Right-wing populism.

[Belsnickel]

(09-21-2016, 08:26 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, it's pretty spot on for what he is describing. If he were referring to far left populism, he'd say "keeping the working class down" and "opposition to corporations". 

Yup. The Green Party is the closest to it here in the US. Bernie's campaign leaned in that direction but never fully committed, at least from what I saw.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-21-2016, 12:38 AM)hollodero Wrote: Left and right? Sure antiquated terms somehow. What we define "right" these days is mostly being nationalistic and anti-immigrant. Which indicates that the labels are not what they used to be, although still in use.

Trump is a right-wing populist I said. I really didn't say "far right". Right-wing populists might be quite "left" sometimes. 

What makes him a right-wing populist... I already tried to lay out the patterns (replacing fact-based debates with emotion-ridden talking points is the main operating clue). Here are some more similarities between Trump and the right-wing populists that spread all over Europe.

- Being anti-immigrant (see: they're rapists and whatnot)
- Being nationalistic (Make it great again!)
- Being opportunistic (see his reaction to Orlando)
- Referring to a core culture threatened by inferior cultures (e.g. being anti-islamic)
- Operating with people's fear (that's not just "my take", people's emotions are addressed, not their brains. Things he says are mainly fact-free. See what I said above.)
- Emphasizing Law and Order (threats are everywhere, only I can keep the country safe)
- Presenting themselves as anti-establishment, e.g. presenting them and their voters "victim" of the "establishment's opinion-making" when facing critizism
- Addressing disadvantaged people, suggesting they fell - or will fall, see "fear" - victim to the establisment denying them their fair share (by allowing abuse of social systems etc.)
- Being anti-intellectual
- Offering wild, radical promises (See: Mexico paying for a giant wall)
- Using right-wing rhetorics. Like putting things out without any verification ("I don't know, I'm just hearing" and all that - here it's "I'm just asking questions")
- A strange love for Putin
- The use of social media
- The dividing of society
- The tendency towards establishing a "strong man" fixing things radically and without consideration of the established processes.
- Editing in: Being anti-pluralistic. Based on the "silent majority" rhetoric they establish some kind of claim only they represent the "true" nation and their people and others - politicians and their voters - are corrupted by elites and not really part of the rightful societal spectrum.
- ...

All those things are clear similarities. To me.
Now there are differences, of course. Trump is much more of an egomaniac and really without any political "base" (the Reps are no base, at this point they are just eunuchs and deserve to perish - just my opinion). Trump is even far more radical in his whole anti-establishment, anti-PC rhetorics. The complete and deliberate lack of decency is astounding - even if you're a supporter you can't overlook that. See all his sexist comments towards that FOX reporter and Cruz' wife and then some. No politician ever - being at least in some way part of the political establishment - would have survived the things he gets away with. Money plays a big part here, a part that is not all that important in Europe. Americans also seem to have a certain special trust in billionaires, they are successful, therefore they might just know how to handle things. Maybe even more calvinistic, their success shows that God loves them and they are blessed or something like that. That wouldn't work here in that manner. And so on, bla.

Of course I'm biased here, right-wing populism is a new political low to me. I tried to be objective, but I can't. But to me there's no denying the similarities between Trump and the political figures of Europe that we slapped with the term "right-wing populist".

Hope I could answer your question.

There is lots of misconceptions in your post.

- Being anti-immigrant (see: they're rapists and whatnot)

Protecting your country from criminals that come here illegally is not being anti-immigrant.

There's lots of problems with people that come here illegally. first they are not properly vaccinated, so that is a big health issue.
second, most are not educated, therefore will end up being a drain on the system, will need to work illegally, so under the table, pushing drugs etc type of jobs to support themselves.

Trump has stated many times, he has no problems with Immigrants as long as they come here thru the front door.


- Being nationalistic (Make it great again!)
Uhm, that was previously one of Bill Clinton's lines back in 1992 when he ran for Presidency?
Anyways, this part is really stupid, anyone that is running for the head office puts their nation first. To do so otherwise is political suicide. I've never heard of anyone's slogan as "Let's eff this country up!"

- Being opportunistic (see his reaction to Orlando)
Both sides pushed their own agenda's with this one. Gun Control vs Immigrant Control.

- Referring to a core culture threatened by inferior cultures (e.g. being anti-Islamic)
It's not about being Anti-Islamic, it's about Islamic being anti-western.
Not sure where you are going with this one, Islam considers all other cultures to be inferior, so it's only natural that other cultures feel threatened when you see the heads of other people getting chopped off for no real reason, or women being stoned, or daughters being killed for being raped by their fathers/brothers etc to keep the Family Honor intact. Men own the women/children, LGBT's getting tossed off the highest roofs. The majority of their culture is the opposite of the Western Culture, yet we are not supposed to feel threatened by people that keep promising to kill us and send our culture backwards (we already put child labors laws up and still trying to make women equal to men)? And they are not just threats to our Western Nations, some have been carried out already.

- Operating with people's fear (that's not just "my take", people's emotions are addressed, not their brains. Things he says are mainly fact-free. See what I said above.)

So it's our imagination that the FBI statistics back up what Trump said about Illegals? How about Terrorist Attacks on US Soil? How about lack of jobs, because they've moved overseas? Maybe if you provide some examples.

- Emphasizing Law and Order (threats are everywhere, only I can keep the country safe)
Might have something here, but wasn't there just another Riot last night? How about this past weekend? Bombs in NYC? Stabbings in Minnesota? Now we do have Laws and Order, but not all laws are followed. Legal Citizen Safety should not be a Politicians concern?

- Presenting themselves as anti-establishment, e.g. presenting them and their voters "victim" of the "establishment's opinion-making" when facing critizism
I'll give you half of this one. He is somewhat anti-establishment. He knows how the game works and has admitted to playing it when it suited him. Can you provide me some examples of the 2nd half of your comments?

- Being anti-intellectual
Are you referring to Trump being stupid? Or his followers or both?
Just because someone is Anti-Intellectual doesn't mean that they are incapable of making solid decisions. I would judge a leader more on their ability to Listen to all parties and find a middle ground. Some of the smartest people in the world have made some of the dumbest decisions. Why? Because they are incapable of listening to others.


- Offering wild, radical promises (See: Mexico paying for a giant wall)
Yea a little crazy sounding, but not out there. He'll get it figured out someway. He's already come up with a couple of ways to get it from them.

- Using right-wing rhetorics. Like putting things out without any verification ("I don't know, I'm just hearing" and all that - here it's "I'm just asking questions")
zzzzzzzzzzzzz again not specific to the Right only.

- A strange love for Putin
I don't care much for him, but he does get Shit done. He also doesn't apologize nor insult his fellow country men by calling them deplorable or lazy.

- The use of social media
How can it be a Right thing when both sides are doing it.

- The dividing of society
I would say the media has caused this more so than Trump.

[fredtoast]

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: There is lots of misconceptions in your post.

And there are a lot of flat out untruths in your post

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Trump has stated many times, he has no problems with Immigrants as long as they come here thru the front door.

This is not true.  One of the main points of Trumps immigration policy is to greatly reduce LEGAL immigration.

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - Referring to a core culture threatened by inferior cultures (e.g. being anti-Islamic)
It's not about being Anti-Islamic, it's about Islamic being anti-western.
Not sure where you are going with this one, Islam considers all other cultures to be inferior, so it's only natural that other cultures feel threatened when you see the heads of other people getting chopped off for no real reason, or women being stoned, or daughters being killed for being raped by their fathers/brothers etc to keep the Family Honor intact. Men own the women/children, LGBT's getting tossed off the highest roofs. The majority of their culture is the opposite of the Western Culture, yet we are not supposed to feel threatened by people that keep promising to kill us and send our culture backwards (we already put child labors laws up and still trying to make women equal to men)? And they are not just threats to our Western Nations, some have been carried out already.

This just is not true.  you have been duped by Trump into believing that ALL Muslims are radical when in fact there are millions of Muslims already living peacefull in the United States that are no threat at all.  Your beliefs on Islam are just as misguided as the people who nthink ALL Christians are the same as the KKK or Westboro Church group.

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - Operating with people's fear (that's not just "my take", people's emotions are addressed, not their brains. Things he says are mainly fact-free. See what I said above.)

So it's our imagination that the FBI statistics back up what Trump said about Illegals?

Yes it is just your imagination because crime stats show that illegal immigrants are no more likely to be criminals than US citizens.

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - Emphasizing Law and Order (threats are everywhere, only I can keep the country safe)
Might have something here, but wasn't there just another Riot last night? How about this past weekend? Bombs in NYC? Stabbings in Minnesota? Now we do have Laws and Order, but not all laws are followed. Legal Citizen Safety should not be a Politicians concern?

Yes it should be a concern, but there is zero evidence that Trump could do anything to make anyone safer.  In fact Trump has been known to encourage his followers to use violence to solve situations instead of peaceful means.

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - Presenting themselves as anti-establishment, e.g. presenting them and their voters "victim" of the "establishment's opinion-making" when facing critizism

I'll give you half of this one. He is somewhat anti-establishment. He knows how the game works and has admitted to playing it when it suited him. Can you provide me some examples of the 2nd half of your comments?

His claims that the only way he can lose the election is if it is rigged.  His claim that Hillary and Obama were the founders of ISIS. His claim that Hillary is a criminal protected by the establishment.  I could go on and on.

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - Being anti-intellectual
Are you referring to Trump being stupid? Or his followers or both?
Just because someone is Anti-Intellectual doesn't mean that they are incapable of making solid decisions. I would judge a leader more on their ability to Listen to all parties and find a middle ground. Some of the smartest people in the world have made some of the dumbest decisions. Why? Because they are incapable of listening to others.

Trump has never ever claimed he would listen and find middle ground.  In fact he has built his entire campaign over doing the opposite.  He is going to force Mexico to pay for a wall.  He is going to nullify trade agreements and force other countries to give us better deals.

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - Offering wild, radical promises (See: Mexico paying for a giant wall)

Yea a little crazy sounding, but not out there. He'll get it figured out someway. He's already come up with a couple of ways to get it from them.

No he hasn't.  There is no way possible to get even a small fraction of the cost of the wall he proposes from increased fees and withholding private fund tranfers.  It is impossible.  It just won't work.

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - A strange love for Putin
I don't care much for him, but he does get Shit done. He also doesn't apologize nor insult his fellow country men by calling them deplorable or lazy.

What has Putin gotten done?  Russia's oil dependent economy is in crisis and he has entangled himself in the Syrian quagmire.
And Putin not only insults his fellow countrymen he also murders them or throws them in prison for disagreeing with him. And he has sworn to "cleanse" his country of homosexuals. 
You opinion of Putin is completely delusional. 

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - The dividing of society
I would say the media has caused this more so than Trump.

[hollodero]

Yo, Mr. Mike M.
Short answer, I tried to define the term "right-wing populism". I indeed did it with some bias I was not secretive about.
But the points I made really weren't intended to pick up an argument, but rather to answer where I see the similarities between Trump and Europe's right-wing partys. You basically just defend these points and arguing that these points are indeed legit. Which simply makes you fit my description. You're a supporter of right-wing populism allright. You tend to agree with them. And fair enough.

But I indeed did not plan to get into an argument with a Trump supporter about Trump. Because that simply gets a bit over my head. What would I know about stuff. All I know is what's on the internet, you know.

Still, long answer:  

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - Being anti-immigrant (see: they're rapists and whatnot)

Protecting your country from criminals that come here illegally is not being anti-immigrant.

There's lots of problems with people that come here illegally. first they are not properly vaccinated, so that is a big health issue.
second, most are not educated, therefore will end up being a drain on the system, will need to work illegally, so under the table, pushing drugs etc type of jobs to support themselves.

Trump has stated many times, he has no problems with Immigrants as long as they come here thru the front door.

Look, that's just what I would call "being anti-immigrant". Maybe the term "strict immigration policy" fits you better. - I tend to see things quite differently on that topic, but we can agree to disagree here. It's not that your voice isn't important.
It's just a typical right-wing position that you take here. No bias, just fact. That's all.

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - Being nationalistic (Make it great again!)
Uhm, that was previously one of Bill Clinton's lines back in 1992 when he ran for Presidency?
Anyways, this part is really stupid, anyone that is running for the head office puts their nation first. To do so otherwise is political suicide. I've never heard of anyone's slogan as "Let's eff this country up!"

No. "Make it great again" is not just putting nation first. It's make it great "again" as if it had been under some kind of decline. Four years ago Romney couldn't think about anything bad to say about the US. Now it lost its greatness? (And it's Obama's and Hillary's fault?) This is something quite more nuanced.
It's not saying "our country is great", it's saying "only I can make this country great". (Which Trump actually says so directly, too.) There's a huge difference.

Btw. of course not all typical "right-wing populism" positions are exclusive for them.

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - Being opportunistic (see his reaction to Orlando)
Both sides pushed their own agenda's with this one. Gun Control vs Immigrant Control.

See above. I definitely do not intend to defend Hillary.
Trumps reaction was heard about here, though, with some astonishment. Guess why. Hint, it's the "the only reason the killer was in America in the first place, was because we allowed his family to come here" part. Using it like that. Gun control, on the other hand, is a pretty harmless thing compared to banning all muslims from entering the country. That's of course just my take. You might be as well for that. That's just anti-immigration then. Again, just calling it what it is.

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - Referring to a core culture threatened by inferior cultures (e.g. being anti-Islamic)
It's not about being Anti-Islamic, it's about Islamic being anti-western.
Not sure where you are going with this one, Islam considers all other cultures to be inferior, so it's only natural that other cultures feel threatened when you see the heads of other people getting chopped off for no real reason, or women being stoned, or daughters being killed for being raped by their fathers/brothers etc to keep the Family Honor intact. Men own the women/children, LGBT's getting tossed off the highest roofs. The majority of their culture is the opposite of the Western Culture, yet we are not supposed to feel threatened by people that keep promising to kill us and send our culture backwards (we already put child labors laws up and still trying to make women equal to men)? And they are not just threats to our Western Nations, some have been carried out already.

So... you're referring to islam as an inferior culture that is a threat to ours allright. Just my point.
Listen, I'm not so left-wing on that one, too. I didn't claim that all typical right-wing populist's points and opinions are completely rubbish and that I see everything completely different. (I get why you thought so, though. And I'm not actually agreeing with the take you presented, for there are so many moderate Muslims in both our countries who deserve much better than this judgment or connotation.)

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - Operating with people's fear (that's not just "my take", people's emotions are addressed, not their brains. Things he says are mainly fact-free. See what I said above.)

So it's our imagination that the FBI statistics back up what Trump said about Illegals? How about Terrorist Attacks on US Soil? How about lack of jobs, because they've moved overseas? Maybe if you provide some examples.

I don't know about FBI statistics, I don't get into that one. I know that on the topic of immigration there are always a lot of numbers and statistics provided by both sides, and I mistrust the significance of all of them. That's just me though.
The rest, well. You couldn't deny that jobs go overseas, but ok it's a "fact".
His solutions aren't. There are no facts, just words and a lot of "I'm the greatest ever, I know what to do". It's not supposed to work based on facts. It's supposed to work based on the idea that Trump is successful and therefore some kind of genius on everything. But there is no "plan" to fight the loss of jobs. You probably would need to ask Kasich about the idea here.
It's the persona that says "trust me". And the emotion his supporters experience when hearing him say it. That's basically it. The rest is hot air up to irrational crazytalk. True story.
Trump himself said it, again. He is pretty blunt, I got to admit.
"You don't sell products, benefits or solutions - you sell feelings."

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - Emphasizing Law and Order (threats are everywhere, only I can keep the country safe)
Might have something here, but wasn't there just another Riot last night? How about this past weekend? Bombs in NYC? Stabbings in Minnesota? Now we do have Laws and Order, but not all laws are followed. Legal Citizen Safety should not be a Politicians concern?

Again, I didn't say it shouldn't. Law and Order describes a certain policy that is a trademark of right-wing populism (I sound like a broken record).
Trump is "Law and Order", and that describes a certain stricter policy. There doesn't need to be disagreement, right? He just is.

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - Presenting themselves as anti-establishment, e.g. presenting them and their voters "victim" of the "establishment's opinion-making" when facing critizism
I'll give you half of this one. He is somewhat anti-establishment. He knows how the game works and has admitted to playing it when it suited him. Can you provide me some examples of the 2nd half of your comments?

Easily.
Blaming the biased "liberal" (or whatever) media comes to mind. Often just because they call him out on obvious BS (you know too there is some) like they are supposed to. Of all the similarities to Europes right-wingers, this is maybe the biggest one, and a very important one for their success. "Mistrust the media when they call us liars and agitators or say that we are factually wrong about anything. Mistrust all other politicians or experts or scientists, mistrust good taste, mistrust PC, mistrust everyone but us, we say it like it is." Big part of the construct.

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - Being anti-intellectual
Are you referring to Trump being stupid? Or his followers or both?
Just because someone is Anti-Intellectual doesn't mean that they are incapable of making solid decisions. I would judge a leader more on their ability to Listen to all parties and find a middle ground. Some of the smartest people in the world have made some of the dumbest decisions. Why? Because they are incapable of listening to others.

No, I did not call him stupid and I didn't intend to. He most certainly isn't, I think he's a bit impaired by a psychological disorder called narcissism, but these can be highly functioning people. He isn't an intellectual, though.
His supporters aren't necessarily stupid. It's just that they are not as smart as they believe to be. They get the sense of "getting it", of "seeing it", Trump plants that persuasion. They accuse others of being blind to the things they can see. Of being influenced, biased, whatever. That's what makes them "anti-intellectual". The whole points are not even made for an intellectual discourse. Because again, you might just end up arguing about feelings, prefabricated opinions based on these feelings, even before the single first fact comes into play. They get merged into the belief system afterwards, after the system already is constructed. And therefore a debate with a right-wing supporter is always ending up in an "you don't get it - no you don't get it" sort of thing. Which is a reason why Trump gets away with so much - transforming false claims into feelings, that is, therefore making them indebateable. You might shake your head about that. But think about it just a minute, will you. You might find there's at least a bit to that.

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - Offering wild, radical promises (See: Mexico paying for a giant wall)
Yea a little crazy sounding, but not out there. He'll get it figured out someway. He's already come up with a couple of ways to get it from them.

Yeah, which ways?
He'll "get it figured out somehow"?
- That is virtually nothing. Take a hard look. There's nothing.

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - Using right-wing rhetorics. Like putting things out without any verification ("I don't know, I'm just hearing" and all that - here it's "I'm just asking questions")
zzzzzzzzzzzzz again not specific to the Right only.

Not exclusively specific, but typical.

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - A strange love for Putin
I don't care much for him, but he does get Shit done. He also doesn't apologize nor insult his fellow country men by calling them deplorable or lazy.

OK, you too have a strange love for Putin.

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - The use of social media
How can it be a Right thing when both sides are doing it.

True, they both use it, but they use it - quite differently. You know that's true.

(09-21-2016, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: - The dividing of society
I would say the media has caused this more so than Trump.

Yeah well, I wouldn't. See my remarks about "pluralism" I edited in in the previous post.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-21-2016, 05:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And there are a lot of flat out untruths in your post



This is not true.  One of the main points of Trumps immigration policy is to greatly reduce LEGAL immigration.

He's putting a hold on Muslim Immigration yes, but that does not mean that they will never be allowed into the US, he just wants them vetted more so that we can make damn sure they have no ties to terrorist groups.

He also wants to fix the "anchor baby" problem going forward. Being born here won't make you an automatic USC, one of your parents has to be a USC.

He's also putting a requirement on H-1B Visas (they are work related Visas, not designed as a path to become a USC) that you have to hire an American first. I don't know why any USC would be against this. It's hurting our graduates (men, women and minorities) and people in STEM fields that are trying to get a job.

If what I have said is incorrect, then please post a link showing me otherwise of if I forgot something please post a link for that as well. You repeat the leftist crap too much for me to take you at face value anymore.

(09-21-2016, 05:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This just is not true.  you have been duped by Trump into believing that ALL Muslims are radical when in fact there are millions of Muslims already living peacefull in the United States that are no threat at all.  Your beliefs on Islam are just as misguided as the people who nthink ALL Christians are the same as the KKK or Westboro Church group.

So it's my imagination seeing ISIS beheading people online?

I already know that there is some peaceful Muslims that are already here, and there's some that are already here that aren't so peaceful and are trying to bring their culture here which is the opposite of ours. So instead of taking care of what we have here already, you want to keep adding more to the equation?

No I'm not in that same group, you just want to paint me in that group.

(09-21-2016, 05:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it is just your imagination because crime stats show that illegal immigrants are no more likely to be criminals than US citizens.

Oh Jeez Louise.
1 being here undocumented is illegal.
2 it's illegal for them to have a job.
3 if they use a USC SSN to get a job, they are committing fraud (another law broken).
4. 94% of all Cocaine comes over the Texas-Mexico border. Anyone that brings it, is breaking the law, but we do a poor job of catching them. Coke isn't the only thing they contribute to, prostitution, human trafficking, kidnappings and so forth. Gangs are a major source of those laws being busted.

(09-21-2016, 05:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it should be a concern, but there is zero evidence that Trump could do anything to make anyone safer.  In fact Trump has been known to encourage his followers to use violence to solve situations instead of peaceful means.

A wall is a good start for making people feel safer.
Enforcing existing laws is another one.

(09-21-2016, 05:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: His claims that the only way he can lose the election is if it is rigged.  His claim that Hillary and Obama were the founders of ISIS. His claim that Hillary is a criminal protected by the establishment.  I could go on and on.

This is one area where you might have something, but most of Trumps statements in here are more exaggerated than anything else.
Well, emails so far support that it is rigged.

They might not be the founders of ISIS, but they let the "JV" team grow instead of taking it out when they had the chance.

She is, other military people that have committed less offenses with secure information have been sentenced to jail for their actions.

(09-21-2016, 05:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Trump has never ever claimed he would listen and find middle ground.  In fact he has built his entire campaign over doing the opposite.  He is going to force Mexico to pay for a wall.  He is going to nullify trade agreements and force other countries to give us better deals.

Why does he have to "claim" that? He's a business man, it's what he does for a living. That's what getting the best deal is all about. He's not going to rape the other countries. That's just leftist rhetoric that you are spewing.

(09-21-2016, 05:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No he hasn't.  There is no way possible to get even a small fraction of the cost of the wall he proposes from increased fees and withholding private fund tranfers.  It is impossible.  It just won't work.

Withholding transfers is not the best move, but charging a 10-15-20% tax on all money leaving the country will easily get that money in less than a year and keep a steady supply of money coming in to keep up maintenance and pay the salaries of the people guarding the wall.

$225B leaves the US annually.  Did I hear you asking for it to be raised by 10 more feet?

(09-21-2016, 05:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What has Putin gotten done?  Russia's oil dependent economy is in crisis and he has entangled himself in the Syrian quagmire.


And Putin not only insults his fellow countrymen he also murders them or throws them in prison for disagreeing with him. And he has sworn to "cleanse" his country of homosexuals. 
You opinion of Putin is completely delusional. 

Uhm he's tangled in the Syrian quagmire because he wants the oil that they have.
He's former KGB, of course he's not going to like people talking about him. Where has he insulted the People of Russia? Did he ever call them lazy or deplorable? I'm not talking specific people, but his fellow country men.

His laws about LGBT is no PDA, especially in front of children, I am probably wrong there, I didn't have enough time to investigate it. But I did notice the words you used came from Leftist Media News.

[fredtoast]

(09-21-2016, 08:16 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So it's my imagination seeing ISIS beheading people online?

I already know that there is some peaceful Muslims that are already here, and there's some that are already here that aren't so peaceful and are trying to bring their culture here which is the opposite of ours. So instead of taking care of what we have here already, you want to keep adding more to the equation?

No I'm not in that same group, you just want to paint me in that group.

So it is my imagination seeing a white kid kill 9 people in a Charleston Church?  The point you are missing is that if we want to protect ourselves from radicals we have to concentrate on radicals instead of a religion.  Neo Nazi's, white supremacists, and sovereign citizens pose just as big of a terror threat in the United States as Muslim extremists. But people like you don't would freak out if we suddenly said we have to monitor all white people because they are such a danger to our society.

(09-21-2016, 08:16 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Oh Jeez Louise.
1 being here undocumented is illegal.
2 it's illegal for them to have a job.
3 if they use a USC SSN to get a job, they are committing fraud (another law broken).
4. 94% of all Cocaine comes over the Texas-Mexico border. Anyone that brings it, is breaking the law, but we do a poor job of catching them. Coke isn't the only thing they contribute to, prostitution, human trafficking, kidnappings and so forth. Gangs are a major source of those laws being busted.

Oh Jeez Louise, 

No one was talking about non-violent crimes.  Trump was squealing about rapists and murders, not people in violation of regulation that does not even carry a criminal penalty.  

The fact is that Mexican immigrants are no more likely to be involved in "criminal" (not illegal) behavior than US citizens.  

(09-21-2016, 08:16 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: A wall is a good start for making people feel safer.

No it isn't.  Mexican immigrants are no more a threat to your safety than other US citizens.

(09-21-2016, 08:16 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Well, emails so far support that it is rigged.

No they don't.  What emails say anything about the genertal election being rigged against Trump.  You must have your head buried pretty deep in the right wing echo chamber to make a claim like this.

(09-21-2016, 08:16 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Why does he have to "claim" that? He's a business man, it's what he does for a living. That's what getting the best deal is all about. He's not going to rape the other countries. 

No you are really looking silly.  For his entire life Trump has bragged about how he is capable of eliminating his competition and taking everything for himself.  He is all about "winning".  He has never once claimed that he was interested in compromise or seeking the "middle ground".

(09-21-2016, 08:16 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Withholding transfers is not the best move, but charging a 10-15-20% tax on all money leaving the country will easily get that money in less than a year and keep a steady supply of money coming in to keep up maintenance and pay the salaries of the people guarding the wall.

$225B leaves the US annually.  Did I hear you asking for it to be raised by 10 more feet?

Where did you get these numbers?  What do you mean by money "Leaving the UNited States".  There are less than 5 million Mexican workers in the United States and I can guarantee you that they are not all sending $50K a year back to Mexico.  And how do you know what money is leaving the United States.  If a Mexican worker buys a money order to mail back home how do you tax that?

(09-21-2016, 08:16 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Uhm he's tangled in the Syrian quagmire because he wants the oil that they have.
He's former KGB, of course he's not going to like people talking about him. Where has he insulted the People of Russia? Did he ever call them lazy or deplorable? I'm not talking specific people, but his fellow country men.

Um you did n ot answer my question.  "What has Putin gotten done?"

And who cares if he calls some Russians lazy?  Who even cares.  the fact is he arrests people who disagree with him.  Do you really think that calling some people lazy is worse than throwing people in jail for disagreeing with him?  I don't even understand what type of a point you are trying to make here.

In fact no one has insulted more fellow American citizens than Donald Trump.  He does insults better than anyone.  So why do you have some love of Putin for not calling Russins "lazy"?

[hollodero]

They took my thread  


But so be it.
Just one thing. I tend to agree with almost everything Mr. fredtoast says, throughout the boards. But the way of talking to right-wing supporters still simply isn't helpful. I should know, given my origin, we desperately tried the same thing. Presenting facts, some truth and wisdom with a sense of being condescending, calling a bit names here and there... but this way, you only get people to agree with you who already did agree with you in the first place. The ones who disagree will just disagree more, though. Remember you're dealing with people whose political mind is mostly created by feelings. When they feel someone looks down on them, there is anger. And no point could ever come through then, there is just more contradiction. So it just deepens the trenches.

You need to find a way to make people think, not to be angry with you and therefore contradict you in every forged way possible. You have to try making them think outside their box. Which is a hard thing, I do not like to think outside my neat little box either. But if there is a way, I'd guess it has to be this one.

This is in no way any kind of shot. I'm just trying to share my experience here. 
Right-wing populism. What a treat.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-21-2016, 10:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So it is my imagination seeing a white kid kill 9 people in a Charleston Church?  The point you are missing is that if we want to protect ourselves from radicals we have to concentrate on radicals instead of a religion.  Neo Nazi's, white supremacists, and sovereign citizens pose just as big of a terror threat in the United States as Muslim extremists. But people like you don't would freak out if we suddenly said we have to monitor all white people because they are such a danger to our society.

*sighs
Which is why we need to improve the immigration vetting. Weed out the ones that have ties/connections to Radicals so we can focus on our own home grown problems.

(09-21-2016, 10:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Oh Jeez Louise, 

No one was talking about non-violent crimes.  Trump was squealing about rapists and murders, not people in violation of regulation that does not even carry a criminal penalty.  

The fact is that Mexican immigrants are no more likely to be involved in "criminal" (not illegal) behavior than US citizens.  

You're so following the left wing rhetoric it's sad.

"Mexican Immigrants", nice try to change the argument. By you stating it like that, you get to include Legal and non-Legal immigrants under 1 umbrella. I am very aware the people that come here Legally, are going to do their best to not break the laws so they can become USC's, but Trump never said anything about people who come here Legally did he? And now it's all about non-violent crimes only, when in Trump's initial statement included all crimes.

Trump also never said that All Mexicans are Rapists. He was talking about illegal immigrants. I despise how the media leaves out this line: "They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people." and focus only on the Rapist part.

The point is that with out a wall, we are getting everyone, good and bad coming over. With a wall it is much harder for the bad to get thru.

Let's take a look at how the media has mis-represented his original quote:

The New York Times: “Trump’s claim that illegal Mexican immigrants are ‘rapists.”

Time Magazine: “Trump’s comment that Mexican immigrants are ‘rapists.’”
Associated Press: “Trump called Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals”
CBS News: “Trump defends calling Mexican immigrants ‘rapists.’”
L.A. Times: “describing Mexican immigrants as ‘rapists.’”
Fortune: “in a speech branding Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists.”
Hollywood Reporter: “he referred to Mexican immigrants as ‘rapists.’”
Huffington Post: “He called Latino immigrants ‘criminals’ and ‘rapists.’”
The Washington Post: “He referred to Mexicans as “rapists.”

Just like all of these leftist Websites, you changed my original comment from Illegals to immigrants and branded them all as Rapists in order to get your "Liar Liar pants on fire" review. The fact is that he said we are getting illegal Immigrants that: bring Drugs, Commit Crime (he didn't specify violent vs non-violent), some are Rapists, some are good people. No where does he refer to legal immigrants in any way.

(09-21-2016, 10:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote:  No they don't.  What emails say anything about the genertal election being rigged against Trump.  You must have your head buried pretty deep in the right wing echo chamber to make a claim like this.

Opps my bad, that batch hasn't been released yet.

(09-21-2016, 10:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No you are really looking silly.  For his entire life Trump has bragged about how he is capable of eliminating his competition and taking everything for himself.  He is all about "winning".  He has never once claimed that he was interested in compromise or seeking the "middle ground".

Obviously you suffer from lack of reading apprehension.
"But my plan is, renegotiate NAFTA, make it either good or get out of NAFTA. I want to bring our jobs back, I want to make it very hard for companies to leave our country, because they're fleeing."

He's talking about reworking lopsided deals and making them fairer to us, while keeping them fair to our partners as well.

(09-21-2016, 10:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Where did you get these numbers?  What do you mean by money "Leaving the UNited States".  There are less than 5 million Mexican workers in the United States and I can guarantee you that they are not all sending $50K a year back to Mexico.  And how do you know what money is leaving the United States.  If a Mexican worker buys a money order to mail back home how do you tax that?

Leaving the US is exactly what it means. Money that is being sent to other countries (not just Mexico) as remittances. Last year 225B was sent and this does not include Corporations that are doing it, which I would tax even higher. Google it yourself.

(09-21-2016, 10:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Um you did not answer my question.  "What has Putin gotten done?"



And who cares if he calls some Russians lazy?  Who even cares.  the fact is he arrests people who disagree with him.  Do you really think that calling some people lazy is worse than throwing people in jail for disagreeing with him?  I don't even understand what type of a point you are trying to make here.

In fact no one has insulted more fellow American citizens than Donald Trump.  He does insults better than anyone.  So why do you have some love of Putin for not calling Russins "lazy"?

The point about calling his countrymen lazy is what Obama has said about Americans. Other than that, I don't really give a flip about Putin. Trump insulting American's? Are you sure it's no the media twisting it to make it into an insult?
Obama calling American's Lazy and arrogant, Hillary calling Trump supporters deplorables.
What has Trump said that insults a big group of Americans and not an Individual?

[*michaelsean*]

(09-22-2016, 12:09 PM)hollodero Wrote: They took my thread  


But so be it.
Just one thing. I tend to agree with almost everything Mr. fredtoast says, throughout the boards. But the way of talking to right-wing supporters still simply isn't helpful. I should know, given my origin, we desperately tried the same thing. Presenting facts, some truth and wisdom with a sense of being condescending, calling a bit names here and there... but this way, you only get people to agree with you who already did agree with you in the first place. The ones who disagree will just disagree more, though. Remember you're dealing with people whose political mind is mostly created by feelings. When they feel someone looks down on them, there is anger. And no point could ever come through then, there is just more contradiction. So it just deepens the trenches.

You need to find a way to make people think, not to be angry with you and therefore contradict you in every forged way possible. You have to try making them think outside their box. Which is a hard thing, I do not like to think outside my neat little box either. But if there is a way, I'd guess it has to be this one.

This is in no way any kind of shot. I'm just trying to share my experience here. 
Right-wing populism. What a treat.

Who knew right-wing populists elected Barack Obama?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-22-2016, 12:09 PM)hollodero Wrote: They took my thread  


But so be it.
Just one thing. I tend to agree with almost everything Mr. fredtoast says, throughout the boards. But the way of talking to right-wing supporters still simply isn't helpful. I should know, given my origin, we desperately tried the same thing. Presenting facts, some truth and wisdom with a sense of being condescending, calling a bit names here and there... but this way, you only get people to agree with you who already did agree with you in the first place. The ones who disagree will just disagree more, though. Remember you're dealing with people whose political mind is mostly created by feelings. When they feel someone looks down on them, there is anger. And no point could ever come through then, there is just more contradiction. So it just deepens the trenches.

You need to find a way to make people think, not to be angry with you and therefore contradict you in every forged way possible. You have to try making them think outside their box. Which is a hard thing, I do not like to think outside my neat little box either. But if there is a way, I'd guess it has to be this one.

This is in no way any kind of shot. I'm just trying to share my experience here. 
Right-wing populism. What a treat.

LOL sorry, but tough to let go when I'm just verifying your statements.

In the US, Populism has been more associated with the Left-wing than the right-wing. It is only now that it is really going the other way, Trump does have a part in that, but that is because he IS an outsider to the Political world. The other Republican's that were options could not make this claim.

Populism is an ideology that a select elite few mistreat the citizens and can be overthrown if the citizens work together.
This has been a major part of the leftist strategy forever with the Republican's being the ones that are mistreating the citizens.
Right now, we are seeing a possible shift of the Right, but that doesn't mean that all of the Rhetoric is false as you have tried to imply.

[Belsnickel]

(09-22-2016, 04:22 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: In the US, Populism has been more associated with the Left-wing than the right-wing. It is only now that it is really going the other way, Trump does have a part in that, but that is because he IS an outsider to the Political world. The other Republican's that were options could not make this claim.

I tried to find a gif that accurately expressed the humor I found in that line, but I got tired of looking. Someone that buys politicians isn't an outsider. They are a part of the establishment, and a part of the problem. It's what makes it hilarious that there is this populism thing surrounding him when he is the exact thing that the populist ideology is against.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-22-2016, 04:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I tried to find a gif that accurately expressed the humor I found in that line, but I got tired of looking. Someone that buys politicians isn't an outsider. They are a part of the establishment, and a part of the problem. It's what makes it hilarious that there is this populism thing surrounding him when he is the exact thing that the populist ideology is against.

*sighs, Yes he's brought politicians, I never denied that, but he's never been a politician which is what gives him the edge. Hillary can not make that claim.

[hollodero]

(09-22-2016, 03:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Who knew right-wing populists elected Barack Obama?

Obama's a populist, in many respects. Sure he also adressed feelings. I never denied that. But any comparison must end at that point.
"Right-wing populism" is a special political course, the use of that term does not imply other politicians do not act as populists. As I said, in some way that just comes with the job.

(09-22-2016, 04:22 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Right now, we are seeing a possible shift of the Right, but that doesn't mean that all of the Rhetoric is false as you have tried to imply.

I didn't say they were all "false". Many are. Many are beyond "right" or "false" for there is just nothing there to be falsified. You hear the Mexican phrase and just eat it up. You blame the media and the outrage as "deliberate misquoting" (or something like that, as if he actually wouldn't have used an awful racial prejudice) and a left conspiracy. That is objectively nonsense to do that. Just as implying someone could use his gun to take care of Hillary wasn't a "simple joke" and "evil media blows it out of proportion". It's simply not like that.
This man even says it openly, and you still don't see it. He himself said I could as well shoot someone and I would not lose a single vote. And that's why. You're just captured. You want to believe, therefore you do, he can't do anything wromg with you now. That's feeling-driven, not fact-driven. There's not even an insight to that, it's just what it is.
But it's not just that the rhetorics are false, it's also about the rhetorics being insubstantial, misleading, disgusting and lacking any decency. That, if anything, is what I imply. Plus, they are hateful, dividing, fearmongering and a huge danger. They create bad feelings and base their rhetorics on that - while Obama at least tried to implant positive emotions (you got to give him that). Some things Trump says are close to treason and close to promoting civil unrest. This man doesn't dream of democracy, he dreams of dictatorship - and what else would an egomaniac and narcissist dream of. How comes you are so unwilling to simply see what is there in full display. I never got that back here, I to an even higher extent don't get it now in the US. I thought your society was much more immune.

And on the plus-side, he's an "outsider". So what, I ask you. So what. I am too, would you vote for me?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-22-2016, 05:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: Obama's a populist, in many respects. Sure he also adressed feelings. I never denied that. But any comparison must end at that point.
 ....
But it's not just that the rhetorics are false, it's also about the rhetorics being insubstantial, misleading, disgusting and lacking any decency. That, if anything, is what I imply. Plus, they are hateful, dividing, fearmongering and a huge danger. They create bad feelings and base their rhetorics on that - while Obama at least tried to implant positive emotions (you got to give him that).

Oh boy, looks to me like you are very biased. Left Wing Populist Biased that is and that your rant is nothing more than a Right Wing Populist bash.

Obama has been all over the dividing of the races by constantly supporting BLM and Rioters rather than calling for peace and waiting for the facts to emerge. That is racial divide rhetoric that you are talking about and it's not a positive message from Obama.
Hillary is doing it now with stupid tweets about the two innocent black men killed in Tulsa and Charlotte.
Trump tweeted that its terrible and that it looks like the guy in Tulsa did what he was supposed to do and that we need to find out what that cop was thinking when she fired.

Well it's been a couple of days now, and the LEO said she thought he was on drugs. The guys behavior supports that now and so does the video of him reaching into his truck. He left his running car parked in the middle of the road blocking traffic from both directions, started walking, when the LEO's got there he walked back to his truck and reached in, that is when he got shot and tasered. He was also NOT complying with the officers repeatedly telling him to get down and his actions led several to believe that he was high on something. We all know that Tasers aren't that effective when someone is on drugs.

(09-22-2016, 05:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: I didn't say they were all "false". Many are. Many are beyond "right" or "false" for there is just nothing there to be falsified. You hear the Mexican phrase and just eat it up. You blame the media and the outrage as "deliberate misquoting" (or something like that, as if he actually wouldn't have used an awful racial prejudice) and a left conspiracy. That is objectively nonsense to do that. Just as implying someone could use his gun to take care of Hillary wasn't a "simple joke" and "evil media blows it out of proportion". It's simply not like that.

The Mexican phrase?

Ok let's start clearing some stuff up.
For starters, I've been a long time supporter of removing ALL Illegal Immigrants from American Soil. Not a huge supporter of a wall per se, but it seems like our best option at this time because Immigrants won't stop coming and now we have the possibility of Islamic immigrants that can't enter legally that would try to go thru Mexico to get here and their intentions might or might not be good. So why take that chance?

A secondary effect from the wall, will also slow down the flow of drugs into the US. That's a win-win situation and big blow to the cartels that funnel their drugs thru the US Southern Border.

Most European countries already have the "By Blood" citizenship requirement, and I'm in favor of that as well.

Now let me ask you a Question: Are you doors to your house always unlocked?

(09-22-2016, 05:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: This man even says it openly, and you still don't see it. He himself said I could as well shoot someone and I would not lose a single vote. And that's why. You're just captured. You want to believe, therefore you do, he can't do anything wromg with you now. That's feeling-driven, not fact-driven. There's not even an insight to that, it's just what it is.

And on the plus-side, he's an "outsider". So what, I ask you. So what. I am too, would you vote for me?

I know he said it, but he hasn't done it. There's the difference. If you believe that he would not lose 1 vote, you are swallowing the whole hook the left is feeding you.

If what I value matches up better to yours, then yes, I'd vote for you. I can see right now though, we don't see eye to eye on illegal immigration, so I have nothing to worry about.

[fredtoast]

(09-22-2016, 08:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Obama has been all over the dividing of the races by constantly supporting BLM and Rioters rather than calling for peace and waiting for the facts to emerge.

This is a total lie.

There is not one shred of evidence to back this up, and if you really believe it then you have been completely brainwashed.

There is no need to even has a discussion with someone who is so disconnected from reality.

[fredtoast]

(09-22-2016, 08:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Hillary is doing it now with stupid tweets about the two innocent black men killed in Tulsa and Charlotte.

Hillary never said anything about "two innocent black men" being shot.  

You are just a gullible rube who believes everything the right wing echo chamber feeds you.

You should be a poster child for Trump supporters.

[GMDino]

(09-22-2016, 08:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Oh boy, looks to me like you are very biased. Left Wing Populist Biased that is and that your rant is nothing more than a Right Wing Populist bash.

Obama has been all over the dividing of the races by constantly supporting BLM and Rioters rather than calling for peace and waiting for the facts to emerge. That is racial divide rhetoric that you are talking about and it's not a positive message from Obama.
Hillary is doing it now with stupid tweets about the two innocent black men killed in Tulsa and Charlotte.
Trump tweeted that its terrible and that it looks like the guy in Tulsa did what he was supposed to do and that we need to find out what that cop was thinking when she fired.

Well it's been a couple of days now, and the LEO said she thought he was on drugs. The guys behavior supports that now and so does the video of him reaching into his truck. He left his running car parked in the middle of the road blocking traffic from both directions, started walking, when the LEO's got there he walked back to his truck and reached in, that is when he got shot and tasered. He was also NOT complying with the officers repeatedly telling him to get down and his actions led several to believe that he was high on something. We all know that Tasers aren't that effective when someone is on drugs.


The Mexican phrase?

Ok let's start clearing some stuff up.
For starters, I've been a long time supporter of removing ALL Illegal Immigrants from American Soil. Not a huge supporter of a wall per se, but it seems like our best option at this time because Immigrants won't stop coming and now we have the possibility of Islamic immigrants that can't enter legally that would try to go thru Mexico to get here and their intentions might or might not be good. So why take that chance?

A secondary effect from the wall, will also slow down the flow of drugs into the US. That's a win-win situation and big blow to the cartels that funnel their drugs thru the US Southern Border.

Most European countries already have the "By Blood" citizenship requirement, and I'm in favor of that as well.

Now let me ask you a Question: Are you doors to your house always unlocked?



I know he said it, but he hasn't done it. There's the difference. If you believe that he would not lose 1 vote, you are swallowing the whole hook the left is feeding you.

If what I value matches up better to yours, then yes, I'd vote for you. I can see right now though, we don't see eye to eye on illegal immigration, so I have nothing to worry about.

I don't want to ruin this with any real numbers...but:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-22/immigration-reality-looks-nothing-like-trump-rhetoric

Quote:Immigration's Reality Versus Trump's Rhetoric

WE HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE.
PHOTOGRAPHER: KENA BETANCUR/GETTTY IMAGES
283
SEP 22, 2016 7:30 AM EDT
Sometimes the best response to overheated political rhetoric is one of those dull if worthy white papers issued with alarming regularity by Washington think tanks and research organizations. So it is with two recent reports on immigration, both useful correctives to Donald Trump's statements on the subject.


A Pew Research Center report, released this week, confirms previous findings: The number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. peaked in 2007 before dropping sharply -- with more undocumented Mexicans, in particular, leaving the U.S. than entering. Net illegal immigration is flat, and has been for several years. Contrary to Trump's claims, undocumented immigrants are not "pouring across our borders unabated" before going on to commit "great amounts of crime."


That Donald Trump lacks credibility no longer qualifies as news. More interesting are the implications of this report for his immigration proposals.

First, the U.S. border with Mexico is not being overrun. So an elaborate, expensive wall is entirely unnecessary. Second, most undocumented immigrants in the U.S. -- about two-thirds -- have been in the country for more than a decade. Pew estimates that, as of 2012, 4 million of them lived with their U.S.-citizen children.


Another study released this week -- this one by the Center for American Progress, a think tank allied with Hillary Clinton's campaign -- found that expelling the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants would cost the federal government almost $900 billion in lost revenue over a decade while reducing the nation's gross domestic product by $4.7 trillion. Those losses would be in addition to the costs of deportation.

The Pew data lead to the same conclusion that a bipartisan supermajority of U.S. senators reached in 2013: The settled, stable undocumented immigrants in the U.S. need a path to legalization and, eventually, citizenship.

[Belsnickel]

(09-22-2016, 04:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: *sighs, Yes he's brought politicians, I never denied that, but he's never been a politician which is what gives him the edge. Hillary can not make that claim.

It doesn't give any edge. He's a political insider, a part of the establishment. Just because you want to give him an edge because of it does not make it objectively so.

[hollodero]

(09-22-2016, 08:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Oh boy, looks to me like you are very biased. Left Wing Populist Biased that is and that your rant is nothing more than a Right Wing Populist bash.

Obama has been all over the dividing of the races by constantly supporting BLM and Rioters rather than calling for peace and waiting for the facts to emerge. That is racial divide rhetoric that you are talking about and it's not a positive message from Obama.
Hillary is doing it now with stupid tweets about the two innocent black men killed in Tulsa and Charlotte.
Trump tweeted that its terrible and that it looks like the guy in Tulsa did what he was supposed to do and that we need to find out what that cop was thinking when she fired.

Well it's been a couple of days now, and the LEO said she thought he was on drugs. The guys behavior supports that now and so does the video of him reaching into his truck. He left his running car parked in the middle of the road blocking traffic from both directions, started walking, when the LEO's got there he walked back to his truck and reached in, that is when he got shot and tasered. He was also NOT complying with the officers repeatedly telling him to get down and his actions led several to believe that he was high on something. We all know that Tasers aren't that effective when someone is on drugs.

I don't care about any of that.
Listen, I am not on someone's hook. I'm not an American. I really have no horse in this race and do not care about Hillary. Chances are she's a pretty tedious choice.
What I hear from Trump is unsubstantial hatespeech typical for right-wing populists, although reaching extremes that I never would have thought possible in the US.
Do you even want democracy anymore? Or would you prefer the Russian model with Trump being your Putin? At this point this is not a trick question.

(09-22-2016, 08:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The Mexican phrase?

Ok let's start clearing some stuff up.
For starters, I've been a long time supporter of removing ALL Illegal Immigrants from American Soil. Not a huge supporter of a wall per se, but it seems like our best option at this time because Immigrants won't stop coming and now we have the possibility of Islamic immigrants that can't enter legally that would try to go thru Mexico to get here and their intentions might or might not be good. So why take that chance?

A secondary effect from the wall, will also slow down the flow of drugs into the US. That's a win-win situation and big blow to the cartels that funnel their drugs thru the US Southern Border.

win-win, aha. Except it might cost what, 15, 20 billion dollars sans maintenance?
Be that as it may. Maybe drugs can be slowed down a bit, I couldn't tell. Chances are the drug dealers just would learn how to use showels or ropes or boats. It's a wall, not a force field. But as I said, I do not know.

But you can't seriously tell me that islamic immigration through Mexico is a huge problem that needs to be addressed by a wall.

How do you figure "muslims with bad intentions" react? They want to go to the US with bad intentions, but then there's a wall. That doesn't sound like a problem a terror network's logistics couldn't solve. They just would go through Canada, or forge papers and come in as travellers, or by boat, or by night with a ladder... you can't stop people with bad intentions with a wall. That is nothing but an illusion. That's not me following an "agenda" (I really do not care about your borders), it's just how it is.

Now I am most definitely for restricting immigration to an extent, I'm all for border patrol and background checks and all that. But a wall is, amongst other things, such a non-American thing to do. It's being afraid. And showing it to the world.
At what point do the terrorists win again? When a nation is afraid, full of fear and mistrust and hatred, ready to vote for an autocrat who spends the nation's fortune on walls. That's the closest to reaching their goals terrorists could dream of. Not trying to upset you - it's just as it is.

(09-22-2016, 08:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Most European countries already have the "By Blood" citizenship requirement, and I'm in favor of that as well.

No we don't.

(09-22-2016, 08:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Now let me ask you a Question: Are you doors to your house always unlocked?

No.

(09-22-2016, 08:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I know he said it, but he hasn't done it. There's the difference. If you believe that he would not lose 1 vote, you are swallowing the whole hook the left is feeding you.

He hasn't done it allright. He can imply someone should shoot Hillary, but that's allright.
HE believes he wouldn't lose one vote. And that alone should tell you something about this man.
And regarding your stance, I start to believe he might not lose yours. You'd simply refuse to acknowledge he actually did it.

(09-22-2016, 08:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If what I value matches up better to yours, then yes, I'd vote for you. I can see right now though, we don't see eye to eye on illegal immigration, so I have nothing to worry about.

That's my point. Even if I were on your side regarding immigration, you really shouldn't vote for me. There's more to the job than being anti-immigrant. I would have no idea what I would be doing. Probably I'd ask Kasich to handle everything, too (if I were on that side).

--------------------------------------------------------------

(09-21-2016, 08:16 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: They might not be the founders of ISIS, but they let the "JV" team grow instead of taking it out when they had the chance.

Not my discussion, but that is astonishing.
"Might not be"? Like in "maybe yes, but maybe no"?
This phrase is utter nonsense. There's no "might or might not". It's BS and all agendas aside you should be able to call it what it is. BS. Like 2 + 2 = 5 BS.


--
And one thing. If Trump really gets elected - boy, wou will be sooo disappointed. Now that's a guarantee.

[*michaelsean*]

Quote:Do you even want democracy anymore? Or would you prefer the Russian model with Trump being your Putin? At this point this is not a trick question.

Wouldn't happen. He'd never get any of his craziness through Congress.