but definitely not this ridiculous crowd—not some convicted war criminal, not some shady businessman, and certainly not a populist like Eric Adams.

The Republican Party? Ridiculous? Well, what are we waiting for then, let's just vote for them! 🎉

I wouldn't be laughing so hard at this whole situation, which is professionally known as just plain old media manipulation, because I wouldn't trust the American press any more than I'd trust a bunch of political insiders. Especially when they start mentioning that one school of political... what was it called again?

I mean, does that college of political whatever even produce actual journalists? Seriously. It's like going to study geology just so you can try to become an astronaut. Okay, bad comparison, since not everyone who pays for a high-altitude flight is an astronaut, and politics isn't exactly a position where you get a better view of yourself. In politics, you really only ever see yourself from your own ego.

Besides, with that specific college, who knows whose interests are actually being served by this little stunt...

Anyway, that CIA trio that Tanya brilliantly labeled as the KGB (I'll quote her later) could end up with anything from a large enough parliamentary majority to wreck the government, all the way up to being a powerful opposition force.
The big question is how they’ll manage to convince investors of their financial credibility—basically, how much money will be poured into them and what kind of wild promises they'll make to those investors.

There's no doubt the CIA triumvirate (if they actually manage to play nice and split America among themselves) will turn straight to turboliberal capital and the gray areas of the business world.
One guy managed to divide what he inherited in America—well, at least a huge chunk of it. Now, they'll just have to carve up whatever is left and build a new empire of capital and quick returns, and if this trio gets enough seats in Congress, they'll do it without a single shred of conscience.
And they won't even need a majority for that; 25 or 30 percent would be plenty of leverage to penetrate deeper than a drill ever could. They'll basically hold the controlling interest.

So, knowing how crazy things get around here, there's a massive chance this CIA trio forces their way in.
What do they have to lose? Everything to gain! Especially since all three of them are currently backed into a corner.
It's just like what people used to say about Berlusconi. He had to jump into politics just to stay out of prison.

Everything depends on those three, and honestly, there's no telling if they'll pull someone else into their little organization.
If they strike a deal among themselves, we're looking at a campaign unlike anything this country has ever seen.

Go ahead and keep laughing... laugh at your neighbors who are actually going to vote for them. Eventually, you might even end up laughing at yourselves.

It'll be just like when Napoleon was closing in on Paris... 🥳

Alright, let me drop that post from Tanya here...

Jonathan Reed4 said:They should just name their party after their initials: CIA. 😁
It would definitely make waves internationally. 😁


🤣 👍
silentnomad23 silentnomad23 Active Member
57 messages
joined Jul 2006
#43 ·
or maybe even KERBER. 😁
Jacob Allen Jacob Allen Member
22 messages
joined May 2003
#44 ·
silentnomad23 said:or maybe even KERBER. 😁

🤣 Yeah, you know what, that could totally work too... actually, that sounds awesome! Like they're standing guard at the gates of the underworld or something. 😁
Arthur Anderson49 Arthur Anderson49 Active Member
127 messages
joined Nov 2007
#45 ·
Well said... seriously. But honestly, we have this massive "inner circle" syndrome in American politics. All those Walt Whitmans out there only functioned because they were operating within their own little private paradise. Once they get tossed out into the open ocean, things change fast. When they were part of the herd, everyone was looking out for one another—one guy covers the left flank, another handles the right, and someone else makes sure nobody deviates from the script. The whole image wasn't really about a single figure like Newt Gingrich or Eric Adams; it was always about this monolithic power block where any individual was just playing a tiny cameo in a much larger drama. And let me tell you, the public could sense it! You should've seen Eric Adams trying to act tough while walking through his neighborhood alone, without his little entourage protecting him. Suddenly, it was obvious that—metaphorically speaking—someone, even some random kid, could sneak up behind him and throw him off balance the second the camera flashes started popping. He didn't have anyone to kick that metaphorical kid away. These guys are only "tough" when they're part of the pack. Standing alone on that stage? They look absolutely pathetic. And when you put three of them together? They just end up magnifying each other's flaws.

But hey, I'll be the first to admit my mistakes. Back in 2000, I actually thought Jimmy Carter was being totally delusional by running for president again. I figured he didn't stand a chance at even placing fifth or sixth, let alone winning. To me, he just looked like a slightly comical, washed-up loser.
stormysailor7 stormysailor7 Member
11 messages
joined Nov 2011
#46 ·
Master Lock stormysailor7 said:Yeah. People with only three posts on this forum? They’re usually the most competent ones here. Let’s get one thing straight: we need to actually define what fascism is before we start throwing the word around like confetti. Stop labeling everything you dislike as fascist. It’s lazy, it’s inaccurate, and frankly, it’s exhausting. If you want to have a real conversation about politics, you have to learn the difference between someone you simply disagree with and an actual fascist regime. Let's draw some lines in the sand. 🤣

It’s pretty wild to watch how one little fabrication—one total piece of fiction or pure provocation—can just take flight. It’s all being run by The Washington Post. They’re turning it into a threat of fascism at record speed. Give me a break. What a joke.

1. 🙄 What does post count have to do with actual competence? Nothing. Zero. It’s irrelevant. 🙄

I’m telling you again: Fareed Zakaria already laid out this exact same argument on CNN before The Washington Post even touched it.

So he says: "...It’s a coalition of heavy-hitting regional players, all revolving around one central national figure.
She’s already setting things up by backing Michael Bloomberg. Between her and the new parties being formed, you've got a crowd including Donald Trump, some unknowns, the Democratic Party, and the rogue factions of a dying Republican Party—likely from places like Phoenix or rural Idaho—plus the Libertarian Party, who will jump to whichever side looks stronger at any given moment. This new media populist bloc is going to lean heavily on center and right-wing rhetoric. It’s not about their actual ideology; they’re just chasing whatever the voters want to hear..''
Brenda Foster4 Brenda Foster4 Newcomer
2 messages
joined May 2010
#47 ·
unmapped said:Populism equals fascism... that's my first vote on this. Horrible.

Strictly speaking, populism is just a label applied to various individuals, ideologies, movements, or political parties that claim—or attempt—to act solely in the interest of the general public, essentially positioning themselves against what they characterize as "alienated," corrupt, or tyrannical social elites. In most contexts, however, it serves as a derogatory term used to describe political maneuvering where the lack of education or information among the lower classes is exploited to seize or maintain power. Common populist tactics often involve various forms of demagoguery, making unrealistic promises within political platforms, weaponizing widespread xenophobic prejudices to smear opponents, and—once in office—implementing measures that are immensely popular in the short term but ultimately unsustainable and damaging to the nation. Elitism is frequently cited as the direct antithesis to populism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
http://www.google.com/search?q=elements+of+populism

PowerLock said:... Users here with only three posts are usually incredibly qualified to judge what qualifies as fascism and what doesn't...

They are far more qualified than those on this board who glorify Italian fascism from WWII and view it as some sort of ideal system or ideology.

Furthermore, attempting to judge people based on their post count—especially when there is such blatant one-sided moderation through deletions and bans—is a perfect reflection of the narrow-mindedness and arrogance inherent in temporary moderator authority. Holding onto that little bit of power provides absolutely no guarantee of intellectual superiority over those whose ability to participate is being artificially restricted.

In short, we have a single moderator—a (neo)fascist, by the looks of it, who seems to have been granted this little role either by pure chance or through some "controlled chaos" strategy orchestrated by higher-ups—who is now using it to act like a real tough guy.
Roger Hughes14 Roger Hughes14 Member
39 messages
joined Mar 2012
#48 ·
There’s one thing that's certain—no matter how much Al Capone tries to make amends now, he already ruined America.

Yeah, he's the reason we're stuck with all this today.

He destroyed the historical figure, and he destroyed America.

Basically, this trio is just here to dismantle the right wing all over again. We conservatives might as well just head out to Wounded Knee and take our chances...
Arthur Anderson49 Arthur Anderson49 Active Member
127 messages
joined Nov 2007
#49 ·
Brenda Foster4 said:Strictly speaking, populism is just a label applied to various individuals, ideologies, movements, or political parties that claim—or attempt—to act solely in the interest of the general public, essentially positioning themselves against what they characterize as "alienated," corrupt, or tyrannical social elites. In most contexts, however, it serves as a derogatory term used to describe political maneuvering where the lack of education or information among the lower classes is exploited to seize or maintain power. Common populist tactics often involve various forms of demagoguery, making unrealistic promises within political platforms, weaponizing widespread xenophobic prejudices to smear opponents, and—once in office—implementing measures that are immensely popular in the short term but ultimately unsustainable and damaging to the nation. Elitism is frequently cited as the direct antithesis to populism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
http://www.google.com/search?q=elements+of+populism

They are far more qualified than those on this board who glorify Italian fascism from WWII and view it as some sort of ideal system or ideology.

Furthermore, attempting to judge people based on their post count—especially when there is such blatant one-sided moderation through deletions and bans—is a perfect reflection of the narrow-mindedness and arrogance inherent in temporary moderator authority. Holding onto that little bit of power provides absolutely no guarantee of intellectual superiority over those whose ability to participate is being artificially restricted.

In short, we have a single moderator—a (neo)fascist, by the looks of it, who seems to have been granted this little role either by pure chance or through some "controlled chaos" strategy orchestrated by higher-ups—who is now using it to act like a real tough guy.

If you're taking a shot at me, and since I don't see anyone else acting like a fascist around here, you totally missed the mark.

Look, sure, I hold fascist political views, but I am absolutely not a neo-fascist. And I definitely don't idolize Italian fascism from the Second World War. In my book, that whole movement disgraced itself the second it started its foreign military adventures. Actually, maybe even sooner than that! Once Mussolini took power, he just let it go to his head and lost the plot. The longer he stayed in charge, the more he dragged his original socio-political doctrine through the mud.

Secondly, I'm just a former moderator. I haven't had an active role in about two years now.
Brenda Foster4 Brenda Foster4 Newcomer
2 messages
joined May 2010
#50 ·
Arthur Anderson49 said:If you're taking a shot at me, and since I don't see anyone else acting like a fascist around here, you totally missed the mark.

Look, sure, I hold fascist political views, but I am absolutely not a neo-fascist. And I definitely don't idolize Italian fascism from the Second World War. In my book, that whole movement disgraced itself the second it started its foreign military adventures. Actually, maybe even sooner than that! Once Mussolini took power, he just let it go to his head and lost the plot. The longer he stayed in charge, the more he dragged his original socio-political doctrine through the mud.

Secondly, I'm just a former moderator. I haven't had an active role in about two years now.

No, I wasn't referring to you; at least, unlike Lockheed Martin, you actually know exactly what you are.

If they know, and they know that they know... learn from them.
If they know, but don't realize they know... wake them up.
If they don't know, but they know that they don't know... teach them.
If they don't know, and they don't even realize they don't know... run the other way... they're dangerous.
Zachary Turner6 Zachary Turner6 Active Member
64 messages
joined Mar 2009
#51 ·
Timothy Castillo6 said:America is being run by one single person:
He’s got a mind that’s just plain twisted.
In this country, everything is upside down,
where social democrats are basically shaking hands with big business.

Hardly anyone in this nation actually puts in any work,
even the farmers are just growing crops for the government to snatch up.
Teachers are broke while the thieves are living large,
the smart people stay hidden while the idiots run the show.

The administration is nothing but a collection of freaks;
if you want to know about potato salad, go ask the Prime Minister.
The Secretary of Health has a face as red as a beet,
claiming he's fixing healthcare while he's busy shutting down hospitals.

People here love their neighbors like brothers,
yet they’re constantly at each other's throats in some fratricidal war.
While the crooks are busy lining their pockets everywhere they turn,
people are still getting worked up over old civil war politics.

But this whole mess is going to hit a wall pretty soon,
once the international courts finally step in.
Europe will eventually deal with this weird person,
and then they can take him exactly where he deserves to go.

------------------------------------------

ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!! Get this sent to the papers immediately. 👍

There’s actual potential here—expand this poem into a short epic. 😁

Here is my own modest contribution:

Even the legal statutes here are quite bizarre:
take one step across the border and your files vanish into thin air.
The public remains passive, while the thieves stay ever vigilant
as everyone shouts at the top of their lungs: "Give me more of what isn't mine!"

Because Americans don't care much for honest labor;
—someone else's money always tastes sweeter!
The left hand has no idea what the right is doing;
around here, the motto has always been "scrounge or steal."

And "he who works need not fear hunger,"
is something everyone knows—except, obviously, those in Washington.
They have to pay massive tributes on a regular basis;
(forget "half your income"—they'll take your very clothes!)
all while employers withhold paychecks for months on end.

It's an endless cycle of demagoguery and empty rhetoric,
leaving Americans with nothing left but tears to cry.
redeagle42 redeagle42 Member
30 messages
joined Oct 2012
#52 ·
Honestly, you could probably toss Franck into that coalition too, given how he still tries to run things with that old-school American style of his 🙂
Richard Wilson4 Richard Wilson4 Veteran
2K messages
joined Sep 2009
#53 ·
James Bulger and that unnamed guy really need to cut ties with Al Capone and start acting like they actually care about their roots, instead of just being some tiny regional outfit...
The Republican Party has brought nothing but misery to the Midwest. The local Democrats aren't half bad, but those folks in Washington, D.C. don't have the slightest clue what life is actually like out here in the heartland...
vividraven26 vividraven26 Active Member
170 messages
joined May 2014
#54 ·
Chris Collins, who’s sitting there as the vice chairman of the Republican Party, just went out and completely shut down those rumors floating around the papers about how Donald Trump was supposedly huddling up with Roger Stone in Utah to map out some big joint move for the upcoming elections.

And get this, because he didn't stop there—Collins also flat-out denied all that nonsense about Trump and Eric Adams cooking up their own secret plans to run on the same ticket.
Kevin Gonzalez79 Kevin Gonzalez79 Active Member
113 messages
joined Jan 2008
#55 ·
Roger Hughes14 said:There’s one thing that's certain—no matter how much Al Capone tries to make amends now, he already ruined America.

Yeah, he's the reason we're stuck with all this today.

He destroyed the historical figure, and he destroyed America.

Basically, this trio is just here to dismantle the right wing all over again. We conservatives might as well just head out to Wounded Knee and take our chances...

So, I suppose a grave is preferable to slavery.😁 From a principled standpoint, the right wing offers nothing.🙄
Emily Harris56 Emily Harris56 Newcomer
1 message
joined May 2010
#56 ·
And he will... he'll take a third of the vote from guys like Buddy Cianci who pretend they're the alternative—when really, they're just more of the same...
Kevin Gonzalez79 Kevin Gonzalez79 Active Member
113 messages
joined Jan 2008
#57 ·
It’s a KGB-style party. In this country, political outcasts have always had a notoriously short shelf life. This fantastic trio will be no different.
slybison8 slybison8 Active Member
162 messages
joined Oct 2011
#58 ·
Kevin Gonzalez79 said:It’s a KGB-style party. In this country, political outcasts have always had a notoriously short shelf life. This fantastic trio will be no different.

I guess we shall see. I don't rule out the possibility that you might be right. However, I feel it is necessary to address the somewhat "totalitarian" nature of your statement, in which you attempt to strip away someone's political legitimacy simply because they chose to engage in a bit of "rebellion" against the establishment.

In today's political climate, such a claim feels quite brazen, as it seems to advocate for a kind of "obedience" that, I suspect, shouldn't be the primary way people behave if we want to maintain a functional democracy.

Political "rebellion" should probably be viewed as a positive trend, and it is honestly quite sad for America that the only figures who ever seem to take that path are bosses like those seen in New York City politics—not even someone like Donald Trump, who I believe broke through largely on his own merits.

I suppose it is a good thing that all the Republicans who disagreed with George W. Bush, or who disagree with Tim Geithner today—yet continue to endure and support their policies due to secondary interests or lack of influence—had the courage to "rebel" and remove them from power back around 2004 or 2005, once it became clear whose interests were actually being served...

Perhaps rebellion ought to be encouraged rather than mocked.
Sam Green73 Sam Green73 Active Member
144 messages
joined Aug 2018
#59 ·
slybison8 said:I guess we shall see. I don't rule out the possibility that you might be right. However, I feel it is necessary to address the somewhat "totalitarian" nature of your statement, in which you attempt to strip away someone's political legitimacy simply because they chose to engage in a bit of "rebellion" against the establishment.

In today's political climate, such a claim feels quite brazen, as it seems to advocate for a kind of "obedience" that, I suspect, shouldn't be the primary way people behave if we want to maintain a functional democracy.

Political "rebellion" should probably be viewed as a positive trend, and it is honestly quite sad for America that the only figures who ever seem to take that path are bosses like those seen in New York City politics—not even someone like Donald Trump, who I believe broke through largely on his own merits.

I suppose it is a good thing that all the Republicans who disagreed with George W. Bush, or who disagree with Tim Geithner today—yet continue to endure and support their policies due to secondary interests or lack of influence—had the courage to "rebel" and remove them from power back around 2004 or 2005, once it became clear whose interests were actually being served...

Perhaps rebellion ought to be encouraged rather than mocked.

I mean, look at any history book—we’ve literally had rebels rise up to become President.
Plus, I actually find Charles Manson way more fascinating now that he's distanced himself from the Democratic Party.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads