PDA

View Full Version : Election 2016



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5

Mjölnir
08-11-2015, 04:56 AM
None of the money spent at Planed parenthood is spent on anything Choice related, they get audited very regularly to enforce that, So you can't use the 528 Million spent on Health care as a pro-choice cost.

Directly no, but Planned Parenthood's operating costs are offset by that $528 million (the federal government is the single largest contributor of operating funds for Planned Parenthood) -- so while the federal funds are not directly supporting Choice programs, it allows more non-federal funds to be used to support choice programs. So the facility costs, the utility costs etc. are covered and that money doesn't have to come from other funding sources. Kind of like the E3 living in the barracks on a meal card not needing to spend money on groceries because it is already provided elsewhere. So, take $528 million from the $2.3 billion (combined Planned Parenthood & ACA subsidies) and you still have approx $1.8 billion that is funded by taxpayers. Not saying I am against the program, but it is inaccurate to say that it isn't funded by (in the case of the federal health plan) or offset/supported (in the case of Planned Parenthood) by taxpayer funding. Yes, in some ways it is semantics, but it is supported ... just not directly.



Do those programs cost more or less than the cost of not having those programs?

Well, on it's face it costs more -- of course. Now, realistically if you aren't paying for an education for someone, are you paying for them to be on welfare? In some cases yes, in some cases no. I will agree, having the view point doesn't cost a dime, doing something about the view point is what does.

The Great Society domestic programs in many ways were needed, valuable and made life better for millions of people in the country (education, environmental issues, civil rights etc.) However, many look at the programs as having a destructive effect on poor and minority families; primarily in moving welfare assistance programs from an 'emergency assistance measure' to a way of life. While the overall poverty levels initially declined, it is hard to look at it objectively and not see a connection between the rapid expansion of welfare programs and the growth of a permanent welfare class.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-11-2015, 05:50 AM
Breaking News!!!

Illegal Alien gangsters recently released back onto the public streets invade an elderly AF veteran's home, Rape her and then bash her brains out with a hammer.

"Police say Victor Aureliano Martinez Ramirez, 29, and another man broke into the home of 64-year-old Marilyn Pharis in Santa Maria on July 24 and attacked her with a hammer and sexually assaulted her. Pharis, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force who worked at Vandenberg Air Force Base, died Aug. 1 from her wounds".

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-undocumented-assault-20150810-story.html

Meanwhile, Self-hating RINOs everywhere patiently wait for someone that "Looks more Presidential" to enforce the law of the land....

.... And The Bimbo Fox News crack journalists are on the case to demand that Male chauvinist Donald Trump provide them with "further proof" that criminal gangs are illegally crossing the border.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

God Bless Donald Trump for taking the heat and publicly standing up to call this Illegal invasion what it is. Amen

No, Trump made the claim that the Mexican government is sending their criminals across the border.

Trump was asked to clarify the claim, and he was the one who said he'd provide proof.

He never did.

There is nothing wrong with a journalist asking him to back up his claim.

This RINO wants someone more presidential than a bombastic game show host.

Rainmaker
08-11-2015, 12:47 PM
This RINO wants someone more presidential than a bombastic game show host.

Don't worry buddy, It'll be ok. AIPAC controls the political process, so you'll still get your "choice" of stooges to tell you what you want to hear.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-11-2015, 01:10 PM
Don't worry buddy, It'll be ok. AIPAC controls the political process, so you'll still get your "choice" of stooges to tell you what you want to hear.

I read about 6 articles on AIPAC and they are powerful lobbyist group, not unlike the NRA in how they lobby congress.

I didn't read a bunch of crap David Duke wrote that you appear to consume with a vociferous appetite.

AIPAC appears to be losing influence if anything. Regardless, they are hardly the bogeymen you paint them to be.

Bottom line, American Jews have the right to lobby congress just like any other group.

For the record, I think the U.S. has hurt its interests in the Middle East over the years in supporting Israel in certain circumstances. Our foreign policy in the Middle East is often muddled and inconsistent.

That said, you are clearly exaggerating the amount of influence that AIPAC has over the news media and congress.

TJMAC77SP
08-11-2015, 01:56 PM
I read about 6 articles on AIPAC and they are powerful lobbyist group, not unlike the NRA in how they lobby congress.

I didn't read a bunch of crap David Duke wrote that you appear to consume with a vociferous appetite.

AIPAC appears to be losing influence if anything. Regardless, they are hardly the bogeymen you paint them to be.

Bottom line, American Jews have the right to lobby congress just like any other group.

For the record, I think the U.S. has hurt its interests in the Middle East over the years in supporting Israel in certain circumstances. Our foreign policy in the Middle East is often muddled and inconsistent.

That said, you are clearly exaggerating the amount of influence that AIPAC has over the news media and congress.

Funny that you should mention AIPAC and the NRA together. I have had some direct dealings with AIPAC and one thing I have always said is they are the most successful lobby group in DC, even better than the NRA. They are a lot better at influencing both sides of the aisle in Congress. While I may not see them as quite the boogeyman that some do please do not underestimate their influence in Congress.

I certainly agree with your assessment of the effects our support of Israel over the years has had.

Rainmaker
08-11-2015, 01:59 PM
Like I said you and I can back and forth, There are plenty of other sources besides David Duke that substantiate this.

Just because David Duke is a racist and says something does not mean it's factually incorrect.

I guess Chuck Hagel is a skin head too?

“The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here,” but “I’m a United States senator. I’m not an Israeli senator.” AND " I was called a 'traitor', and I was called 'disgusting'.- Chuck Hagel, Vietnam Veteran with 2 purple Hearts.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/chuck-hagel-and-his-enemies


Why do you feel the need to continually compare me to David Duke and Adolph Hitler, for just pointing out the obvious fact that for being only .04% of the population they are disproportionately represented in the American society?

What are you somehow afraid that by our acknowledging this indisputable fact (that everyone else in the world knows) it's going to lead to another "final solution"?

And, For someone who claims to be above any "fairy tale superstitious religions", then why would you unconditionally support the Jews" right of return" to impose an apartheid state, based on some 3,000 year old myth of the Biblical King David (for which there is no historical evidence)?

What about the Palestinians right of return to the land they lived in for the last 1500 years before it was seized from the by the British? Some of these people still have the actual deeds to the property taken from them in THIS lifetime.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-11-2015, 02:07 PM
Funny that you should mention AIPAC and the NRA together. I have had some direct dealings with AIPAC and one thing I have always said is they are the most successful lobby group in DC, even better than the NRA. They are a lot better at influencing both sides of the aisle in Congress. While I may not see them as quite the boogeyman that some do please do not underestimate their influence in Congress.

I certainly agree with your assessment of the effects our support of Israel over the years has had.

One of the articles I read was in the New Yorker and it explained how they influence both sides of the aisle.

They visit every freshman congressman and Senator within a week of them taking office and cultivate personal relationships. It doesn't matter to them if it is a republican or a democrat they go and make present their narrative on the Middle East and Israel.

What they are doing isn't illegal either.

It is up to the politician not to become compromised by campaign contributions.

The members of AIPAC are Americans, they have a right to lobby.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-11-2015, 02:33 PM
Like I said you and I can back and forth, There are plenty of other sources besides David Duke that substantiate this.

Just because David Duke is a racist and says something does not mean it's factually incorrect.

I guess Chuck Hagel is a skin head too?

“The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here,” but “I’m a United States senator. I’m not an Israeli senator.” AND " I was called a 'traitor', and I was called 'disgusting'.- Chuck Hagel, Vietnam Veteran with 2 purple Hearts.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/chuck-hagel-and-his-enemies


Why do you feel the need to continually compare me to David Duke and Adolph Hitler, for just pointing out the obvious fact that for being only .04% of the population they are disproportionately represented in the American society?

What are you somehow afraid that by our acknowledging this indisputable fact (that everyone else in the world knows) it's going to lead to another "final solution"?

And, For someone who claims to be above any "fairy tale superstitious religions", then why would you unconditionally support the Jews" right of return" to impose an apartheid state, based on some 3,000 year old myth of the Biblical King David (for which there is no historical evidence)?

What about the Palestinians right of return to the land they lived in for the last 1500 years before it was seized from the by the British? Some of these people still have the actual deeds to the property taken from them in THIS lifetime.

Slow your roll, cowboy.

What makes you think that I'm pro Israel in every situation?

Your two year stint on this forum as a jive talking homeboy, who would occasionally lapse into anti Jewish rants and deride anyone who speaks of inclusion and diversity is what gets me thinking you follow David Duke's line of thinking.

That and the fact that I copy and pasted one of your comments into google and the David Duke article was the first thing to hit, a word for word match.

You seem to be particularly enraged by, "Diversity is our greatest strength" as you lampoon that thought routinely.

What in the hell am I supposed to think about you?

Besides, that Hitler video was an Epic Rap Battle between Hitler and Darth Vader. It's damn funny, don't turn into Sandsjames on me.

You dish it out harder than anyone else on this forum.

PS

We've already been warned for squabbling, so we'd better take this to PM if you want to continue.

Before we get banned, let's make peace in public, bitch.

TJMAC77SP
08-11-2015, 03:41 PM
One of the articles I read was in the New Yorker and it explained how they influence both sides of the aisle.

They visit every freshman congressman and Senator within a week of them taking office and cultivate personal relationships. It doesn't matter to them if it is a republican or a democrat they go and make present their narrative on the Middle East and Israel.

What they are doing isn't illegal either.

It is up to the politician not to become compromised by campaign contributions.

The members of AIPAC are Americans, they have a right to lobby.

Oh, absolutely. But, I remain troubled by all lobbies and their methods. It isn't just campaign contributions. AIPAC sponsors (pay for) a lot of 'fact finding trips' to Israel. These lawmakers are feted like superstars.

Of course AIPAC isn't alone in these types of efforts hence I am troubled by all lobbies.

EDIT: I noticed your calling out Rainmaker for labeling you universally pro-Israel (and you were right to do so). The exact opposite tact (or is it the same tactic?) is taken by some of the pro-Israel side. If you criticize Israel you are labeled an anti-Semite. In fact it is one tactic used on lawmakers.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-11-2015, 04:35 PM
Oh, absolutely. But, I remain troubled by all lobbies and their methods. It isn't just campaign contributions. AIPAC sponsors (pay for) a lot of 'fact finding trips' to Israel. These lawmakers are feted like superstars.

Of course AIPAC isn't alone in these types of efforts hence I am troubled by all lobbies.

EDIT: I noticed your calling out Rainmaker for labeling you universally pro-Israel (and you were right to do so). The exact opposite tact (or is it the same tactic?) is taken by some of the pro-Israel side. If you criticize Israel you are labeled an anti-Semite. In fact it is one tactic used on lawmakers.

One can overcome labels if their talking game is sharp, and while the racist/anti-Semite label is particularly nasty, it is easy to keep it from sticking.

Provided one doesn't spout a constant string of stupid shit, day in and day out. Nomesaying?

The U.S. Relationship with Israel is complex, as relationships tend to be in the entire Middle East.

Bringing this conversation back to Trump, I have zero confidence that Trump has the knowledge of the Middle East to make sound decisions.

If by some odd chance that he were elected, it would depend on who he staffs his cabinet with. That is always a wild card that the voter won't know until it is too late.

George W. Bush was so far over his head on the decision to invade Iraq that it was really Rumsfeld and Cheney who did that. Bush listened to them and totally ignored what the intelligence community told him about what would happen after Saddam was gone.

Who knows who Trump will turn to for advice, and the arrogant style he portrays makes me nervous as hell about him.

Rumsfeld wasn't bombastic like Trump is, but he was just as arrogant when it came to listening to what the Pentagon brass was telling him about how many troops we'd need after Saddam's ouster.

Rumsfeld squelched some very accurate advice coming from the JCS and the State Department. Rumsfeld was very experienced in government and at the Pentagon, but he was arrogant on an unbelievable level.

Bush listened to Rumsfeld because he didn't have the experience in dealing with the Pentagon or the intelligence community.

What bothers me most about Trump would be who gets his ear. Whoever does will be the one charting foreign policy decisions.

It is like that with any President who doesn't have much time inside the beltway.

Guys like Kasich make me feel a lot safer because I know they are accustomed to how government works at that level. They can follow along in a briefing and they know the dynamics of each agency.

Obama suffered badly from this. For along time he started foregoing the Presidential Daily Briefs and was having the information loaded on an iPad.

That eventually changed but it was attributing to a bunch of dumb shit happening.

Obama was in so far over his head, and Trump would be much worse.

Rainmaker
08-11-2015, 05:13 PM
What makes you think that I'm pro Israel in every situation?

Because, I've never once heard you say otherwise.....

So, In your mind, why should they have unconditional right to that land (Palestine) even though other people have continuously occupied it for the last 1500 years? Based on what?? Biblical or Talmudic law!

I thought you said religion was all just fairy tale, bronze age, tribal bullshit?

If you do think they're entitled to that land based on the 3000 year old myth of King David. that's fine. I'm ok with you thinking that. But, let's cut the shit and call it what it is. Zionism.

Palestine was part of the Ottomon Empire. The Brits traded the rights to the Zionist World Congress (Balfour declaration/Mandate for Palestine) in exchange for Cash to fund their army in WWI.


Your two year stint on this forum as a jive talking homeboy, who would occasionally lapse into anti Jewish rants and deride anyone who speaks of inclusion and diversity is what gets me thinking you follow David Duke's line of thinking.

I never lapsed into an any anti-jewish rant. That's BS and I would've been banned from this forum if I had made any such rant.

I'm not Anti-Semitic at all. In-fact, I support the right of the Semitic Palestinians to return to their homes that were stolen from them.


That and the fact that I copy and pasted one of your comments into google and the David Duke article was the first thing to hit, a word for word match.

Which, comment? I haven't read much really of what David Duke says. But, Just because David Duke is a racist person doesn't automatically mean that everything he says must be untrue.


You seem to be particularly enraged by, "Diversity is our greatest strength" as you lampoon that thought routinely.

Yeah, because, it's a stupid idea.

America has enjoyed a lot of prosperity based on an ideology of unity that has a preserved it, and the loss of that unity (by constantly pointing out our differences) is what is destroying it.


What in the hell am I supposed to think about you?.

I don't care. Because, absolute truth doesn't answer to your reason.


You dish it out harder than anyone else on this forum.

PS

We've already been warned for squabbling, so we'd better take this to PM if you want to continue.

Before we get banned, let's make peace in public, bitch.

it's just a discussion. I don't take it personal. you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.

Rainmaker don't believe the self-chosenites are ordained by God to rule over the rest of us. Maybe you do. That's your choice. But, Don't Tread On Me. Nomsayin?

Rainmaker
08-11-2015, 08:14 PM
Guys like Kasich make me feel a lot safer because I know they are accustomed to how government works at that level. They can follow along in a briefing and they know the dynamics of each agency.

Agree. Because, it's really very very scary when those rubes from outside the beltway, try to understand how the levers of power work. We need strong insiders and centralized control for the greater collective good.

I think the best case scenario for everyone is if Donald Trump wins the GOP nomination and Queen Hillary wins the Democratic Nomination, and she can just nominate Jeb Bush as her vice president.

They'll probably win in a landslide and they can declare martial law and suspend habeas corpus just to keep us safe from the "vast right wing conspiracy".....Bill Clinton can even have a sex change and become the first Transgendered Lesbian First Lady.

As, an act of Love, They can bring in another 30 million "undocumented dreamers" preferably from Somalia (because, those Mexicans are getting too pricey) and grant them Amnesty.

With Decades yet to come of the BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH/CLINTON-BUSH/BUSH-CLINTON/BUSH/CLINTON-BUSH/CLINTON-CLINTON/BUSH-BUSH-CLINTON.... dynasty, we won't really have any more need for elections and political parties. They do nothing but argue about everything anyway.

with all the Racists WASPs out of the way, People of color everywhere will finally be able to recognize the age old Utopian vision of Unicorns shitting Rainbow colored skittles....... CANKLES-JEB 2016!!!

UncaRastus
08-11-2015, 08:36 PM
Ewwwww. Just ewwwww ...

garhkal
08-11-2015, 09:55 PM
It doesn't have to be that way.

I'm talking about the party not getting painted into a corner over social issues like abortion, gay rights, women's issues, and welfare reform.

Fare enough.. Usually when i hear people on about "Socially liberal" people mean "More tax redistribution of wealth, paying you 'fair share' etc..


As far as spreading money around, it is possible to be compassionate to the poor without being a socialist.

Compassion is one thing. Being forced to be charitable is another.


The fact is that capitalism lifts far more people out of poverty than socialism.


Well said!


He didn't; but based on his statements about women in the past, I have to wonder if he would. When did President Obama ever say that he views a racially based hate crime as only being white-on-black? Never. But based on some statements he made &/or condoned in the past, I could kind of see that coming. Based on the overwhelmingly poor record on directing the DoJ to investigate obvious cases of black-on-white hate crimes I have to think that is what he is doing as well.

Combine that with how he seemed to always send buttloads of FBI agents in to 'investigate' hate crimes, when it was white on black (or suspected as white on black) but never did the same when it was proven to be black on white (or black on any other Ethnicity) even when witnesses heard people shouting "Get that cracker" (Knock out game!), how else are we to see it.

Heck he has sent staffers to the funerals of thugs like Brown and others, but NOT to the funerals of cops killed BY blacks.


I continue to be sincerely amazed at the people who think Trump is not only a viable candidate but a fit and qualified one.

I know that as time goes on his dirty laundry will come out and after awhile merely yelling attack responses won't satisfy people but I shudder at all the time and effort it will take to get there.

And what makes him UNFIT?


What about the Northern border? What about our coastlines?

Should we string 10,000 miles of net to catch those cocaine submarines?

On the northern border part, imo people don't seem to care about it anywhere near as much as the southern one as there are few if any reported cases OF illegals crossing it. Though i do feel we need to protect the coastline a lot more, cause that is how thousands of illegals flood in from Europe/far east.
As for the drug subs.. I'd say treat them like we should any other foreign threat.. SINK THEM!


None of the money spent at Planed parenthood is spent on anything Choice related, they get audited very regularly to enforce that, So you can't use the 528 Million spent on Health care as a pro-choice cost.

Don't make me laugh MK.. Audited? If they were getting audited, why is it only cause of hidden cameras and the balls of that group, we are finally learning of their 'selling baby body parts' scandal?


No, Trump made the claim that the Mexican government is sending their criminals across the border.

Trump was asked to clarify the claim, and he was the one who said he'd provide proof.

He never did.

And what more proof is needed when we keep seeing more and more stories like this?

TJMAC77SP
08-11-2015, 10:49 PM
And what makes him UNFIT?

He is nothing but an ego with a very bad hairdo.

Seriously, not one single idea on any particular policy or issue. Simply inflammatory remarks designed to placate the basest of people's fears.

I am so sick and tired of hearing him described as 'telling it like it is'. Using that (and what he is actually saying) as a litmus test, an equally qualified candidate would be Howard Stern.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-11-2015, 11:17 PM
garhkal

There is an enormous difference between the Mexican government taking criminals from their prison system and sending them to the U.S. and a criminal coming on his own accord.

Trump initially made the claim that "Mexico is sending" their criminals. When asked, "the Mexican government is sending?"

Trump replied, yes and promised to provide proof at later date.

He never provided proof and later walked back on the statement.

It was obvious to me that he was speaking about the situation at the border in a very uninformed manner.

When he walked back on his statements he did claim that "the worst from Latin America" is coming over the border.

Trump wasn't being badgered about saying that the U.S. isn't enforcing existing immigration laws.

He was badgered about what he meant by "the worst" but so what?

Absinthe Anecdote
08-11-2015, 11:26 PM
He is nothing but an ego with a very bad hairdo.

Seriously, not one single idea on any particular policy or issue. Simply inflammatory remarks designed to placate the basest of people's fears.

I am so sick and tired of hearing him described as 'telling it like it is'. Using that (and what he is actually saying) as a litmus test, an equally qualified candidate would be Howard Stern.

I actually like Howard Stern, and I do think he is an incredibly candid individual.

However, I would never in a million years think he is qualified to be president.

Stern also has a tremendous ego, but I don't see him ever running for president. Well, maybe as a prank or publicity stunt.

Which I am secretly hoping is what Trump is doing. Maybe he'll announce that Andy Kaufman is his running mate when he reveals the prank, but sadly I think this nightmare is real.

TJMAC77SP
08-12-2015, 12:32 AM
I actually like Howard Stern, and I do think he is an incredibly candid individual.

However, I would never in a million years think he is qualified to be president.

Stern also has a tremendous ego, but I don't see him ever running for president. Well, maybe as a prank or publicity stunt.

Which I am secretly hoping is what Trump is doing. Maybe he'll announce that Andy Kaufman is his running mate when he reveals the prank, but sadly I think this nightmare is real.

Stern actually did run for NY Governor (Libertarian, 1994) and has publically agreed to be Jessie Ventura's running mate if he declares. Yes, all as a joke. One can only hope along with you that Trump is doing the same thing.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-12-2015, 12:47 AM
Stern actually did run for NY Governor (Libertarian, 1994) and has publically agreed to be Jessie Ventura's running mate if he declares. Yes, all as a joke. One can only hope along with you that Trump is doing the same thing.

I was just watching Trump give a speech in Michigan and he has dialed back the invective considerably.

He was actually managing to be charming, but still no specifics on his plans. So far he has just made a bunch of nebulous statements, like "we need to get tough on China."

Ok, get tough how?

MikeKerriii
08-12-2015, 01:56 AM
Don't make me laugh MK.. Audited? If they were getting audited, why is it only cause of hidden cameras and the balls of that group, we are finally learning of their 'selling baby body parts' scandal? Audited by both Republican and Democratic administrations for years, auditing is the way yuo find out where the money went?

Have you watched a unedited tape of that so called scandal;? until that is released and shown not to be manipulated I will consider it as valid as O'keaf's hack job on Acorn, that is not valid at all.

Rainmaker
08-12-2015, 02:21 AM
He is nothing but an ego with a very bad hairdo.

Seriously, not one single idea on any particular policy or issue. Simply inflammatory remarks designed to placate the basest of people's fears

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/the-man-with-a-plan-donald-trumps-5-part-strategy-to-make-america-great-again/

We just don't ever get to hear anything about it because the Fox News girl's panties are all bunched up over him not being PC enough, when he tells the truth about the illegal invasion that's taking place.

TJMAC77SP
08-12-2015, 03:20 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/the-man-with-a-plan-donald-trumps-5-part-strategy-to-make-america-great-again/

We just don't ever get to hear anything about it because the Fox News girl's panties are all bunched up over him not being PC enough, when he tells the truth about the illegal invasion that's taking place.

His comments to and about Megyn Kelly had zero to do with his over the top, overgeneralized comments about illegal immigration. Why are you attempting to link the two?

Rainmaker
08-12-2015, 03:44 AM
His comments to and about Megyn Kelly had zero to do with his over the top, overgeneralized comments about illegal immigration. Why are you attempting to link the two?

Because, It's all related.

Rather than ask Trump anything relevant about his plans they came right out of the gate asking BS questions about something said on a Hollywood TV show to try and smear him.

Did you not see the giant "F" on the wall for Facebook behind every candidate?

How much do you think Mark zuckerberg paid Fox for that advertising?

What are Mark zuckerburg's views on immigration (legal and illegal). You're a smart guy. connect the dots.

Do, You think Megyn Kelly really comes up with any questions on her own?

The moderators were under orders to smear Trump. That's not a debate. It's a shit show.

Then they had to spend 4 days afterward doing damage control when it blew up in their faces and Roger Ailes had to call Trump and suck his ass yesterday.

It'll still be biased coverage. but, I bet we'll be seeing a marked change in how the media handles him from here on out.

Love him or hate him. The guy is a master showman. The establishment is clearly scared to death of this guy upsetting the rotten apple cart.

I say, That's a good thing because, Maybe just Maybe he can actually be vetted for his ideas.

Rainmaker
08-12-2015, 04:15 AM
garhkal

Trump initially made the claim that "Mexico is sending" their criminals.



knowingly looking the other way is effectively sending..

Let me guess? You don't think officials in the Nobel Mexican government are knowingly allowing Narco traffickers to penetrate the border and set up shop in their market place in exchange for bribes?

Of course not, No that would NEVER happen. They all just wanna be landscapers.

http://www.cfr.org/mexico/mexicos-drug-war/p13689

''for decades, drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) used Mexico's entrenched political system to create "a system-wide network of corruption that ensured distribution rights, market access, and even official government protection for drug traffickers in exchange for lucrative bribes,"


I swear you dudes have a terminal stage 4 case of Stockholm syndrome.

Wake the fuck up and smell the chaos. we're only glimpsing the tip of the iceberg.

garhkal
08-12-2015, 06:40 AM
garhkal

There is an enormous difference between the Mexican government taking criminals from their prison system and sending them to the U.S. and a criminal coming on his own accord.

Trump initially made the claim that "Mexico is sending" their criminals. When asked, "the Mexican government is sending?"

Trump replied, yes and promised to provide proof at later date.

He never provided proof and later walked back on the statement.

Point made AA. Proof should have been forth coming.
Though in his defense, since we DO hold people accountable as accessories to crimes for 'turning a blind eye, or aiding, technically couldn't the same be said about the Mexican govt? That their 'turning a blind eye to the # of criminals crossing IS making them accessories, and thus they 'are sending them this way'?

Absinthe Anecdote
08-12-2015, 07:38 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/the-man-with-a-plan-donald-trumps-5-part-strategy-to-make-america-great-again/

We just don't ever get to hear anything about it because the Fox News girl's panties are all bunched up over him not being PC enough, when he tells the truth about the illegal invasion that's taking place.

Bullshit! Trump isn't being silenced. Why doesn't he talk about this stuff? He has had ample opportunity to speak on this, but he hasn't.

Go back and read that article again, each quote starts with "Trump writes"

All those points in that Brietbart article are from the 2011 book that Trump had a ghost writer for.

Even so, if those are Trump's plans, then how come he hasn't responded with any of that information when asked about it at the debate or the numerous interviews he has done?

The fact that he hasn't said anything near the level detail of what is contained in that article is extremely curious.

He was asked questions yesterday afternoon that he could have responded to with some of that information, yet he didn't.

Does Trump even know what is in that book?

He has had two sit down interviews with Anderson Cooper where he could have used some of that information in his book, but he hasn't.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-12-2015, 09:39 AM
knowingly looking the other way is effectively sending..

Let me guess? You don't think officials in the Nobel Mexican government are knowingly allowing Narco traffickers to penetrate the border and set up shop in their market place in exchange for bribes?

Of course not, No that would NEVER happen. They all just wanna be landscapers.

http://www.cfr.org/mexico/mexicos-drug-war/p13689

''for decades, drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) used Mexico's entrenched political system to create "a system-wide network of corruption that ensured distribution rights, market access, and even official government protection for drug traffickers in exchange for lucrative bribes,"


I swear you dudes have a terminal stage 4 case of Stockholm syndrome.

Wake the fuck up and smell the chaos. we're only glimpsing the tip of the iceberg.

If Trump was talking about the Mexican Draug Cartels, then why didn't he explain himself better in those exchanges with the media?

I have yet to hear him have a coherent discussion of any this in his interviews or press conferences.

If he has good ideas and understands what is going on with corruption in the Mexican government then why can't he talk about it?

TJMAC77SP
08-12-2015, 12:53 PM
Because, It's all related.

Rather than ask Trump anything relevant about his plans they came right out of the gate asking BS questions about something said on a Hollywood TV show to try and smear him.

Did you not see the giant "F" on the wall for Facebook behind every candidate?

How much do you think Mark zuckerberg paid Fox for that advertising?

What are Mark zuckerburg's views on immigration (legal and illegal). You're a smart guy. connect the dots.

Do, You think Megyn Kelly really comes up with any questions on her own?

The moderators were under orders to smear Trump. That's not a debate. It's a shit show.

Then they had to spend 4 days afterward doing damage control when it blew up in their faces and Roger Ailes had to call Trump and suck his ass yesterday.

It'll still be biased coverage. but, I bet we'll be seeing a marked change in how the media handles him from here on out.

Love him or hate him. The guy is a master showman. The establishment is clearly scared to death of this guy upsetting the rotten apple cart.

I say, That's a good thing because, Maybe just Maybe he can actually be vetted for his ideas.

I get your opinion. In fact it seems you have expressed several opinions not based on any real facts here. Her questions were relevant. They may not have been the questions you wanted asked, when you wanted them asked. They certainly weren't the ones Trump wanted asked but he has a horrible reputation for saying the stupidest (and that is the kindest word for it I can think of) about and to women. Since they make up just over 50 percent of the electorate his view of women is very frapping relevant.

I get that he isn't a politician and some unpolished prose is to be expected. Trump goes way beyond unpolished into the offensive and asinine.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-12-2015, 01:10 PM
I get that he isn't a politician and some unpolished prose is to be expected. Trump goes way beyond unpolished into the offensive and asinine.

I listened to his speech last night and he had toned it down a lot, but he still wasn't giving any details about how he would do anything.

hustonj
08-12-2015, 01:23 PM
I listened to his speech last night and he had toned it down a lot, but he still wasn't giving any details about how he would do anything.

Not providing details sure hurt Obama's chances at election, didn't it?

Absinthe Anecdote
08-12-2015, 05:04 PM
Not providing details sure hurt Obama's chances at election, didn't it?

Are you satisfied with the Obama presidency?

Rainmaker
08-12-2015, 05:52 PM
Bullshit! Trump isn't being silenced. Why doesn't he talk about this stuff? He has had ample opportunity to speak on this, but he hasn't.

Go back and read that article again, each quote starts with "Trump writes"

All those points in that Brietbart article are from the 2011 book that Trump had a ghost writer for.

Even so, if those are Trump's plans, then how come he hasn't responded with any of that information when asked about it at the debate or the numerous interviews he has done?

The fact that he hasn't said anything near the level detail of what is contained in that article is extremely curious.

He was asked questions yesterday afternoon that he could have responded to with some of that information, yet he didn't.

Does Trump even know what is in that book?

He has had two sit down interviews with Anderson Cooper where he could have used some of that information in his book, but he hasn't.

Ghost writers! hahaha....Good one... But, Guess what Inspector Clouseau?? They've all got em......Soetero's "dreams of my Father" (Frank Marshall Davis) was ghost written by Bill Ayers.

You need to come to grips with the fact that this phenomenon called "The Donald" is not going anywhere (yet) and embrace his presence in the race.

Looks like, He survived the Fox Character assassination attempt..... Like Rainmaker said last week.... The more they box him in, the more momentum he's gonna get. you just can't stop a cult of personality.

Shaking up the one party dicktatership status quo should be viewed as a good thing.

If the oohhhh so PC, RINO pieces of shit hadn't sold out their constituents for 30 shekels of silver. Then someone like Trump wouldn't even be necessary.

Look at the bright side Absinthe Anticdote..... After 8 years of being forced to look at the First Wookie and having to hear the girls on the view slober all over her....... A Trump Presidency will give us A FLOTUS worthy of our appreciation ..... And Now Presenting .....The Glamourous Melaniaaaaa(R)!!!!

https://www.google.com/search?q=melania+trump&biw=1920&bih=894&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI8vTxk42kxwIViY0NCh1bBgDU

Rainmaker
08-12-2015, 07:34 PM
If Trump was talking about the Mexican Draug Cartels, then why didn't he explain himself better in those exchanges with the media?

I have yet to hear him have a coherent discussion of any this in his interviews or press conferences.

If he has good ideas and understands what is going on with corruption in the Mexican government then why can't he talk about it?

Rainmaker posted a citation straight from the belly of the NWO beast.... and you still want to argue? The evidence is indisputable..... CHECK MATE COMRADE!!

Absinthe Anecdote
08-12-2015, 08:00 PM
Rainmaker posted a citation straight from the belly of the NWO beast.... and you still want to argue? The evidence is indisputable..... CHECK MATE COMRADE!!

What the fuck are you talking about?

My point is that Trump is not addressing the border situation be it illegal immigration, or drug cartel activity in a coherent manner.

I'm not saying these problems don't exist. I'm saying he is only making inflammatory comments and not providing a strategy to deal with it.

Saying that he will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, isn't enough for me.

If you think that smugglers can't find a way around, under, or over a fucking wall, then you are being extremely gullible.

hustonj
08-12-2015, 08:59 PM
Are you satisfied with the Obama presidency?

I don't understand the relevance.

You noted that Trump isn't providing any details about his plans.

I noted that Obama didn't provide any details about his plans during the initial election cycle, either.

My point was that the voting population doesn't care about the details as long as they like the high-level outline.

What I think of a given presidency really isn't relevant to those points.

Rainmaker
08-12-2015, 09:13 PM
/redacted/

Absinthe Anecdote
08-12-2015, 09:38 PM
The mob is fickle.

They think millions of El-Chapo wanna be's can build a tunnel under the wall but, somehow won't be able to figure out how to get around and E-verify dragnet, which the government has been using for years and still doesn't manage to stop illegals from routinely showing up on .gov job sites. E-verify also contributes greatly to identity theft and serves only to hassle the actual citizenry and overburden Non Monopoly business with more regulatory Communist DHS Bullshit.

Now, What You have to understand, is that some of These people here consider it to be not only constitutional duty But, "an act of love" for a nation to stand by and allow its veterans to be attacked in their homes, sexually violated, tortured and then have their heads beaten in with hammers by illegal alien gangbangers.

You See, America is sick with a collective case of Stage 4 Stockholm syndrome and the patient's prognoses is not good.

We have to have the courage to be called racists by insane people (who already hate us anyway) and recognize this and cut the cancer out immediately before it's too late.

Are you drunk, or just doing an imitation of a drunk guy posting a rant?

garhkal
08-13-2015, 01:36 AM
Are you satisfied with the Obama presidency?

Heck no.

IMO he has been worse for the US than even Nixon and Carter were.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-20-2015, 12:40 PM
Did anyone watch Trump's interview on CNN last night?

Trump keeps saying he will get his friend Carl Icahn to straighten out trade with China.

Before he was saying that Icahn would be his Secretary of Treasury, but Icahn is 79 years old and keeps saying that he doesn't want to do that stuff.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/19/investing/donald-trump-carl-icahn-treasury-secretary/

Let's face it, when you hit 79, you are no longer sharp enough to do a real job for very long.

Mjölnir
08-20-2015, 02:43 PM
Did anyone watch Trump's interview on CNN last night?

Trump keeps saying he will get his friend Carl Icahn to straighten out trade with China.

Before he was saying that Icahn would be his Secretary of Treasury, but Icahn is 79 years old and keeps saying that he doesn't want to do that stuff.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/19/investing/donald-trump-carl-icahn-treasury-secretary/

I did watch it. It was a good interview; I like Mr. Trump better when he is being a bit more serious and not playing a character.


I wonder if Carl Icahn would want to do it for more than one reason. Even the Secretary of the Treasury doesn't really make much as compared to what someone with his credentials would ... not that Icahn needs money. But it makes me wonder if Trump would have the ability to further compensate members of his cabinent from his personal funds -- to truly try to attract 'the best & brightest'.


Let's face it, when you hit 79, you are no longer sharp enough to do a real job for very long.

Disagree ... at least to say that isn't the rule. Many of the members of Congress I met were very ... VERY sharp well into their 70's; some however ... yeah ... beyond their peak.

garhkal
08-20-2015, 04:12 PM
Did anyone watch Trump's interview on CNN last night?

Trump keeps saying he will get his friend Carl Icahn to straighten out trade with China.

Before he was saying that Icahn would be his Secretary of Treasury, but Icahn is 79 years old and keeps saying that he doesn't want to do that stuff.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/19/investing/donald-trump-carl-icahn-treasury-secretary/

Let's face it, when you hit 79, you are no longer sharp enough to do a real job for very long.

In that case, shouldn't Skalia and Kennedy be close to that 'cut off point, and Ginsburg already past it?

Absinthe Anecdote
08-22-2015, 02:09 AM
Wow!

Just watched CNN's coverage of Trump's Alabama rally.

They interviewed some attendees, and I wasn't impressed.

TEA party types galore, sorry, but none of them will be doing brain surgery anytime soon.

These are the same lunkheads who voted Perrot in 92.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-22-2015, 02:12 AM
In that case, shouldn't Skalia and Kennedy be close to that 'cut off point, and Ginsburg already past it?

I'd question their competency, sure.

I've worked with some Intel people in their 70s and they were largely out of touch with what was going on.

I think their staffers do all of the leg work on everything they touch when they get that old.

garhkal
08-22-2015, 09:40 AM
I'd question their competency, sure.

I've worked with some Intel people in their 70s and they were largely out of touch with what was going on.

I think their staffers do all of the leg work on everything they touch when they get that old.

But if that is the case, why then are THEY the one's making the rulings?

Absinthe Anecdote
08-22-2015, 11:10 AM
But if that is the case, why then are THEY the one's making the rulings?

Because it isn't a perfect world, and because our system of having Supreme Court Justices evolved into what it is today.

With people living longer lifespans and the support staff that is available to the justices, they probably end up sitting the bench longer than they should.

I'm sure they provide guidance and opinion, but I think that when they get into their 70s they are doing less and less.

Bos Mutus
08-22-2015, 12:43 PM
Ok...I not so secretly loved Trumps answer to whole anchor baby thing...and it's funny to see the other republicans now try to 'be like Trump' but can't quite pull it off

TJMAC77SP
08-22-2015, 02:42 PM
Ok...I not so secretly loved Trumps answer to whole anchor baby thing...and it's funny to see the other republicans now try to 'be like Trump' but can't quite pull it off

I too liked his answer. I fail to see how that is an offensive term.

In fairness to Jeb Bush, he was asked the same question Trump was asked and had basically the same cogent answer. He was obviously put off by the manner that guy asked the question. I realize the media labeled it as 'mimicking' Trump but I didn't really see it that way. Of course I could be wrong.

garhkal
08-23-2015, 03:32 AM
Because it isn't a perfect world, and because our system of having Supreme Court Justices evolved into what it is today.

With people living longer lifespans and the support staff that is available to the justices, they probably end up sitting the bench longer than they should.

I'm sure they provide guidance and opinion, but I think that when they get into their 70s they are doing less and less.

SO, then you agree that the justices should have some sort of term limit (Max age)?

Absinthe Anecdote
08-23-2015, 11:02 AM
SO, then you agree that the justices should have some sort of term limit (Max age)?

You really crack me up the way you SCREAM certain words for emphasis like a melodramatic lawyer.

But yes, in my opinion there should be a term limit for the justices.

Mjölnir
08-23-2015, 12:15 PM
I too liked his answer. I fail to see how that is an offensive term.

I could see where it would be offensive to some ... most those who are actually trying to game the system in the way we would typically define an 'anchor baby.'

I have a British colleague who is a dual-citizen of the U.S. Father was in the military and assigned to the U.S. when he was born. Not an 'anchor baby' situation.

An illegal immigrant who purposely has a child here, child is a U.S. citizen by birth and that status is then used to lobby as a reason to avert deportation, fits the stereotype of 'anchor baby.'

Absinthe Anecdote
08-23-2015, 12:52 PM
I could see where it would be offensive to some ... most those who are actually trying to game the system in the way we would typically define an 'anchor baby.'

I have a British colleague who is a dual-citizen of the U.S. Father was in the military and assigned to the U.S. when he was born. Not an 'anchor baby' situation.

An illegal immigrant who purposely has a child here, child is a U.S. citizen by birth and that status is then used to lobby as a reason to avert deportation, fits the stereotype of 'anchor baby.'

I propose we say a "Documented Baby" born to "Undocumented Parents".

Mjölnir
08-23-2015, 01:23 PM
I propose we say a "Documented Baby" born to "Undocumented Parents".

Lacks the same 'oomf' ...

TJMAC77SP
08-23-2015, 04:18 PM
I could see where it would be offensive to some ... most those who are actually trying to game the system in the way we would typically define an 'anchor baby.'

I have a British colleague who is a dual-citizen of the U.S. Father was in the military and assigned to the U.S. when he was born. Not an 'anchor baby' situation.

An illegal immigrant who purposely has a child here, child is a U.S. citizen by birth and that status is then used to lobby as a reason to avert deportation, fits the stereotype of 'anchor baby.'

Exactly, we are allowing those who are unethically benefitting from the 14th amendment to guide the narrative. Like the term illegal alien. It is a perfectly accurate description of their status but somehow any use of that term is 'offensive'.

Granted the tone of the usage can certainly be offensive but that is true of just about any word. Take for example the way some enlisted person may say 'sir' with that tone of voice we all know. You don't challenge the word you challenge the tone or context. Neither Trump nor Bush used the term in a derogatory manner.

Groups like La Raza want us to forget that these 11 million people are breaking US law and to view them universally as victims. That is just plain bullshit. I actually support an amnesty program and an expedited path to legal immigrant status but not on the terms of La Raza or anyone else except those that have the best interests of the US in mind.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-23-2015, 04:32 PM
Exactly, we are allowing those who are unethically benefitting from the 14th amendment to guide the narrative. Like the term illegal alien. It is a perfectly accurate description of their status but somehow any use of that term is 'offensive'.

Granted the tone of the usage can certainly be offensive but that is true of just about any word. Take for example the way some enlisted person may say 'sir' with that tone of voice we all know. You don't challenge the word you challenge the tone or context. Neither Trump nor Bush used the term in a derogatory manner.

Groups like La Raza want us to forget that these 11 million people are breaking US law and to view them universally as victims. That is just plain bullshit. I actually support an amnesty program and an expedited path to legal immigrant status but not on the terms of La Raza or anyone else except those that have the best interests of the US in mind.

I am reminded of the incident a few years ago when that couple crashed a State Dinner at the Whitehouse.

They weren't on the guest list but somehow made it into the reception line and shook hands with Obama and the Indian Prime Minister.

Charles Krauthammer called them "undocumented guests."

TJMAC77SP
08-23-2015, 04:35 PM
I am reminded of the incident a few years ago when that couple crashed a State Dinner at the Whitehouse.

They weren't on the guest list but somehow made it into the reception line and shook hands with Obama and the Indian Prime Minister.

Charles Krauthammer called them "undocumented guests."

I remember the incident but not that characterization. Charles K has a very sharp wit.

garhkal
08-24-2015, 04:03 AM
I could see where it would be offensive to some ... most those who are actually trying to game the system in the way we would typically define an 'anchor baby.'

I have a British colleague who is a dual-citizen of the U.S. Father was in the military and assigned to the U.S. when he was born. Not an 'anchor baby' situation.

An illegal immigrant who purposely has a child here, child is a U.S. citizen by birth and that status is then used to lobby as a reason to avert deportation, fits the stereotype of 'anchor baby.'

That describes me to a Tee. Though according to the State department, i am Not a dual citizen, just a US citizen born overseas (even though during my school age years, i did have a British passport and birth certificate)..

MikeKerriii
08-25-2015, 09:51 PM
It is funny now that Trump has angered many hispanocs, Jeb proceeds to do the same for Asians. I know that the Korean and Chinese press in the US have already started covering it.The only minority group where the Republicans did well.


Perhaps GW was the smarter brother?

Rainmaker
08-25-2015, 10:01 PM
It is funny now that Trump has angered many hispanocs, Jeb proceeds to do the same for Asians. I know that the Korean and Chinese press in the US have already started covering it.The only minority group where the Republicans did well.


Perhaps GW was the smarter brother?

It's the smart play.

Jeb needs look tough on immigration now too and Most Asians are gambling addicts, so they were probably already in the Trump camp anyway.

Bos Mutus
08-25-2015, 11:06 PM
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) on CNN.

Presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) unloaded Tuesday on real-estate mogul Donald Trump, using some of his harshest rhetoric yet. Graham argued Tuesday on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/08/25/lindsey-graham-interview-legal-view-bts.cnn/video/playlists/top-news-videos/) that his Republican rival is appealing to the same people who believe in conspiracy theories about President Barack Obama's birthplace or religion.
"Twenty-five percent of our party probably thinks that Obama was born in Kenya — or at least wants to believe that. There are 25% of our party [that] wants him to be a Muslim because they hate him so much," Graham said.
"So there's a dark side of politics that Mr. Trump's appealing to," he added.
Graham cited Trump's controversial comments about illegal immigration and Fox News host Megyn Kelly. Trump frequently accuses (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-i-use-the-word-rape-and-all-of-a-sudden-everyone-goes-crazy-2015-7) the Mexican government of intentionally sending "rapists" across the border and he has shared multiple tweets calling Kelly a "bimbo," among other things (http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-megyn-kelly-donald-trump-tweets-roger-ailes). (Graham didn't mention it, but Trump was also once one of the most high-profile people questioning Obama's birthplace (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/donald-trumps-birther-strategy-120504.html).)
"The policies that Mr. Trump is proposing are demagoguery. His approach to describing illegal immigrants are hurting us with Hispanics. The way that he attacks women is going to be a death blow to the future of our party," Graham said during the CNN interview.
Graham, who has prominently feuded (http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-lindsey-graham-phone-number-2015-7) with Trump in the past, continued to unleash a scathing criticism.
"He is shallow. He is ill-prepared to be commander-in-chief. He doesn't know what he's talking about in terms of how our laws work. He says the worst things possible about immigrants and women. And he's a complete idiot when it comes to Mideast policy," he said. "His policy prescriptions are complete gibberish."
Trump, who polls show is the Republican front-runner, has declared that Graham is little more than an annoyance. While campaigning in Graham's home state last month, Trump publicly revealed (http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-lindsey-graham-phone-number-2015-7) the senator's personal cell-phone number. And Trump frequently mocks Graham's low standing in the polls.Indeed, Trump had a particularly sarcastic tweet directed at Graham on Tuesday:

Congrats @LindseyGrahamSC (https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC). You just got 4 points in your home state of SC—far better than zero nationally. You’re only 26 pts behind me.

For his part, Graham said if the two faced off in South Carolina, he would "beat his brains out."
"Come to South Carolina and I'll beat his brains out," Graham said of Trump. "I know my state. This is a silly season in politics."

Republicans just don't know what to do about Trump...do we vilify him and hope to look like a mature serious candidate? do we jump on his coattails and hope to get his supporters when he flames out?

TJMAC77SP
08-25-2015, 11:08 PM
Republicans just don't know what to do about Trump...do we vilify him and hope to look like a mature serious candidate? do we jump on his coattails and hope to get his supporters when he flames out?

I hope the former and fear the latter.

I throw up a little in my mouth every time I hear some poor ignorant person say...."He's telling it like it is"

garhkal
08-26-2015, 01:00 AM
It is funny now that Trump has angered many hispanocs, Jeb proceeds to do the same for Asians. I know that the Korean and Chinese press in the US have already started covering it.The only minority group where the Republicans did well.


Perhaps GW was the smarter brother?

When i heard the backlash against Jeb for those statements i got to wondering. WHY? He was right in a way. Take a gander at these articles, where several spots in CA have been cracking down on hotels/motels/appartments due to them being used for "Birthing tourism"...

http://news.yahoo.com/us-crackdown-chinese-maternity-tourism-la-200808957.html

The Yahoo news says [US investigators launched dawn raids Tuesday on dozens of locations dotted around Los Angeles suspected of offering "maternity tourism" services for Chinese mothers wanting to give birth to gain citizenship for their children.]

http://ktla.com/2013/01/29/l-a-to-crackdown-on-immigrant-birthing-hotels/

KTLA says [LOS ANGELES (KTLA) — It’s a growing trend: Asian mothers coming to Los Angeles County to have their babies in so-called “birthing hotels.”

They’re spending up to $20,000 to have their babies in the United States, ensuring that the children are U.S. citizens.

But now, authorities are cracking down on these makeshift maternity hotels.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/california-homes-raided-in-federal-crackdown-on-chinese-birth-tourism.html?_r=0

The NY times says similar..

So that's 3 sources that IS showing what Jeb was on about. Chinese mothers coming here illegally to give birth to a baby here, in the hope its "Anchor status" would allow them to also stay.

MikeKerriii
08-26-2015, 04:22 AM
When i heard the backlash against Jeb for those statements i got to wondering. WHY? He was right in a way. Take a gander at these articles, where several spots in CA have been cracking down on hotels/motels/appartments due to them being used for "Birthing tourism"...

http://news.yahoo.com/us-crackdown-chinese-maternity-tourism-la-200808957.html

The Yahoo news says [US investigators launched dawn raids Tuesday on dozens of locations dotted around Los Angeles suspected of offering "maternity tourism" services for Chinese mothers wanting to give birth to gain citizenship for their children.]

http://ktla.com/2013/01/29/l-a-to-crackdown-on-immigrant-birthing-hotels/

KTLA says [LOS ANGELES (KTLA) — It’s a growing trend: Asian mothers coming to Los Angeles County to have their babies in so-called “birthing hotels.”

They’re spending up to $20,000 to have their babies in the United States, ensuring that the children are U.S. citizens.

But now, authorities are cracking down on these makeshift maternity hotels.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/california-homes-raided-in-federal-crackdown-on-chinese-birth-tourism.html?_r=0

The NY times says similar..

So that's 3 sources that IS showing what Jeb was on about. Chinese mothers coming here illegally to give birth to a baby here, in the hope its "Anchor status" would allow them to also stay.
If he was just talking ab9ut those few hundreds of Chinese why did the idiot use the term "Asians"? And that is a problem that is currently being handled, with existing laws. In this context "Asian" is a mighty broad brush covering more than half of the worlds population and dozens of countries and ethnic groups.

Bos Mutus
08-26-2015, 01:41 PM
When i heard the backlash against Jeb for those statements i got to wondering. WHY? He was right in a way. .

Jeb is getting backlash because he is phony.

Trump brushed off criticism of the word masterfully...made the reporter look silly..."Bah...political correct nonsense....I'll use the word." Trump has a way of commanding the room...when a reporter is interviewing him, Trump is in charge and he'll let them know it...but it is his genuine self. It's what people like about him.

Bush, on the other hand, no doubt had some polling data that showed people approved of how Trump handled that situation...so decided it's a politically expedient thing to do...so he tried to answer exactly the same way Trump did...only he couldn't pull it off...he doesn't command the room the way Trump does...and it's kind of hard for a lifelong politician to pretend he doesn't play the politics game. So, then he waffles and says, "well, I said 'that's how their commonly referred to, not my own language'..." blah blah blah political double-speak nonsense...just made him look like fool. Anyway, he was trying to tough talk like Trump...didn't pull it off.

So, then, The GOP party heads call him and say, "Jeb, WTF? You are alienating the Hispanics...we can't do that." Bush, being a party dude, takes orders from the party." So, he next tried to un-alienate the Hispanics by saying, "Hey guys, it's the Asians that are the real problem"... Unfortunate for him, he now alienated both the Hispanics and the Asians...all because he was trying to get on whatever ride is making Trump popular...

Not sure if the GOP called Trump, but I'd imagine the conversation was different. Trump: "Shut the hell up...I'm the leading candidate and it's time you guys get on board...I will destroy this whole thing if you don't support me."

Bos Mutus
08-26-2015, 01:47 PM
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/08/26/donald-trump-republican-debate-cnn-sot-ac.cnn

trump: for me to be in the debate, I might make cnn pay $10M to charity

I was wondering...if, at some point, Trump will pledge to work for no salary as President. That was a really popular move by Schwarzenegger in California. Maybe he's saving that arrow until it gets closer.

Rainmaker
08-26-2015, 02:02 PM
If he was just talking ab9ut those few hundreds of Chinese why did the idiot use the term "Asians"? And that is a problem that is currently being handled, with existing laws. In this context "Asian" is a mighty broad brush covering more than half of the worlds population and dozens of countries and ethnic groups.

It's more than a couple of hundred-- It's tens of thousands and the US taxpayers pick up the tab for the hospital bill.

When the kid turns 21, they'll sponsor US citizenship for the rest of the family.

It's basically a retirement plan for the upper middle crust Chinese that are rich enough to be able to scrape together the cash to do it .

This is a growing problem. They used to go to Canada. They preferred Canada because, they had more welfare and less minorities there (Asians are generally Racists)

But, Since the Canadian politicians still care about having an actual sovereign country, they've moved to change their Citizenship Act to stop this insanity.

These people running these Chinese baby care centers should be put in jail.

Rainmaker
08-26-2015, 02:20 PM
Jeb is getting backlash because he is phony.




I can't figure out for the life of me, why the mainstream JEB type guys wouldn't just support Hillary instead.

She's basically just a tougher/Smarter version of the run of the mill RINO ( Corporate-Globalist, No borders, Pro-Amnesty, Pro-offshoring, Israel Firster).

Rainmaker
08-26-2015, 02:35 PM
I hope the former and fear the latter.

I throw up a little in my mouth every time I hear some poor ignorant person say...."He's telling it like it is"

TJ, It's probably time to start thinking about what you're going to do when "The Donald" wins the nomination.

Will you get out and rock the vote for HillBillary Clinton, just to maintain the status quo? or are you going to have to sit this one out?

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2015, 04:38 PM
TJ, It's probably time to start thinking about what you're going to do when "The Donald" wins the nomination.

Will you get out and rock the vote for HillBillary Clinton, just to maintain the status quo? or are you going to have to sit this one out?

If those are my only choices I'll sit this election out.

MikeKerriii
08-26-2015, 05:20 PM
It's more than a couple of hundred-- It's tens of thousands and the US taxpayers pick up the tab for the hospital bill.

When the kid turns 21, they'll sponsor US citizenship for the rest of the family.

It's basically a retirement plan for the upper middle crust Chinese that are rich enough to be able to scrape together the cash to do it .

This is a growing problem. They used to go to Canada. They preferred Canada because, they had more welfare and less minorities there (Asians are generally Racists)

But, Since the Canadian politicians still care about having an actual sovereign country, they've moved to change their Citizenship Act to stop this insanity.

These people running these Chinese baby care centers should be put in jail. Provide some evidence, other than your usual dishonest and insane blabbering to prove it is tens of thousands.

Prove, your bigoted statement that Asians are generally racists.

You a sound like you think you are posting on Storm-front, where you seemingly would fit right in.

Rainmaker
08-26-2015, 06:23 PM
Provide some evidence, other than your usual dishonest and insane blabbering to prove it is tens of thousands.

Well, you could just google search "Asian Birth tourism". However, since you're a blind, deaf-mute (with no opposable thumbs) allow Rainmaker to cut you some slack and do it for you.....

http://world.time.com/2013/11/27/chinese-women-are-flocking-to-the-u-s-to-have-babies/

'At least 10,000 such Chinese babies were born in America last year, according to an estimate by an online platform dedicated to monitoring and rating confinement centers for Chinese women giving birth in the States"

Voila!!!!! What do you know?? first google hit.... and that's straight from the belly of the leftist beast "Time Magazine" (so, you can bet it's actually a lot more)






Prove, your bigoted statement that Asians are generally racists.

I don't have to prove anything to you. It's my OPINION, (and also that of millions of others)

Asians are generally racists..... It's no big secret.....Ever heard of the Bataan death march??

Doesn't make em unique. Because, so is everybody else. Now, Stop being such a baby and deal with it.


You a sound like you think you are posting on Storm-front, where you seemingly would fit right in.

OH BOO HOO HOO!!! STORM FRONT!!!! BOO HOO!!! RAAAYYYCISSSS....BOO HOO HOO.....CONFERATE FLAGS!!! OH BOO HOO HOO....JIM CROW!!! BOO HOO HOO HOO....

.

Rainmaker
08-26-2015, 07:11 PM
If those are my only choices I'll sit this election out.

Vote 4 Pedro and He'll make all of your wildest dreams come true!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEJFWoAVJz4

garhkal
08-27-2015, 03:36 AM
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/08/26/donald-trump-republican-debate-cnn-sot-ac.cnn

trump: for me to be in the debate, I might make cnn pay $10M to charity

I was wondering...if, at some point, Trump will pledge to work for no salary as President. That was a really popular move by Schwarzenegger in California. Maybe he's saving that arrow until it gets closer.

When i saw Trump say that, i was cheering. Perhaps Fox will take him up on that challenge.

Rainmaker
10-20-2015, 01:34 PM
So, now that it's all over (But, the shouting) and Donald Trump has won the 2016 election. The time has arrived for us patriots to start talking about ways to fulfil our vision and Make America Great Again.

IMO, One of the first things that needs to be done (along with deporting these illegal Alien gangbangers) is to place a ban on those G#*@@@!!!! Gas-powered leaf blowers they use after they do their "landscaping".

Rainmaker usually has to entertain the firm's clients into the wee hours of the morning and there's nothing more infuriating than being woken up at F'ing 7 AM on a Saturday morning, by these inconsiderate dipshits blasting grass clippings and other debris all over God's creation.

Now, It's going to require sacrifice and White kids might have to start mowing the neighbors lawns , or dare I say it, even doing chores again (like they did in the golden age). But, They'll have to go back. Nomsayin?

UncaRastus
10-20-2015, 04:00 PM
I do the across the street neighbor's lawn, because she is at the age of living off of social security. With her having her car and her house paid off, that does help.

There is still a community of people out here that will help their neighbors. I don't charge her anything, because she can't afford much of anything beyond the basics. Luckily for her, she has great health insurance, having belonged to a union, along with medicare.

So, I guess that I am one of the kids that do lawns. And shovel snow. And helps the neighbor live as normal a life as she can.

Because as in many other cases across the US, neighbors help neighbors, if need be. That isn't as 1950s as it sounds.

Or as futuristic as it sounds. In comparison to her, being 80, I am the kid that does her lawn. Not a big thing.

Maybe it is 1950s, in a way. I ask her frequently if she has just had her hair done, or if that is a new dress that she is wearing. Eddie Haskell, you will always be my hero!

Rainmaker
10-21-2015, 07:35 PM
After outlawing the gas powered leaf blowers, the next thing that should be done to "Make America Great Again" ("TM") is to get rid of these disrespectful jerks running around every base gym doing the "Cross fit" Circuit training, tying up half the equipment and dropping the F-ing the plates all over the floor.

Back when America was Great we had this thing called "Gym Etiquette", And If you didn't follow it, you might get your teeth kicked in by some meat head.

Unless you have a chance of winning a medal, it's not acceptable to drop the weights from above your head.

And Just because you recently learned how to do a couple of Olympic Lifts (with poor form) doesn't mean you're suddenly an "Athlete". You might be in better shape now , but you still throw like a God damn girl.

So, Unless you're playing an actual sport competitively (which most of these losers never have), You don't need to be doing Freaking Plyo-metric Turkish Get ups.

So, just Stick to the basic compound lifts (Bench, Squats, Press, Rows ,Curls and mix in some situps) and while you're at it, take the earbuds out and get some bigger shirts because, You look like a freaking Queer.

Trump 2016!

UncaRastus
10-21-2015, 10:20 PM
Girls might come after you because they really do like their throwing style.

Persons of 'a different sexual orientation' might also be angry at you for calling them the 'Q' word.

So, watch it, bub! I'm watching you!

Um, not really watching you. I wouldn't want the gentlemen listed above getting jealous of their watching rights.

Warning you. Yeah. I am warning you.

All hail the Black Monolith!

Rusty Jones
12-08-2015, 02:47 PM
So what's the latest and greatest on Trump? He wants to ban all Muslims from enterning the US!

But, they're not the only ones that could be banned from something... it looks like Donald Trump could be going the way of Michael Savage, and be banned from the UK. Considering that the UK is probably our closest ally, I'm not sure how that would look for a POTUS to be banned from there. Or if it would even be possible remain allies in the first place, if that's the case.

But that's not all... the mayor of St Petersburg, FL just banned him from entering city limits!

RNC and Republican Congressmen in general have made every effort to distance themselves from Trump, which I can't blame them for, but... as we all know, the Southern Strategy created this monster. It established a home for people who think like Trump. It's time for the GOP to ditch that and go back to their pre-Nixon days.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 02:52 PM
So what's the latest and greatest on Trump? He wants to ban all Muslims from enterning the US!

But, they're not the only ones that could be banned from something... it looks like Donald Trump could be going the way of Michael Savage, and be banned from the UK. Considering that the UK is probably our closest ally, I'm not sure how that would look for a POTUS to be banned from there. Or if it would even be possible remain allies in the first place, if that's the case.

But that's not all... the mayor of St Petersburg, FL just banned him from entering city limits!

RNC and Republican Congressmen in general have made every effort to distance themselves from Trump, which I can't blame them for, but... as we all know, the Southern Strategy created this monster. It established a home for people who think like Trump. It's time for the GOP to ditch that and go back to their pre-Nixon days.

Just to clarify, Trump wants to ban them from entering until we figure out how to properly vet them. He's not saying "No Muslims ever".

I am curious to see what happens if he wins, though. His numbers continue to jump the more crazy he gets. I still think that he'll lose his luster closer to the election and voters will choose the "safe" bet.

Rusty Jones
12-08-2015, 03:02 PM
Just to clarify, Trump wants to ban them from entering until we figure out how to properly vet them. He's not saying "No Muslims ever".

And that makes it okay? To put extra screening requirements on someone because of their religion? Remember a few weeks ago, how he talked not having a problem with requiring Muslims to carry certain ID cards or wear visible accoutrements that identify them as Muslims to the public?

In any case, whether he's speaking of banning them permanently or pending a vetting process, the appeal is toward Islamophobes. Muslims and anti-Islamaphobes are also going to react to this and vote accordingly, and it won't be affected by whether his proposed ban is temporary or permanent.


I am curious to see what happens if he wins, though. His numbers continue to jump the more crazy he gets. I still think that he'll lose his luster closer to the election and voters will choose the "safe" bet.

I signed a six year contract for the Air Force Reserve, so there's little I can do. I'm already hearing of minorities - not just Muslims - moving to Canada, and some preparing to in case Trump gets elected. I have mixed feelings on that, of course, because by leaving the country... they're giving Trump supporters exactly what they want. But at the same time... when your freedom, and maybe even your life, is on the line... that's probably something you can't afford to think about.

giggawatt
12-08-2015, 03:16 PM
wearing visual accoutrements to ID them as Muslim? Where have I heard of something like this before?

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 03:23 PM
And that makes it okay? To put extra screening requirements on someone because of their religion? Remember a few weeks ago, how he talked not having a problem with requiring Muslims to carry certain ID cards or wear visible accoutrements that identify them as Muslims to the public?

In any case, whether he's speaking of banning them permanently or pending a vetting process, the appeal is toward Islamophobes. Muslims and anti-Islamaphobes are also going to react to this and vote accordingly, and it won't be affected by whether his proposed ban is temporary or permanent.Not saying I agree or disagree, because I can see both sides. I'm just saying that many people seem to like it.




I signed a six year contract for the Air Force Reserve, so there's little I can do. I'm already hearing of minorities - not just Muslims - moving to Canada, and some preparing to in case Trump gets elected. I have mixed feelings on that, of course, because by leaving the country... they're giving Trump supporters exactly what they want. But at the same time... when your freedom, and maybe even your life, is on the line... that's probably something you can't afford to think about.This sounds like the argument many people made about Obama. It's a different side of the same coin. The extreme views of both parties are going to scare the people on the other extreme. The joke, again, is people thinking that the person in the Presidency is really going to make any difference. They all fall in line.

Let's not forgot, people trying to immigrate to the U.S., but aren't here yet, have zero protections from the Constitution. So stopping people, for any reason, doesn't violate any rights. Doesn't mean it's right or wrong...it's just a fact.

Rainmaker
12-08-2015, 03:29 PM
So what's the latest and greatest on Trump? He wants to ban all Muslims from enterning the US!

But, they're not the only ones that could be banned from something... it looks like Donald Trump could be going the way of Michael Savage, and be banned from the UK. Considering that the UK is probably our closest ally, I'm not sure how that would look for a POTUS to be banned from there. Or if it would even be possible remain allies in the first place, if that's the case.

RNC and Republican Congressmen in general have made every effort to distance themselves from Trump, which I can't blame them for, but... as we all know, the Southern Strategy created this monster. It established a home for people who think like Trump. It's time for the GOP to ditch that and go back to their pre-Nixon days.

The Southern strategy didn't create Trump. What created Trump was the 25 years of the GOP putting Transnational Interests ahead of National Interests.

Besides Most people agree with him. And It's just Fake Media Outrage.

Bush's campaign said essentially the same thing. that only Christian Syrians should be allowed in. Dosen't that mean no Molems?

But, there's no outrage in the Media when Bush says it because he's owned by the donors. The same donors that own CNN, Fox, NBC, CBS, etc. etc.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 03:36 PM
The Southern strategy didn't create Trump. What created Trump was the 25 years of the GOP putting Transnational Interests ahead of National Interests.



What created Trump is every candidate giving political/politically correct answers to every question and, finally, there's someone who is showing everyone that it's not necessary to do so.

Rusty Jones
12-08-2015, 03:36 PM
This sounds like the argument many people made about Obama. It's a different side of the same coin. The extreme views of both parties are going to scare the people on the other extreme. The joke, again, is people thinking that the person in the Presidency is really going to make any difference. They all fall in line.

Not to me. When has Obama engaged in the type of hate talk that Trump likes to engage in? For example, as soon as Obama got elected, everyone thought that Obama was coming for their guns, when Obama said nothing that even remotely hinted towards that.

People already made up their own minds about Obama, regardless of what he did or didn't say, and acted accordingly.

Not the case with Trump. Women. Blacks. Latinos. Muslims. Even Asians, a few months ago. He even stooped so low as to mock disabled people. He has explicitly stated things that should have people in all of these groups worried.

What's really puzzling is when Trump stated that Israelis are going to have to make sacrifices. Which is probably something that most liberals aren't going to disagree with, but probably most of us thought that was going to cost him the GOP nomination. But... apparently, it's not. Conservatives love them some Israel, but they're willing to put that aside for all the other shit Trump wants to do.

Bos Mutus
12-08-2015, 03:42 PM
His numbers continue to jump the more crazy he gets. .

I keep imagining a speech by Trump that goes something like this:

"What is wrong with you people? I never intended to win this race...I entered as a way to generate some publicity, as kind of a prank, figuring I could drop out by now and get on to my new show. As I started to gain popularity, I couldn't just drop out, so, we decided I'd have to overstep sanity in order to lose the race...so I got crazy. I mean real crazy. I started going all with banning Muslims and making them wear a big M on their shirts...but the crazier I got, the more you people loved it...what is wrong with you?

It is not hard now to see how things like Japanese internment camps happened in WWII...you all are ready to do it all over again with Muslims now. You're all insane! I'm dropping out...I wouldn't be leader of this band of misfits for all the money in the world. I'm out, I support my good friend Hillary." ~The Real Donald Trump

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 03:45 PM
I keep imagining a speech by Trump that goes something like this:

"What is wrong with you people? I never intended to win this race...I entered as a way to generate some publicity, as kind of a prank, figuring I could drop out by now and get on to my new show. As I started to gain popularity, I couldn't just drop out, so, we decided I'd have to overstep sanity in order to lose the race...so I got crazy. I mean real crazy. I started going all with banning Muslims and making them wear a big M on their shirts...but the crazier I got, the more you people loved it...what is wrong with you?

It is not hard now to see how things like Japanese internment camps happened in WWII...you all are ready to do all over again with Muslims now. You're all insane! I'm dropping out...I wouldn't be leader of this band of misfits for all the money in the world." ~The Real Donald Trump

Sounds like Brewster's Millions. "None of the above".

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 03:48 PM
Not to me. When has Obama engaged in the type of hate talk that Trump likes to engage in? For example, as soon as Obama got elected, everyone thought that Obama was coming for their guns, when Obama said nothing that even remotely hinted towards that. He is STILL saying that...


People already made up their own minds about Obama, regardless of what he did or didn't say, and acted accordingly. I see what you're doing with this one...we'll disagree and leave it at that.


Not the case with Trump. Women. Blacks. Latinos. Muslims. Even Asians, a few months ago. He even stooped so low as to mock disabled people. He has explicitly stated things that should have people in all of these groups worried. You get the majority of people alone in their homes talking, and they're saying the same things. Again, doesn't make it right...it's just a fact.


What's really puzzling is when Trump stated that Israelis are going to have to make sacrifices. Which is probably something that most liberals aren't going to disagree with, but probably most of us thought that was going to cost him the GOP nomination. But... apparently, it's not. Conservatives love them some Israel, but they're willing to put that aside for all the other shit Trump wants to do.I don't think most voters give a shit either way on Israel.

Rainmaker
12-08-2015, 03:49 PM
What created Trump is every candidate giving political/politically correct answers to every question and, finally, there's someone who is showing everyone that it's not necessary to do so.


It's not necessary because he's self funded. The reason every candidate is giving PC answers to every question is because, they're beholden to the Internationalist corporate donors. it all goes back to money.

Every other candidate must cowtow to the PC/feminist line or be labeled racist, homophobe, misogynist, xenophobe, and the list goes on. If that happens then the corporate Oligarchy pulls the funds. Campaign over.

Political Correctness is a Marxist ideology and explicitly Un-American, and was introduced into the United States by the same foreign interest that has hijacked our Republic

http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/

It's important to understand that Political Correctness is just a symptom of the disease and not the disease itself.

Rusty Jones
12-08-2015, 03:57 PM
He is STILL saying that...

I see what you're doing with this one...we'll disagree and leave it at that.

You get the majority of people alone in their homes talking, and they're saying the same things. Again, doesn't make it right...it's just a fact.

I don't think most voters give a shit either way on Israel.

Are you playing devil's advocate here, or do you really believe that reactions to Obama and Trump are equally (un)justified?

Rainmaker
12-08-2015, 04:03 PM
What's really puzzling is when Trump stated that Israelis are going to have to make sacrifices. Which is probably something that most liberals aren't going to disagree with, but probably most of us thought that was going to cost him the GOP nomination. But... apparently, it's not. Conservatives love them some Israel, but they're willing to put that aside for all the other shit Trump wants to do.

Exactly Rusty and the Media hardly even covered it, when he said it. because they don't want the Fox News crowd Sheeple to wake up and start asking any questions about why do the Jews have so much disproportionate influence in our government.

You don't get to be a Multi-billionaire in real estate without knowing how to get along with Jewish Financiers or realizing how much control they have.

Trump has already said Israel are a valued ally and will be protected. But, that they're not going to be running our country for us anymore.

Of course That's not going to be enough for them. So The Inevitable Screaming of "Anti-Semite" has begun.

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 04:15 PM
wearing visual accoutrements to ID them as Muslim? Where have I heard of something like this before?

From another group that is the role model for Trump supporters I would guess.

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 04:18 PM
What created Trump is every candidate giving political/politically correct answers to every question and, finally, there's someone who is showing everyone that it's not necessary to do so.

So lunacy and open bigotry is the new key to winning Republican votes The southern strategy has finally come to full blossom.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 04:21 PM
Are you playing devil's advocate here, or do you really believe that reactions to Obama and Trump are equally (un)justified?

I think the fears/reaction to both are misplaced. Fears of what is going to happen along racial lines are driving the opponents of each candidate...well...at least that's what the opponents of both CLAIM their fears are.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 04:26 PM
So lunacy and open bigotry is the new key to winning Republican votes The southern strategy has finally come to full blossom.I'll grant you the lunacy claim, but we'll disagree on the bigotry...that's just an easy game for the opposition to play. I'm completely unsure when securing our borders began to fall under the umbrella of bigotry.

My wife is Canadian...it took medical records, police reports, her parents background, doctors notes, and 6 months for her to legally allowed into the U.S. I don't feel that our government hates white Canadian women...I think it is was just a prudent way to ensure that she was who she said she was. I think it's fair do make it just as difficult for people who come from countries that want us dead.

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 04:29 PM
You get the majority of people alone in their homes talking, and they're saying the same things. Again, doesn't make it right...it's just a fact.

. If I lived somewhere where I though a majority of people thought like that I would move, move with great speed, I would move because nut-jobs and bigots in large numbers are dangerous.

Bos Mutus
12-08-2015, 04:29 PM
What created Trump is every candidate giving political/politically correct answers to every question and, finally, there's someone who is showing everyone that it's not necessary to do so.

That part of his style is appealing.

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 04:37 PM
I'll grant you the lunacy claim, but we'll disagree on the bigotry...that's just an easy game for the opposition to play. I'm completely unsure when securing our borders began to fall under the umbrella of bigotry.

My wife is Canadian...it took medical records, police reports, her parents background, doctors notes, and 6 months for her to legally allowed into the U.S. I don't feel that our government hates white Canadian women...I think it is was just a prudent way to ensure that she was who she said she was. I think it's fair do make it just as difficult for people who come from countries that want us dead.

He is not talking about stopping people from Muslim countries the scumbag is talking about keeping Muslims out, discrimination based solely on faith.

You are choosing to ignore the part of the US Constitution that bars religious bigotry bigotry. Another echo to the 30s except then It was no Jews, even longer ago it was no Catholics.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 04:44 PM
He is not talking about stopping people from Muslim countries the scumbag is talking about keeping Muslims out, discrimination based solely on faith.

You are choosing to ignore the part of the US Constitution that bars religious bigotry bigotry. Another echo to the 30s except then It was no Jews, even longer ago it was no Catholics.

You need to look past the sound bites and headlines. He wants to stop immigration from Muslim countries until we find a way to properly vet people coming in. Of course, it sells much better if it reads "Trump wants ban on all Muslims" but that just isn't true.

He's not saying that people can't be Muslim. He's saying that the people from the countries sending terrorists over here need to be screened better, and until we find a way, we need to stop all.

Bos Mutus
12-08-2015, 05:03 PM
You need to look past the sound bites and headlines. He wants to stop immigration from Muslim countries until we find a way to properly vet people coming in. Of course, it sells much better if it reads "Trump wants ban on all Muslims" but that just isn't true.

He's not saying that people can't be Muslim. He's saying that the people from the countries sending terrorists over here need to be screened better, and until we find a way, we need to stop all.

This is a press release straight off the Trump campaign website



Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, --

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0012iZ2DfVoOoQvhNkb3BL7YYJ1ZFEOio7lN92dBm _4lO-5mN5s6wazTT_tx3U9FKxUb9WbmXOPsWC50pJlcz2R9GVIb-IkKDgm4YFoaRC6Ie7IZb4chRYYWc18EtLsh5cAIbKCV1KtiPd4 j9VNFhsTEl0Kkn931x1coL4WM1xyrBDWOJreetStRGrv60RjCB RHN1qkw6Mlr54lWainK8MvB6J96hljIHKrL_onSVXD8JlYo9Us D3ozfWQP8U7cziRaLWvvsREb5Do3LFkdxbUbcSSmhz84mbMcg3 8XI7njQbM0HDxaPYZ6uw==&c=a_5oRYlAOFINdDKvzBPUU8HJhUxJIl8TmxOj7GSfsax8A2dX OE9S3g==&ch=LUOZxOJd-RIXhI9KmDkk0IpWi711QS4_LNrHk4QWT6vvOg7WQ8QQ7A==) released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump

Rusty Jones
12-08-2015, 05:03 PM
You need to look past the sound bites and headlines. He wants to stop immigration from Muslim countries until we find a way to properly vet people coming in. Of course, it sells much better if it reads "Trump wants ban on all Muslims" but that just isn't true.

He's not saying that people can't be Muslim. He's saying that the people from the countries sending terrorists over here need to be screened better, and until we find a way, we need to stop all.

I've read beyond the "headlines and sound bites," and have never seen anything that supports what you're saying.

Hell, here's newest article I've read. It's only an hour old.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-defends-muslim-ban-morning-joe-lindsey-154401548.html

TJMAC77SP
12-08-2015, 05:03 PM
Not to me. When has Obama engaged in the type of hate talk that Trump likes to engage in? For example, as soon as Obama got elected, everyone thought that Obama was coming for their guns, when Obama said nothing that even remotely hinted towards that.

People already made up their own minds about Obama, regardless of what he did or didn't say, and acted accordingly.

Not the case with Trump. Women. Blacks. Latinos. Muslims. Even Asians, a few months ago. He even stooped so low as to mock disabled people. He has explicitly stated things that should have people in all of these groups worried.

What's really puzzling is when Trump stated that Israelis are going to have to make sacrifices. Which is probably something that most liberals aren't going to disagree with, but probably most of us thought that was going to cost him the GOP nomination. But... apparently, it's not. Conservatives love them some Israel, but they're willing to put that aside for all the other shit Trump wants to do.

A minor point of clarification. Attempting to paint support of Israel as a uniquely GOP trait is simply wrong. AIPAC is the single most effective lobby in DC. They outperform even the NRA. Their reach across to both sides of the aisle is amazing and universal.

TJMAC77SP
12-08-2015, 05:05 PM
I keep imagining a speech by Trump that goes something like this:

"What is wrong with you people? I never intended to win this race...I entered as a way to generate some publicity, as kind of a prank, figuring I could drop out by now and get on to my new show. As I started to gain popularity, I couldn't just drop out, so, we decided I'd have to overstep sanity in order to lose the race...so I got crazy. I mean real crazy. I started going all with banning Muslims and making them wear a big M on their shirts...but the crazier I got, the more you people loved it...what is wrong with you?

It is not hard now to see how things like Japanese internment camps happened in WWII...you all are ready to do it all over again with Muslims now. You're all insane! I'm dropping out...I wouldn't be leader of this band of misfits for all the money in the world. I'm out, I support my good friend Hillary." ~The Real Donald Trump

Well, that would be a dream come true in my opinion.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 05:11 PM
This is a press release straight off the Trump campaign website

Right...so he wants to determine if those trying to enter want to hurt us before he lets them in. I don't think that falls under bigotry.

TJMAC77SP
12-08-2015, 05:13 PM
This is a press release straight off the Trump campaign website

Trumps posturing idiocy aside, isn't the polling data the least bit alarming?

I see many posts here dismissing the fear people have as race hatred period, end of story. I find that specious. There is a legitimate reason to have fear. The trick is not to let take over completely and become the basis for all actions. Ignoring it and doing nothing is just as dangerous.

I actually found the press release you quoted to be more measured than his verbal rhetoric. He obviously didn't write a word of it.

Rusty Jones
12-08-2015, 05:18 PM
Right...so he wants to determine if those trying to enter want to hurt us before he lets them in. I don't think that falls under bigotry.

If Christians were singled out for a special vetting process that others didn't have to go through in any other scenario, you wouldn't be saying the same thing.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 05:19 PM
I've read beyond the "headlines and sound bites," and have never seen anything that supports what you're saying.

Hell, here's newest article I've read. It's only an hour old.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-defends-muslim-ban-morning-joe-lindsey-154401548.html

"What I’m doing is calling very simply for Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

What I'm getting from this is that he wants to ensure that they aren't a threat before they come in.

Conservatives claim that Obama wants to ban all weapons and take away our 2nd amendment rights. That's not true. You and I can agree, I think, that he wants to figure out a way to make sure those getting their hands on the weapons are not a threat. So because he wants to do better background checks before selling potentially dangerous weapons he's catching backlash for trying to "ban guns"...Trump is asking for the same thing...better background checks before allowing potentially dangerous weapons on the streets...those weapons just happen to be a group of people who hate everything we stand for.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 05:21 PM
If Christians were singled out for a special vetting process that others didn't have to go through in any other scenario, you wouldn't be saying the same thing.

If a large number of Christians were entering this country and attacking us, in the name of Christianity, and wanting to destroy us, I would absolutely be saying the same thing.

Rusty Jones
12-08-2015, 05:22 PM
"What I’m doing is calling very simply for Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

What I'm getting from this is that he wants to ensure that they aren't a threat before they come in.

Conservatives claim that Obama wants to ban all weapons and take away our 2nd amendment rights. That's not true. You and I can agree, I think, that he wants to figure out a way to make sure those getting their hands on the weapons are not a threat. So because he wants to do better background checks before selling potentially dangerous weapons he's catching backlash for trying to "ban guns"...Trump is asking for the same thing...better background checks before allowing potentially dangerous weapons on the streets...those weapons just happen to be a group of people who hate everything we stand for.

So we're comparing people to inanimate objects?

Rusty Jones
12-08-2015, 05:23 PM
If a large number of Christians were entering this country and attacking us, in the name of Christianity, and wanting to destroy us, I would absolutely be saying the same thing.

So, by that reasoning, you would've had no problem with the Japanese concentration camps. Got it.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 05:24 PM
So we're comparing people to inanimate objects?

Nope, we're comparing safety to safety. Though if you want to, the people willing to blow themselves up are weapons so, sure, I'll compare them to inanimate objects.

TJMAC77SP
12-08-2015, 05:24 PM
If Christians were singled out for a special vetting process that others didn't have to go through in any other scenario, you wouldn't be saying the same thing.

Well I would hope that if up to 25% of Christians supported violence against the US I certainly hope he would say exactly that. Of course it is a faulty hypothetical (If bullfrogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses when they jumped).

Rainmaker
12-08-2015, 05:24 PM
I keep imagining a speech by Trump that goes something like this:

"What is wrong with you people? I never intended to win this race...I entered as a way to generate some publicity, as kind of a prank, figuring I could drop out by now and get on to my new show. As I started to gain popularity, I couldn't just drop out, so, we decided I'd have to overstep sanity in order to lose the race...so I got crazy. I mean real crazy. I started going all with banning Muslims and making them wear a big M on their shirts...but the crazier I got, the more you people loved it...what is wrong with you?

It is not hard now to see how things like Japanese internment camps happened in WWII...you all are ready to do it all over again with Muslims now. You're all insane! I'm dropping out...I wouldn't be leader of this band of misfits for all the money in the world. I'm out, I support my good friend Hillary." ~The Real Donald Trump

Yes, this figment of your imagination is a common fantasy for Jeb and Hillary voters and Millionaire AIPAC lobbyists the land over.

Fortunately, for the rest of us, it's not grounded in reality.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 05:26 PM
So, by that reasoning, you would've had no problem with the Japanese concentration camps. Got it.Oh...Jesus...PYB flashbacks...there is a very long thread you can go read to find out my thoughts on this...

What I will say is that Trump hasn't said he wants to lock up Muslims living in the country...he doesn't want to ban Muslim citizens who leave the country, then return, because they are already citizens. So, no, this does not remotely relate to the internment camps.

TJMAC77SP
12-08-2015, 05:26 PM
So we're comparing people to inanimate objects?

You seem to be having trouble with analogies. SJ's is pretty well on point and cogent.

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 05:27 PM
Right...so he wants to determine if those trying to enter want to hurt us before he lets them in. I don't think that falls under bigotry.

Historically it the same kind of religious bigotry that ended up with millions of people in ovens, a couple of generations ago. If you read the comments of his supporters, online and on talk radio, he would have no trouble finding people to run those ovens. Trump k just picked a different set of victims

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." Sinclair Lewis had it right, Trump proves it,

Rusty Jones
12-08-2015, 05:27 PM
Nope, we're comparing safety to safety. Though if you want to, the people willing to blow themselves up are weapons so, sure, I'll compare them to inanimate objects.

Ah, you're resorting to doublespeak...

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 05:29 PM
Nope, we're comparing safety to safety. Though if you want to, the people willing to blow themselves up are weapons so, sure, I'll compare them to inanimate objects.
Are you realty that terrified of a group less dangerous to you than the Flu?

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 05:29 PM
Well I would hope that if up to 25% of Christians supported violence against the US I certainly hope he would say exactly that. Of course it is a faulty hypothetical (If bullfrogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses when they jumped).

Did you see the wack-job source for that number?

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 05:30 PM
Historically it the same kind of religious bigotry that ended up with millions of people in ovens, a couple of generations ago. If you read the comments of his supporters, online and on talk radio, he would have no trouble finding people to run those ovens. Trump k just picked a different set of victims

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." Sinclair Lewis had it right, Trump proves it,

Oh, dear god.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 05:33 PM
Ah, you're resorting to doublespeak...There is no doublespeak..

Listen, I am by no means a Trump supporter. I just think that people are blowing things out of proportion, just as they did when claiming that Obama was a socialist who was going to take away our freedoms. The term "bigotry" is thrown around far too easily these days. Instead of people focusing on the message, they are being told to fear him.

Rusty Jones
12-08-2015, 05:34 PM
Oh, dear god.

I think that's a good quote. The American flag and the cross are good tools to be used to attract a mob. And that's exactly what Trump and his supporters are: a mob. Not saying that he's using those same tools, but the desired affect is the same.

Bos Mutus
12-08-2015, 05:34 PM
Right...so he wants to determine if those trying to enter want to hurt us before he lets them in. I don't think that falls under bigotry.

Point being...he did not call for a ban on "people immigrating from Muslim countries until they can be vetted." He called for a "complete ban on Muslims entering the U.S. until we can figure out why so many of them hate us."



Trumps posturing idiocy aside, isn't the polling data the least bit alarming?

I see many posts here dismissing the fear people have as race hatred period, end of story. I find that specious. There is a legitimate reason to have fear. The trick is not to let take over completely and become the basis for all actions. Ignoring it and doing nothing is just as dangerous.

I actually found the press release you quoted to be more measured than his verbal rhetoric. He obviously didn't write a word of it.

I'm curious about the polling, for sure. I have my own fears prejudices with Muslims...and not sure if my head or heart are more correct...

I perused an article the other day that was attempting to put Muslims radicalism in context...I didn't get through the whole thing, but will try to find it again...a couple of highlights I think I caught correctly:

The percentage of Muslim women who wear the Hijab is about the same as the percentage of Christian women who wear the little house on the prairie outfits with the bonnets...

4 out of 5 of the most populous Muslim countries ban the Hijab.

If 10% of Muslims were terrorists, and killed 40 infidels each...there would be no more non-Muslims left on earth

8:1 the number of Muslims to non-Muslim victims of Islamic terror.


I wonder if we polled evangelical Christians, how many would say that evangelical Christians "have the choice to be governed by Biblical laws." or that "We should be a Christian Nation"...etc. I have a feeling some of that is taken out of context...but, I could be wrong. I'm just generally suspicious of agenda-driven polling...so many ways to word a question to get the answer you want. I haven't seen that actual poll. Polling and statistics are often tools to justify bigotry....they are so often dishonest and easily manipulated...if they are being used to make a pre-concieved point, I look at them with a degree of suspicion.

to rephrase a popular conservative meme: Every time a Muslim commits an act of terror; conservatives want to ban all the Muslims that didn't do it.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 05:35 PM
Are you realty that terrified of a group less dangerous to you than the Flu?

I'm not terrified of either, but I do get my flu vaccinations and ensure I wash my hands before rubbing my eyes. If that make me Fluphobic then I guess I'm guilty.

Rainmaker
12-08-2015, 05:38 PM
So, by that reasoning, you would've had no problem with the Japanese concentration camps. Got it.

Apples and Oranges.

The proposal would not apply to Moslem Americans and Moslems already living legally in the United States.

It does not apply to people currently living in the country

TJMAC77SP
12-08-2015, 05:44 PM
Point being...he did not call for a ban on "people immigrating from Muslim countries until they can be vetted." He called for a "complete ban on Muslims entering the U.S. until we can figure out why so many of them hate us."




I'm curious about the polling, for sure. I have my own fears prejudices with Muslims...and not sure if my head or heart are more correct...

I perused an article the other day that was attempting to put Muslims radicalism in context...I didn't get through the whole thing, but will try to find it again...a couple of highlights I think I caught correctly:

The percentage of Muslim women who wear the Hijab is about the same as the percentage of Christian women who wear the little house on the prairie outfits with the bonnets...

4 out of 5 of the most populous Muslim countries ban the Hijab.

If 10% of Muslims were terrorists, and killed 40 infidels each...there would be no more non-Muslims left on earth

8:1 the number of Muslims to non-Muslim victims of Islamic terror.


I wonder if we polled evangelical Christians, how many would say that evangelical Christians "have the choice to be governed by Biblical laws." or that "We should be a Christian Nation"...etc. I have a feeling some of that is taken out of context...but, I could be wrong. I'm just generally suspicious of agenda-driven polling...so many ways to word a question to get the answer you want. I haven't seen that actual poll. Polling and statistics are often tools to justify bigotry....they are so often dishonest and easily manipulated...if they are being used to make a pre-concieved point, I look at them with a degree of suspicion.

to rephrase a popular conservative meme: Every time a Muslim commits an act of terror; conservatives want to ban all the Muslims that didn't do it.

To answer MikeKerri I suppose the Center for Security Policy should be at least questioned but how about the Pew Center? Their polling is somewhat less exact in that they seem to have polled (and lumped together) the populations of non-Muslim countries' responses but of particular interest to me is the table at the bottom of this page

http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/17/views-of-isis-topline/

You still have a somewhat significant percentage of populations in Muslim nations as viewing the actions of ISIS as favorable or somewhat favorable. Add that together with the very significant number who did not or refused to answer the poll and it is still some troubling numbers.

I think there is a real danger in letting emotion rule the day but it is equally dangerous to ignore a threat because acting on it is perceived as ethically uncomfortable.

Rusty Jones
12-08-2015, 05:53 PM
You seem to be having trouble with analogies. SJ's is pretty well on point and cogent.

Great, I hope neither of you use that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument.

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 05:54 PM
There is no doublespeak..

Listen, I am by no means a Trump supporter. I just think that people are blowing things out of proportion, just as they did when claiming that Obama was a socialist who was going to take away our freedoms. The term "bigotry" is thrown around far too easily these days. Instead of people focusing on the message, they are being told to fear him.
The message he sells is fear and hate, not much else excerpt for random bragging. Biotry is used becasue bigotry us shown bu Trump openly and proudly. And Since he has openly called for war crimes (article 4) to be committed against civilians, Called for a religious test to enter the US, and made sweeping ignorant lies about Mexicans the term bigotry fits him like A glove, you willingness to allow this thug to spit on the Constitution is a bit scary though. So much fear over such a small thereat makes it easy to get people to act badly.

I don't believe for a split second that he has any moral restraints on his words and actions. You sound just like Germans did in the Late 20s and early 30s, Trump is far more of a threat to the nation than ISIS ever could be.

ADDED: Another quote that applies to trump and his supporters

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt

Rainmaker
12-08-2015, 06:02 PM
wearing visual accoutrements to ID them as Muslim? Where have I heard of something like this before?

The only place you heard it was on ABC news. and yeah, it makes a great story. The Only problem with the story is that it's a Lie.

He never said it.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2015/11/20/msm-spreads-false-claim-trump-wants-special-badges-muslims

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 06:08 PM
Great, I hope neither of you use that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument.

I'll agree with you here. Muslims don't kill people...terrorists do. So we need to determine whether someone is a terrorist before they come in, just as we need to determine whether the person is stable enough to carry a weapon before selling the weapon.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 06:11 PM
Called for a religious test to enter the US There is no religious test. Muslims will be allowed in. Muslims will not be forced to leave. Muslims do not have to convert.



I don't believe for a split second that he has any moral restraints on his words and actions. You sound just like Germans did in the Late 20s and early 30s, Trump is far more of a threat to the nation than ISIS ever could be. Ah, yes, the Nazi argument. Just as justified as the Communist argument with Obama.

Rainmaker
12-08-2015, 06:12 PM
If Christians were singled out for a special vetting process that others didn't have to go through in any other scenario, you wouldn't be saying the same thing.

Over 70% of the Christian population of Iraq and Syria has been killed or driven out as a direct result of the destruction of their countries.

That's Over 1 Million Christians that have been displaced. There's a word for that. It's called Genocide.

And yet, How many Syrian and Iraqi Christian Terrorist attacks have we seen?

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 06:24 PM
There is no religious test. Muslims will be allowed in. Muslims will not be forced to leave. Muslims do not have to convert. He the wannabe war criminals letter specifically calls for Muslims to be banned from entry.



Ah, yes, the Nazi argument. Just as justified as the Communist argument with Obama. Trump is mimicking Goebbels, and following in Nazi footsteps with the same tactics and goals.
Open religious bigotry: Check
A contempt of law both Internal and external Check
Pick a minority to attack as a scapegoat, Check, check check and double check
Substitute bombast for honesty: Check
Claim that he is only taking strong action out of necessity: Check

He was even repeating the silly BullS*** about no-go zones in Paris on the news today, trying to convince people that a lie was the truth by repeating it over and over again. Pure Goebbels.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 06:29 PM
He the wannabe war criminals letter specifically calls for Muslims to be banned from entry.

Trump is mimicking Goebbels, and following in Nazi footsteps with the same tactics and goals.
Open religious bigotry: Check
A contempt of law both Internal and external Check
Pick a minority to attack as a scapegoat, Check, check check and double check
Substitute bombast for honesty: Check
Claim that he is only taking strong action out of necessity: Check

He was even repeating the silly BullS*** about no-go zones in Paris on the news today, trying to convince people that a lie was the truth by repeating it over and over again. Pure Goebbels.

It's funny...you guys say that Trump is the one playing on the fears of people. Sounds to me that it's those opposed to him who are playing on the fears.

Rusty Jones
12-08-2015, 06:33 PM
It's funny...you guys say that Trump is the one playing on the fears of people. Sounds to me that it's those opposed to him who are playing on the fears.

Tell me this... why do you think that out of the 17 major candidates (14 Republican, 3 Democrat) Trump is the ONLY one being described like this?

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 06:38 PM
Tell me this... why do you think that out of the 17 major candidates (14 Republican, 3 Democrat) Trump is the ONLY one being described like this?

Because people are afraid of someone they can't control.

Rainmaker
12-08-2015, 06:38 PM
I wonder if we polled evangelical Christians, how many would say that evangelical Christians "have the choice to be governed by Biblical laws." or that "We should be a Christian Nation"...etc. .

If polled Most Evangelical Christians would not use the term "Christian Nation".

Instead They would likely use the term "Judeo-Christian Nation" Because They've been brainwashed by the media into no longer recognizing that the two religions are actually complete opposites.

Rainmaker
12-08-2015, 06:56 PM
And that's exactly what Trump and his supporters are: a mob

I was personally at the Trump rally in Sarasota, Florida on 28 November.

There were 10,000 people there and It was very orderly, the people were polite and friendly, No property was destroyed and Nobody was assaulted.

No Rusty, I think an actual MOB looks more like the #Black Lives Matter/ Baltimore/Ferguson Race Riots. and stupid liberal bullshit happening on college campuses all around the country and brought to you by a piss poor excuse for a fucking president and the controllers that funded him.

giggawatt
12-08-2015, 07:16 PM
The only place you heard it was on ABC news. and yeah, it makes a great story. The Only problem with the story is that it's a Lie.

He never said it.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2015/11/20/msm-spreads-false-claim-trump-wants-special-badges-muslims

No. Actually, a Facebook meme was where I heard it. Which brings me to the point of a thread I will making here shortly. Stay tuned.

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 07:33 PM
dupe post sorry

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 07:39 PM
Because people are afraid of someone they can't control.

They have reason to be afraid or are you forgetting Trump advocated keeping people from entering the US including US citizens solely on the basis of their faith and has repeatedly advocated large scale violations of Article 4 of the Geneva convent, not to mention wingspread hateful propaganda like the thousands and thousand of celebrating Muslims on 9/11. A violent, psychopathic and delusional bastard with power is a very scary thing

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 07:48 PM
They have reason to be afraid or are you forgetting Trump advocated keeping people from entering the US including US citizens solely on the basis of their faith He has not done this. US citizens are good to go. Please read the articles that have been linked in previous posts.


and has repeatedly advocated large scale violations of Article 4 of the Geneva convent, not to mention wingspread hateful propaganda like the thousands and thousand of celebrating Muslims on 9/11. A violent, psychopathic and delusional bastard with power is a very scary thingWhat's even scarier is someone who lies about their intentions in order to get into office, then shows his true colors.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Trump is a crazy bastard, no doubt. But many of his points, if you throw out the bluster and showmanship, are solid.

Trump is a wag-the-dog candidate. He's making the rest of the GOP look far more moderate. While the Dems are staying to the far left, the GOP is giving the illusion that they are moving to the center. Don't think that's not going to be helpful come election time.

Rainmaker
12-08-2015, 07:54 PM
No. Actually, a Facebook meme was where I heard it. Which brings me to the point of a thread I will making here shortly. Stay tuned.

Don't touch that Dial Sportsfans!

MikeKerriii
12-08-2015, 08:11 PM
He has not done this. US citizens are good to go. Please read the articles that have been linked in previous posts. His written position paper and what He is saying to the press today disagree.


What's even scarier is someone who lies about their intentions in order to get into office, then shows his true colors. Unless the intentions are criminal and pathological like Trumps that is not true


I've said it before, I'll say it again. Trump is a crazy bastard, no doubt. But many of his points, if you throw out the bluster and showmanship, are solid.
Trump is a wag-the-dog candidate. He's making the rest of the GOP look far more moderate. While the Dem's are staying to the far left, the GOP is giving the illusion that they are moving to the center. Don't think that's not going to be helpful come election time. You might believe that a fascist , delusional, wanna be war criminal and sadist is "solid" I do not.. Trump has gone past the traditional Republican right into Storm-front, Free Republic and KKK territory,

Rusty Jones
12-08-2015, 08:16 PM
Because people are afraid of someone they can't control.

Then people would be equally afraid of Bernie Sanders if that was the case.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 08:19 PM
Then people would be equally afraid of Bernie Sanders if that was the case.Conservatives are equally afraid of Sanders. The difference is that he's not as loud as Trump so the headlines aren't the same. Plus, people don't believe, yet, that Sanders actually has a chance to get the nomination. If it happens, then you're gonna hear the paranoia, worse than it was with Obama.

Bos Mutus
12-08-2015, 08:26 PM
Trump is a wag-the-dog candidate. He's making the rest of the GOP look far more moderate. While the Dems are staying to the far left, the GOP is giving the illusion that they are moving to the center. Don't think that's not going to be helpful come election time.

This would be quite funny if it really were planned this way...and hilarious to sit in on the meeting where they discuss their plan backfiring because he's winning...lol.

Goes back to my imagined speech, too.

Rusty Jones
12-08-2015, 08:34 PM
Conservatives are equally afraid of Sanders. The difference is that he's not as loud as Trump so the headlines aren't the same. Plus, people don't believe, yet, that Sanders actually has a chance to get the nomination. If it happens, then you're gonna hear the paranoia, worse than it was with Obama.

Sanders isn't as loud as Trump? You must not be paying attention.

Being loud isn't the problem. It's what you're being loud about.

Bos Mutus
12-08-2015, 08:37 PM
To answer MikeKerri I suppose the Center for Security Policy should be at least questioned but how about the Pew Center? Their polling is somewhat less exact in that they seem to have polled (and lumped together) the populations of non-Muslim countries' responses but of particular interest to me is the table at the bottom of this page

http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/17/views-of-isis-topline/

You still have a somewhat significant percentage of populations in Muslim nations as viewing the actions of ISIS as favorable or somewhat favorable. Add that together with the very significant number who did not or refused to answer the poll and it is still some troubling numbers.

To answer your question...yes, I find the poll numbers troubling.


I think there is a real danger in letting emotion rule the day but it is equally dangerous to ignore a threat because acting on it is perceived as ethically uncomfortable.

I'm not sure I would classify it as equally dangerous though...

Is there a danger of more terror attacks in our country...certainly. I'm sure we'll have some more. This is the just the world we live in.

If we let in a million Muslim immigrants, do we run the risk that even a handful of them will be terrorists...yes for sure.

Is this justification to block them all?...eh, I'm not too sure.

Name any subdivision of people and we can find a few of them that will do harm...what percentage of that subgroup makes it okay to take action against the entire group? As I mentioned previously...when a perpetrator of any action really, is a member of our own group; we tend to see that person as an individual actor. When he/she is a member of another group, we tend to see him/her as representative of that group, I think.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 08:42 PM
Sanders isn't as loud as Trump? You must not be paying attention.

Being loud isn't the problem. It's what you're being loud about.The only way to hear anything about Sanders is on all the Hipster websites and NPR. Nothing mainstream. Go to CNN right now, or any other "news" site, and count the number of columns you find on the front page. Turn on the TV to the mainstream channels, and count how many stories you hear about Bernie. It's not very many. They will increase, and the paranoia will grow, if he gets the nomination.

Rainmaker
12-08-2015, 08:42 PM
Name any subdivision of people and we can find a few of them that will do harm...what percentage of that subgroup makes it okay to take action against the entire group?

Having lived in a neighborhood that went to section 8 rental, I'd put the number for the tipping point for where they do real harm to the neighborhood at about 15%.

Rainmaker
12-08-2015, 08:49 PM
The only way to hear anything about Sanders is on all the Hipster websites and NPR. Nothing mainstream. Go to CNN right now, or any other "news" site, and count the number of columns you find on the front page. Turn on the TV to the mainstream channels, and count how many stories you hear about Bernie. It's not very many. They will increase, and the paranoia will grow, if he gets the nomination.

I wouldn't be so quick to count out Sanders. Nobody much under age 50 really watches very much "mainstream news" anymore.

Hell even forums like this are going the way of the dodo bird. look around buddy. It's pretty much just us old vets talking about politics.

sandsjames
12-08-2015, 09:20 PM
I wouldn't be so quick to count out Sanders. Nobody much under age 50 really watches very much "mainstream news" anymore.

Hell even forums like this are going the way of the dodo bird. look around buddy. It's pretty much just us old vets talking about politics.It sounds so sad when you say it like that.

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 12:07 AM
It sounds so sad when you say it like that.

Message boards are becoming a relic because it takes too much effort for the younger folks (that are used to Social Media) to convey an idea ....... We have good mods that let us mix it up and most of us have thick skin,

So, What is still here is very entertaining and informative, which is why i still keep it on my daily roll. Nomsayin?

MikeKerriii
12-09-2015, 12:16 AM
Conservatives are equally afraid of Sanders. The difference is that he's not as loud as Trump so the headlines aren't the same. Plus, people don't believe, yet, that Sanders actually has a chance to get the nomination. If it happens, then you're gonna hear the paranoia, worse than it was with Obama.

Sanders is as loud as trump, the difference is that Sanders is sane.

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 12:35 AM
Sanders is as loud as trump, the difference is that Sanders is sane.


What's Insane is when Moslem Terrorists massacre dozens of Americans at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, CA ..........And the following day, the race baiting rodeo queen AG goes to a Muslim Advocates dinner and threatens to prosecute anyone with a hate crime for speaking his mind about Islam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBkPcRSi03o

garhkal
12-09-2015, 03:13 AM
Just to clarify, Trump wants to ban them from entering until we figure out how to properly vet them. He's not saying "No Muslims ever".


Plus it does not address the Muslims we already have here.. unlike what some pundits seem to think he was about.


And that makes it okay? To put extra screening requirements on someone because of their religion? Remember a few weeks ago, how he talked not having a problem with requiring Muslims to carry certain ID cards or wear visible accoutrements that identify them as Muslims to the public?

In any case, whether he's speaking of banning them permanently or pending a vetting process, the appeal is toward Islamophobes. Muslims and anti-Islamaphobes are also going to react to this and vote accordingly, and it won't be affected by whether his proposed ban is temporary or permanent.

You do know a phobia is an Irrational fear of something. Seeing how bad radical muslims ARE, there is imo NOTHING irrational in wanting to keep them out, even if it means we keep other muslims out too.


I'll grant you the lunacy claim, but we'll disagree on the bigotry...that's just an easy game for the opposition to play. I'm completely unsure when securing our borders began to fall under the umbrella of bigotry.


Me neither. BUT the left for a LONG time has gone after anyone who wants the border secured as being "Racist" against the Mexicans, and a Bigot for it.. Its their way to try and shut down ANYONE's argument for why it is a good idea to secure the border.


Right...so he wants to determine if those trying to enter want to hurt us before he lets them in. I don't think that falls under bigotry.

Me neither.


So, by that reasoning, you would've had no problem with the Japanese concentration camps. Got it.

Nope. We just got attacked BY Japan. So i have no problem with the fact we rounded up all Japanese in our country till the war was over.


There is no doublespeak..

Listen, I am by no means a Trump supporter. I just think that people are blowing things out of proportion, just as they did when claiming that Obama was a socialist who was going to take away our freedoms. The term "bigotry" is thrown around far too easily these days. Instead of people focusing on the message, they are being told to fear him.

Yup. To me it seems rather than attack the message and what it means, they attack the messenger.

garhkal
12-09-2015, 03:21 AM
Because people are afraid of someone they can't control.

He's also in the lead (STILL), so is of course going to be the biggest target.


I was personally at the Trump rally in Sarasota, Florida on 28 November.

There were 10,000 people there and It was very orderly, the people were polite and friendly, No property was destroyed and Nobody was assaulted.

No Rusty, I think an actual MOB looks more like the #Black Lives Matter/ Baltimore/Ferguson Race Riots. and stupid liberal bullshit happening on college campuses all around the country and brought to you by a piss poor excuse for a fucking president and the controllers that funded him.

Since i was on shift for it, i couldn't attend his speech downtown in Columbus, but i heard he had over 7000 there.. And no rioting either. So why do people think all of us Trump supporters are a mob??



What's Insane is when Moslem Terrorists massacre dozens of Americans at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, CA ..........And the following day, the race baiting rodeo queen AG goes to a Muslim Advocates dinner and threatens to prosecute anyone with a hate crime for speaking his mind about Islam.

When i saw that on the GOPUSA site, i couldn't believe my eyes.
We just had yet ANOTHER incident by Muslim extremists, and rather than go after OTHERS of their ilk, she wants to go after US Citizens who speak their mind?? How insane IS she??

TJMAC77SP
12-09-2015, 03:24 AM
To answer your question...yes, I find the poll numbers troubling.



I'm not sure I would classify it as equally dangerous though...

Is there a danger of more terror attacks in our country...certainly. I'm sure we'll have some more. This is the just the world we live in.

If we let in a million Muslim immigrants, do we run the risk that even a handful of them will be terrorists...yes for sure.

Is this justification to block them all?...eh, I'm not too sure.

Name any subdivision of people and we can find a few of them that will do harm...what percentage of that subgroup makes it okay to take action against the entire group? As I mentioned previously...when a perpetrator of any action really, is a member of our own group; we tend to see that person as an individual actor. When he/she is a member of another group, we tend to see him/her as representative of that group, I think.

To a certain degree I suppose you are right but again pointing back to the poll numbers, we really aren't talking about the 'lone wolf' when in reality he has what seems like a pack thinking what he is doing is either good or even not so bad.

I am not suggesting we block all Muslims from entering the country. It is silly and yes, contrary to our principles. It is just that I feel equally strong that the government leadership is attempting to sell a very tainted bill of goods with their characterization of a 'rigorous vetting process'. That is simply a complete fabrication.

Rusty Jones
12-09-2015, 12:37 PM
I'm not so sure that the "control" factor has anything to do with whether or not a candidate is to be feared.

Trump can't be controlled, because he's a multi-billionaire who has considerably more money than anyone who would attempt to control him.

Bernie Sanders can't be controlled because he doesn't WANT anyone's money, and has no problem telling someone to take their money and shove it up their ass.

What makes Trump more dangerous, IMO, is that I believe he's going to make laws that favor people in his socioeconomic class, and at the expense of all others. I can't help but think that that's the sole reason that he's running.

sandsjames
12-09-2015, 12:47 PM
I'm not so sure that the "control" factor has anything to do with whether or not a candidate is to be feared.

Trump can't be controlled, because he's a multi-billionaire who has considerably more money than anyone who would attempt to control him.

Bernie Sanders can't be controlled because he doesn't WANT anyone's money, and has no problem telling someone to take their money and shove it up their ass.

What makes Trump more dangerous, IMO, is that I believe he's going to make laws that favor people in his socioeconomic class, and at the expense of all others. I can't help but think that that's the sole reason that he's running.

Can we at least agree it makes the election much more entertaining than usual?

Rusty Jones
12-09-2015, 12:56 PM
Can we at least agree it makes the election much more entertaining than usual?

Ben Carson makes it more entertaining. Well, outside of the time that he actually stood a chance of winning the nomination. Donald Trump... no, not entertaining. But very informative, considering how we now know that there's a large percentage of Americans who hate Mexicans. He brought that out. And now, it's the Muslims' turn. And, considering the fact that he mocked a disabled man? If someone is actually entertained by that, it says alot about them.

sandsjames
12-09-2015, 01:10 PM
Ben Carson makes it more entertaining. Well, outside of the time that he actually stood a chance of winning the nomination. He is the dullest person I've ever heard speak.


Donald Trump... no, not entertaining. But very informative, considering how we now know that there's a large percentage of Americans who hate Mexicans. He brought that out. I must have missed the hating Mexicans thing. I know there are a lot of people who agree that illegal immigrants should be dealt with much harsher. It just happens to be Mexicans because they make up the majority of illegals. Could have been Panamanians, Argentinians, etc, if they were the majority.


And now, it's the Muslims' turn. Just as with the Mexicans, it's turned to Muslims because they are the majority of terrorists in this country. If white Canadians were coming in blowing themselves up, wanting to kill us all, then he'd want to ban them.


And, considering the fact that he mocked a disabled man? If someone is actually entertained by that, it says alot about them.Yeah, cuz you've never done that, I'm sure.

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 01:13 PM
Ben Carson makes it more entertaining. Well, outside of the time that he actually stood a chance of winning the nomination. Donald Trump... no, not entertaining. But very informative, considering how we now know that there's a large percentage of Americans who hate Mexicans. He brought that out. And now, it's the Muslims' turn. And, considering the fact that he mocked a disabled man? If someone is actually entertained by that, it says alot about them.

maybe Bernie will make all them Illegal Aliens work on a kibbutz for their "free" healthcare

sandsjames
12-09-2015, 01:20 PM
maybe Bernie will make all them Illegal Aliens work on a kibbutz for their "free" healthcare

Not sure they'll even need free healthcare cuz everyone will be making $30/hr.

Rusty Jones
12-09-2015, 01:34 PM
I must have missed the hating Mexicans thing. I know there are a lot of people who agree that illegal immigrants should be dealt with much harsher. It just happens to be Mexicans because they make up the majority of illegals. Could have been Panamanians, Argentinians, etc, if they were the majority.

Just as with the Mexicans, it's turned to Muslims because they are the majority of terrorists in this country. If white Canadians were coming in blowing themselves up, wanting to kill us all, then he'd want to ban them.

Ugh, this is just one of those things you're not going to understand. I'd expect that from most people here on MTF, but not so much from you. But... then again, you can only understand but so much.


Yeah, cuz you've never done that, I'm sure.

Of course I have, but two things:

1. Only do that to family, because I'm family. Anyone else does it, and they're gonna have problems. I'm sure you feel the same way about disabled people in your family.
2. The last time I made fun of a non-family member's disability is when I was in the fifth grade.

sandsjames
12-09-2015, 01:44 PM
Ugh, this is just one of those things you're not going to understand. I'd expect that from most people here on MTF, but not so much from you. But... then again, you can only understand but so much. I can understand people thinking and truly believing that it's racism, I just don't see it that way. Do I think, personally, that these suggested laws are over the top and far too harsh? Yes, I do...I just don't seem them being based off of racism. It's profiling, for sure. Now, if he was to state he wanted to force all Muslims (which can't be racism because it's not a race, though I'm sure we're all equating the word Muslim to Arab which, in itself, can be called racist) to convert or leave and all Mexicans to leave then I'd see it. However, there has been nothing remotely resembling a call to get rid of/ban anyone who is here legally already.




Of course I have, but two things:

1. Only do that to family, because I'm family. Anyone else does it, and they're gonna have problems. I'm sure you feel the same way about disabled people in your family.
2. The last time I made fun of a non-family member's disability is when I was in the fifth grade.Well then, you are a better man than I. There are several times (not that I'm proud of it) that I've spoken in a stereotypical "mentally handicapped" voice when people do stupid shit.

Rusty Jones
12-09-2015, 01:50 PM
Well then, you are a better man than I. There are several times (not that I'm proud of it) that I've spoken in a stereotypical "mentally handicapped" voice when people do stupid shit.

That's not what I'm talking about. Trump mocked a specific person for their disability.

sandsjames
12-09-2015, 02:10 PM
That's not what I'm talking about. Trump mocked a specific person for their disability.

True...I suppose there's a difference.

Luckily, nobody ever mocks Trump.

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 02:16 PM
That's not what I'm talking about. Trump mocked a specific person for their disability.

I don't really view it as a Negative. I think it's actually a good thing that our future President Trump holds him accountable for his actions instead of just making excuses for his poor reporting just because he has a disability

Rusty Jones
12-09-2015, 02:24 PM
True...I suppose there's a difference.

Luckily, nobody ever mocks Trump.

Not for anything for anything unethical.

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 02:26 PM
Ugh, this is just one of those things you're not going to understand. I'd expect that from most people here on MTF, but not so much from you. But... then again, you can only understand but so much.

English Translation: "I don't have a logical argument to back up this statement"

Rusty Jones
12-09-2015, 02:29 PM
English Translation: "I don't have a logical argument to back up this statement"

English translation: "This is a subject that hurts my feelings to talk about, so I'm going to shame you for bringing it up."

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 02:33 PM
English translation: "This is a subject that hurts my feelings to talk about."

The only time my feelings get hurt is on April 15th when I have to write a big fat check to the IRS to support the deadbeats that can't figure out how to get off the dole.

Rusty Jones
12-09-2015, 02:35 PM
The only time my feelings get hurt is on April 15th when I have to write a big fat check to the IRS to support the deadbeats that can't figure out how to get off the dole.

Maybe you need to fix your W4.

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 02:39 PM
Maybe you need to fix your W4.

Maybe you can recommend a fair minded JewishTax attorney to help me negotiate the tax code?

Rusty Jones
12-09-2015, 02:41 PM
Maybe you can recommend a Jewish Tax attorney to help me negotiate the tax code?

I'll do you one better: I'll vote for the Jewish candidate.

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 02:45 PM
I'll do you one better: I'll vote for the Jewish candidate.

Good idea. You vote in your own interest and I'll vote in mine. Tick-Tock.

TJMAC77SP
12-09-2015, 02:54 PM
Not for anything for anything unethical.

I assume you meant mocked anyone in an unethical manner. Personally mocking someone for unethical behavior seems fair game to me.

What about his hairstyle? Granted it's not the same as a physical disability but he gets mocked for his appearance. Doesn't that fit into the black or white ethics you are alluding to?

BTW, for the record..........

I think his hairstyle is hideous and makes him look like a clown but I am making no claims of pure behavior as an adult.

Also, I believe he was making fun of the NYT reporter and that his doing so was horrible (but hardly the first time I have thought that about him)

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 03:07 PM
Considering that the UK is probably our closest ally, I'm not sure how that would look for a POTUS to be banned from there. Or if it would even be possible remain allies in the first place, if that's the case.

Good. It's about time we rethink our "special relationship" with these Royalist assholes anyway. All give and no take.


But that's not all... the mayor of St Petersburg, FL just banned him from entering city limits!

Typical liberal Cry bully reaction. We support free speech, just so long as you say what we want.

Other than the beach front, St. Pete's a decaying shithole anyway. Governed by an Anti-Christian Carpet bagger from Detroit.

It would be ripe for economic development ala Sarasota but, But, because of ineffective Liberal policies, a shitty socialist school system and shoddy law enforcement of the Southside they can't draw any significant Business interest.

Due to this idiot's mismanagement, They're probably going to lose the Rays to Tampa soon.

Maybe the Donald will have a campaign rally at the Trop and generate them some business.

UncaRastus
12-09-2015, 03:23 PM
Rainmaker, calling anyone a cry bully could hurt someone's feelings, so knock it off!

OK, so maybe I used that term in here, in the recent past.

So, OK. Calling people cry bullies will be allowed, because it is such a nice term of endearment.

;)

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 03:47 PM
Rainmaker, calling anyone a cry bully could hurt someone's feelings, so knock it off!

OK, so maybe I used that term in here, in the recent past.

So, OK. Calling people cry bullies will be allowed, because it is such a nice term of endearment.

;)

Rainmaker was wondering how the omniscient Google "auto suggest" came up with that term.....

Who knew they stole it from the wise sage of the Military Times Forum UncaRasta!

Let's just be thankful that benevolent Google auto-fills while we're still typing.

Because Without them, Too many secret thoughts could slip through the cracks (as in the dark past).

It's a comfort to know that Google is there for our own protection and to keep us safe, whenever dangerous people are about to submit an Incorrect original thought (all their own)

It's a good thing because, this time next year (following the coronation of Queen Hillary) It will be important to make sure that the official records of whatever we are thinking right now are in-fact correct.

UncaRastus
12-09-2015, 03:52 PM
To the winner goes the spoils. All of Google will be redacted, so that we all might enjoy, no - cry tears of gratitude, when we see how the winner of the election was and is, and will be the Champion for Every Citizen within the US of A!

;)

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 04:15 PM
To the winner goes the spoils. All of Google will be redacted, so that we all might enjoy, no - cry tears of gratitude, when we see how the winner of the election was and is, and will be the Champion for Every Citizen within the US of A!

;)

For example....Rainmaker almost had an "incorrect thought" this morning, While researching Captagon and how it's being smuggled into the "Moderate Moslem Jihadi rebels" hands through our allies in Riyadh.

You know the "Moderate" rebels that are aiding and abetting the Killing and enslaving of innocent Christian Women and Children by the thousands?

But, Fortunately All powerful and Benevolent Google "Auto Fill" intervened on my behalf and suggested a search string for "Captain America" instead , distracting me for hours and thereby saving me from forming my own dangerous conclusions.....USA. USA. USA!

MikeKerriii
12-09-2015, 04:20 PM
Since i was on shift for it, i couldn't attend his speech downtown in Columbus, but i heard he had over 7000 there.. And no rioting either. So why do people think all of us Trump supporters are a mob?? Because they are following a bigoted and lying madman and demagogue, perhaps? The mobs at the Nuremberg rally's were orderly also, as are Klan meetings.





When i saw that on the GOPUSA site, i couldn't believe my eyes.
We just had yet ANOTHER incident by Muslim extremists, and rather than go after OTHERS of their ilk, she wants to go after US Citizens who speak their mind?? How insane IS she?? Try reading what she actually said , instead of snippets from the clowns at GOPUSA.

MikeKerriii
12-09-2015, 04:30 PM
True...I suppose there's a difference.

Luckily, nobody ever mocks Trump.

IS trump disabled in some way? Outside of his insanity that is? Picking on a disabled person for their the disabled is not the as picking on someone for their actions and choices, Not doing so is not being PC, it is being a decent person, It is also something that most of our mothers swatted us for doing as children.

MikeKerriii
12-09-2015, 04:32 PM
Good idea. You vote in your own interest and I'll vote in mine. Tick-Tock.

Then you will be voting for Hilary or Bernie?

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 04:34 PM
Then you will be voting for Hilary or Bernie?

Right now, I'm still leaning toward Deez Nuts.

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 04:46 PM
Picking on a disabled person for their the disabled is not the as picking on someone for their actions and choices, Not doing so is not being PC, it is being a decent person,

Why should this lying agent of the Globalist 5th column posing as a 4th estate, get a free pass for spewing his bullshit just because he has a handi-cap? can't take the heat, then get the hell out of the Kitchen.

Rusty Jones
12-09-2015, 04:56 PM
Why should this lying agent of the Globalist 5th column posing as a 4th estate, get a free pass for spewing his bullshit just because he has a handi-cap? can't take the heat, then get the hell out of the Kitchen.

If you had a handicap, I'm not so sure you'd be so eager to put someone who mocked your handicap in a position to sign or veto shit, or make executive orders... especially when one or more of those things just might be related to your disability.

sandsjames
12-09-2015, 05:16 PM
IS trump disabled in some way? Outside of his insanity that is? Picking on a disabled person for their the disabled is not the as picking on someone for their actions and choices, Not doing so is not being PC, it is being a decent person, It is also something that most of our mothers swatted us for doing as children.Are you saying that mental illness isn't a disability? I believe if you look it up, it is. And since you claim that he is insane, then you are saying that he is disabled...yet here you are making fun of his disability. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Rusty Jones
12-09-2015, 05:22 PM
Are you saying that mental illness isn't a disability? I believe if you look it up, it is. And since you claim that he is insane, then you are saying that he is disabled...yet here you are making fun of his disability. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I know you're trolling him and everything, but the way you've been defending Trump and grasping at straws to deflect away from what he did... well, that's kinda of a shocker to see coming from you.

From what I'm seeing lately... it looks as if Trump can do no wrong in the eyes of his supporters. The fact that he lost no supporters after what he said about Israel has already shown this to be the case weeks ago.

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 05:28 PM
If you had a handicap, I'm not so sure you'd be so eager to put someone who mocked your handicap in a position to sign or veto shit, or make executive orders... especially when one or more of those things just might be related to your disability.

If I was handicapped I'd want to be treated just like everyone else.

Bill Clinton referred to Bob Doles damaged arm as "flipper" and no one in the 5th column media said shit about it.

Win or lose the era of hurt feelings are over forever.

People are going to have to get used to putting their big girl panties on because, the next struggle for National survival will soon be upon us.

The brainwashed leftys may not have figured it out yet but they soon will.

sandsjames
12-09-2015, 05:31 PM
I know you're trolling him and everything, but the way you've been defending Trump and grasping at straws to deflect away from what he did... well, that's kinda of a shocker to see coming from you.

From what I'm seeing lately... it looks as if Trump can do no wrong in the eyes of his supporters. The fact that he lost no supporters after what he said about Israel has already shown this to be the case weeks ago.

Trump is a fucking loony...and I wouldn't vote for him in a million years. That doesn't mean there aren't aspects of his character that I like. I like that he's not afraid to say what's on his mind, even if I don't agree with it. I like the fact that he doesn't care about the support of the party he's running for. I don't believe that his statements are racist...I believe that he believes that his plan is the right way to protect America. Is he delusional? Of course. But he's the only person running that I know exactly what we'd get if he was President.

Rusty Jones
12-09-2015, 05:37 PM
If I was handicapped I'd want to be treated just like everyone else.

Bill Clinton referred to Bob Doles damaged arm as "flipper" and no one in the 5th column media said shit about it.

Win or lose the era of hurt feelings are over forever.

People are going to have to get used to putting their big girl panties on because, the next struggle for National survival will soon be upon us.

The brainwashed leftys may not have figured it out yet but they soon will.

Funny, I never heard of that. So I did a little Google search. The only references I see is a Newsmax article (the Fox News of the internet, only worse), and blogs from Trump supporters mentioning it in reaction to Trump's fuck up.

In other words... I'm calling bullshit on that one.

Rusty Jones
12-09-2015, 05:39 PM
I don't believe that his statements are racist...I believe that he believes that his plan is the right way to protect America.

Of course not. Because you're not on the butt end of it, you have the luxury of not being able to see it.

sandsjames
12-09-2015, 05:51 PM
Of course not. Because you're not on the butt end of it, you have the luxury of not being able to see it.

I don't agree with his plan, but I believe that he believes it's a good plan. Of course we both know it would never happen because IF he became President he wouldn't just be able to pass some executive order on immigration that congress didn't agree with. I mean, what President would be dumb enough to do something like that?

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 06:41 PM
Funny, I never heard of that. So I did a little Google search. The only references I see is a Newsmax article (the Fox News of the internet, only worse), and blogs from Trump supporters mentioning it in reaction to Trump's fuck up.

In other words... I'm calling bullshit on that one.

Yes it was widely reported at the time and then promptly deep sixed by the 5th column media (ala Israeli spy ring on 9-11).







"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." Sinclair Lewis had it right, Trump proves it,

To be independent of public opinion is the first formal condition of achieving anything great.”
― Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 08:19 PM
Can we at least agree it makes the election much more entertaining than usual?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU_Jdts5rL0

MikeKerriii
12-09-2015, 08:38 PM
Are you saying that mental illness isn't a disability? I believe if you look it up, it is. And since you claim that he is insane, then you are saying that he is disabled...yet here you are making fun of his disability. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I am not making fun of that vile pill of human garbage, I am attacking the vile SOB. There is a difference.
You are getting desperate, aren't you?

sandsjames
12-09-2015, 08:41 PM
I am not making fun of that vile pill of human garbage, I am attacking the vile SOB. There is a difference.
You are getting desperate, aren't you?

Desperate? No. Just pointing out your hypocrisy. I guess it's ok as long as it's someone you don't like.

MikeKerriii
12-09-2015, 08:43 PM
I don't agree with his plan, but I believe that he believes it's a good plan. Of course we both know it would never happen because IF he became President he wouldn't just be able to pass some executive order on immigration that congress didn't agree with. I mean, what President would be dumb enough to do something like that?

Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and Hitler all thought they had good plans also, Why does that make a difference?

Trump is arrogant enough to try to do things like that. Have you heard him speak? read what his plan for Muslims entering the US was before the reaction started, It is clearly written in his press release.

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 08:43 PM
I am not making fun of that vile pill of human garbage, I am attacking the vile SOB. There is a difference.
You are getting desperate, aren't you?

Lighten up Francis..

Bos Mutus
12-09-2015, 09:10 PM
He's also just kind of a weird guy



Donald Trump really appreciates his daughter Ivanka's good looks – probably a little too much.

In a new interview with Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trump-seriously-20150909#ixzz3lMuvzheL), Trump delivered a more-than-vaguely-sexual response when the magazine's reporter praised Ivanka Trump, a prominent businesswoman in her own right.
"Yeah, she's really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren't happily married and, ya know, her father ..." he said.

It's hardly the first time Trump, the Republican Party's 2016 frontrunner, has gone a shade too far complimenting his daughter.
"If Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her," Trump cracked in a now-infamous 2006 interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=5&v=DP7yf8-Lk80) with "The View."

Three years earlier, the billionaire real estate mogul described Ivanka as (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/the-absolute-trumpest-121328?o=0) "6 feet tall" with "the best body" during an appearance on Howard Stern's shock jock radio show.

MikeKerriii
12-09-2015, 09:23 PM
Lighten up Francis..

Why the hell should I? Considering your fact free and hateful rants, I will give that request all the respect it deserves, and say no.

sandsjames
12-09-2015, 09:26 PM
Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and Hitler all thought they had good plans also, Why does that make a difference?

Trump is arrogant enough to try to do things like that. Have you heard him speak? read what his plan for Muslims entering the US was before the reaction started, It is clearly written in his press release.

Did you even attempt to read the posts where I said he's crazy and I wouldn't vote for him? I don't agree with him on much, but it's fun to have him in the race.

MikeKerriii
12-09-2015, 09:30 PM
Did you even attempt to read the posts where I said he's crazy and I wouldn't vote for him? I don't agree with him on much, but it's fun to have him in the race.

I guess it's fun to play with rabid dogs?

I think He is currently making the world situation worse, and weakening America at the risk of lives, while he is aiding ISIS. I just can't bring my self to consider that fun.

Rainmaker
12-09-2015, 10:12 PM
I guess it's fun to play with rabid dogs?

I think He is currently making the world situation worse, and weakening America at the risk of lives, while he is aiding ISIS. I just can't bring my self to consider that fun.

right. He's aiding ISIS by saying we should help Russia bomb the hell out of them and enforce our borders so we're not overrun with hordes of 3rd worlders that we have no way of properly vetting.

Psychotic progressive logic on full display.

MikeKerriii
12-10-2015, 12:18 AM
right. He's aiding ISIS by saying we should help Russia bomb the hell out of them and encorce our borders so we're not overrun with hordes of 3rd worlders that we have no way of properly vetting.

Psychotic progressive logic on full display.

He is helping by encouraging Russia to bomb the hell out of people that have nothing to do with ISIS and who are in fact fighting ISIS. The Russian Jet that was shot down was not attacking anywhere near any ISIS forces.

He is also proving to be a great propaganda weapon by allowing them to show that the leading candidate for the US president, for the republican party is a crazed anti-Muslim bigot and A wannabe war criminal , He reinforces that message every day.

ISIS is helped when people think that this is a war between all of ISLAM and the west, and that is the Message the scumbag is selling. We are not Helped when He attacks allies like the UK with idiotic lies, and then he attacks Angela Merkel becasue she got picked by Time Magazine instead of him, the last reminds me a of a badly raised three year old.

Attacking three different allies in just two days, he attacked France also, show that he has a real !HUGE! gift for screwing up and is not qualified to lead anything important

Just another fascist slime-bag, a low rent Lonesome Rhodes

Rainmaker
12-10-2015, 01:54 AM
Just another fascist slime-bag,

Yawn.

don't you ever tire of comparing everything on Earth you disagree with to Nazi atrocities?

Try reading a book once in a while and you might learn that Hitler unplugged Germany from the financial usury, so that money was then created by the state and no longer as debt.

He did this because all the wealth that was pilfered out of Germany during the Weimer Republic insanity which had bankrupted the country.

Anyhow, back to your regularly scheduled 24-7 history channel "behind the scenes expose" of Hitler's gold teeth and tattooed skin lampshade collections.

Rainmaker
12-10-2015, 01:59 AM
Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and Hitler all thought they had good plans also,

By the way. All 4 were socialists.

MikeKerriii
12-10-2015, 02:59 AM
By the way. All 4 were socialists.

Three were Communist, and one national socialist, the later having the label but little in common with Democratic socialism as practiced by most of the world. That comparison is a worn out and debunked as it is pathetic

By Americans current status Churchill would be called a socialists, all of out allies that are not monarchies are socialist also. Are Canadian refuges streaming across out borders to escape oppression? Swiss or Germans?

garhkal
12-10-2015, 03:23 AM
Ben Carson makes it more entertaining. Well, outside of the time that he actually stood a chance of winning the nomination. He is the dullest person I've ever heard speak.

While i wouldn't call him the dullest, i certainly don't see him as exciting as Trump or Cruz/Rubio.



Donald Trump... no, not entertaining. But very informative, considering how we now know that there's a large percentage of Americans who hate Mexicans. I must have missed the hating Mexicans thing. I know there are a lot of people who agree that illegal immigrants should be dealt with much harsher. It just happens to be Mexicans because they make up the majority of illegals. Could have been Panamanians, Argentinians, etc, if they were the majority.

+1000.. I really hate it when people automatically say "anyone against illegal immigration is Racist to Mexicans.
First off, Mexicans are not the ONLY people who are coming here illegally.
Secondly being Mexican is NOT A RACE!



He brought that out. And now, it's the Muslims' turn. And, considering the fact that he mocked a disabled man? If someone is actually entertained by that, it says alot about them. Just as with the Mexicans, it's turned to Muslims because they are the majority of terrorists in this country. If white Canadians were coming in blowing themselves up, wanting to kill us all, then he'd want to ban them.

So? If Muslims were not the ones out there BEING terrorists, people wouldn't be so against them!


[QUOTE=Rusty Jones;360399]And, considering the fact that he mocked a disabled man? If someone is actually entertained by that, it says alot about them. Yeah, cuz you've never done that, I'm sure.

Too true.



Typical liberal Cry bully reaction. We support free speech, just so long as you say what we want.

Good point. Can you imagine the uproar if this city official was wanting to do that to Hillary or Obama?

giggawatt
12-10-2015, 08:40 AM
IS trump disabled in some way? Outside of his insanity that is? Picking on a disabled person for their the disabled is not the as picking on someone for their actions and choices, Not doing so is not being PC, it is being a decent person, It is also something that most of our mothers swatted us for doing as children.

Are you posting from a computer, phone, or potato?

sandsjames
12-10-2015, 10:43 AM
I guess it's fun to play with rabid dogs?

I think He is currently making the world situation worse, and weakening America at the risk of lives, while he is aiding ISIS. I just can't bring my self to consider that fun.

I guess freedom of speech is only ok when it's the speech of those you support.

Bos Mutus
12-10-2015, 01:19 PM
Just as with the Mexicans, it's turned to Muslims because they are the majority of terrorists in this country. If white Canadians were coming in blowing themselves up, wanting to kill us all, then he'd want to ban them.

61% of mass shootings since 1982 were committed by whites.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

Where is the call to ban whites? Or maybe give THEM a little extra scrutiny before getting a gun?

sandsjames
12-10-2015, 01:29 PM
61% of mass shootings since 1982 were committed by whites.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

Where is the call to ban whites? Or maybe give THEM a little extra scrutiny before getting a gun?

I think the call for giving them extra scrutiny is there, and has been there...that's pretty much been the focus of Obama's presidency. I guess he's racist.

Bos Mutus
12-10-2015, 01:31 PM
I think the call for giving them extra scrutiny is there, and has been there...that's pretty much been the focus of Obama's presidency. I guess he's racist.

Really? Obama called for extra scrutiny on white people?

Source, please.

Now, not just a general call to limit guns...but, something in the line of "We should refuse to let whites have guns until we can figure out why they want to shoot us so much."

But let's pretend for a moment it were true...are you saying such a call would be justified, same as Trumps call to ban Muslims from immigrating?

Are you agreeing with your imaginary Obama on this point? Or are you saying Obama is wrong, but Trump is right? Or Trump is just as wrong as Obama?

sandsjames
12-10-2015, 01:45 PM
Really? Obama called for extra scrutiny on white people?

Source, please.

Not specifically...just as nobody specifically called for scrutiny of black voters by forcing them to get IDs. There are whites who are also poor and don't have proper ID, but it seems the media focuses on the fact that it affects more of the black population.


Now, not just a general call to limit guns...but, something in the line of "We should refuse to let whites have guns until we can figure out why they want to shoot us so much." Just curious, but what percentage of terrorist attacks have come from Muslim extremists?


But let's pretend for a moment it were true...are you saying such a call would be justified, same as Trumps call to ban Muslims from immigrating?

Are you agreeing with your imaginary Obama on this point? Or are you saying Obama is wrong, but Trump is right? Or Trump is just as wrong as Obama?I'm not calling Obama a racist. I'm equating it to Trump being called a racist and how ridiculous it is. Both are right, and both are wrong. Obama's call for more background checks is perfectly justified, IMO. A waiting period seems like a good idea. He's just misguided in thinking that it's going to stop criminals and misguided in his approach. Trumps call for a waiting period is also justified, IMO. He's misguided, however, the same way that Obama is.

I wish people would look past the rhetoric and focus on the substance...but I'm beginning to believe, more and more, that those days are long gone.

Rainmaker
12-10-2015, 01:50 PM
61% of mass shootings since 1982 were committed by whites.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

Where is the call to ban whites? Or maybe give THEM a little extra scrutiny before getting a gun?

63% of the population is currently white (in 1980 it was 80%), so that sounds about right. Just curious in these statistics. What race do you think people of Middle Eastern or North African (MENA) descent are counted?

They can't be counting them as "other" because, I can think of San Bernadino, Chattanooga and Ft. Hood just off the top of my head.

So, there's only been 72 mass shootings in 33 years? I'm surprised to hear that. That doesn't sound like a lot in a Nation of 200+ Million firearms in private hands.

Rainmaker
12-10-2015, 01:55 PM
Not specifically...just as nobody specifically called for scrutiny of black voters by forcing them to get IDs. There are whites who are also poor and don't have proper ID, but it seems the media focuses on the fact that it affects more of the black population.

Just curious, but what percentage of terrorist attacks have come from Muslim extremists?

I'm not calling Obama a racist. I'm equating it to Trump being called a racist and how ridiculous it is. Both are right, and both are wrong. Obama's call for more background checks is perfectly justified, IMO. A waiting period seems like a good idea. He's just misguided in thinking that it's going to stop criminals and misguided in his approach. Trumps call for a waiting period is also justified, IMO. He's misguided, however, the same way that Obama is.

I wish people would look past the rhetoric and focus on the substance...but I'm beginning to believe, more and more, that those days are long gone.

uh oh. Looks like somebody just blew the Hasbara dog whistle.

Get ready to drink you some Anti-White/Anti-Christian Kool-aide through a fire hose buddy.

Bos Mutus
12-10-2015, 01:59 PM
Not specifically...

By that you mean..."no, he never hinted at any such thing."

Whereas, Trump flat out said it

So...the two are not comparable in this instance. Bad comparison.


.just as nobody specifically called for scrutiny of black voters by forcing them to get IDs. There are whites who are also poor and don't have proper ID, but it seems the media focuses on the fact that it affects more of the black population.

Well, yes...if someone DID specifically call for scuritny of black voters, then you agree that would be racist, yeah?

See...Trump DID specifically call for a special ban on Muslims...what do you call that then?


Just curious, but what percentage of terrorist attacks have come from Muslim extremists?

I'm not calling Obama a racist. I'm equating it to Trump being called a racist and how ridiculous it is.

Okay...so you show examples that Obama nor voter ID laws specifically called out for race discrimination and are therefore not racist.

But...Trump specifically called out for religious discrimination...


Both are right, and both are wrong. Obama's call for more background checks is perfectly justified, IMO. A waiting period seems like a good idea.

I don't get what a waiting period accomplishes...how many mass shootings were spur of the moment decisions that would have been prevented if the shooter had to wait 10 days before purchasing a gun?


He's just misguided in thinking that it's going to stop criminals and misguided in his approach.

What approach should be taken? What if...a good guy needs a gun tonight because he's been threatened?


Trumps call for a waiting period is also justified, IMO. He's misguided, however, the same way that Obama is.


What approach should he take?


I wish people would look past the rhetoric and focus on the substance...but I'm beginning to believe, more and more, that those days are long gone.

TJMAC77SP
12-10-2015, 02:06 PM
Really? Obama called for extra scrutiny on white people?

Source, please.

But let's pretend for a moment it were true...are you saying such a call would be justified, same as Trumps call to ban Muslims from immigrating?

Are you agreeing with your imaginary Obama on this point? Or are you saying Obama is wrong, but Trump is right? Or Trump is just as wrong as Obama?

While I imagine you are posting this to make some point, it's a bit specious.

There are additional security requirements when buying guns. Granted it's not race based but they are there. The motivations for the various mass shootings are quite varied. The motivation for Islamic Terrorists acts are singular in nature so I am not following your comparison

61% is pretty close to the white, not Hispanc population of the US so not sure of the significance of the statistic.

Why is it that when someone says that Trump is raising a valid point but doing so with his usual hyperbole that is somehow turned into unqualified support of him. I personally think the man is a tool and have said as much on many threads in the MTF but he is raising points which need to be addressed. Why can't we agree that there is a complicated problem that isn't going away by applying rhetoric and hyperbole from either end of the spectrum? We on the MTF certainly will not contribute a thing to any solution but in denying there is a problem because it is uncomfortable and somehow seems to run contrary to our national psyche does not eliminate the problem or prove there is no problem.

sandsjames
12-10-2015, 02:11 PM
By that you mean..."no, he never hinted at any such thing."

Whereas, Trump flat out said it

So...the two are not comparable in this instance. Bad comparison. Confirmation bias?




Well, yes...if someone DID specifically call for scuritny of black voters, then you agree that would be racist, yeah? Not if 100% of the fraud came from black voters...but it doesn't.


See...Trump DID specifically call for a special ban on Muslims...what do you call that then? Misguided policy for stopping terrorism.




Okay...so you show examples that Obama nor voter ID laws specifically called out for race discrimination and are therefore not racist. I'm saying that they could easily be perceived as racist, even though they aren't.


But...Trump specifically called out for religious discrimination... No, he called for profiling based on overwhelming facts and statistics.




I don't get what a waiting period accomplishes...how many mass shootings were spur of the moment decisions that would have been prevented if the shooter had to wait 10 days before purchasing a gun? The waiting period allows time for a background check. It's impossible to know how many of the shooting could have been stopped. Even if it's only 1 shooting that is stopped because of it, it seems worth it.




What approach should be taken? What if...a good guy needs a gun tonight because he's been threatened? If he's been threatened and has time to go to a gun store then he also has time to call the police or get somewhere safe.





What approach should he take?I don't know what the right approach is. I just know that his approach is wrong.

Rusty Jones
12-10-2015, 02:13 PM
63% of the population is currently white (in 1980 it was 80%), so that sounds about right. Just curious in these statistics. What race do you think people of Middle Eastern or North African (MENA) descent are counted?

They can't be counting them as "other" because, I can think of San Bernadino, Chattanooga and Ft. Hood just off the top of my head.

So, there's only been 72 mass shootings in 33 years? I'm surprised to hear that. That doesn't sound like a lot in a Nation of 200+ Million firearms in private hands.

This is correct. The US counts northern ("Saharan") Africans and Middle Easters as "white." "Asian" starts with Pakistani or Indian (one of them, I can't remember which) and further east. If you've ever been a recruiter, you know the breakdown.

Then, of course, there's the breakdown of the races of Latinos. Most are listed as "white," though anyone who has ever worked in recruiting after 2000 knows that most will simply choose between the "Latino/Hispanic" and "Not Latino/Hispanic" blocks, and ignore the race question that comes after. The policy that anyone checks that they are Latino/Hispanic but doesn't answer the race question is automatically counted as "white."

sandsjames
12-10-2015, 02:14 PM
Why is it that when someone says that Trump is raising a valid point but doing so with his usual hyperbole that is somehow turned into unqualified support of him. Exactly. I've said several times that he's crazy and I'd never vote for him, yet it seems I'm somehow a staunch Trump guy for trying to use logic instead of emotion.

Rusty Jones
12-10-2015, 02:25 PM
Exactly. I've said several times that he's crazy and I'd never vote for him, yet it seems I'm somehow a staunch Trump guy for trying to use logic instead of emotion.

It seems like you're a "staunch Trump guy," because the only difference between you and an actual "staunch Trump guy" is that you begin your sentences with "I'm not voting for Trump, but..."

sandsjames
12-10-2015, 02:29 PM
It seems like you're a "staunch Trump guy," because the only difference between you and an actual "staunch Trump guy" is that you begin your sentences with "I'm not voting for Trump, but..."

I've also pointed out that I don't agree with his policy on stopping Muslims from coming in. My commentary is strictly about the label of Racist being attached to him. So because I don't think he's a racist somehow means that I'm a supporter.

Rainmaker
12-10-2015, 02:31 PM
While I imagine you are posting this to make some point, it's a bit specious.

Rusty brought this up a couple of times earlier in the thread. But, Trump gave a 38 minute speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition on Dec. 3rd.

Even though, In it he was overwhelmingly complimentary to the Jewish people and supportive of Israel (and has a clear record of supporting them)

he honestly stated

“I don’t want your money so therefore you’re probably not going to support me.”

And with regards to the Palestinian peace process he again honestly stated

"A lot will have to do with Israel and whether or not Israel wants to make the deal -- whether or not Israel's willing to sacrifice certain things," "They may not be, and I understand that, and I'm OK with that. But then you're just not going to have a deal."

useful idiots, liberal atheists, socialist progressives, and Muslim sympathizers are now going to go absolutely crazy with the full on "he's a racist demagogue" attack.

Bos has previously referred to Israel in this forum as our "BFF" and so, I suspect Bos feels obligated to do his part to attack the only candidate in the race (in either party) that can actually save Israel from destruction , And yet won't be supported by them because he refuses to unconditionally kiss the Jewish Brownspot. Nomsayin?

Rusty Jones
12-10-2015, 02:36 PM
I've also pointed out that I don't agree with his policy on stopping Muslims from coming in. My commentary is strictly about the label of Racist being attached to him. So because I don't think he's a racist somehow means that I'm a supporter.

Yeah, because for far too many, it's going to take a white hooded robe and a burning cross to see that he's racist. And even then....

But that's not just Trump, though. That's in general.

sandsjames
12-10-2015, 02:41 PM
Yeah, because for far too many, it's going to take a white hooded robe and a burning cross to see that he's racist. And even then....

But that's not just Trump, though. That's in general.

Exactly...I can see how others can see it as racist (even though Muslims and Mexicans are not a "race"). Maybe xenophobic would be a more appropriate word.

Rusty Jones
12-10-2015, 02:46 PM
Exactly...I can see how others can see it as racist (even though Muslims and Mexicans are not a "race"). Maybe xenophobic would be a more appropriate word.

That's where "perception is reality" comes into play. They may not be races, but we all have in our heads ideas of what a "Mexican" or a "Muslim" looks like, and we consider those who don't fit that profile to be exceptions.

How many non-Muslims in the US have been harassed and physically assaulted, because they "looked" Muslim? How many non-Muslims in this situation have continued to be attack/harassed anyway, even after correcting them and stating that they're not Muslim? This is pretty common for Sikhs (among other groups).

That's where the "racism" comes in. It doesn't have to be an "actual" race. All it has to be is a "perceived" race.

sandsjames
12-10-2015, 02:52 PM
That's where "perception is reality" comes into play. They may not be races, but we all have in our heads ideas of what a "Mexican" or a "Muslim" looks like, and we consider those who don't fit that profile to be exceptions.

How many non-Muslims in the US have been harassed and physically assaulted, because they "looked" Muslim? How many non-Muslims in this situation have continued to be attack/harassed anyway, even after correcting them and stating that they're not Muslim? This is pretty common for Sikhs (among other groups).

That's where the "racism" comes in. It doesn't have to be an "actual" race. All it has to be is a "perceived" race.

Or perceived hatred.

Rusty Jones
12-10-2015, 02:56 PM
Or perceived hatred.

Can you clarify that?

Bos Mutus
12-10-2015, 02:58 PM
While I imagine you are posting this to make some point, it's a bit specious.

There are additional security requirements when buying guns. Granted it's not race based but they are there. The motivations for the various mass shootings are quite varied. The motivation for Islamic Terrorists acts are singular in nature so I am not following your comparison

My contention is that no matter how many white people commit mass shootings or "blow themselves up"...as other white people, we do not see those acts as "acts of white people"...we see them as acts of individuals. Even if there is, perhaps, an ideological basis for them...we might be able to separate a group we are not a part of.."atheists" or "Christians"...but if that member is part of our group, it is an individual act. It's either "that group" or "individual act"...because we know and see that statistics or our group do not really apply to us as individuals.

When a Muslim commits a similar act, we see it as "acts of Muslims"...and when we do, then a policy of "banning all Muslims" seems reasonable.

The vast majority of white people do not commit and have no intention of committing mass shootings. The vast majority of Muslims are not and have no intention of being terrorists.

We find it prudent and reasonable to apply statistics to THEM...but never to US.

That is where I think the racism lies...but we tend to think "well, I mean Muslims no harm, I have Muslim friends...therefore I am not "religionist" or whatever the word is there...but, finding it easy to apply the statistics to individuals of a group is exactly that.


61% is pretty close to the white, not Hispanc population of the US so not sure of the significance of the statistic.

It's not significant...that's the point.


Why is it that when someone says that Trump is raising a valid point but doing so with his usual hyperbole that is somehow turned into unqualified support of him.

I don't know...did I do that?

Why is it that I'm often accused of worshipping Obama as a savior when I've never even voted for the guy? Why is it that if you say something remotely nice about Obama people accuse me of being blinded by white guilty and holding up Obama as a prophet and savior? Bullshit rehetoric I suppose...but, I'm not sure I accused anyone of unqualified support of Trump.

Why is it when I criticize a policy or statement by a Republican, you are assumed to be an unqualified worshipper of Obama?...that it turns into "Well OBAMA blah blah blah..." why is that?


I personally think the man is a tool and have said as much on many threads in the MTF but he is raising points which need to be addressed.

Is that not what we are doing here? I'm addressing his point about banning all Muslims from immigrating...first to be told "No, he didn't say that, he said people from Muslim countries"...then "well, it's the same as Obama and white people"

Who is not talking about the substance here?


Why can't we agree that there is a complicated problem that isn't going away by applying rhetoric and hyperbole from either end of the spectrum?

Okay...I'll agree with that. I also think a policy of banning all Muslims from immigrating is the wrong approach..


We on the MTF certainly will not contribute a thing to any solution but in denying there is a problem because it is uncomfortable and somehow seems to run contrary to our national psyche does not eliminate the problem or prove there is no problem.

Again...I don't think I've done this.

sandsjames
12-10-2015, 03:06 PM
Can you clarify that?Sure...there is a perception that someone who doesn't agree with homosexual marriage is homophobic. There is a perception that someone who doesn't agree with abortion is against women's rights. There is a perception that someone who thinks a cop was justified in shooting a black person is racist. There is a perception that someone who wants to ensure people coming into this country are going to be good citizens is racist. The perception is that anyone who disagrees with something that affects a "protected" group is hateful.

Bos Mutus
12-10-2015, 03:30 PM
Confirmation bias?

Okay...Trump says ban all Muslims from immigrating.

You say...this is the same as Obama wanting to impose gun restrictions and all people.

I don't get it.


Not if 100% of the fraud came from black voters...but it doesn't.

Interesting...

Misguided policy for stopping terrorism.

I'm saying that they could easily be perceived as racist, even though they aren't.[/quote]

hmmmm...so your point was Trump's policy of banning all Muslims is not xenophobic because Obama is not racist?

This makes no sense.


No, he called for profiling based on overwhelming facts and statistics.

yes...can we now discuss whether or not this is a racist policy rather than confusing the issue...we can point out a million times non-racists have been accused of racism and it doesn't change this point of fact.

Is a policy of profiling based on statistics a racist policy? Or religion, whatever.

Do you think a black Muslim from Panama should be allowed to immigrate into the U.S. with the same restrictions as a Catholic from Panama...or should he have additional scrutiny based on his Islamic faith?


The waiting period allows time for a background check. It's impossible to know how many of the shooting could have been stopped. Even if it's only 1 shooting that is stopped because of it, it seems worth it.

I thought the waiting period and background check were two different things.


If he's been threatened and has time to go to a gun store then he also has time to call the police or get somewhere safe.

Okay...so, you're threatened, you go do the gun application and hideout for 10 days or whatever...I guess you could do that.




I don't know what the right approach is. I just know that his approach is wrong.[/QUOTE]

Rusty Jones
12-10-2015, 03:32 PM
Sure...there is a perception that someone who doesn't agree with homosexual marriage is homophobic. There is a perception that someone who doesn't agree with abortion is against women's rights. There is a perception that someone who thinks a cop was justified in shooting a black person is racist. There is a perception that someone who wants to ensure people coming into this country are going to be good citizens is racist. The perception is that anyone who disagrees with something that affects a "protected" group is hateful.

Dude, it goes a bit deeper than that; and you know it.

For example... you don't agree with homosexual marriage, great. But if you're out there expending your personal time and energy to fight against them getting married? Then, yeah, you're probably deserving of being called a "homophobe."

As far as abortion goes... is someone in that situation not against a particular woman's right, or feel that she does not have that right?

For the cop shooting a black man... this one is complicated. These dismissive "don't break the law and you won't get shot" comments I see everywhere, even if the law being broken was lower class misdemeanor... yeah, you see them in the case of a white person being killed by the police too.

However... AA and I have discussed this before. White Americans ARE an ethnic group (whether you know it or not), but they don't have the cohesiveness that an ethnic group would normally have. Even a white racist could give less of a fuck about a white person being killed by a cop, because they're more willing to write off lower class whites as collateral damage if it's primarily blacks getting killed by the police.

For example, the "All Lives Matter" crowd. Where are they when a white person gets killed by the police? I'll tell you: they don't give two fucks. Because he's collateral damage.

Remember when Jeremy Mardis, for example, was shot by the police? Collateral damage. BLM knows this, and that's why they actually protested on his behalf when ALM was nowhere to be found. ALM knew that if they fought for Jeremy Mardis, that they'd not longer be able to be as quick to dismiss the black victims. So they kept their mouths shut.

The dismissive remark that I referred to earlier... clearly indicates that the person making it isn't interested in discussing the direct circumstances leading up to the shooting. In other words, the cop is always right. Regardless of anything else. And you don't see the racism in that?

And then you said "There is a perception that someone who wants to ensure people coming into this country are going to be good citizens is racist." Well, not in and of itself. If you're going to come up with a new screening process, fine. But you screen everyone EQUALLY. You don't single out people of specific religion, or someone who looks like they may be of that religion. Because that's where the racism comes into play.

sandsjames
12-10-2015, 03:44 PM
Okay...Trump says ban all Muslims from immigrating.

You say...this is the same as Obama wanting to impose gun restrictions and all people.

I don't get it. Dear god...sometimes I wonder if it's possible for intent of a statement to be properly heard. I was talking about perceived racism, and relating the "racism" of voter ID laws to the "racism" of making people wait on guns because the majority of shootings are done by whites. Neither is actually racism.


Interesting...



hmmmm...so your point was Trump's policy of banning all Muslims is not xenophobic because Obama is not racist

This makes no sense. Yeah, that's exactly what I said...dude...at least attempt to understand.




yes...can we now discuss whether or not this is a racist policy rather than confusing the issue...we can point out a million times non-racists have been accused of racism and it doesn't change this point of fact.None of this changes any facts...we're just a bunch of old guys on an internet forum. Does that mean we should stop posting?


Is a policy of profiling based on statistics a racist policy? Or religion, whatever. If a women gets killed, the first person looked at is her husband. He is investigated. Why? Because that usually who's doing it. Are all husbands murderers? Not by a long shot. That's what profiling is. You have to be able to start somewhere, so you start with the most likely cause.


Do you think a black Muslim from Panama should be allowed to immigrate into the U.S. with the same restrictions as a Catholic from Panama...or should he have additional scrutiny based on his Islamic faith? Why didn't you give the race of the Catholic but you did for the Muslim? Some would say that's racist.




I thought the waiting period and background check were two different things. Yes, they are. But they serve the same purpose.

TJMAC77SP
12-10-2015, 03:49 PM
My contention is that no matter how many white people commit mass shootings or "blow themselves up"...as other white people, we do not see those acts as "acts of white people"...we see them as acts of individuals. Even if there is, perhaps, an ideological basis for them...we might be able to separate a group we are not a part of.."atheists" or "Christians"...but if that member is part of our group, it is an individual act. It's either "that group" or "individual act"...because we know and see that statistics or our group do not really apply to us as individuals.

When a Muslim commits a similar act, we see it as "acts of Muslims"...and when we do, then a policy of "banning all Muslims" seems reasonable.

The vast majority of white people do not commit and have no intention of committing mass shootings. The vast majority of Muslims are not and have no intention of being terrorists.

We find it prudent and reasonable to apply statistics to THEM...but never to US.

That is where I think the racism lies...but we tend to think "well, I mean Muslims no harm, I have Muslim friends...therefore I am not "religionist" or whatever the word is there...but, finding it easy to apply the statistics to individuals of a group is exactly that.

I suppose there is a level of racism, either intentional or not involved. We fail equally though, when we ignore a problem in the hopes of not appearing to be racist.

I don't think 'banning all Muslims' is reasonable. It is equally unreasonable to say 'let's ignore the fact that 100% of Islamic Terrorists are Muslim". These attacks are not one-offs. When the potential, motivation, level and frequency of attacks such as the shooting in Charleston and Colorado Springs rise to the level we see with ISIS and other Islamic Terrorist groups we can seriously discuss Christian Terrorists. Of course that issue is being dealt with and not ignored but that is another discussion.



I don't know...did I do that?

Why is it that I'm often accused of worshipping Obama as a savior when I've never even voted for the guy? Why is it that if you say something remotely nice about Obama people accuse me of being blinded by white guilty and holding up Obama as a prophet and savior? Bullshit rehetoric I suppose...but, I'm not sure I accused anyone of unqualified support of Trump.

Why is it when I criticize a policy or statement by a Republican, you are assumed to be an unqualified worshipper of Obama?...that it turns into "Well OBAMA blah blah blah..." why is that?

No, in fairness you didn't and my remarks were directed at the MTF in general so I should have made that clear. I assume you agree that mindset is present here in the MTF.


Is that not what we are doing here? I'm addressing his point about banning all Muslims from immigrating...first to be told "No, he didn't say that, he said people from Muslim countries"...then "well, it's the same as Obama and white people"

Who is not talking about the substance here?

Not really. We are merely discussing the point that banning all Muslims is a bad idea and not the deeper reason as to why any reasonable person (one that is not a megalomaniac running for President) would agree with that. Of course there are a lot of reasons for that (and some here would have you believe that racism is the sole reason). Fear is one of those reasons. While the level of fear in some is overblown, some level of fear is certainly justified. It is the ignoring of that that galls me.


Okay...I'll agree with that. I also think a policy of banning all Muslims from immigrating is the wrong approach..

So now we have two point of agreement.



Again...I don't think I've done this.

Again, you haven't. I assume you agree that there a legitimate threat to the US from Islamic Terrorism and it is common sense the most likely source of that threat will be a Muslim? Further, that among the huge numbers of Syrian refugees it is very likely that there are Jihadists who desire to conduct attacks in the US?

Bos Mutus
12-10-2015, 04:06 PM
Dear god...sometimes I wonder if it's possible for intent of a statement to be properly heard. I was talking about perceived racism, and relating the "racism" of voter ID laws to the "racism" of making people wait on guns because the majority of shootings are done by whites. Neither is actually racism.


Interesting...


Yeah, that's exactly what I said...dude...at least attempt to understand.

Okay...help me understand.

We're talking about Trump advocating a policy that specifically ban Muslim immigrants from entering the country.

To prove this is not "racist"...you cite the examples of Obama wanting to improse gun restrictions and Voter ID laws...both of which you say do not specifically target any race and are not racist, but are sometimes perceived as being racist.

How does either of those examples show anything about Trumps motivations? It's like you are saying "Since people/policies are sometimes falsely accused of being racist, there can be no true racism."

But, let's just forget that...Obama gun control and Voter ID has nothing to do with this topic...


None of this changes any facts...we're just a bunch of old guys on an internet forum. Does that mean we should stop posting?


If a women gets killed, the first person looked at is her husband. He is investigated. Why? Because that usually who's doing it. Are all husbands murderers? Not by a long shot. That's what profiling is.

Okay...first, let's not confuse professional scientific profiling with broad racial profiling.

However...I am on record as to having said on many occasions...that one of the problems with profiling is that it works.

My contention is that Mr. Trump's ban on all Muslims is far too broad of a brush.


You have to be able to start somewhere, so you start with the most likely cause.

Why didn't you give the race of the Catholic but you did for the Muslim? Some would say that's racist.

Yes, perhaps it is...I think it was to illustrate that there are many other types of Muslims other than...let's say Middle Eastern, Sunni Muslims.

For example....in his Oval Office speech, Obama alluded to Muslim sports heroes.

Trump scoffed at this..."Where are these Muslim sports heroes?"

Uhm...Muhammed Ali, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Shaquille O'Neal...

Point being...when Trump says "Ban Muslims"...I think most of us are picturing Middle Eastern Muslims when there are millions of Muslims that come from completely different places.


Yes, they are. But they serve the same purpose.

I thought the waiting period was more of a "cooling off" deal to make sure people weren't buying guns in the heat of passion or something.

MikeKerriii
12-10-2015, 04:17 PM
I guess freedom of speech is only ok when it's the speech of those you support.

He is free to be speak his hate, I am free to call the rabid ass on his speech. That is how it is supposed to work.

MikeKerriii
12-10-2015, 04:19 PM
Just curious, but what percentage of terrorist attacks have come from Muslim extremists?
2 of the last three terrorist attacks in the US have been by so called "Christians" Should we ban Christians from entering?

MikeKerriii
12-10-2015, 04:25 PM
Or perceived hatred. In this case the hatred is open and loud, it takes willful blindness and deafness not to recognize it.

MikeKerriii
12-10-2015, 04:31 PM
Sure...there is a perception that someone who doesn't agree with homosexual marriage is homophobic. There is a perception that someone who doesn't agree with abortion is against women's rights. There is a perception that someone who thinks a cop was justified in shooting a black person is racist. There is a perception that someone who wants to ensure people coming into this country are going to be good citizens is racist. The perception is that anyone who disagrees with something that affects a "protected" group is hateful.
When you act to harm or deprive a specific group of rights, what is not hateful about that? Homophobes want gay people not to have the same rights as they do, and take action to ensure that. What is not hateful about that?

On the cop shooting the racism charge usually comes up when the language used to the defend the cop gets into Klan territory, and that usually happens very quickly.

Bos Mutus
12-10-2015, 04:55 PM
I suppose there is a level of racism, either intentional or not involved. We fail equally though, when we ignore a problem in the hopes of not appearing to be racist.

No one is suggesting we ignore the problem.


I don't think 'banning all Muslims' is reasonable.

Okay...good.


It is equally unreasonable to say 'let's ignore the fact that 100% of Islamic Terrorists are Muslim".

Well, that's sort of by definition...if they weren't Muslim, we wouldn't call them Islamic Terrorists. Now, if you said "100% of Terrorists are Muslim", you would wrong...

But why is it we both think a policy of banning all Muslims is unreasonable...but somehow you think that means I want to ignore the problem?


These attacks are not one-offs. When the potential, motivation, level and frequency of attacks such as the shooting in Charleston and Colorado Springs rise to the level we see with ISIS and other Islamic Terrorist groups we can seriously discuss Christian Terrorists. Of course that issue is being dealt with and not ignored but that is another discussion.

No, in fairness you didn't and my remarks were directed at the MTF in general so I should have made that clear. I assume you agree that mindset is present here in the MTF.

Not really. We are merely discussing the point that banning all Muslims is a bad idea and not the deeper reason as to why any reasonable person (one that is not a megalomaniac running for President) would agree with that. Of course there are a lot of reasons for that (and some here would have you believe that racism is the sole reason).

"Sole" reason...no.


Fear is one of those reasons. While the level of fear in some is overblown, some level of fear is certainly justified. It is the ignoring of that that galls me.

So now we have two point of agreement.

Again, you haven't. I assume you agree that there a legitimate threat to the US from Islamic Terrorism and it is common sense the most likely source of that threat will be a Muslim?

Further, that among the huge numbers of Syrian refugees it is very likely that there are Jihadists who desire to conduct attacks in the US?

Yes, these kinds of statements are almost always true. We can make them about any group and they will still be true. maybe not "Jihadists", but..."criminals" "rapists"..."drug dealers"..."gang members"

Then, well we can say "oh, the percentage is higher for thus and thus group"...and it will probably come down to "the key figure is the one that is met by the group I/we want to affect" as justification for our actions.

sandsjames
12-10-2015, 05:29 PM
For example....in his Oval Office speech, Obama alluded to Muslim sports heroes.

Trump scoffed at this..."Where are these Muslim sports heroes?"

Uhm...Muhammed Ali, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Shaquille O'Neal...

Point being...when Trump says "Ban Muslims"...I think most of us are picturing Middle Eastern Muslims when there are millions of Muslims that come from completely different places.



We all know he meant Middle Easterners/Arabs, even though he said Muslims...not that it makes it better or worse, but that's what he was referring to...not Muslims specifically.

Of course now he's going to get even more extreme because it's keeping him in the spotlight and, in the end, that's more money down the road. That's what he's about.

USN - Retired
12-10-2015, 05:34 PM
Muslim behavior/terrorism correlated with population of Muslims

https://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/muslim-behavior-with-population-increase/

Bos Mutus
12-10-2015, 05:34 PM
We all know he meant Middle Easterners/Arabs, even though he said Muslims...not that it makes it better or worse, but that's what he was referring to...not Muslims specifically.

I didn't know that...and maybe if he corrected himself and put out a statement clarifying, I would buy that. But, he didn't, he put out a written press release that says "complete and total ban on all Muslims"...

I would probably agree that when Trump says "All Muslims"...he is picturing all Muslims as being Middle Eastern Arabs...probably not realizing that only about 20% of Muslims are such.


Of course now he's going to get even more extreme because it's keeping him in the spotlight and, in the end, that's more money down the road. That's what he's about.

So, you don't think he is serious about wanting to be President?

sandsjames
12-10-2015, 05:37 PM
I thought the waiting period was more of a "cooling off" deal to make sure people weren't buying guns in the heat of passion or something.Right...and the background check is to ensure they are legally allowed to have the weapon. Both of these fall under the SAME reason, which is to keep people safe (whether it works or not is another discussion).

So, please, stop with the semantics game. The background check and the waiting period serve different purposes but are for the same reason. I hate when you play these little games where you pretend you don't comprehend based on one or two words.

sandsjames
12-10-2015, 05:43 PM
I didn't know that...and maybe if he corrected himself and put out a statement clarifying, I would buy that. But, he didn't, he put out a written press release that says "complete and total ban on all Muslims"...
He's an intelligent guy. He knows that the majority of the people he's pandering to don't know the difference between an Arab or a Muslim and that the word Muslim carries much more weight. He knows that the people he's pandering to don't think of Ali, Abdul Jabar, etc as Muslim. What his crowd think of when they here "Muslim" is everyone from an Arab country, whether Muslim or not.



So, you don't think he is serious about wanting to be President?I think his ego has him serious about becoming President because he wants to prove that he is better than everyone else. The job of President isn't important to him. Winning the Presidency is. He's a reality show character who will do anything, no matter how outlandish, to stay in the Big Brother house. But, ultimately, I don't think he wants to be the President for the purpose the office is intended for, no.