U.S.A. 2016 General Election

[Sabretooth78 808]

The only people "the wall" will hurt will be law-abiding citizens on both sides of it, not to mention the Americans whose land will be seized by the small government-loving (lol) Trump's use of eminent domain to waste billions on it; billions that could be put to better use elsewhere.

One suggestion:  End the drug war.

[krbe 193]

1 hour ago, Sabretooth78 said:

The only people "the wall" will hurt will be law-abiding citizens on both sides of it, not to mention the Americans whose land will be seized by the small government-loving (lol) Trump's use of eminent domain to waste billions on it; billions that could be put to better use elsewhere.

Oh, it will hurt far more than that, of course: the 500,000 illegal immigrants and drug mules themselves; Latin American families which will not be able to depend on US dollars remitted back; the drug cartels; American businesses which will be unable to exploit illegal immigrants; the US border force and local police departments; and so on.

Ending the drug war would obviously help. However, moral issues are paramount in the United States; which is why General Obregon in 1923 decreed a fifty-mile deep dry strip along the Mexico-US border, to cozy up to you. The Federated Clubwomen of Imperial valley had otherwise called for a wall, in order to close the border at sundown so to stop the boys and girls under the age of 21 from driving across the border, having fun.

[LexusInfernus 908]

15 hours ago, krbe said:

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'. 

You forgot one very important aspect of that particular wall, namely that it came crashing down in a rather spectacular fashion. And with it, it tore down the entire power structure that build the wall in the first place. I would characterize total systemic failure as 'an utter failure'. 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

19 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

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.

Difference is, Trump supporters aren't going around agitating and trying to shut down his opponent's speeches, or the rallies of his supporters.

19 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

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.

Totally different political, economic, and social situation. Not comparable.

19 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

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.

Gosh, you just regurgitate things you've heard without even thinking about them don't you?

"All his business ventures have either failed completely, or have just been a mediocre success". You're totally pulling that out of your behind. You don't have anything to back it up and can't quantify.

Trump has never filed for bankruptcy. Not once.

He never argued it was a good idea to go into the subprime mortgage market. You're spinning what he said. All he did was accurately predict the bubble and say that someone could make a killing when the bubble bursts (that happened in 2008). It's just a dispassionate analysis of the situation.

Whether or not Trump university is a scam is to be determined.

19 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

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.

So you can confidently say that you know more than him on the matter?

19 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

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.

Dude, go back to where I said that and you'll see that I elaborated on my point. You're just clinging to this rhetorical misstep of mine. I clearly laid out why I think she's fake.

19 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

(the one that punched that Breitbart reporter).

Uhm, are you being serious right now? Please tell me you're exaggerating for comical effect. Please. Even if you have to lie, tell me you are joking.

19 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

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/

The first story provides little to no information on what they agreed on prior to and during the election and how that affected their friendship.

On the the WaPo.

1. The minimum wage. Trump never made a definitive statement either way. He never said he was going to freeze the minimum wage and he never said he was going to raise it. He just said he was "open to doing something with it". That's an incredibly vague answer that is hardly a change of mind. Being open to an idea isn't changing your mind.

2. Taxing Hedge Fund Managers. Trump never said, as a policy, that he was going to raise their taxes. Just that he thought they weren't paying enough. The article says that Trump's plan would "likely" reduce taxes for them, likely. Not a flip-flop.

3. Health Care. This is a pretty big shift, but there isn't really evidence that he did this for political expedience. He wasn't running for office in 1999. Also, you're in a confusing position where you say people can change their minds without being fakes, but now when Trump does it, he is one. If you asked me in 2005 if I was a feminist, I would have said yes.

4. H-1B Visas. Restricting and adding stipulations or regulations to the H-1B visas isn't the same as opposing them. Trump never "opposed" the H-1B visa program. This point is so weak. His comments aren't out of line with his proposal.

5. Abortion. This is another pretty big shift, but then again, if you asked me 10 years ago if I was in favor of abortion I would have said yes. While I still lean in favor of yes, I see the merits of some of the arguments for no.

And just to throw in an ad-hominem, The Washington Post is owned by the 3rd richest man in America, Jeff Bezos, who is vehemently anti-Trump.

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

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.

Doesn't matter that Trump has more money than the Clintons. It's the influence and connections that matter, and the Clintons have them because they've made themselves servants; they've bent the knee.

I didn't mean oligarch in the Russian Oligarch sense. I meant oligarch by the Merriam Websters definition: a person who belongs to a small group of people who govern or control a country, business, etc. Trump isn't part of that group and the people in that group either actively support Clinton or are anti-Trump.

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

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). 

Hillary is running for office, I think that cancels out her right to be forgotten. It's contradictory.

Do you have a case in Europe where someone running for office used the right to be forgotten to hide search results?

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

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

Fair enough.

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

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.

Ok, we'll see.

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

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.

Illegal, unconstitutional, impractical, un-affordable... Guess that doesn't make him so different from most Presidents.

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

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.

You've audited his business?

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

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).

Step outside the bias sources you get your info on Trump from before saying stuff you don't even really know anything about. You're just repackaging attacks you've read about Trump (poorly at best), but you clearly haven't even taken the time to look in to The Trump Organization or how Trump has made his money.

[LexusInfernus 908]

2 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Difference is, Trump supporters aren't going around agitating and trying to shut down his opponent's speeches, or the rallies of his supporters.

Its peoples right to protest and show that they strongly disagree with a potential presidential candidates ideas that he put forward in his speeches. 

Quote

Totally different political, economic, and social situation. Not comparable.

Is it? Is fleeing Eritrea really that different from fleeing Eastern Europe? Is fleeing a warzone that different? Hmm, maybe they are, given that both situations are much worse than Eastern Europe ever was, which only means people are even more motivated to get the hell out of there. 

In any case, my point was that if the Berlin wall failed to keep people from crossing the border, a wall build around America's border will fail just as hard. 

Quote

Gosh, you just regurgitate things you've heard without even thinking about them don't you?

"All his business ventures have either failed completely, or have just been a mediocre success". You're totally pulling that out of your behind. You don't have anything to back it up and can't quantify.

Oh really? Well then lets back it up and quantify it. 

Quote

Trump has never filed for bankruptcy. Not once.

Wrong, he filed for bankruptcy at least 4 times. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431420/donald-trumps-2016-debate-lies-he-went-bankrupt

Of course, he argues its actually a valid business strategy and actually a sign of him being a great businessman. Well, there is no point in arguing with someone when his version of good business sense is to run a company into the ground so you can file for chapter 11. 

Quote

He never argued it was a good idea to go into the subprime mortgage market. You're spinning what he said. All he did was accurately predict the bubble and say that someone could make a killing when the bubble bursts (that happened in 2008). It's just a dispassionate analysis of the situation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-mortgage-economy-2006-2008-crash-a6904796.html

You mean right now he claims he knew all along. Which is why he started a mortgage company months before the whole thing collapsed literally claiming to reporters that "the real estate market is going to remain strong for a very long time". The only way he was right there is if your definition of 'staying strong' means 'total collapse'. 

Quote

Whether or not Trump university is a scam is to be determined.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/trump-university-its-worse-than-you-think

Its totally normal that universities are considered 'rip offs' by their own employees and that they are investigated in federal court for being a possible racketeering scheme. Its truly the sign of success if thats whats happening to your business. 

Quote

So you can confidently say that you know more than him on the matter?

Yeah, I can. 

Quote

Uhm, are you being serious right now? Please tell me you're exaggerating for comical effect. Please. Even if you have to lie, tell me you are joking.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trumps-campaign-manager-admits-his-boss-has-been-playing-part-whole-time

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/us/politics/donald-trump-to-reshape-image-new-campaign-chief-tells-gop.html?_r=0

You've been duped if you ever believed a populist is honest and 'authentic'. 

Quote

And just to throw in an ad-hominem, The Washington Post is owned by the 3rd richest man in America, Jeff Bezos, who is vehemently anti-Trump.

Sorry, but your counter arguments rest entirely on some creative interpreting of a few words. You can apply that same tactic to every politician and you'll find that they never really switched sides or flip flopped on issues, because they always leave enough openings to back away from what they said the moment it becomes to much of a risk to stand by them. 

Quote

Doesn't matter that Trump has more money than the Clintons. It's the influence and connections that matter, and the Clintons have them because they've made themselves servants; they've bent the knee.

I didn't mean oligarch in the Russian Oligarch sense. I meant oligarch by the Merriam Websters definition: a person who belongs to a small group of people who govern or control a country, business, etc. Trump isn't part of that group and the people in that group either actively support Clinton or are anti-Trump.

Trump has that same influence and same connections because he has the money to literally insert himself in every conversation that interests him. And because of his wealth and fame, politicians used to come to him to get him to endorse them. That is the Merriam Websters definition of an oligarch put into practice. 

Quote

You've audited his business?

Step outside the bias sources you get your info on Trump from before saying stuff you don't even really know anything about. You're just repackaging attacks you've read about Trump (poorly at best), but you clearly haven't even taken the time to look in to The Trump Organization or how Trump has made his money.

Uhuh, sure, all publications are biased against Trump. Or could it be that Trump just isn't a such a great guy. Anyways, pick a source that you like then: https://www.google.nl/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=List+of+failed+trump+business+ventures

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Donald Trump made his fortune through fraud, theft, litigation, and fame:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

Both The Donald and Hilary are phony. Both are criminals. Bernie Sanders never flip flopped and didn't change much from his time as a nameless senator through his presidential campaign. He's naïve but authentic. Hilary is the most competent for running our country; The Donald is the least competent; Bernie is the least likely to be impeached.

[igotthis 12]

Vote Blue or vote for the Apocalypse.  I, for one, do not want Trump's stubby little cheetos anywhere near "the button". And the fact that both Russia and N Korea support him is another sign that he is not right for America. We are not a dictatorship.

Anyway, as his support rescinds their endorsements, I think Hillary has a better chance. Is she perfect? I don't think so, but she is a logical, smart lady. I would prefer the status quo to that total moron.

IGT

[Delta 88 262]

2 hours ago, igotthis said:

Vote Blue or vote for the Apocalypse.  I, for one, do not want Trump's stubby little cheetos anywhere near "the button". And the fact that both Russia and N Korea support him is another sign that he is not right for America. We are not a dictatorship.

Anyway, as his support rescinds their endorsements, I think Hillary has a better chance. Is she perfect? I don't think so, but she is a logical, smart lady. I would prefer the status quo to that total moron.

IGT

I never understood the logic behind that statement. Why is Russia and North Korea's support for Trump a bad thing? Their support tells me that their leaders are willing to work with him or at least exchange dialogue. It doesn't mean that America is going to become some dictatorship, that's an incredible long-shot conclusion for such a premise. Wouldn't you want their leaders to get along with ours? Don't get me wrong, Trump isn't my guy and I would not vote for him by any means, but the logic (or lack thereof) from both sides of the political spectrum (especially the left recently) astounds me. I would never defend the status quo, ever.

[krbe 193]

1 hour ago, Delta 88 said:

Wouldn't you want their leaders to get along with ours?

Quite obviously the best way to get along is to not get along.

[Easy Bakes 253]

3 hours ago, krbe said:

Quite obviously the best way to get along is to not get along.

how is that the best way?

 

 

 

[Cool_Z 1,547]

[Delta 88 262]

15 hours ago, Cool_Z said:

Is that directed at me or...?

[Cool_Z 1,547]

Just now, Delta 88 said:

Is that directed at me or...?

Not it was about krbe's reply.

 

[Larks2242 251]

Decisions, Decisions.....

[Easy Bakes 253]

It does seems our choices get worse every  election

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

On 6/14/2016 at 2:16 PM, LexusInfernus said:

Its peoples right to protest and show that they strongly disagree with a potential presidential candidates ideas that he put forward in his speeches.

Yes, they have that right. They don't have the right to assault people or shut down their free speech. Have you seen what the Sanders supporters have been up to? Did you see that video where the crowd starts beating up a guy until they find out he's a Sanders supporter then they all start shouting "Bernie! Bernie!"? What about the one where an anti-Trump protester hits a guy on the back of the head with a bag of rocks? Or the one where they chase down a guy in an attempt to beat him? Or the one where university students shut down a meeting of Trump supporters? Or the time a Sanders supporter tried to rush Trump's stage? The videos of pro-Sanders "protesters" running amok are legion. Not saying there aren't legitimate protesters, but there are also agitators.

On 6/14/2016 at 2:16 PM, LexusInfernus said:

Is it? Is fleeing Eritrea really that different from fleeing Eastern Europe? Is fleeing a warzone that different? Hmm, maybe they are, given that both situations are much worse than Eastern Europe ever was, which only means people are even more motivated to get the hell out of there.

We're talking about illegal immigration from South America. That is what the wall is for. Not to stop Eritrean or Syrian refugees.

On 6/14/2016 at 2:16 PM, LexusInfernus said:

Wrong, he filed for bankruptcy at least 4 times. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431420/donald-trumps-2016-debate-lies-he-went-bankrupt

Why is is that you have a knack for picking the worst articles possible? Read the first sentence of that article. The author is clearly seething with hatred.

When you say he filed for bankruptcy you imply that he personally went bankrupt, which isn't true. Filing for chapter 11 isn't that big a deal in the business world. Business ventures fail, it happens. That 4 of his many ventures filed for chapter 11 does not make him a failure or unsuccessful.

I already covered this in this thread.

This article is much more balanced: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/

On 6/14/2016 at 2:16 PM, LexusInfernus said:

Yeah, I can.

And what is your experience? What gives you the qualification to say this?

On 6/14/2016 at 2:16 PM, LexusInfernus said:

Its totally normal that universities are considered 'rip offs' by their own employees and that they are investigated in federal court for being a possible racketeering scheme. Its truly the sign of success if thats whats happening to your business.

I admit, there's something sketchy going on there.

On 6/14/2016 at 2:16 PM, LexusInfernus said:

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trumps-campaign-manager-admits-his-boss-has-been-playing-part-whole-time

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/us/politics/donald-trump-to-reshape-image-new-campaign-chief-tells-gop.html?_r=0

You've been duped if you ever believed a populist is honest and 'authentic'.

Hold up, go back to that part where you said Trump's campaign manager punched a Breitbart reporter. What was that about?

Both articles talk about things that didn't pan out. Around that time they were saying Trump was going to shift and become more "Presidential", but that never happened. Trump is still his bombastic self.

Like I said, Trump has a persona, but that is an extension of himself. It isn't something that is crafted and managed by other people. That doesn't mean he doesn't take advice from his campaign staff. For example when Trump accepted the challenge to debate Sanders, it was his manager who told him to call it off.

Trump is not a paragon of virtue. He lies, he exaggerates the truth, but the ideas he puts out are his own, they aren't scripted, they aren't focus tested, they aren't approved, they aren't bought.

Lol, and you accuse me of faulty reasoning for saying Hillary is a fake because she's a fake, but then say Trump is a fake because all populists are fake because they're fake.

On 6/14/2016 at 2:16 PM, LexusInfernus said:

Sorry, but your counter arguments rest entirely on some creative interpreting of a few words. You can apply that same tactic to every politician and you'll find that they never really switched sides or flip flopped on issues, because they always leave enough openings to back away from what they said the moment it becomes to much of a risk to stand by them.

No, it's the article that is doing the spinning, I'm merely unpacking it. They're the ones creatively interpreting it. But you are willing to believe anything negative about Trump, so you can't see it. You aren't willing to look at things from the other side or give him the benefit of the doubt on anything.

On 6/14/2016 at 2:16 PM, LexusInfernus said:

Trump has that same influence and same connections because he has the money to literally insert himself in every conversation that interests him.

No he doesn't. The media is only interested in him because they want him to say crazy stuff. He's inserted himself in the conversation by knowing how to get the media's attention. Not saying he doesn't have any influence or connections, but he's nowhere near as connected as the Clintons. Have you seen the video (from the 90ies) where Larry King tells Bill Clinton he can get the owner of CNN to serve him?

On 6/14/2016 at 2:16 PM, LexusInfernus said:

Uhuh, sure, all publications are biased against Trump. Or could it be that Trump just isn't a such a great guy. Anyways, pick a source that you like then: https://www.google.nl/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=List+of+failed+trump+business+ventures

Never said all publications are biased against him. Never said he was a "great guy".

Not denying that he had failures, but where is the comparison to his successes? None of these articles put these failures in the context of his whole business or compare him to other billionaires. Most of these articles are also cheap copies of each other. I'm detecting a talking point. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if these articles are straight from a Clinton campaign memo. A key is to look at the dates the articles are released. If they're all around the same time, I'm suspicious of co-ordination (but this is just my own conspiracy theory - not a rational argument against the fact the those business did indeed fail).

On 6/15/2016 at 5:11 PM, igotthis said:

Anyway, as his support rescinds their endorsements

The bought off snakes in the Republican party aren't his supporters. When the worst, most bought off, dishonest republicans in the party (people like Romney, Ryan, McCain) don't support you, it's an endorsement.

14 hours ago, Larks2242 said:

Decisions, Decisions.....

lol at how only the word "promises" is in quotes in the Trump panel. I don't think Trump has ever "promised" to kill innocent families (but I am open to being proven wrong).

 

[LexusInfernus 908]

26 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

Yes, they have that right. They don't have the right to assault people or shut down their free speech. Have you seen what the Sanders supporters have been up to? Did you see that video where the crowd starts beating up a guy until they find out he's a Sanders supporter then they all start shouting "Bernie! Bernie!"? What about the one where an anti-Trump protester hits a guy on the back of the head with a bag of rocks? Or the one where they chase down a guy in an attempt to beat him? Or the one where university students shut down a meeting of Trump supporters? Or the time a Sanders supporter tried to rush Trump's stage? The videos of pro-Sanders "protesters" running amok are legion. Not saying there aren't legitimate protesters, but there are also agitators.

Yes yes, because Trump supporters never start fights, they are always the innocent victims. Please, you are conveniently ignoring all the times that Trump supporters get angry and start fights with people they don't like. 

26 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

We're talking about illegal immigration from South America. That is what the wall is for. Not to stop Eritrean or Syrian refugees.

Again, missing the point. 

Ill put this very very simple. What reason do you have to believe that if a big body of water doesn't stop people from crossing it to get to Europe, a comparatively tiny obstacle like a little wall will stop people from finding a way into the United States? 

Just answer that question.  

26 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

Why is is that you have a knack for picking the worst articles possible? Read the first sentence of that article. The author is clearly seething with hatred.

Suuuuuure, the writer has a personal grudge against Trump, like literally every other article that I posted that is critical of Trump is also automatically biased and unreliable according to you. Its pointless to request sources only to then dismiss all sources as somehow wrong because the writers don't like Trump. 

26 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

When you say he filed for bankruptcy you imply that he personally went bankrupt, which isn't true. Filing for chapter 11 isn't that big a deal in the business world. Business ventures fail, it happens. That 4 of his many ventures filed for chapter 11 does not make him a failure or unsuccessful.

A chapter 11 filing just means you are going bankrupt and let someone else pay the bill for that bankruptcy. It certainly is a big deal if you file for chapter 11 because it means your business wasn't doing all that great. Something a 'great' businessman would surely be able to avoid no? Instead of avoiding it, Trump does it 4 times. And thats not counting the ventures he puts his name on that turn into scandal, including charges of fraud, even if they don't have to file for a chapter 11. To anyone but Trump and his fans these are all signs of someone who isn't successful or great at being a businessman, just someone who cleverly works the system so he profits while society pays. 

26 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

And what is your experience? What gives you the qualification to say this?

I studied it in University, and that little bit of knowledge already makes me infinitely more qualified than him when it comes to this subject matter, judging by the idiocy hes spewing. 

26 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

Hold up, go back to that part where you said Trump's campaign manager punched a Breitbart reporter. What was that about?

Haven't you heard? It was all over the news. Some reporters even left Breitbart after that because they felt Breitbart failed to support the victim in favor of Trump. Google it, lest Im the one that comes up with 'biased' sources again. 

26 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

Trump is not a paragon of virtue. He lies, he exaggerates the truth, but the ideas he puts out are his own, they aren't scripted, they aren't focus tested, they aren't approved, they aren't bought.

The only thing I can agree with you on is that they aren't bought. But you bet that they are highly scripted, focus tested and approved by him and his team. You don't become president by just winging it. Sure, it helps that Trump had a pre established character as a bragging loudmouth and that they are building his presidential campaign on that. But lets not pretend that this isn't some very smoothly run pr campaign. 

26 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

Lol, and you accuse me of faulty reasoning for saying Hillary is a fake because she's a fake, but then say Trump is a fake because all populists are fake because they're fake.

Populists are fakes because they are liars in the same way that snakeoil salespeople are liars. Its pretty much in the definition of populist that you are a fake. 

I mean, lets look at what a populist does. First of all, populists claim to know what 'the people' want instinctively because they just got such a good ear for that. But who are the people? They can't tell you because they don't know either. 'The people' as some sort of tangible group doesn't exist. As such, claiming what they want is the same as claiming that you know what fairies and gnomes want, utter fantasy. Second, populists claim to have easy answers to complex problems. Build a wall and stop illegal immigration. Keep out all the Muslims and stop terrorism. Simple right? Except such 'solutions' can only exist in a place where reality doesn't. A wall would be prohibitively expensive and wouldn't keep anyone out. Keeping Muslims out of the country is both illegal and logistically impossible in so many ways and it ignores the fact most terrorist acts of the past decade were carried out by US citizens already living inside the US, a good deal of them not even Muslim to begin with. Anyone who spends 5 seconds critically evaluating the ideas that Trump proposes as solutions would figure out that they are so insanely stupid that they aren't solutions. Add another 5 seconds of critical thought and people would come to the realization that Trump probably knows that and has absolutely no intention of doing any of those things. In other words, his entire campaign platform is one giant lie. 

Hence, they are fakes.  

26 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

No, it's the article that is doing the spinning, I'm merely unpacking it. They're the ones creatively interpreting it. But you are willing to believe anything negative about Trump, so you can't see it. You aren't willing to look at things from the other side or give him the benefit of the doubt on anything.

He hasn't earned the benefit of my doubt. 

26 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

No he doesn't. The media is only interested in him because they want him to say crazy stuff. He's inserted himself in the conversation by knowing how to get the media's attention. Not saying he doesn't have any influence or connections, but he's nowhere near as connected as the Clintons. Have you seen the video (from the 90ies) where Larry King tells Bill Clinton he can get the owner of CNN to serve him?

No, the only reason they are letting him say that stupid nonsense is because he is rich and famous. Sure, he didn't have to pay them, but they are only paying attention to him because hes rich and famous. There have been plenty of idiots saying the same nonsense Trump is saying right now, and they don't get an invitation from CNN to come talk about policy issues as if he has something meaningful to contribute. You honestly think that if Trump was just some redneck farmer from Tennessee he would have ever been taken seriously by anyone? Of course not. 

26 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

The bought off snakes in the Republican party aren't his supporters. When the worst, most bought off, dishonest republicans in the party (people like Romney, Ryan, McCain) don't support you, it's an endorsement.

Actually Ryan supports Trump now. Most of the party big wigs do. Only Romney Im sure off is still criticizing him, and in my view that speaks of moral fiber and backbone. 

26 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

lol at how only the word "promises" is in quotes in the Trump panel. I don't think Trump has ever "promised" to kill innocent families (but I am open to being proven wrong).

He said he believed the way to defeat IS was by targeting IS fighters family. Which, as I've stated previously, would be a serious war crime. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Why not vote third party or write-in "no confidence"?

17 hours ago, Larks2242 said:

Decisions, Decisions.....

I'm never voting for either of them.

[MintberryCrunch 83]

13 hours ago, Easy Bakes said:

It does seems our choices get worse every  election

It's funny that people are saying Trump and Hillary are the two least likable presidential nominees ever--so then why did you vote for them, American people? If you don't like them so much, why nominate them?

Obviously someone likes them, otherwise they wouldn't be the nominees. 

[Delta 88 262]

43 minutes ago, MintberryCrunch said:

It's funny that people are saying Trump and Hillary are the two least likable presidential nominees ever--so then why did you vote for them, American people? If you don't like them so much, why nominate them?

Obviously someone likes them, otherwise they wouldn't be the nominees. 

It's the best we can do, as pathetic and substandard as it is. The American people are not actually capable of doing any better than Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump. 

Garbage in, garbage out.

[Cool_Z 1,547]

 

[krbe 193]

5 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Again, missing the point. 

Ill put this very very simple. What reason do you have to believe that if a big body of water doesn't stop people from crossing it to get to Europe, a comparatively tiny obstacle like a little wall will stop people from finding a way into the United States? 

Just answer that question.  

I'll put this very, very simply: That 'big body of water' is a relatively small one, traversable with minor crafts that are readily available. Ever since man invented the ship, water has been a means to facilitate movement, not stop it. Add business: It enables anyone with money to traverse this 'big body of water', regardless of whether they have a boat, the means to build one or the skills to pilot it; money is substituted for these rather vital attributes.

Consider the fact that the Mediterranean is well supervised by European coast guard and armed forces, AND that those rescued are being sent to Europe -- their ultimate destination -- rather than to Africa, their origin; then you don't even need ships that can make the journey, they merely need to be able to get out into international waters.

A wall is not a 'comparatively tiny obstacle.' A wall is an actual obstacle and not a facilitator. While walls are rather uncommon as means of preventing movement (the Great Wall and the Berlin Wall being two prominent examples), barriers being a more common way of regulating movement, the fact of the matter is that well-constructed, well-maintained and well-staffed barriers stop movement across the barrier's domain. The West Bank barrier has succeeded in its mission to suppress terrorist attacks inside Israel; that Palestinian terrorists have moved to launching rockets into Israel instead is not an indication of failure, but only that costs have imposed, and terrorists are now prioritising differently. Similarly the inner German border; for the five-year period Dec 1974 -- Nov 1979 229 persons crossed the barrier, with 5,107 being arrested in the attempt to cross the border. That thousands other fled through other European countries is again not an indication of failure on the barrier's part, but merely that escapees shifted their priorities.

The primary function of a barrier is to impose a cost on those crossing it. Prospective barrier crossers can then assess whether they have the means to pay that cost, or whether alternative routes represent a better opportunity.

With the German barrier, a number of people believed they would be able to cross the German-German border, while the barrier statistics described above clearly indicate that only 4.3% actually managed to do so. Some -- who would doubtlessly have crossed the border were the barrier not in place -- entered FRG through third countries, imposing further costs to them; as they would have to obtain the permissions to leave GDR and manage to convince the authorities until the moment they crossed in the West, that they were not going to do so. The real success of the barrier lies in the hundreds of thousands of others who would have fled but who did not escape nor was arrested in the attempt of doing so.

The preponderance of evidence suggest that barriers are not ineffective in stopping those who wish to cross where the barrier is situated. Therefore, you need some factual basis showing that it will no decrease illegal crossing into the US if you're going to assert that it will be a 'failure'.

[Larks2242 251]

4 hours ago, MintberryCrunch said:

It's funny that people are saying Trump and Hillary are the two least likable presidential nominees ever--so then why did you vote for them, American people? If you don't like them so much, why nominate them?

Obviously someone likes them, otherwise they wouldn't be the nominees. 

Never did I vote for either, As a 2008 Huckabee supporter (not able to vote yet), 2012 Rick Perry supporter then Rick Santorum voter and a 2016 Ted Cruz voter, I am appalled at how this country voted yet again.

 

7 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

lol at how only the word "promises" is in quotes in the Trump panel. I don't think Trump has ever "promised" to kill innocent families (but I am open to being proven wrong).

 

He said it himself.

[MintberryCrunch 83]

3 minutes ago, Larks2242 said:

Never did I vote for either, As a 2008 Huckabee supporter (not able to vote yet), 2012 Rick Perry supporter then Rick Santorum voter and a 2016 Ted Cruz voter, I am appalled at how this country voted yet again.

 

He said it himself.

I would've voted for Sanders if I had been old enough for this election, but given California's late primary, it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway.

It just seems like everyone I talk to does not support Clinton or Trump, both on the Internet and IRL, so where are all their supporters who led them to be the nominees? They seem to only be on the news -_-

[Larks2242 251]

They are probably faked or dead people, Dead People are not well informed of recent events.

 

In Trump's case however it did not go the way even establishment wanted it so seems less rigged then the democrat one.

 

Funny considering how Trump screamed rigged from the start.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

1 hour ago, MintberryCrunch said:

I would've voted for Sanders if I had been old enough for this election, but given California's late primary, it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway.

It just seems like everyone I talk to does not support Clinton or Trump, both on the Internet and IRL, so where are all their supporters who led them to be the nominees? They seem to only be on the news -_-

You only hear from the Silent Majority at the polls. Plus, California isn't like most of the USA.

[MintberryCrunch 83]

Well apparently it is because Clinton beat Sanders in a landslide here, just like most other states! -_-

That said, maybe this election will be the one to make everyone finally sick of the "lesser of two evils" principle that governs our elections.

[Easy Bakes 253]

9 hours ago, MintberryCrunch said:

It's funny that people are saying Trump and Hillary are the two least likable presidential nominees ever--so then why did you vote for them, American people? If you don't like them so much, why nominate them?

Obviously someone likes them, otherwise they wouldn't be the nominees. 

Because the "masses" buy into their rhetoric and vote straight party.

your average voter on one side or the other only want one of 2 things.

1 things to stay the same

2 things to change

And it appears neither ever happens no matter who wins.

because every thing does change but it still stays the same.  

 

[Easy Bakes 253]

4 hours ago, krbe said:

I'll put this very, very simply: That 'big body of water' is a relatively small one, traversable with minor crafts that are readily available. Ever since man invented the ship, water has been a means to facilitate movement, not stop it. Add business: It enables anyone with money to traverse this 'big body of water', regardless of whether they have a boat, the means to build one or the skills to pilot it; money is substituted for these rather vital attributes.

Consider the fact that the Mediterranean is well supervised by European coast guard and armed forces, AND that those rescued are being sent to Europe -- their ultimate destination -- rather than to Africa, their origin; then you don't even need ships that can make the journey, they merely need to be able to get out into international waters.

A wall is not a 'comparatively tiny obstacle.' A wall is an actual obstacle and not a facilitator. While walls are rather uncommon as means of preventing movement (the Great Wall and the Berlin Wall being two prominent examples), barriers being a more common way of regulating movement, the fact of the matter is that well-constructed, well-maintained and well-staffed barriers stop movement across the barrier's domain. The West Bank barrier has succeeded in its mission to suppress terrorist attacks inside Israel; that Palestinian terrorists have moved to launching rockets into Israel instead is not an indication of failure, but only that costs have imposed, and terrorists are now prioritising differently. Similarly the inner German border; for the five-year period Dec 1974 -- Nov 1979 229 persons crossed the barrier, with 5,107 being arrested in the attempt to cross the border. That thousands other fled through other European countries is again not an indication of failure on the barrier's part, but merely that escapees shifted their priorities.

The primary function of a barrier is to impose a cost on those crossing it. Prospective barrier crossers can then assess whether they have the means to pay that cost, or whether alternative routes represent a better opportunity.

With the German barrier, a number of people believed they would be able to cross the German-German border, while the barrier statistics described above clearly indicate that only 4.3% actually managed to do so. Some -- who would doubtlessly have crossed the border were the barrier not in place -- entered FRG through third countries, imposing further costs to them; as they would have to obtain the permissions to leave GDR and manage to convince the authorities until the moment they crossed in the West, that they were not going to do so. The real success of the barrier lies in the hundreds of thousands of others who would have fled but who did not escape nor was arrested in the attempt of doing so.

The preponderance of evidence suggest that barriers are not ineffective in stopping those who wish to cross where the barrier is situated. Therefore, you need some factual basis showing that it will no decrease illegal crossing into the US if you're going to assert that it will be a 'failure'.

But how long was the berlin wall? a  hundred miles or so?

the proposed wall for the Mexican border would be 1000's of miles of wall with so many manned stations it would take so much manpower it would be unfeasible just in labor costs alone to fully man it. ( that is for it to be as effective as the Berlin wall was at keeping people in). much less the costs to actually build the thing. It a talking point for this election and for the foreseeable future.it will never actually get built, but i bet a lot of people will make LOT of money with plans and proposals and cost estimates, surveys and what not.but those "jobs" will only be available to  "friends" of congressman.

 

 

 

 

 

[LexusInfernus 908]

9 hours ago, krbe said:

I'll put this very, very simply: That 'big body of water' is a relatively small one, traversable with minor crafts that are readily available. Ever since man invented the ship, water has been a means to facilitate movement, not stop it. Add business: It enables anyone with money to traverse this 'big body of water', regardless of whether they have a boat, the means to build one or the skills to pilot it; money is substituted for these rather vital attributes.

Consider the fact that the Mediterranean is well supervised by European coast guard and armed forces, AND that those rescued are being sent to Europe -- their ultimate destination -- rather than to Africa, their origin; then you don't even need ships that can make the journey, they merely need to be able to get out into international waters.

Oh I forgot, all those people are just getting on well supervised ferries that don't exceed their maximum capacity and then they get shipped to Europe, much like tourists taking a luxury cruise around the Mediterranean. 

That 'relatively small' body of water is only 'relatively small' when compared to the Atlantic Ocean. It is still several hundred kilometers from the Libyan Coast to Lampedusa or Mainland Italy. Traversing that in a little dingy boat packed with an unsafe number of people is extremely risky, as the hundreds of people that drown each month prove. And while the coast guard is patrolling, its a large area they have to cover, and it doesn't take long to drown once your boat sinks. 

So lets not pretend that the Mediterranean Sea is some kind of safe, easily traversed superhighway in to Europe, because the facts clearly show its dangerous, kills hundreds of people every month. And that number would be a lot higher if wasn't for the ships patrolling the area and picking up people from their little death traps before they drown. 

9 hours ago, krbe said:

A wall is not a 'comparatively tiny obstacle.' A wall is an actual obstacle and not a facilitator. While walls are rather uncommon as means of preventing movement (the Great Wall and the Berlin Wall being two prominent examples), barriers being a more common way of regulating movement, the fact of the matter is that well-constructed, well-maintained and well-staffed barriers stop movement across the barrier's domain. The West Bank barrier has succeeded in its mission to suppress terrorist attacks inside Israel; that Palestinian terrorists have moved to launching rockets into Israel instead is not an indication of failure, but only that costs have imposed, and terrorists are now prioritising differently. Similarly the inner German border; for the five-year period Dec 1974 -- Nov 1979 229 persons crossed the barrier, with 5,107 being arrested in the attempt to cross the border. That thousands other fled through other European countries is again not an indication of failure on the barrier's part, but merely that escapees shifted their priorities.

First of all, the West Bank barrier has not stopped terrorist attacks from occurring with Israel. They continue to happen reguarly, its just that they no longer bomb public transport as often. Instead they just drive their cars into people waiting at bus stops. One can argue that the wall in fact has only escalated the conflict even further and that its one big giant human rights violation on top of it. Billions spend to no effect. 

Similarly the Berlin wall did not work, and while yes, it stopped people from crossing it directly, they just found other routes around the wall. Again, billions spend on building, maintaining, staffing a wall and people just ignored it by moving around it. So did have its intended effect, namely to stop people from leaving? No, no it did not. Did it protect the socialist system from collapsing? No, the wall just became a symbol of the Socialist systems backwardness and regressive thinking and with its eventual collapse, the entire system that relied on it collapsed along side it. 

So to translate that to the American situation. The Israeli case shows us that people will still get through, that actual criminals will find a way through no matter what. It also shows you some of the cost, namely that you need a country that has a constant siege mentality, a massive army and a budget that is bloated with billions of foreign aid, to build a wall that is one big human rights violation. America perhaps has the money, but none of the other things, just to build a thing that doesn't work. The East German case shows us that you can perhaps build a wall, a giant wall, staffed by one giant army, and that it might stop people from crossing the wall directly. But, to the East and the West of the wall there are two bodies of water, how long do you think it will take for smugglers to realize that if the wall is to difficult, they can just load people into $%&^!ty little boats, and just sail past the wall?  

9 hours ago, krbe said:

The preponderance of evidence suggest that barriers are not ineffective in stopping those who wish to cross where the barrier is situated. Therefore, you need some factual basis showing that it will no decrease illegal crossing into the US if you're going to assert that it will be a 'failure'.

These people are desperate, far more desperate than the people fleeing Eastern Europe. These people are willing to pay exorbitant fees to get into the US, you think 'cost' is an issue for them? Besides, the US already has a physical barrier along its Mexican border. You know, the great border fence? Also staffed with a small army? Costs tons of money to maintain. And hasn't stopped anyone from getting in? If a big fence doesn't work, why would a wall be any different?