JP
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.5K,
Visits: 0
|
No doubt he's very right-wing, but the entire Republican field is extremely conservative. He's the best of a bad bunch, but any Democrat would be preferable to him obviously. Edited by JP: 12/2/2016 03:48:14 PM
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
JP wrote:No doubt he's very right-wing, but the entire Republican field is extremely conservative. He's the best of a bad bunch, but any Democrat would be preferable to him obviously. Edited by JP: 12/2/2016 03:48:14 PM If you're after "non-conservative", then on the Repub side Trump is your guy. Hell, he even hinted at support for some level of universal healthcare.
|
|
|
JP
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.5K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:JP wrote:No doubt he's very right-wing, but the entire Republican field is extremely conservative. He's the best of a bad bunch, but any Democrat would be preferable to him obviously. Edited by JP: 12/2/2016 03:48:14 PM If you're after "non-conservative", then on the Repub side Trump is your guy. Hell, he even hinted at support for some level of universal healthcare. Yes, but Trump is an idiot.
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
JP wrote:433 wrote:JP wrote:No doubt he's very right-wing, but the entire Republican field is extremely conservative. He's the best of a bad bunch, but any Democrat would be preferable to him obviously. Edited by JP: 12/2/2016 03:48:14 PM If you're after "non-conservative", then on the Repub side Trump is your guy. Hell, he even hinted at support for some level of universal healthcare. Yes, but Trump is an idiot. :roll: :roll: :roll: You don't build a multi-billion dollar empire being an idiot.
|
|
|
tbitm
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:JP wrote:433 wrote:JP wrote:No doubt he's very right-wing, but the entire Republican field is extremely conservative. He's the best of a bad bunch, but any Democrat would be preferable to him obviously. Edited by JP: 12/2/2016 03:48:14 PM If you're after "non-conservative", then on the Repub side Trump is your guy. Hell, he even hinted at support for some level of universal healthcare. Yes, but Trump is an idiot. :roll: :roll: :roll: You don't build a multi-billion dollar empire being an idiot. Brilliant marketer, but dim. Poll out today in Nevada. Clinton and Sanders tied :twisted:
|
|
|
JP
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.5K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:JP wrote:433 wrote:JP wrote:No doubt he's very right-wing, but the entire Republican field is extremely conservative. He's the best of a bad bunch, but any Democrat would be preferable to him obviously. Edited by JP: 12/2/2016 03:48:14 PM If you're after "non-conservative", then on the Repub side Trump is your guy. Hell, he even hinted at support for some level of universal healthcare. Yes, but Trump is an idiot. :roll: :roll: :roll: You don't build a multi-billion dollar empire being an idiot. He inherited a fortune from his dad and made some middling investment decisions. Turning a fortune into a bigger fortune doesn't make you a good candidate for office. He's clearly clueless when it comes to policy.
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:Quote:Obama climate initiative: Supreme Court calls halt President Barack Obama's plans to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide from US power plants have been stalled by the US Supreme Court. The court ruled that the president's Clean Power Plan could not go forward until all legal challenges were heard. Designed to cut US emissions by 32% by 2030, the scheme put huge emphasis on a shift to renewable energy..... .....What will worry the White House more is the division of the court along ideological lines, with conservative justices all supporting the stay while the liberal justices opposed.... http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35538350 Anyone here have knowledge of US Legal Process? How can a judge's unfounded belief system affect applications of law? Moreso, how is the media privy to a judge's ideology? Anyone here have knowledge of US Legal Process? Supreme Court Justices appointed by the President for lifeHow can a judge's unfounded belief system affect applications of law? Not sure why you say "unfounded belief system". Its more around legal interpretation philosophy. Some judges err on the side widely interpreting or narrowly interpreting aspects of law - states rights, vague wording etc.Moreso, how is the media privy to a judge's ideology? Based on previous decisions. Also, based on the ideology of the President who appointed them. I am not sure that you understand the term 'ideology' Fortunately, a right wing Stone Age thinking Judge has just died. Unfortunately for the planet, it was after the decision on greenhouse gases Regardless, what a stupid legal system. Quote:Antonin Scalia, conservative US Supreme Court justice, dies US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia - one of most conservative members of the high court - has died. Justice Scalia's death could shift the balance of power on the US high court, allowing President Barack Obama to add a fifth liberal justice to the court. The court's conservative majority has recently stalled major efforts by the Obama administration on climate change and immigration. Justice Scalia, 79, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986.... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35571868
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
In 2008, Donald Trump said George W. Bush should’ve been impeached By Philip Bump February 13 at 10:20 PM During Saturday night's Republican debate, Donald Trump was challenged by the moderators with words he spoke nearly a decade ago. Trump, it was noted, had told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he wished then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had pushed to impeach George W. Bush for his handling of the Iraq War. The exchange arose thanks to Jeb Bush's plan to bring his brother onto the campaign trail in South Carolina this week. (George W. Bush remains popular among Republicans.) It spurred one of the most energetic debates of the night. Trump, Jeb Bush trade barbs over Iraq war, George W. Bush's presidency Donald Trump just went after President George W. Bush – and Jeb Bush wasn't having it. (CBS) But the moderators were correct about Trump's past statements. That interview with Blitzer was in October 2008. "When [Pelosi] first got in and was named speaker," Trump said to Blitzer then, "I met her. And I'm very impressed by her. I think she's a very impressive person, I like her a lot." "But I was surprised that she didn't do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush," he continued. "It just seemed like she was really going to look to impeach Bush and get him out of office. Which personally I think would have been a wonderful thing." Blitzer interjected: "To impeach him?" "For the war," Trump replied. "For the war! Well, he lied! He got us into the war with lies!" Remarkably, Trump then went on to compare Bush unfavorably with Bill Clinton. "I mean, look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant," Trump said, referring to the Monica Lewinsky investigation. "And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And yet Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying. By saying they had WMDs, by saying all sorts of things that happened not to be true." That was perhaps Trump's strongest language on the topic, but the year prior he had equally harsh words for the former president. Again, talking to Blitzer, Trump blasted Bush. "The war is a total catastrophe," Trump said. Who do you blame, Blitzer asked. "There's only one person you can blame," Trump replied, "and that's our current president." He lumped in Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, too, and lamented that Condoleezza Rice never closed deals. "I don't know if they're bad people," Trump said. "I don't know what's going on. I just know they got us into a mess the likes of which this country has probably never seen. It's one of the great catastrophes of all time." Blitzer asked how the United States could get out of the war. "How do they get out? They get out!," Trump said. "Declare victory and leave. ... The day we leave anyway, it will all blow up." Then he redirected his fire at Bush: "President Bush says he's religious. And yet 400,000 people, the way I count it, have died." He continued: "Everything in Washington has been a lie. Weapons of mass destruction was a total lie." An example of a lie? "[Bush] reads a book a week," Trump said. "Do you think the president reads a book a week? I don't think so." By the way, Trump raised other issues in that 2008 interview with Blitzer. For example, he referred to a couple of friends of his. "Hillary's a great friend of mine," Trump said, referring to the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. "Her husband's a great friend of mine." In the same interview where he called for Bush's impeachment, he summed up his opinion on the Clintons: "They're fantastic people." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/13/in-2008-donald-trump-said-george-w-bush-shouldve-been-impeached/
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
GOP Debate Moderator Calls Out Ted Cruz for Lying, Shames Him Into Silence Ashley Feinberg Yesterday 9:41pm Right off the bat at tonight’s GOP debate, the six remaining candidates got hit with questions about recently deceased Antonin Scalia and Obama’s promise to—well, do his job. While each of the responses was off in its own, special way, Cruz’s was absolute masterpiece of bullshit. And moderator John Dickerson burned the hell out of him for it. Basically, Cruz either knowingly lied or had his facts wrong when he said that a Justice hasn’t been confirmed in an election year in 80 years (Anthony Kennedy, in fact, was). Dickerson stops Cruz to point this out and try to figure out exactly what it is Cruz is trying to say. That is, of course, counter to everything Cruz stands for. “I just want to get the facts straight for the audience,” Dickerson says. It is at this point, over the promise of facts, that the crowd boos furiously. http://gawker.com/gop-debate-moderator-calls-out-ted-cruz-for-lying-sham-1759013780
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
Trump bludgeoned in nastiest GOP debate yet The real estate mogul gets roughed up ahead of South Carolina's primary. By Kyle Cheney | 02/13/16 09:35 PM EST | Updated 02/13/16 11:42 PM EST . An all-out brawl broke out on Saturday night’s debate stage — with Donald Trump at the center of the melee — as the GOP candidates viciously tried to wound each other ahead of next weekend’s South Carolina primary. Trump skewered Jeb Bush for standing by his brother and the Iraq War. Bush slammed John Kasich for supporting Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. Marco Rubio and Trump called Ted Cruz a serial liar, and Cruz bit back, retorting that Rubio is weak on undocumented immigrants and Trump would nominate liberal judges. . The barbs were often indiscriminate and unrestrained, drowning out CBS’s moderators and egged on by a vocal audience that booed Trump and Cruz. “You are the single biggest liar,” Trump growled at Cruz, after Cruz suggested he’s an unreliable conservative. The free-for-all unmasked the dynamics that have largely played out by press release or in one-off one-liners on the campaign trail. It’s a sign of the rising stakes in South Carolina, which could define the contours of the race over the next few months as a three-way contest among Trump, Cruz and an establishment-backed candidate like Rubio, Bush or Kasich. Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who has trailed in polls, is also hoping the squabbling helps lift his soft-spoken brand, though he had few opportunities to stand out during the debate. The fighting grew so fierce it even seemed to startle moderator John Dickerson. ““We’re in danger of driving this into the dirt,” he warned. It’s unclear which blows hit their mark and who will emerge at the top of the battered heap of rivals. But each candidate urgently needed a strong showing. Bush had to prove that his fourth-place finish in New Hampshire last week is a sign of true momentum and a comeback. Kasich, who finished in a surprisingly strong second in that contest, is trying to prove that his sunny brand of Republicanism can sell in an otherwise dark and angry election year. The first shots were fired early, when Trump invited scorn from his rivals by thrashing President George W. Bush for the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on his watch. “The World Trade Center came down. I lost hundreds of friends,” the New York businessman said, criticizing Bush for standing by his brother. “The World Trade Center came down during the reign of Bush.” Bush quickly countered — and found ready support from his other rivals. “I’m sick and tired of him going after my family,” he said. Trump's top national security question: How hard do we hit? By Katie Glueck It’s a continuation of Bush’s consistently antagonistic relationship with Trump, who’s gleefully knocked him down in previous debates and mocked his low standing in polls. Bush appeared readier than in previous tilts for Trump’s mockery, quickly counterpunching and mocking Trump as a reality star who was working on a TV show while his brother was working to save the country from further terror attacks. The rancor between the two men flared repeatedly, and sometimes comically. When pressed about his sometimes coarse language, Trump pointed to Bush: "Two days ago he says he would take his pants off and moon everybody," he said. Bush also accused Trump of disparaging women, Hispanics and John McCain. It was the second straight performance in which Bush presented the most aggressive foil to Trump’s bravado. In the last debate in New Hampshire, Bush outmaneuvered Trump in an exchange on eminent domain, casting the mogul as heartless in a dispute with a woman whose property he wanted for a limousine parking lot. Unlike in Manchester, N.H., though, the fight seemed to inspire other candidates to stand up for Bush. Trump lost the audience in Greenville immediately. Attendees booed him relentlessly each time he slammed Bush, and then Rubio — who’s traded fierce attacks with Bush all week – jumped in to defend him. “I thank God it was George W. Bush in the White House on 9/11 and not Al Gore,” he said. The tense exchange was interrupted only by a moment of comic relief from a seemingly exasperated Kasich. “This is just crazy, huh? This is just nuts,” he said. But Bush also dished out punishment to Kasich, who crept ahead of him in New Hampshire by presenting himself as an upbeat uniter, defying an era of political anger. Bush argued that Kasich embraced a core element of Obamacare — Medicaid expansion — which grew government. "When Jeb was governor, his first four years as governor, his Medicaid program grew twice as fast as mine," Kasich replied. "He knows that I’m not for Obamacare." 160213_cruz_trump_rubio_GTY_1160.jpg 6 most important moments of the GOP debate By Ben Schreckinger The skirmishes marked a rapidly intensifying campaign that could be dramatically reordered by the results of the South Carolina contest next Saturday. Trump has held a dominant lead in most early polling in the state, and he’s fighting to keep Cruz at bay. Among the fiercest exchanges of the night came when Cruz and Rubio clashed over immigration. "To argue he’s a purist on immigration is just nuts," Rubio charged, after Cruz labeled him a supporter of "amnesty." Cruz accused Rubio of taking to Univision to offer a softer approach to President Barack Obama's immigration policies, but Rubio fired back. "I don’t know how he knows what I said on Univision because he doesn’t speak Spanish" he said. Ben Carson once again remained relatively quiet as the fierce fighting erupted. Though the neurosurgeon desperately needs a comeback in South Carolina after a dismal New Hampshire result and a fourth-place Iowa finish, he found himself more often used by his rivals as a conduit to attack each other. Rubio accused Cruz of lying about Carson in Iowa - a reference to misleading tactics used by Cruz allies to convince Carson's supporters he was dropping out of the race. Trump followed suit. "Now I know why he doesn’t have one endorsement from one of his colleagues," Trump said. Cruz retorted that Trump's newfound defense of Carson seemed strange just a few months "after he called him pathological and compared him to a child molester." The fiery exchanges came after the candidates split about the right course in the wake of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s sudden death. Trump urged Senate Republicans to “delay, delay, delay” President Barack Obama’s attempt to appoint a successor to Scalia — a prominent call for partisan gridlock in an election year. “It’s up to Mitch McConnell to stop it,” said Trump, name-checking the Senate Republican leader. The call came as other candidates, warring for votes in South Carolina, waded into the budding Constitutional confrontation between Obama and Republicans over his impending Supreme Court pick. Three candidates — Kasich, Ben Carson and Cruz — urged Obama to skip naming a new justice altogether. “We have eighty years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year,” Cruz said. Kasich argued that the country couldn’t handle another partisan fight. “I would like the president for once here to put the country first. And the people will understand what’s at stake in that election. I think we ought to let the country decide who is going to run that Supreme Court with a vote by the people of the United States of America.” Bush, on the other hand, said Obama should make an appointment, but someone who’s a “consensus” pick. The particularly nasty debate came after a week of intensifying barbs among the six candidates. Cruz has worked to paint Trump as unreliably conservative while Trump has hammered Cruz for what he calls "dirty" campaign tactics. Cruz has found himself assailed by other candidates as well for his votes against the defense spending bill, a prominent issue in military-heavy South Carolina. Kasich sought at times to rise above the furor. "I think we’re fixing to lose the election to Hillary Clinton," he said, calling for an end to negative advertising. "Let’s talk about what we’re for, and the Republican Party will be stronger." Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/scalia-death-gop-debate-2016-219259#ixzz407YidVD8
|
|
|
TheFactOfTheMatter
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 309,
Visits: 0
|
JP wrote:433 wrote:JP wrote:433 wrote:JP wrote:No doubt he's very right-wing, but the entire Republican field is extremely conservative. He's the best of a bad bunch, but any Democrat would be preferable to him obviously. Edited by JP: 12/2/2016 03:48:14 PM If you're after "non-conservative", then on the Repub side Trump is your guy. Hell, he even hinted at support for some level of universal healthcare. Yes, but Trump is an idiot. :roll: :roll: :roll: You don't build a multi-billion dollar empire being an idiot. He inherited a fortune from his dad and made some middling investment decisions. Turning a fortune into a bigger fortune doesn't make you a good candidate for office. He's clearly clueless when it comes to policy. You're a fucking idiot.
|
|
|
Les Gock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 681,
Visits: 0
|
Scalia should be replaced by a fat gay transgendered multi-racial transspecie alien lesbian jew.
|
|
|
TheFactOfTheMatter
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 309,
Visits: 0
|
Who won this exchange?
[youtube]I8cxTaaNZrw[/youtube]
Your intelligence will be judged by your response.
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
TheFactOfTheMatter wrote:Who won this exchange?
[youtube]I8cxTaaNZrw[/youtube]
Your intelligence will be judged by your response. My lack of caring will be judged by your response. -PB
|
|
|
melbourne_terrace
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
Trump easily. Normal people will think he's an obnoxious arsehole but the reality is that he has mastered sound bite politics. His aggressive style of constant interjecting and wild attacks make him extremely hard to counter for people like Jeb Bush who really can't keep up. I feel Rubio came out of that looking like a dickhead (from my view) but the Republican voters probably like what he is saying.
Viennese Vuck
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Fucking lol.
Trump. :lol:
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Shame it wasn't posted from his official Twitter. -PB
|
|
|
TheFactOfTheMatter
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 309,
Visits: 0
|
Just in from his official facebook: Quote: Donald J. Trump 5 hrs · Let me be clear—I am pro-life. I support that position with exceptions allowed for rape, incest or the life of the mother being at risk. I did not always hold this position, but I had a significant personal experience that brought the precious gift of life into perspective for me. My story is well documented, so I will not retell it here. However, what I will do with the remaining space is express my feelings about life, and the culture of life, as we approach the 43nd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade. I build things. There is a process involved in building things. We tap into a lot of disciplines with engineering being one of the most important. The rules for putting structures together are as strict as are the rules of physics. These rules have stood the test of time and have become the path to putting together structures that endure and are beautiful. America, when it is at its best, follows a set of rules that have worked since our founding. One of those rules is that we, as Americans, revere life and have done so since our Founders made it the first, and most important, of our “unalienable” rights. Over time, our culture of life in this country has started sliding toward a culture of death. Perhaps the most significant piece of evidence to support this assertion is that since Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Count 43 years ago over 50 million Americans never had the chance to enjoy the opportunities offered by this country. They never had the chance to become doctors, musicians, farmers, teachers, husbands, fathers, sons or daughters. They never had the chance to enrich the culture of this nation or to bring their skills, lives, loves or passions into the fabric of country. They are missing, and they are missed. The Supreme Court in 1973 based their decision on imagining rights and liberties in the Constitution that are nowhere to be found. Even if we take the court at its word, that abortion is a matter of privacy, we should then extend the argument to the logical conclusion that private funds, then, should subsidize this choice rather than the half billion dollars given to abortion providers every year by Congress. Public funding of abortion providers is an insult to people of conscience at the least and an affront to good governance at best. If using taxpayer money to facilitate our slide to a culture of death was not enough, the 1973 decision became a landmark decision demonstrating the utter contempt the court had for federalism and the 10th Amendment. Roe v. Wade gave the court an excuse to dismantle the decisions of state legislatures and the votes of the people. This is a pattern that the court has repeated over and over again since that decision. Perhaps Roe v. Wade became yet another incidence of disconnect between the people and their government. We are in the middle of a presidential political cycle and votes will be cast in just days. The citizens of this nation will have the chance to vote for candidates that are aligned with their individual worldviews. It is my hope that they will choose the builder, the man who has the ability to imagine the greatness of this nation. The next President must follow those principles that work best and that reinforce the reverence Americans hold for life. A culture of life is too important to let slip away for convenience or political correctness. It is by preserving our culture of life that we will Make America Great Again. 78K Likes8.1K Comments1
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
TheFactOfTheMatter wrote:Who won this exchange?
[youtube]I8cxTaaNZrw[/youtube]
Your intelligence will be judged by your response. Trump obviously. The Iraq war/WMD's was a massive fuckup - only the staunchest establishment GOP don't admit that. Additionally, the idea that Dubya "kept America safe" during 9/11 is cognitive dissonance. It's like saying "we defended well but we let in 5 goals".
|
|
|
TheFactOfTheMatter
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 309,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:TheFactOfTheMatter wrote:Who won this exchange?
[youtube]I8cxTaaNZrw[/youtube]
Your intelligence will be judged by your response. Trump obviously. The Iraq war/WMD's was a massive fuckup - only the staunchest establishment GOP don't admit that. Additionally, the idea that Dubya "kept America safe" during 9/11 is cognitive dissonance. It's like saying "we defended well but we let in 5 goals". Why do lefties keep telling me he wants to bomb everything?
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
TheFactOfTheMatter wrote:433 wrote:TheFactOfTheMatter wrote:Who won this exchange?
[youtube]I8cxTaaNZrw[/youtube]
Your intelligence will be judged by your response. Trump obviously. The Iraq war/WMD's was a massive fuckup - only the staunchest establishment GOP don't admit that. Additionally, the idea that Dubya "kept America safe" during 9/11 is cognitive dissonance. It's like saying "we defended well but we let in 5 goals". Why do lefties keep telling me he wants to bomb everything? No, he just wants to deport all muslims, and Mexicans, and build a massive wall to keep Mexicans out, despite there being a net OUTFLOW of Mexicans in the last few years. Yeah Trump is totally sane.
|
|
|
TheFactOfTheMatter
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 309,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:TheFactOfTheMatter wrote:433 wrote:TheFactOfTheMatter wrote:Who won this exchange?
[youtube]I8cxTaaNZrw[/youtube]
Your intelligence will be judged by your response. Trump obviously. The Iraq war/WMD's was a massive fuckup - only the staunchest establishment GOP don't admit that. Additionally, the idea that Dubya "kept America safe" during 9/11 is cognitive dissonance. It's like saying "we defended well but we let in 5 goals". Why do lefties keep telling me he wants to bomb everything? No, he just wants to deport all muslims, and Mexicans, and build a massive wall to keep Mexicans out, despite there being a net OUTFLOW of Mexicans in the last few years. Yeah Trump is totally sane. 1. He wants to place a temporary ban on Muslim immigration until the security situation is assessed given recent incidents 2. He doesnt want to deport all Mexicans, he wants to deport illegal immigrants and this has been done under previous presidents. Its not unprecedented. 3. He wants to secure the southern border as the USA is a country and not a part of Mexico. Drug smuggling across the border is also a massive problem for USA I know of at least one muslim who is quite happy with Trump's policy on muslim immigration provided he doesnt destroy their country or facilitate its destruction (as the current POTUS is doing)
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
TheFactOfTheMatter wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:TheFactOfTheMatter wrote:433 wrote:TheFactOfTheMatter wrote:Who won this exchange?
[youtube]I8cxTaaNZrw[/youtube]
Your intelligence will be judged by your response. Trump obviously. The Iraq war/WMD's was a massive fuckup - only the staunchest establishment GOP don't admit that. Additionally, the idea that Dubya "kept America safe" during 9/11 is cognitive dissonance. It's like saying "we defended well but we let in 5 goals". Why do lefties keep telling me he wants to bomb everything? No, he just wants to deport all muslims, and Mexicans, and build a massive wall to keep Mexicans out, despite there being a net OUTFLOW of Mexicans in the last few years. Yeah Trump is totally sane. 1. He wants to place a temporary ban on Muslim immigration until the security situation is assessed given recent incidents 2. He doesnt want to deport all Mexicans, he wants to deport illegal immigrants and this has been done under previous presidents. Its not unprecedented. 3. He wants to secure the southern border as the USA is a country and not a part of Mexico. Drug smuggling across the border is also a massive problem for USA I know of at least one muslim who is quite happy with Trump's policy on muslim immigration provided he doesnt destroy their country or facilitate its destruction (as the current POTUS is doing) 1. That is like refusing to allow any Christian migration because of the WACO incident. Totally ridiculous, and not proportional to the risk. Not to mention, how are they supposed to assess people's religion. You think a terrorist wouldn't just claim to be Christian? Furthermore, many countries in the middle east have significant non-muslim minorities, meaning it isn't a simple matter of looking at nationality. It is a completely ineffective, pointless and un-thoughtout policy. 2. You still don't address the point that there is a net outflow of Mexican migration over the last few years. Also, the US economy is completely reliant on illegal Mexicans to do their cheap labour. A rational approach would be to have a formalised guest worker program, where people can come and go legally. If people knew they could move back and forth without dangerous border crossings, most people would come to the US, work for a few years and return. As it is, there is already a net outflow. 3. Um... drug smuggling is a massive problem for MEXICO. Its a much bigger problem for them than it is for the USA. It is US demand for drugs is what drives the supply. A sane policy would be drug legalisation and regulation, which would stop the income base of the cartels.
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:
1. That is like refusing to allow any Christian migration because of the WACO incident. Totally ridiculous, and not proportional to the risk. Not to mention, how are they supposed to assess people's religion. You think a terrorist wouldn't just claim to be Christian? Furthermore, many countries in the middle east have significant non-muslim minorities, meaning it isn't a simple matter of looking at nationality. It is a completely ineffective, pointless and un-thoughtout policy.
It's most likely rhetoric and just a negotiating tactic - ask for something huge initially and you'll get something lower (which you're satisfied with). What Trump will get is a temporary ban on immigration from countries that have terrorist links, instead of a blanket ban on Muslims, which serves almost the same purpose. Azzamarch wrote: 2. You still don't address the point that there is a net outflow of Mexican migration over the last few years. Also, the US economy is completely reliant on illegal Mexicans to do their cheap labour. A rational approach would be to have a formalised guest worker program, where people can come and go legally. If people knew they could move back and forth without dangerous border crossings, most people would come to the US, work for a few years and return. As it is, there is already a net outflow.
I don't know why you think the wall would stop people leaving? They'll be free to emigrate regardless if the wall is there or not. The bold point is key, and is why Trump has so much blue collar support. The working classes wages have been undercut by cheap foreign labour, which is why so many candidates in the establishment want amnesty and open borders for America - it provides corporate donors with cheap labour to depress wages. And I know you'll respond with "they're doing jobs Americans don't want to do!". No, immigrants are doing jobs at much lower wages than what Americans can afford to live for - if the cheap foreign labour jobs paid a decent wage, then Americans would work in those jobs and you wouldn't need an influx of foreigners. Quote:3. Um... drug smuggling is a massive problem for MEXICO. Its a much bigger problem for them than it is for the USA. It is US demand for drugs is what drives the supply. A sane policy would be drug legalisation and regulation, which would stop the income base of the cartels. Lower entry of drugs into America = less demand = less supply = less cartels fucking shit up in America. The wall will help Mexico's drug problem. Edited by 433: 18/2/2016 05:20:08 PMEdited by 433: 18/2/2016 05:49:56 PM
|
|
|
JP
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.5K,
Visits: 0
|
:lol: :lol: :lol: It's a "negotiating tactic?"
You've actually bought Trump's bullshit claims that he's some sort of legendary dealmaker. Unbelievable.
Jesus Christ, I know his supporters are gullible but that has to be a step too far.
|
|
|
TheFactOfTheMatter
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 309,
Visits: 0
|
JP wrote::lol: :lol: :lol: It's a "negotiating tactic?"
You've actually bought Trump's bullshit claims that he's some sort of legendary dealmaker. Unbelievable.
Jesus Christ, I know his supporters are gullible but that has to be a step too far. My opinion about you hasnt changed.
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
JP wrote::lol: :lol: :lol: It's a "negotiating tactic?"
You've actually bought Trump's bullshit claims that he's some sort of legendary dealmaker. Unbelievable.
Jesus Christ, I know his supporters are gullible but that has to be a step too far. :lol: :lol: :lol: Literally everyone who has bought and sold a house does the same thing.
|
|
|
JP
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.5K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:JP wrote::lol: :lol: :lol: It's a "negotiating tactic?"
You've actually bought Trump's bullshit claims that he's some sort of legendary dealmaker. Unbelievable.
Jesus Christ, I know his supporters are gullible but that has to be a step too far. :lol: :lol: :lol: Literally everyone who has bought and sold a house does the same thing. What a bizarre view. Are you saying that selling houses is the same as constructing public policy? If not, please explain to me who exactly Trump, the candidate, is negotiating with? The Muslims of the world? President Obama? The Republican National Committee? The Senate and the Congress who Candidate Trump doesn't need to worry about for another year? Seems more likely that he's "negotiating" with gullible voters who are racist enough or stupid enough to buy the manure he's selling. Edited by JP: 18/2/2016 08:12:54 PM
|
|
|
TheFactOfTheMatter
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 309,
Visits: 0
|
Religion isn't a race.
|
|
|
JP
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.5K,
Visits: 0
|
TheFactOfTheMatter wrote:Religion isn't a race. :) Where did I say it was a race Ricey?
|
|
|