Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: 2016 Election Post Mortem

  1. #61
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,882
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    The govt doesn't get the money when they stop robbers, either.
    .gov currently seizes Billions $ worth of assets a year thru DOJs assets forfeiture program. Much of the proceeds get recycled to fund other law enforcement operations.
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 11-24-2016 at 05:12 AM.

  2. #62
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,554
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    .gov currently seizes Billions $ worth of assets a year thru DOJs assets forfeiture program. Much of the proceeds get recycled to fund other law enforcement operations.
    Not even in the ballpark of what we're talking about...and not what your memo is talking about.

    read it again...on day 3, Trump ceases to enforce the order, according to his plan.
    Last edited by Bos Mutus; 11-24-2016 at 05:18 AM.
    The Voice of Reason

  3. #63
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,964
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    You could say that it wasn't a deal breaker under the following conditions:

    1. The majority of the people who voted for her knew what she has said about minorities,
    2. She actually CAMPAIGNED on these sentiments, and expressed them to get votes, and
    3. She promised to make laws and policies against these groups.

    Clinton does not meet any of those conditions. Trumps meets all three.
    Those facts about HRC have been out there for years, some people may not have heard about them, many people have and don't believe it / deny it or don't care because they decided they would vote for her regardless -- many people decided they would vote for Trump regardless. Which explains in some ways #1. I would argue that HRC absolutely campaigned and organizes her policies around race and gender based politics, which explains her underperformance in places Democrats have traditionally done well. Much of her platform did well in very progressive population centers which are traditionally Dem, in rural areas that Dems have also done well ... That tactic / platform is loosing its resonance ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    By the way, in reference to "colored people time," it's pretty much a self-depreciatory inside joke within the black community. Because she's married to Bill Clinton (whom many in the black community consider to be an "honorary" black man), she felt that she was "down" enough to use it. Many black people thought she was, others didn't. That's what all the fuss was about.
    I am familiar with the reference, would it have been less appropriate for DJT to say it? Would it have been different if she walked into a meeting with black leaders and said "How are all my ni**ers?" something I have also heard blacks say. Inappropriate is inappropriate, regardless if someone is "down" or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    You're saying that some minorities were simply given a "pass" based on work ethic?
    I think he like nearly anyone has his opinions about race or gender, he is on record expressing some of those. He is a businessman, I have the impression that whatever his opinions are that ability to perform 'trumps' his personal / general opinion of any demographic. I have the impression that in his businesses he wanted to get things done and doesn't care if the best person for the job is white, black, male or female etc. (unless it is one of his kids ... He would pick them regardless).

    My father had a small machine shop, he would've never hired a black man regardless of ability. The owners of the restaurant I worked at in high school where racist, I heard them state "the blacks belong in the kitchen and dish room, not on the floor with customers". Whatever Donald Trump's real feelings are, I don't see him Letting race or gender override ability.

    Understanding that sometimes ... people just want / need a job. It also matters if someone get's a job based on their gender or race or based on their ability. Some people voted for Obama because he was black, some voted against him because he was black. Many HRC supporters wanted the first woman President, period; some didn't vote for her because she is a woman. In either case, it is wrong. I want our society to be fair and present equal opportunity but we cannot guarantee equal outcomes without being unfair. In some cases (athleticism, height, sight etc.) we are born with those things, more often than notpeople work hard to develop them.

    My brother has always been a physical beast, as a high school freshman he was 5'11 and 200 pounds as a junior he was 6'3 and over 250. He was a starting lineman from 6th grade through 11th ... But he relied and his physical gifts and did not work. He was eventually overcome by physically smaller players who spent time developing strength, speed and skill and was put on the second string a few games into his junior year. After years of being bitter about it he did admit he blew an opportunity to use what he had and be great at football.

    I care if someone is discriminated against if they earn a seat in medical school, understanding that educational opportunity in many places in our country are better than others ... Which is why I feel fixing education is key to breaking the cycle of under, low quality and/or unemployment. When I need a surgeon for myself or my family, I don't care if the surgeon is white, black, atheist, Christian or Muslim .. I want the best available surgeon. I don't want a surgeon who maybe should not have their job over a more qualified candidate simply because of race or gender. Provide the equal opportunity, but the outcome eventually should be based on ability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    He didn't. He simply said that white people don't know what it's like to live in the ghetto. That doesn't insinuate that all blacks live in ghettos.
    He said "being white means you don't know what it's like to live in a ghetto". To an extent it insinuates that being black means you do. Ironically, many whites also live in ghettos in the US in areas like South Boston, Hell's Kitchen NYC in the 50's-80's, Montgomery AL, the Delray section of Detroit etc. ... it was pandering.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    Bernie Sanders has defended Hillary Clinton from his own supporters, and to his detriment. Numerous times. Something that Trump would never do.
    Trump started to once he won, no need to attack her anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    But what you can't argue is that both sides are campaigning for making policies based on racism or sexism.
    They are. Race and gender based politicking have been the norm as long as both of us have been paying attention to politics. I think that HRC relied too much on it in her campaign, her two biggest points was she would be the first woman President, and he wasn't DJT. The DNC blurred the line between the the GOP's stance on illegal immigration and legal immigration in an attempt to turn the narrative that the GOP is against all immigration.

    I am not trying to 'defend' DJT, just pointing out that many of the arguments against him are fluff, things people were willing to overlook in either HRC or Sanders. There are legitimate things to criticize him on ... some is clearly just hypocrisy.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  4. #64
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,964
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    The govt doesn't get the money when they stop robbers, either.

    The memo posted basically says he will use the threat of stopping the banks from transferring money in order to convince Mexico to pay for the wall...not to use that money...nor to actually stop the transfers.

    Think about it, though, in order for that to work, he has to agree to continue to allow the transfers if Mexico pays for the wall. If he's gonna just 'stop the robbers'...then why would Mexico build the wall?

    Memo also mentions threats of tariffs as was my understanding of his leverage.
    I have also heard that an option is increasing the cost of Visas for immigrants to cover some of the cost (doubling the current cost would raise $5B in 7 years just in Visas from Mexico) ... not enough to pay for a wall ... but significant.

    What I could see happening, is that cutting off electronic transfers to Mexico provides leverage. I think that Mexico might be convinced to offer to pay a portion based on that over xx number of years, which would also acknowledge that Mexico is not doing enough to prevent illegal immigration into the US.

    What I don't see is a full on 'embargo' of goods or people from Mexico.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  5. #65
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,882
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post

    read it again...on day 3, Trump ceases to enforce the order, according to his plan.
    He ceases to enforce the order if Mexico, will contribute $ X Billion To the United States to PAY FOR THE WALL.

    Now, if they pay for the wall, then there's no reason to enforce the order, because It'll be OBE at that point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    If there were no illegals working here, couldn't we assume that the employers would pay someone here legally to do the work.
    Yes. And we could also assume that the employers would have to allow wage inflation to take its natural course and start paying someone here legally more than $10 an hour in exchange for their back-breaking work.
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 11-30-2016 at 07:58 PM.

  6. #66
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,882
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    I have also heard that an option is increasing the cost of Visas for immigrants to cover some of the cost (doubling the current cost would raise $5B in 7 years just in Visas from Mexico) ... not enough to pay for a wall ... but significant.

    What I could see happening, is that cutting off electronic transfers to Mexico provides leverage. I think that Mexico might be convinced to offer to pay a portion based on that over xx number of years, which would also acknowledge that Mexico is not doing enough to prevent illegal immigration into the US.

    What I don't see is a full on 'embargo' of goods or people from Mexico.
    Politicians and leftist pundits always want to make enforcing the law into some kind of an esoteric concept.

    Up till now, Mexico's really had no incentive to control it. Which is why they haven't

    We've been propping up the Mexican government for decades.

    They can either pay for the wall or we cut off $24B a year in wire transfers. (Which would collapse their economy and cause unrest).

    Most people would be fine with just enforcing current immigration law. Rainmaker's not a big fan of walls (because they can also be used to keep people in)

    So, there's room to give on the wall. But, a wall is definitely doable. Mexico can take a little less money or they can take no money. It's a no brainer.

    They'll pay for the wall (if we decide to build it).
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 11-30-2016 at 02:48 PM.

  7. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    southern Collie-forn-ya
    Posts
    80
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    EDIT: use the conspiracy / alt news section for that type of thing

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •