U.S.A. 2016 General Election

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Sanders is about to lose the nomination. I'm a bit torn about this. On one hand I want to see him challenge the system and put up a fight against Hillary, but on the other I feel like he's being a sore loser. Hillary has him beat by almost every metric, even without the super-delegates. Sanders has been in congress for many years, but only in this campaign did he choose to challenge the idea of super-delegates. Would he really be complaining about them if he was winning? I don't think so.

[Larks2242 251]

We are really seeing a truly historic moment guys, The first time ever a major candidate with a pending federal indictment has cliched their parties nomination, Congrats Hillary, Just waiting  for the party at FBI headquarters to celebrate this milestone in American politics.

[Sabretooth78 808]

As much as we both would loooooovvvveee to see that, you know it's not going to happen.  Every so often there is one who is made an example of; I just don't think it's going to be her.  Starting with the fact that she's a she.

Besides, it's common knowledge by now that politicians (and by implicit extension, the super-wealthy) are above the law anyway.  If that were you; yes, you'd be serving 10 consecutive life sentences right now.

I'm still waiting for that indictment of Buffalo mayor Byron Brown we've been hearing about for at least 5 years now.  For crying out loud, the FBI office is right across the street from City Hall!  A one way street, no less; you don't even have to look both ways!

[Larks2242 251]

Well it took Kawame Killpatrick murder for him to finally get investigated and charged and that is Detroit where murder and crime are a way of life.
 

They have been juggling mayors since then.

[Larks2242 251]

Less then 24 hours and Hillary already hinting of going to war.

[Easy Bakes 253]

So we are once again able to choose the lesser of 2 evils

 

 

[Sabretooth78 808]

It's going to be Term 5 of the post-9/11 GWO presidency either way.  I don't understand why this surprises anyone.  We haven't started a major war in some 13 years now (sure, we've been keeping ourselves busy in the interim) so it's time to light a few more fireworks.  The MIC must be restless.  To channel some more George Carlin (circa 1990/Gulf War I), "This country is only 200 years old and already we have had 10 major wars. We average a major war every 20 years in this country, so we are good at it!"  (I'll stop quoting him when he stops being right.)

Yes, we will continue waging physical war on an ideology.  Sooner or later, we'll win one!  /facepalm

When Andy Cuomo wins the democrat nod in 2020 or 2024 - assuming we still have a functioning federal government (we should) and depending on Hillary's performance; his own criminal investigations notwithstanding - maybe his (or whoever runs) slogan ought to be "trust the odds".  Given the length of campaign cycles, we'll probably start hearing about it sometime late next year.

[krbe 193]

13 hours ago, Larks2242 said:

Less then 24 hours and Hillary already hinting of going to war.

Are you suggesting that Israeli just bend over backwards when they get attacked? Is 'Glory to <Insert Name Here>' the Republican choice for a new national anthem?

[Larks2242 251]

26 minutes ago, krbe said:

Are you suggesting that Israeli just bend over backwards when they get attacked? Is 'Glory to <Insert Name Here>' the Republican choice for a new national anthem?

Trump has basically already stated Israel is on it's own if he is president, One of the few things I find in agreement with him, It's high time we cut the cord.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

5 hours ago, Larks2242 said:

Trump has basically already stated Israel is on it's own if he is president, One of the few things I find in agreement with him, It's high time we cut the cord.

He's kinda flip flopped on that. But the mere fact that he would suggest such a thing when no other would dare shows he has some backbone and the ability to think outside the box.

Say what you want about how self-involved Trump may be, the guy genuinely seems to love America and the idea of America as a sovereign nation. Hillary is an internationalist; she'll sell off the country piece by piece. If anything, Hillary's campaign is all about her - she's the real narcissist here. "I'm with her", that's the slogan. It isn't about the country and the people. As trite as campaign slogans are, at least Trump's is a clear mission statement: "Make America Great Again". Hillary wants to maintain the status-quo, Trump wants to shake things up.

Will thing turn out for the better with Trump? Can't say for sure. It is certainly a risk, but maybe fortune favors the bold, as they say. Or we could end up in the totalitarian nightmare every liberal thinks a right wing president will be (despite the fact that Sanders supporters, BLM activists, and social justice millennials have shown themselves to be the true brown-shirts of this era).

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

13 hours ago, Easy Bakes said:

So we are once again able to choose the lesser of 2 evils

At least Trump is real. Sure, he's flawed. He has no filter and says what's on his mind. He's over the top and can be antagonistic or mean, but it's real. Hillary is totally manufactured. She's an avatar of evil; a puppet animated by who can pay her the most money. She doesn't think for herself, she just spews talking points that have been fed in to her.

If I were American I'd be tempted to vote for Trump just to watch progressives have a total meltdown, run riot, burn down their own communities, commit suicide, while simultaneously blaming everything they do on Trump.

[blade2k5 1,523]

On 5/6/2016 at 1:32 PM, A Nonny Moose said:

 

 

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

He's kinda flip flopped on that. But the mere fact that he would suggest such a thing when no other would dare shows he has some backbone and they ability to think outside the box.

Say what you want about how self-involved Trump may be, the guy genuinely seems to love America and the idea of America as a sovereign nation. Hillary is an internationalist; she'll sell off the country piece by piece. If anything, Hillary's campaign is all about her - she's the real narcissist here. "I'm with her", that's the slogan. It isn't about the country and the people. As trite as campaign slogans are, at least Trump's is a clear mission statement: "Make America Great Again". Hillary wants to maintain the status-quo, Trump wants to shake things up.

Will thing turn out for the better with Trump? Can't say for sure. It is certainly a risk, but maybe fortune favors the bold, as they say. Or we could end up in the totalitarian nightmare every liberal thinks a right wing president will be (despite the fact that Sanders supporters, BLM activists, and social justice millennials have shown themselves to be the true brown-shirts of this era).

Same way I look at it.

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

At least Trump is real. Sure, he's flawed. He has no filter and says what's on his mind. He's over the top and can be antagonistic or mean, but it's real. Hillary is totally manufactured. She's an avatar of evil; a puppet animated by who can pay her the most money. She doesn't think for herself, she just spews talking points that have been fed in to her.

If I were American I'd be tempted to vote for Trump just to watch progressives have a total meltdown, run riot, burn down their own communities, commit suicide, while simultaneously blaming everything they do on Trump.

That about sums Hillary up.  A puppet.

Let 'em.  I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it.

 

[krbe 193]

17 hours ago, Larks2242 said:

Trump has basically already stated Israel is on it's own if he is president, One of the few things I find in agreement with him, It's high time we cut the cord.

That would indeed be good; as well as letting all the other regimes in the region go.

[Sabretooth78 808]

They're big boys; they can stand on their own.  After 60 years they ought to be able to.  More than we can say for Iraq.

Maybe we can stop kissing the ground the Saudis walk on as well.  Yeah, not gonna happen, gotta be realistic, I know.

[LexusInfernus 908]

On 9-6-2016 at 4:36 PM, MilitantRadical said:

(despite the fact that Sanders supporters, BLM activists, and social justice millennials have shown themselves to be the true brown-shirts of this era).

Way to go with the overgeneralizations. Surely those millions of people are all freedom hating Nazis who are just racist against white people. 

The billionaire who wants to build a wall to keep foreigners out and start a trade war with the rest of the world, who pretends to be just like all us normal people while also bragging about how rich he is, thats just a morally upstanding citizen, nothing wrong there. But ewww, Hillary, shes such a fake, she can change her mind and everyone knows that the only correct way to think is to have a dogmatic view on every issue. 

The people that claim Hillary is a fake while simultanously claim that Trump is 'real' and 'authentic' suffer from unbelievable amounts of cognitive dissonance. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/many-residents-along-border-support-trump-s-wall-699742787881

 

Hispanic citizens living near the border overwhelmingly support a wall.

This baffled the progressively biased station more than the progressive liberal reporter.

One of the most reasonable explanations is that legal immigrants who went through the proper channels to move here and become citizens feel ripped off that they have to compete with those who snuck in without going through the red tape.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Way to go with the overgeneralizations. Surely those millions of people are all freedom hating Nazis who are just racist against white people.

Yup, every single one of them.

Of course it's a generalization. Those people only represent a small portion of Sander's supporter, but come on. If it were reversed and these were Trump supporters it would be Hitler confirmed.

Point is, a segment of Sanders supporters, whether guided by Soros linked orgs or not, showed us the dark and dumb side of the progressive left.

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

The billionaire who wants to build a wall to keep foreigners out

A wall to keep out illegal immigrants. Illegal.

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

start a trade war with the rest of the world

Negotiate better trade deals.

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

 Hillary, shes such a fake, she can change her mind and everyone knows that the only correct way to think is to have a dogmatic view on every issue.

Changing your mind doesn't make you a fake. Being a fake makes you a fake, and Hillary is one. And gimme a break, just take the gay marriage thing for example. It's clear she either doesn't have a backbone and can't stand up for her principles or she will merely say anything for political expediency.

Like I said, everything she does is totally scripted and planned for her. She's a puppet. She takes marching orders from the people who pay her. She is the epitome of oligarchy in America.

She hasn't even done a press conference in 2016. All her media appearances have to be carefully planned with sympathetic and friendly reporters. She has to have the entire deck rigged in her favor just so she can win. Whereas Trump handles the media like a master all on his own.

Just look at how Trump totally dominates this room full of reporters. Like him or not, you have to admit he has skill and he doesn't pull punches where others would for fear of alienating the press. Does he weave around the truth? Yes. Does he try to spin things in his favor? Yes. But is the person we see in front of us the "authentic Trump"? I dare say it is.  We have example after example of Trump being himself and getting into trouble for it with the media. Calling Rosie O'Donnell a pig. Suggesting that there are drug dealers and rapists coming illegally across the US/Mexico border.

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

The people that claim Hillary is a fake while simultanously claim that Trump is 'real' and 'authentic' suffer from unbelievable amounts of cognitive dissonance. 

Elaborate. What about Trump is fake (except maybe his hair)? How is he as fake as Hillary?

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

2 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

The most reasonable explanation is that legal immigrants who went through the proper channels to move here and become citizens feel ripped off that they have to compete with those who snuck in without going through the red tape.

Lets not forget the crime and drugs.

[Delta 88 262]

On 6/9/2016 at 7:43 AM, MilitantRadical said:

At least Trump is real. Sure, he's flawed. He has no filter and says what's on his mind. He's over the top and can be antagonistic or mean, but it's real. Hillary is totally manufactured. She's an avatar of evil; a puppet animated by who can pay her the most money. She doesn't think for herself, she just spews talking points that have been fed in to her.

If I were American I'd be tempted to vote for Trump just to watch progressives have a total meltdown, run riot, burn down their own communities, commit suicide, while simultaneously blaming everything they do on Trump.

Reminds me of what the conservatives were whining about in 2008/09 when Obama was elected. How they'd move out of the country, it'd be the worst thing in the world, etc. Now the liberals are doing the same with Trump and they don't even know it. But yes, I agree - Trump is at least the most interesting of them all. 

5 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Way to go with the overgeneralizations. Surely those millions of people are all freedom hating Nazis who are just racist against white people. 

The billionaire who wants to build a wall to keep foreigners out and start a trade war with the rest of the world, who pretends to be just like all us normal people while also bragging about how rich he is, thats just a morally upstanding citizen, nothing wrong there. But ewww, Hillary, shes such a fake, she can change her mind and everyone knows that the only correct way to think is to have a dogmatic view on every issue. 

The people that claim Hillary is a fake while simultanously claim that Trump is 'real' and 'authentic' suffer from unbelievable amounts of cognitive dissonance. 

Haven't seen you in a while, welcome back.

I wont' retread MilitantRadical's words since I mostly agree with his response to your post, although I will add that Trump is only slightly more authentic than Hilary. A bumbling buffoon, yes, but I'd almost choose him over the fact that Americans are desperate to have a first woman president just for the sake of it. 

2 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Yup, every single one of them.

Of course it's a generalization. Those people only represent a small portion of Sander's supporter, but come on. If it were reversed and these were Trump supporters it would be Hitler confirmed.

Point is, a segment of Sanders supporters, whether guided by Soros linked orgs or not, showed us the dark and dumb side of the progressive left.

There's a joke going around calling the progressive left, the "regressive left". It fits.  I'm so glad there's massive backlash against them right now. Granted, even both the democrats and republicans seem to be divided on their own candidates right now.

2 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Lets not forget the crime and drugs.

What's wrong with a little crime and drugs?  If I had to choose between increased crime & drug traffic, or squeaky-clean gentrified yuppie neighborhoods - I'd go with the crime & drugs simply because it's far more interesting and real. Not to mention I could probably at least afford the rent there.

[metarvo 711]

9 minutes ago, Delta 88 said:

Reminds me of what the conservatives were whining about in 2008/09 when Obama was elected. How they'd move out of the country, it'd be the worst thing in the world, etc. Now the liberals are doing the same with Trump and they don't even know it. But yes, I agree - Trump is at least the most interesting of them all. 

I don't believe for a second that too many of the people threatening to leave actually will, though.  I don't seem to recall hearing about many people leaving in '08, either.  I think they say this stuff every four years, to be honest.

[LexusInfernus 908]

2 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Yup, every single one of them.

Of course it's a generalization. Those people only represent a small portion of Sander's supporter, but come on. If it were reversed and these were Trump supporters it would be Hitler confirmed.

Well thing is it are Trump supporters as well. Though no one needs to point that out to make Trump look like a bigoted demagogue, you can just point to his own speeches. 

2 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Point is, a segment of Sanders supporters, whether guided by Soros linked orgs or not, showed us the dark and dumb side of the progressive left.

 The same literally applies to Trump supporters as well (and I expect it comes from a much larger segment of his supporters as well). But Trump gets a pass on it, why? Because Sanders supporters are so evil? Well, why don't they get a pass because Trump supporters are no better?  

2 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

A wall to keep out illegal immigrants. Illegal.

So basically the Soviets were completely in their right to build the iron curtain in Eastern Europe, because their aim was to stop 'illegal migration' by building a wall? 

Just because you claim your goal is to stop someone from breaking the law doesn't mean you are cleared to pursue that goal with all means necessary, and certainly not with all means unnecessary. Walls are stupid ideas and they become even more stupid when you start claiming its actually gonna 'secure' the border and the other guy is gonna pay for it. 

2 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Negotiate better trade deals.

See, I don't think Trump understands how trade works. It works when both sides benefit. Otherwise, whats the point of trading if it means you are essentially giving stuff away. Current trade deals already heavily favor American business, meaning as a rule, America benefits significantly more from any trading deals than any of their trading partners. Yet somehow that isnt good enough, and under Trumps 'vision' a trading deal with America essentially boils down to people giving America stuff for free. Obviously, any trading partner is just gonna ignore such deals and if that means that Trump is gonna raise trade barriers (which is both illegal and stupid) its probably gonna hurt the American economy more than anyone else. Although of course the whole world will suffer. 

As for his argument that trade with say China only benefits China, just shows that Trump really doesn't understand how trade works or why his economic policies are idiotic. 

2 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Changing your mind doesn't make you a fake. Being a fake makes you a fake, and Hillary is one. And gimme a break, just take the gay marriage thing for example. It's clear she either doesn't have a backbone and can't stand up for her principles or she will merely say anything for political expediency.

Hillary is a fake because she is a fake. Yeah thats solid reasoning. 

Of course she does. Shes a politician, politicians do that. And you are holding Hillary's convinient stances against her, but why aren't you applying that same scrutiny to Trump? You know he was good friends with the Clintons right? Supports a lot of the same things, right up until it doesn't sit well with the conservatives hes trying to woo. And really, coming up with unrealistic nonsense like a ban on Muslim immigrants, a wall that Mexico will pay for and will only cost 6 billion dollars and trade wars with the rest of the world? You really haven't figured out that its all just an act? That, or he really is the dumbest guy on the planet running for president. 

2 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Like I said, everything she does is totally scripted and planned for her. She's a puppet. She takes marching orders from the people who pay her. She is the epitome of oligarchy in America.

And Trump isn't? If we believe his boasts, hes one of the richest guys in the US, it literally makes him one of the oligarchs. 

2 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

She hasn't even done a press conference in 2016. All her media appearances have to be carefully planned with sympathetic and friendly reporters. She has to have the entire deck rigged in her favor just so she can win. Whereas Trump handles the media like a master all on his own.

Just look at how Trump totally dominates this room full of reporters. Like him or not, you have to admit he has skill and he doesn't pull punches where others would for fear of alienating the press. Does he weave around the truth? Yes. Does he try to spin things in his favor? Yes. But is the person we see in front of us the "authentic Trump"? I dare say it is.  We have example after example of Trump being himself and getting into trouble for it with the media. Calling Rosie O'Donnell a pig. Suggesting that there are drug dealers and rapists coming illegally across the US/Mexico border.

I'm Dutch, we had our Trump make his entrance into our national politics over a decade ago. Trust me when I say that nothing about these populists is authentic, its all just an act to get people to vote for them. Can they handle the media like pros? Totally, its why they are successful populists, they know how to get their message across. But being savvy with the media by appearing authentic doesn't actually make them authentic. 

2 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Elaborate. What about Trump is fake (except maybe his hair)? How is he as fake as Hillary?

Like I said, hes a populists, nothing about them is authentic. Its just an image, a personae that they create to appear that way and appeal to voters. 

I mean seriously, he is pretending that he will build a wall, make other people pay for said wall and that will somehow stop illegal immigration. That he can somehow stop all Muslims from entering the country. That America's economic woes will be over if he starts a trade war with the rest of the world? That he is in fact one of the most successful businessmen of his generation. Those are bold faced lies in the same way that claiming you can suspend gravity by just blinking with your eyes is a bold faced lie. And liars are by definition fakes. 

[krbe 193]

On 11/06/2016 at 0:22 AM, LexusInfernus said:

Just because you claim your goal is to stop someone from breaking the law doesn't mean you are cleared to pursue that goal with all means necessary, and certainly not with all means unnecessary. Walls are stupid ideas and they become even more stupid when you start claiming its actually gonna 'secure' the border and the other guy is gonna pay for it. 

Problem: Border leaks as sieve, and the border police can only manage get a fraction of illegal entrants. Solution: Wall will stop 99% of current illegal entrants over route wall covers. That is rather efficient and better than believing that the border police will manage illegal entry. Why is this a stupid idea? Remember that the primary idea behind a wall is to demarcate what is on either side, and NOT who pays for it. That being said, shady account practices or inventive policies will most certainly 'make Mexico pay for it' -- e.g. earmarking tariffs collected from Mexico or ESTA fees collected from Mexicans -- without Mexico paying for it, and everybody's happy.

On 11/06/2016 at 0:22 AM, LexusInfernus said:

If we believe his boasts, hes one of the richest guys in the US, it literally makes him one of the oligarchs. 

And if you believe facts? The guy has some wealth; nobody, least of all Mr Trump himself, knows how much; and his debt isn't transparent either. But sure, buy into Mr Trump's fantasies and believe that he is a rich guy.

On 10/06/2016 at 7:08 PM, OcramsRzr said:

One of the most reasonable explanations is that legal immigrants who went through the proper channels to move here and become citizens feel ripped off that they have to compete with those who snuck in without going through the red tape.

Don't underestimate the rhetoric. Some of the rhetoric is obviously racist and would have been there even without illegal immigration; most would not have been there without illegal immigration. That is a major problem for all immigrants who go through the system rather than exploiting it or skipping it entirely.

[LexusInfernus 908]

2 hours ago, krbe said:

Problem: Border leaks as sieve, and the border police can only manage get a fraction of illegal entrants. Solution: Wall will stop 99% of current illegal entrants over route wall covers. That is rather efficient and better than believing that the border police will manage illegal entry. Why is this a stupid idea? Remember that the primary idea behind a wall is to demarcate what is on either side, and NOT who pays for it. That being said, shady account practices or inventive policies will most certainly 'make Mexico pay for it' -- e.g. earmarking tariffs collected from Mexico or ESTA fees collected from Mexicans -- without Mexico paying for it, and everybody's happy.

You build a 9 meter high wall, I'll bring a 10 meter high ladder. If people are willing to risk their lives by getting into shoddy little boats packed to overcapacity to cross a sea into Europe, what exactly makes you think that people that really want to, won't find a way over, under or around that wall? All the evidence we have, literally all of it, suggests that these types of measures to 'secure' the border don't do anything and only cost a lot of money. This is literally a waste of money. 

2 hours ago, krbe said:

And if you believe facts? The guy has some wealth; nobody, least of all Mr Trump himself, knows how much; and his debt isn't transparent either. But sure, buy into Mr Trump's fantasies and believe that he is a rich guy.

He was at least rich enough to finance his own campaign. That makes him rich enough to be an oligarch. Whether he actually put himself in massive debt, maybe, I don't know, but the suggestion that Trump is somehow not part of the countries top elite is ridiculous. A vote for him is not a vote for an outsider. 

 

[Larks2242 251]

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

 That makes him rich enough to be an oligarch. Whether he actually put himself in massive debt, maybe, I don't know, but the suggestion that Trump is somehow not part of the countries top elite is ridiculous. A vote for him is not a vote for an outsider. 

 

In  a  way though  it is, He has  enough money to not be influenced by the insiders, Isn't that what being an outsider is all about, Having so much money that you don't need to pander for money, Is that not what everyone wanted?

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

On 2016-06-10 at 6:22 PM, LexusInfernus said:

Well thing is it are Trump supporters as well. Though no one needs to point that out to make Trump look like a bigoted demagogue, you can just point to his own speeches. 

 The same literally applies to Trump supporters as well (and I expect it comes from a much larger segment of his supporters as well). But Trump gets a pass on it, why? Because Sanders supporters are so evil? Well, why don't they get a pass because Trump supporters are no better? 

Huh? Trump supporters aren't going around trying to shut down rallies and attacking people. The only attacks that happened from Trump supporters was when Sanders agitators came to mess with them.

On 2016-06-10 at 6:22 PM, LexusInfernus said:

So basically the Soviets were completely in their right to build the iron curtain in Eastern Europe, because their aim was to stop 'illegal migration' by building a wall?

Iron curtain ≠ Trump Wall. There is no great ideological or military conflict between US and Mexico like there was with the USSR and western Europe. Few people in western Europe wanted to illegally migrate to Eastern Europe. There is no equivalence here.

Not saying the wall is a perfect idea. I have my reservations, but lets get the facts straight at least. You said it was to keep out foreigners, but that isn't accurate. You forgot about the "big beautiful door" he wants the wall to have so that they can come in - legally. Also, it's not like the wall shuts down the normal border crossings. Citizens are still free to cross at the checkpoints that already exist provided they have a passport that checks out.

Besides, you don't even think he will build it, so why are you worried?

On 2016-06-10 at 6:22 PM, LexusInfernus said:

See, I don't think Trump understands how trade works.

The guy is a successful international businessman, he can't be clueless on the matter. I dare say Trump knows more about trade and international finance than you or I. Do you own a business? Have you run a business? Do you trade? Do you follow markets on a daily basis? Do you invest in real estate? Do you own real estate? Have you had meetings with world leaders and politicians? You could argue that this is in the business world, but still Trump has to be aware of the laws and regulations as well as the details of trade deals - at least a cursory understanding. You're not giving him enough credit here. 

On 2016-06-10 at 6:22 PM, LexusInfernus said:

Hillary is a fake because she is a fake. Yeah thats solid reasoning.

Wasn't meant to be an argument. You know she's a fake, so why are you even trying to debate it?

On 2016-06-10 at 6:22 PM, LexusInfernus said:

You know he was good friends with the Clintons right?

So what exactly does it mean if they were? Can you not have fundamental political disagreements with people you get along with personally? (I admit something about this friendship makes me uneasy)

On 2016-06-10 at 6:22 PM, LexusInfernus said:

Supports a lot of the same things, right up until it doesn't sit well with the conservatives hes trying to woo.

Typical Lex, says "a lot of", doesn't mention one.

On 2016-06-10 at 6:22 PM, LexusInfernus said:

You really haven't figured out that its all just an act?

Yes, I see that he has a public persona. He knows how to put on a show. What I mean by "authentic" is that he isn't scripted and that for better or worse, he's the head brain of his campaign. He's his own man in that respect. I do not get the same vibe from Hillary. While she is indeed the queen bee, it's the workers who make the honey. She has great skills as an orator, but only when reading from a teleprompter.

Listening to Hillary talk is like reading a plagiarized A+ paper, Trump is like a B- or C+ (F as you see it) but at least you know it's the student's own words.

On 2016-06-10 at 6:22 PM, LexusInfernus said:

That, or he really is the dumbest guy on the planet running for president.

It's dangerous to think he's stupid. Come on, give him a little more credit than that. I'm telling you, if there's one reason Trump has been winning it's because people keep underestimating him.

On 2016-06-10 at 6:22 PM, LexusInfernus said:

And Trump isn't? If we believe his boasts, hes one of the richest guys in the US, it literally makes him one of the oligarchs. 

He boasts he's worth around 10 Billion, that doesn't even put him in the top 29. Being rich doesn't defacto make you an oligarch. The Clintons have walked the corridors of power for decades. The whole foundation of Hillary's career is based on her marriage to a guy who became president. She was appointed Secretary of State to put a checkbox on her resume on the path to the Presidency.

The elite hate Donald Trump, they have nothing but contempt for him. He's not part of the inner circles of power. Having a mere 10 billion doesn't get your foot in the door to that club. Most of the people at the top of the "rich list" are anti-Trump and pro-Clinton. Clinton has Google censoring search results for her. Google!

On 2016-06-10 at 6:22 PM, LexusInfernus said:

Like I said, hes a populists, nothing about them is authentic. Its just an image, a personae that they create to appear that way and appeal to voters.

Your logic: All populists are fakes, Trump is a populist, therefore he is a fake.

So Bernie Sanders is just a total fake then?

On 2016-06-10 at 6:22 PM, LexusInfernus said:

I mean seriously, he is pretending that he will build a wall, make other people pay for said wall and that will somehow stop illegal immigration. That he can somehow stop all Muslims from entering the country.

He's "pretending he will build a wall"... more mind reading?

Of course the wall can't stop illegal immigration entirely.

Did he say he's going to manage to stop every single muslim from entering the country? Like some magic Muslim force-field? No, he just said a temporary migration ban until they can enhance the screening process. A migration ban, not a travel ban. So Muslims would still be able to enter the country.

All you have are assertions that he can't do this or won't do that.

On 2016-06-10 at 6:22 PM, LexusInfernus said:

That he is in fact one of the most successful businessmen of his generation.

On one hand he's part of the oligarchy because he's rich, but it's a lie when he says he's one of the most successful businessmen?

He's no Buffet, but he certainly has been successful. That's undeniable.

On 2016-06-10 at 5:48 PM, Delta 88 said:

There's a joke going around calling the progressive left, the "regressive left". It fits.  I'm so glad there's massive backlash against them right now. Granted, even both the democrats and republicans seem to be divided on their own candidates right now.

Hah, yes I'm familiar with the term.

On 2016-06-10 at 5:48 PM, Delta 88 said:

What's wrong with a little crime and drugs?

I'll take the drugs, but as a Canadian that's easy to say because the organized crime behind these things is nowhere near as brutal. On the US/Mexico border it can be pretty hard core. Besides, it's all cocaine and heroine. Those are the bad drugs. All the best ones can be produced and distributed locally by middle class hipsters trying to make a little money on the side.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

13 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

You build a 9 meter high wall, I'll bring a 10 meter high ladder. If people are willing to risk their lives by getting into shoddy little boats packed to overcapacity to cross a sea into Europe, what exactly makes you think that people that really want to, won't find a way over, under or around that wall? All the evidence we have, literally all of it, suggests that these types of measures to 'secure' the border don't do anything and only cost a lot of money. This is literally a waste of money. 

He was at least rich enough to finance his own campaign. That makes him rich enough to be an oligarch. Whether he actually put himself in massive debt, maybe, I don't know, but the suggestion that Trump is somehow not part of the countries top elite is ridiculous. A vote for him is not a vote for an outsider. 

1. I'm still not sure if you are ignorant of how immigration works or just incredibly biased... Legal immigration reform could increase the qualified workers entering our borders without the influx of crime. A wall with cheap & durable cameras can give border control more time to deal with those with illegal immigrants using said ladders.

Some European politicians care more about rescuing undocumented immigrants than taking care of their own constituents and remaining solvent. Allowing boats to capsize and their undocumented passengers to drown is better for an economy facing austerity measures and high unemployment. Returning children to their families in Latin America is the best solution to the humanitarian crisis caused by human traffickers (but spun by biased soft news gossips to seem like it is caused by border control). A ton of anger aimed at immigration is misplaced from anger the corrupt governments deserve.

2. The D'ump is a greedy businessman but a political outsider. Though he is guilty of fraud and theft if prosecuted, his lawyers and PR team have weaseled him out of a ton of sticky situations (one charge was dropped because he managed to drag the system long enough that his defense used a statute of limitations). Hilary RC is no longer guilty of obstruction of justice but she is too powerful to be prosecuted for leaking government documents (she should spend 15 years behind bars for her email scandal alone if Benghazi can be proven to be at all linked, 10 years if deaths cannot be pinned on email hacking).

[LexusInfernus 908]

20 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Huh? Trump supporters aren't going around trying to shut down rallies and attacking people. The only attacks that happened from Trump supporters was when Sanders agitators came to mess with them.

You mean they misbehaved once their little echoing chamber was disrupted by outside views not in compliance with their own views. Those agitators were just people holding signs and that somehow turned violent. Sure, you might argue that those protesters provoked the Trump crowd a little, but to then shift all the blame to them? Trump supporters are responsible for their own actions, and if thats how they react to seeing people who disagree with them, they really aren't any better than the Bernie crowd you're railing against. 

20 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Iron curtain ≠ Trump Wall. There is no great ideological or military conflict between US and Mexico like there was with the USSR and western Europe. Few people in western Europe wanted to illegally migrate to Eastern Europe. There is no equivalence here.

Not saying the wall is a perfect idea. I have my reservations, but lets get the facts straight at least. You said it was to keep out foreigners, but that isn't accurate. You forgot about the "big beautiful door" he wants the wall to have so that they can come in - legally. Also, it's not like the wall shuts down the normal border crossings. Citizens are still free to cross at the checkpoints that already exist provided they have a passport that checks out.

Besides, you don't even think he will build it, so why are you worried?

But plenty of people wanted to migrate from the East to the West. The Iron Curtain wasn't to keep people out, it was to keep people in. It literally took armies, mine fields, a shoot on sight policy, the full resources of a totalitarian state against its own people and a very long wall to make it sorta work. And make no mistake, we are talking about a situation where the people building the wall had EVERY advantage to make it as successful as possible. No rule of law to worry about, no humanitarian qualms with keeping population locked up, with building mine fields to keep people in, a totalitarian state's ruthless and rather effective security apparatus aimed at finding people who might be thinking of escaping, unceasing propaganda extolling the virtues of Communism while painting the West as a villainous hell hole. And that wall failed utterly. It broke down, and before that there were still plenty of people who managed to bypass the wall in one way or another. And the United States has none of those advantages when it builds its wall. 

And come on, that big beautiful door will remain shut and locked down just like the current door is shut and locked down. Why do you think people cross the border illegally? Because they like paying human traffickers all their money to make a deadly trip through a desert? Don't you think all those illegal immigrants wouldn't rather be legal immigrants? Of course they want to be, but they can't, because the legal routes are slow and likely to deny them entry. 

And I'm worried because there are plenty of people who think he will build that wall. On top of that, the rhetoric that underpins the whole wall argument is one that I find deeply troubling. 

20 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

The guy is a successful international businessman, he can't be clueless on the matter. I dare say Trump knows more about trade and international finance than you or I. Do you own a business? Have you run a business? Do you trade? Do you follow markets on a daily basis? Do you invest in real estate? Do you own real estate? Have you had meetings with world leaders and politicians? You could argue that this is in the business world, but still Trump has to be aware of the laws and regulations as well as the details of trade deals - at least a cursory understanding. You're not giving him enough credit here. 

Says who? Says Trump. What do the facts say? Well, all his business ventures have either failed completely, or have just been a mediocre success. The guy is a businessman, sure, and he knows how to sell himself as successful. But is he? Someone who had to file for bankruptcy four times is not successful, someone who argued it was a great idea to go into the subprime mortage market months before the financial disaster of 2007 is not someone who is a successful businessman. The guy who put his face on several scams (Trump university being the most famous one) is not a good businessman. 

Finally, being a businessman and understanding international trade are two entirely unrelated things. International trade involves politics, it involves a thorough understanding of macro economics, of how the global economic system operates. Being a businessman involves micro economics. There is of course some overlap, but to argue that being a good businessman means he has to be good at international trade is just factually wrong. 

20 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Wasn't meant to be an argument. You know she's a fake, so why are you even trying to debate it?

Because this reeks like a double standard. Clinton is a fake because she is a fake, but Trump isn't because reasons. Fact is they are both fakes and people would recognize that if they weren't invested in either one of the candidates. 

20 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

So what exactly does it mean if they were? Can you not have fundamental political disagreements with people you get along with personally? (I admit something about this friendship makes me uneasy)

Sure, you can have major political disagreements with friends. Thing is that before he ran for president, they didn't have those disagreements. http://europe.newsweek.com/history-donald-trump-bill-clinton-friendship-464360?rm=eu

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/06/five-times-donald-trump-changed-his-position-on-a-really-big-issue/

20 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Typical Lex, says "a lot of", doesn't mention one.

Well, the previous link mentions five big ones. That enough for you?

20 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Yes, I see that he has a public persona. He knows how to put on a show. What I mean by "authentic" is that he isn't scripted and that for better or worse, he's the head brain of his campaign. He's his own man in that respect. I do not get the same vibe from Hillary. While she is indeed the queen bee, it's the workers who make the honey. She has great skills as an orator, but only when reading from a teleprompter.

Ehm, you do realize that this strategy is set up by his campaign manager (the one that punched that Breitbart reporter). Its as calculated as Clinton's performances, and the calculation has always been that Trump best appeals if he APPEARS to be talking out of his head because that responds well with the voter group is going after. But just because he appears like that on tv and during rallies doesn't mean he isn't prepped, that this isn't carefully measured so he and his team can distill whatever his supporters respond more strongly too, so he can ignore all the stuff they don't care about. 

20 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Listening to Hillary talk is like reading a plagiarized A+ paper, Trump is like a B- or C+ (F as you see it) but at least you know it's the student's own words.

Well like I said, he prepares just as much as Hillary does. Hes just better at pretending he didn't. Hes more like the student who always pretends he never did his homework because hes to edgy and cool to care about it, but who secretly studies really hard so he still passes all the tests, if just barely. 

20 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

He boasts he's worth around 10 Billion, that doesn't even put him in the top 29. Being rich doesn't defacto make you an oligarch. The Clintons have walked the corridors of power for decades. The whole foundation of Hillary's career is based on her marriage to a guy who became president. She was appointed Secretary of State to put a checkbox on her resume on the path to the Presidency. 

The elite hate Donald Trump, they have nothing but contempt for him. He's not part of the inner circles of power. Having a mere 10 billion doesn't get your foot in the door to that club. Most of the people at the top of the "rich list" are anti-Trump and pro-Clinton. Clinton has Google censoring search results for her. Google!

Well first of all, Trump probably has a lot more money than the Clintons have. And second, yeah if you are a rich guy going into politics by paying for your own campaign, you are pretty much an oligarch. You at least follow the same route the Russian oligarchs do. And its not that hard to ask Google to censor search results. In Europe its even one of our fundamental rights (the right to be forgotten). 

20 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Your logic: All populists are fakes, Trump is a populist, therefore he is a fake.

So Bernie Sanders is just a total fake then?

Yes, Sanders is a fake. And yes, all populists are fakes.  

20 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

He's "pretending he will build a wall"... more mind reading?

Well again, that wall would require an obscene amount of money, first to build, then to maintain. Its practically impossible to actually build. And sure, I don't think Trump is entirely stupid, I think he knows building a wall is never gonna happen in real life. 

20 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Did he say he's going to manage to stop every single muslim from entering the country? Like some magic Muslim force-field? No, he just said a temporary migration ban until they can enhance the screening process. A migration ban, not a travel ban. So Muslims would still be able to enter the country.

All you have are assertions that he can't do this or won't do that.

Well, last I checked reality still applies, even to Trump. Doing the things he wants to do is illegal, unconstitutional even in a number of cases, impractical, unaffordable, etc. 

20 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

On one hand he's part of the oligarchy because he's rich, but it's a lie when he says he's one of the most successful businessmen?

He's no Buffet, but he certainly has been successful. That's undeniable.

You are equating success with 'he has money'. Yes he has money, that doesn't make him a successful businessman. In order to be that, you'd need to have an actual business that runs well. He doesn't have that. The way he made money is by letting himself get bought out by the people he loaned money from to start a business, and the reason they are buying him out is because he turned that business into a disaster and removing him is the only way those investors can take control and hopefully turn things around. That or he just puts his face/name on things, gets a load of cash for it and then moves on, while other people run the business (and they usually fail not that long after or turn out to be scams). 

 

20 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

1. I'm still not sure if you are ignorant of how immigration works or just incredibly biased... Legal immigration reform could increase the qualified workers entering our borders without the influx of crime. A wall with cheap & durable cameras can give border control more time to deal with those with illegal immigrants using said ladders.

Because cameras can't be fooled or broken, or they can't dig tunnels or something. If a giant deadly sea isn't stopping people, then a wall is as good as useless. 

20 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

Some European politicians care more about rescuing undocumented immigrants than taking care of their own constituents and remaining solvent. Allowing boats to capsize and their undocumented passengers to drown is better for an economy facing austerity measures and high unemployment. Returning children to their families in Latin America is the best solution to the humanitarian crisis caused by human traffickers (but spun by biased soft news gossips to seem like it is caused by border control). A ton of anger aimed at immigration is misplaced from anger the corrupt governments deserve.

Of course, because the economy is far more important than human lives. But if you are so worried about the economic cost, what do you think the cost of rotting corpses washing up our shores is? Or the cost there is to shipping when ships are obliged under maritime law to help boats in need and they are the only ones around? Also, they aren't 'taking care of undocumented immigrants' they are taking care of refugees. A refugee is a legally different type of status than 'immigrant' and international law obliges country to offer aid to people who are recognized as refugee, or who are seeking refugee status. 

Besides, actual economists are arguing that letting those people in would actually be good for the European economy. To many old people, not enough young people, those immigrants and refugees could, with a little help, fill the gap. And as a result become a massive source of economic growth and income. 

Besides, even if we didn't send out boats to help out (which would be extremely illegal under maritime law, but lets forget about that for a moment) a few thousand refugees would down every year. That still leaves thousands that arrive safely. Letting them drown is not a solution, even if you are callous enough to suggest such a thing. 

In any case, all your suggestions (that happen to be rather illegal under several types of law) are missing my point. Europe has a wall, or well, it has something much better than a wall, it has a sea. A giant natural barrier to makes illegal crossing into Europe extremely difficult and dangerous and makes whatever wall humans build look like a puny obstacle indeed. Yet, it hasn't stopped over a million people from crossing said sea and getting into Europe. Do you really think that if a sea doesn't stop desperate people from crossing into Europe, a flimsy little wall will convince people otherwise? Desperate people can't be stopped by physical barriers, they will find ways around it. As long as people are desperate, and as long as America is seen as a place where desperate people can find better lives, they will come, and no wall will stop them. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

@LexusInfernus where are the refugee camps? Anyone can seek refugee status but approved refugees are different from random immigrants seeking refugee status. 

No matter, life as we know it will end after China stops its building spree, investors who only care about numbers (AKA most trade bots) start mass sell-offs, governments default on debt, and violence breaks out. China has invested in Venezuela, the USA, and many other countries.

[krbe 193]

4 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

And that wall failed utterly.

What are your failure standards? According to DDR-Geschichte in Dokumenten there were 3,646,935 immigrants to FRG from GDR between 1949 and 1989. 2,738,665 -- or 75% -- came before the end of 1961. From 1962 until 1988 FRG registered 564,416 immigrants, or 15% of the total number of immigrants.

And these numbers concern emigration as a whole; legal or illegal. According to the New York Times, the 1976 number (15,168 emigrants in total) comprises 9,900 legal emigrants, 5,200 illegal emigrants, where only 620 crossed the Berlin Wall or the German-German border. 620 successful crossings equals 1 successful flight per 2.5 km of border.

In US terms that would mean 1260 illegal immigrants per year crossing over from Mexico -- not taking into consideration a Grenze 2000 style wall. Current estimates is that there are 500,000 illegal border crossings each years; I'm pretty sure that 99% of those in favour of a wall would not characterise one that stops 99.75% of all illegal entries as an 'utter failure'. 

 

[Easy Bakes 253]

they have been talking about building this wall for decades and there is still no wall. there will be no wall.plans for a wall yes, any building of said wall no.

they will need "the wall" controversy  for 2020 and 2024 and 2028. if they actually build one they would just talk about how its failed, if its not ever built they can talk about it for ever