TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
121. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    25 20.66%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    35 28.93%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    47 38.84%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    2 1.65%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    12 9.92%
Page 10 of 429 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415202530354045505560110260 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 10709

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #226
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    And thus closes the long, sordid tale of the death of western civilization.

  2. #227
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Damn that Frozen movie all to hell. Now I have the "Let It Go" song stuck in my head.

  3. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    The "establishment" (see above) is running scared from Trump, but I also think it's waging a low key campaign against Sanders within the Democratic party and trying to convince Democratic primary voters that they must vote for Clinton because Sanders can't win a general election. In all likelihood, it will be this establishment, by their control over Democratic super delegates, who will decide the next President. So get ready for President Clinton.

    That's not the motivation I'm hearing. What I'm hearing is that the career politicians are scared of Trump and Sanders because they're worried that a bill will cross their desk authorizing a couple hundred million bucks out of the defense budget to go to a company owned by their brother in law(or other congressman's close relative), and instead of the usual willingess to go along either of them will react by (to put it crudely) telling them to go stuff themselves.


    There's an interesting video here. When it comes to immigration, Trump and Sanders sound almost exactly the same. They're even using the same talking points like accusing special interest groups, saying that it leads to us "not having a country", and so on.

  4. #229
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    The thing is, both the Democrat and Republican "establishment" want open borders for different reasons. As Sanders mentioned, the Republican establishment wants a continual stream of low-wage workers...but what he didn't mention was, the Democrat establishment wants the an even larger import of immigrant workers, due the fact that they overwhelmingly vote as Democrats...This is because the Democrats are the ones that support the welfare state, which 70+% of Hispanic immigrants utilize.

    However, both Sanders and Trump are not corrupted by the inner-workings of the political system, and so common sense kicks in...They both agree on the obvious point that Americans should come first and not be displaced or put in unnecessary danger by unregulated, country-destroying, immigration.
    Last edited by Vae; 11th Apr 2016 at 05:11.

  5. #230
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    They both agree on the obvious point that Americans should come first and not be displaced or put in unnecessary danger by unregulated, country-destroying, immigration.
    The only Americans who have a right to moan about unregulated, country-destroying immigration are the Native Americans who were nearly wiped out by immigrants.

    Whereas a Mexican mowing your lawn is about as dangerous as a tub of popcorn.

  6. #231
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Damn that Frozen movie all to hell. Now I have the "Let It Go" song stuck in my head.
    The major reason why I haven't seen Frozen yet is because I'm afraid of the ear worms. Hell, I still sing the songs from Aladdin on occasion, and I think it's been 20 years since I've seen that movie.

  7. #232
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    Whereas a Mexican mowing your lawn is about as dangerous as a tub of popcorn.
    This reminds me of a situation we had down here in dear 'ole Georgia.

    A few years back, shortly before the idea that Mexicans coming to pick beans for $3 an hour represented a direct threat to national security, the state gov decided that something absolutely had to be done to reduce our population of illegal immigrants. We implemented a system that gave employers a quick, convenient way to run background checks on their future employees, with the caveat that anyone who knowingly hires an illegal would face some fairly hefty punitive charges.

    Needless to say, it worked as intended. A goodly portion of our illegal population suddenly found themselves without jobs.

    ...with the unintended consequence being that the state ended up losing hundreds of millions of dollars due to crops rotting in the fields, because we didn't have anyone willing to harvest it for what our agri businesses were willing to pay.

  8. #233
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    That's not the motivation I'm hearing. What I'm hearing is that the career politicians are scared of Trump and Sanders because they're worried that a bill will cross their desk authorizing a couple hundred million bucks out of the defense budget to go to a company owned by their brother in law(or other congressman's close relative), and instead of the usual willingess to go along either of them will react by (to put it crudely) telling them to go stuff themselves.
    Certainly part of the reason why the "establishment" is against Trump and Sanders is because they are both independently financed and independent minded, thus they cannot be controlled or manipulated to the same degree as Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton. But I think they are equally concerned with their candidate's coat tails. The Republican party has to be concerned that Trump will lose them their Congressional majority. And Ted Cruz isn't that much better.

  9. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    The only Americans who have a right to moan about unregulated, country-destroying immigration are the Native Americans who were nearly wiped out by immigrants.

    Whereas a Mexican mowing your lawn is about as dangerous as a tub of popcorn.
    You're kind of making anti-immigrant's points for them. If the native americans had united and reacted aggressively to keep European immigrants out of the continent the genocide would never have happened.

    Besides which nobody's talking about "Mexicans mowing your lawn" at this point. Bernie's talking about them being used to circumvent minimum wage rules for skilled jobs, and Trump's talking about the Mexican organized crime (equipped with military grade weapons) being active on the US Mexican border.

  10. #235
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    You're kind of making anti-immigrant's points for them
    Only if you believe the current situation is remotely analogous to the conquest of the Americas by Europe.

    Needless to say, I don't.

  11. #236
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Chicago, IL
    SD, are you aware of how Mexico lost Texas in the first place?

  12. #237
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    A Mexican-Anglo alliance to counter Santa Anna's monarchal dictatorship?

    One of the leaders was Navarro, whose Corsican father had fought for liberal reforms in Texas under French and Spanish rule, which his son continued under Mexican, state of Coahuila y Tejas, Texan, Confederate, American, and Texan state rule ... in the capitals of Madrid, Paris, Mexico City, Monclova, Austin, Richmond, Washington DC, and uh Austin, respectively. The flag changed but the goals for their homeland were always the same.

    It still wasn't untarnished though. The economic engine that drove it was slavery, but Navarro was stridently abolitionist too. But anyway Texan independence was a bi-national movement for an independent state, and in direct reaction to the illiberal turn of Mexico's president who was acting like a monarch just as they had pushed out Imperial France and Spain. To the Mexicans that joined the movement, it was anti-imperialist.

    Edit. The point is still the same. The border should be as open as possible to promote economic, social, and cultural exchange and interdependance. We're in a world where you have to make a system work for people to get good work and have a dignified life, and not sell some romance that doesn't match the reality of families' day to day struggle trying not only to get by, but have a good life.

    There's still the problem of the violence in Mexico and parts of it are out of the state's effective control, although recently it's gotten a bit not-as-bad. But still there needs to be some precautions for that. But the first thing the US needs to do there is legalize drugs already and completely obliterate the demand side of its economics overnight and strangle the cartels.
    Last edited by demagogue; 12th Apr 2016 at 17:36.

  13. #238
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Chicago, IL
    Not really. Mexico wanted to attract more people, to increase food production and help defend towns against Indian attacks. In 1824, Mexico enacted the Texas Colonization Law, which allowed foreigners to immigrate into Texas and settle there. Oops.

    This triggered a flood of Germans and other US folks coming in, since land was cheaper in Texas. By 1832, there were more immigrants in Texas than Mexican citizens. These immigrants felt closer to the culture of the USA for whatever reason (ethnically, linguistically, or because Santa Anna was too authoritarian, who knows?).

    In 1836 the immigrants defeated Santa Anna's army and declared independence.

    The lesson should be pretty clear for those of us watching what's happening on our southern border today (or what's happening in Europe, especially Germany and Sweden).



    You said: "The border should be as open as possible to promote economic, social, and cultural exchange and interdependence." No, the border should be closed because we don't really need anything that Mexico has. Any businesses that have relocated jobs to Mexico should be encouraged to come back to the US via tax/tariff/import law.

    You said: "We're in a world where you have to make a system work for people to get good work and have a dignified life." It would be a lot easier for Americans to get good work and have dignified lives if they didn't have to compete with immigrants for jobs (or welfare dollars if they are temporarily down on their luck).

    You said: "There's still the problem of the violence in Mexico and parts of it are out of the state's effective control." I agree. That's why we need a strong border to prevent that violence from spilling over to our communities.
    Last edited by Krush; 12th Apr 2016 at 18:03.

  14. #239
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    The immigrants were an important part of it, but you're saying that as if it were entirely an ethnic divide when Mexicans were also part of the independence movement and get sadly discounted in history as if it were purely a race war instead of a social-political one, and (a bit later) Irish, San Patricios, fought on the Mexican side against the US. History is always a tangled mess of different groups with different interests reacting to different developments with what suits them.

    And if you recall, Texas didn't join the US. It became an independant bi-national state as originally conceived ... until it went bankrupt anyway. It was the Lone Star state, as in the star from the Coahuila y Tejas flag, to keep that part of its identity.
    Last edited by demagogue; 12th Apr 2016 at 18:17.

  15. #240
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Chicago, IL
    Does it matter? The land belonged to Mexico. They let in a bunch of non-Mexicans. The non-Mexicans got ideas of their own and took the land from the Mexicans, once they got strong/numerous enough.

    The fact that some Mexicans (the "liberals" of their day?) helped lose the land isn't all that relevant.

  16. #241
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Well if we're playing this game ... it was largely uninhabited before the immigration, so Mexico "owned" it as an inheritence of Spain which just land-grabbed this huge swath of land by planting a flag and declaring half a continent belonged to them suddenly. Mexico owned it like Europe owned African territories, or I guess any other colonial misadventure.

    If anybody rightfully "owned" it by birthright before the anglos came in, it'd be the Comanche--Comancharia was NAmerica's largest indigenous empire--but even they had themselves took control over it over only the previous 150 years from, if anybody, sporatic smaller nations and the odd Spanish mission. And they were also very diffuse and nomadic over this vast plains, like the old central Asian khanates/Golden Hoarde, and they didn't have a concept of owning land in the same way.
    Last edited by demagogue; 12th Apr 2016 at 18:39.

  17. #242
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Chicago, IL
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    Well if we're playing this game ... it was largely uninhabited before the immigration, so Mexico "owned" it as an inheritence of Spain which just land-grabbed this huge swath of land by planting a flag and declaring half a continent belonged to them suddenly. Mexico owned it like Europe owned African territories, or I guess any other colonial misadventure.

    If anybody rightfully "owned" it by birthright before the anglos came in, it'd be the Comanche.

    It doesn't matter who had a "right" to the land. Mexico staked a claim to it, and killed whatever Comanche or other indigenous people that showed up to contest that claim. Then when they weren't strong enough to keep the land, they lost it in turn.

    My point is that whoever keeps land isn't about "rights" but strength. If Americans aren't strong enough to keep their land, they will lose it (at least portions of it, such as Arizona, California, possibly Texas). Apparently Mexico is the strongest current contender for taking it.

    My second point is: Should Americans be concerned at all by the possibility of "too much immigration" causing portions of the USA to culturally become Mexico Norte - or flat-out secede from the USA? Folks like SD don't seem to be worried at all since Mexicans are just here for "mowing your lawn" as he said. But history tells us that things don't work that way, hence my example of how Mexico lost Texas.

  18. #243
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2002
    Location: Pacific Northwest
    I for one am glad Texas has been so steadfast and passionate in its commitment to stay a part of the Union ever since it (re)joined.

  19. #244
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    I guess in general, though relative to other states succession talk happens a lot more often. Unfortunately it usually gets garbed in political terms, like the US isn't batshit conservative enough Texans want to stake out on their own, except for Austin where it's the reverse, succession to create their own little socialist music utopia.

    Edit: That said, my irony meter is buzzing, so ... yeah. I must be getting soft.

  20. #245
    If nothing else, this thread is illustrative of how powerful the left's marketing and branding are.

    Look at the reactions to Trump. People react by calling him Hitler, making slurs about Americans being racist, xenophobic, etc....every standard name in the big book of political labels.


    I share a video of Bernie Sanders saying Almost the exact same thing, only blaming it on the Koch Brothers and the result is a fairly reasonable and level headed dialogue about immigration policy.

  21. #246
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    The Hitler comparisons, though excessive in my opinion, started after he suggested that all Muslims ought to be registered and tracked. Please post a video of Bernie Sanders saying the exact same thing.

    In summary, your argument is facile and relies and taking two pieces of dialogue, comparing them side by side and declaring that the entire universe the debate exists within.

  22. #247
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Bernie is a run of the mill protectionist. Trump is an outright xenophobe. In terms of economic policy, both would put the USA first before the rest of the world, but that's where the similarity ends.

  23. #248
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    The Hitler comparisons, though excessive in my opinion, started after he suggested that all Muslims ought to be registered and tracked. Please post a video of Bernie Sanders saying the exact same thing.

    In summary, your argument is facile and relies and taking two pieces of dialogue, comparing them side by side and declaring that the entire universe the debate exists within.


    Both that and the following could easily be answered by watching the ENTIRE, uncensored, events instead of just getting your political "facts" from soundbytes.


    Fact is that Trump and Sanders are hitting all of the same notes: both say illegal immigration needs to be stopped because it increases crime and impoverishes American workers, but it's being pushed for by extremely wealthy special interests that make money off of it and want to sacrifice national borders at the altar of globalism



    Pick out a random Trump rally where he's talking about immigration, then watch it alongside the Bernie interview I posted. They won't sound very different.




    There's exactly ONE major difference: the media has branded Trump as a "racist" and a "bigot", and has largely ignored any discussion of Sanders as a person or any discussion of his policies.



    Here's the thing. You all hate Trump because it's a matter of Identity Politics. As far as you're concerned, the people who vote for Trump are ignorant hillbillies......The working class(ugh, gross!) that is beneath you. On the other hand voting for Sanders or Clinton is perfectly acceptable because it means you are a sophisticated, intelligent person.

    Same way that a Rolex works. I don't give a damn what people say. Fucking nobody on the planet owns a Rolex just because they're "nice watches". You can get a much nicer watch than most Rolex models for roughly 1/3rd of the price elsewhere. You're buying them because a Rolex marks you as successful. Same way that nobody uses Beats headphones for their superior sound quality (they use the same shitty drivers that $30 headphones do). People wear them because it shows that you're "hip".





    If you think I'm full of shit, let's chuck the emotion out the window and take a look at something completely objective: Sander's voting record:

    https://www.change.org/p/humanity-st...bia-and-racism

  24. #249
    To expound from the link:

    Consider that Sanders...

    Voted to Protect an Anti-Mexican Terrorist Group (H.Amdt.971 to H.R.5441)

    Denounced the idea of Open Borders letting in "all kinds of people."

    Voted for the racist Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006 (H.R. 4830)

    Voted for the racist Nonimmigrant Reform Act (H.R. 3381)

    Voted for the racist Goodlatte Amendment (H.R. 4437)

    Voted for the racist Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control act. (H.R. 4437)

    Voted for the racist 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act ( H.R. 3355)

    Voted for racist educational policy of No Child Left Behind (H.R. 1)

    Supports racist educational policy of Common Core

    Voted for the genocidal 90s sanctions against the primarily Muslim Iraqi population. Voted for every bombing against the primarily Muslim Iraqi population in the 90s. (HR 4655)

    Voted in support of the U.S. war on the primarily Islamic population of Afghanistan

    Voted for the continued funding for the U.S. Occupation of the Islamic Population of Iraq (2006, 2007, 2008, and 2011)

    Has Issued Numerous Statements in Support of Israel/U.S. ethnic cleansing of the predominantly Islamic population of Palestine.

    Voted in support of Israel/U.S. war on the population of predominantly Muslim population of Lebanon. (H.Res.921)

    Voted to place Sanctions on Iran (HR 282)

    He voted to support Clinton War on the predominantly Muslim populations of Kosovo. (S.Con.Res. 21 (106th))

    Doesn’t support the Democratic rights of the Muslim populations of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait. Actually calls for these totalitarian governments to take a more active role in the Middle East.

    Supports Obama’s drone war on Muslim populations.

    It’s fun for the political media and Sanders' campaign to act like Bernie cares deeply about issues of xenophobia and racism. But the truth is his language and actions are dangerous, especially as it empowers his supporters and the U.S. government to act out against Muslims, Latinos and African-Americans.

  25. #250
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Ok, so straw men, completely ignoring what I actually said then. Great.
    Again, and read this slowly as I know it hurts you to concentrate, the REASON Trump was compared to Hitler, was that he SPECIFICALLY said that Muslims in the US should be registered and tracked, which some people think can be compared to what Hitler imposed on Jews and other minorities in Germany.

    Almost everything else you are saying is wild, incoherent tilting at windmills and assuming that because you heard one or more people you have designated as The Left saying these things, then that means that everyone who has any modicum of support for Sanders or disdain for Trump are somehow fungible. Do you maybe think that if before you hit "Post reply", you counted to ten and did some breathing exercises, then maybe you might be able to get close to something resembling dialectic discussion? Or does that just not feel as gratifying as doing the "Here's the problem with you lefties" rant?

Page 10 of 429 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415202530354045505560110260 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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