|
Post by badhabitude on Jan 29, 2017 16:06:42 GMT
There is almost anywhere you can go in the world, you could probably sneak into North Korea, they probably have the most secure border in the world. The reason people DON'T sneak into North Korea, because it sucks there. You keep people out by taking away their reason to come. The United States does nothing to prevent illegals from coming. The ones they do catch the release on a "you're going to appear before a magistrate in three weeks, right?" promise. Not only that, the border is porous, the Border Patrol is under-funded and under-staffed, and illegals are welcomed in over 200 cities in the country. Fix these things and whoever else gets into this country is welcome by me because they worked hard as fuck to get here. Now wait a second. Those green card holders from the banned country list dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. And now they can't enter the country. As you just said, they worked hard as fuck to get here, and I know that first hand because I married a Brit woman and that process was a fucking royal pain.
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Jan 29, 2017 16:19:45 GMT
The United States does nothing to prevent illegals from coming. The ones they do catch the release on a "you're going to appear before a magistrate in three weeks, right?" promise. Not only that, the border is porous, the Border Patrol is under-funded and under-staffed, and illegals are welcomed in over 200 cities in the country. Fix these things and whoever else gets into this country is welcome by me because they worked hard as fuck to get here. Now wait a second. Those green card holders from the banned country list dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. And now they can't enter the country. As you just said, they worked hard as fuck to get here, and I know that first hand because I married a Brit woman and that process was a fucking royal pain. That post was from two days ago, before the new policy was enacted. And green card holders (not from the 7 countries listed as terrorist hotbeds) are not banned from entering the country, they are required to be vetted at the consulate and waivered.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Jan 29, 2017 16:44:30 GMT
Someone please help me understand something. Why did Trump not mention Saudi Arabia as one of the countries that no immigrants are allowed? I mean he referenced 9/11 as to one of the reasons the military is over there fighting terrorist. Supposedly 15 of the 19 terrorist from that day were Saudi's. I understand to a degree what Trump is trying to do, but I really wish that he would've re-opened the whole 9/11 situation again before going to this extreme. Now, before someone accuses me of having a tin foil hat on & think I'm screaming conspiracy. I am not doing that, but I also 100% believe that the Bush administration had a lot to do with what happened. Whether they were behind it or not....? I can't say that, but I will say 2 things. 1) I think the Gov't knew about it in some form & ignored it; whether that was the NSA, or CIA doesn't matter.Someone knew. They wanted an excuse to go to war....again! 2) The whole 9/11 Commission was a complete joke & full of lies. Far too many questions are unanswered & too many Laws of Physics got destroyed that day & too many coincidences for my taste. I hope he keeps that promise & re-opens it again. Homework assignment: Read up on H.W. Bush's relationship with the Carlyle Group, Bin Laden family and the Asian Partners fund. If anyone accuses you of having a tinfoil hat on, it's because they think the truth sometimes is inconvenient and don't want to here about how American taxpayer money is really controlled. The Bush's started their scumbag web back in the 1930s with Prescott.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Jan 29, 2017 16:59:16 GMT
Now wait a second. Those green card holders from the banned country list dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. And now they can't enter the country. As you just said, they worked hard as fuck to get here, and I know that first hand because I married a Brit woman and that process was a fucking royal pain. That post was from two days ago, before the new policy was enacted. And green card holders (not from the 7 countries listed as terrorist hotbeds) are not banned from entering the country, they are required to be vetted at the consulate and waivered. But they have already been vetted, that's why they have green cards.
|
|
|
Post by dezaruchi on Jan 30, 2017 19:35:23 GMT
Someone please help me understand something. Why did Trump not mention Saudi Arabia as one of the countries that no immigrants are allowed? I mean he referenced 9/11 as to one of the reasons the military is over there fighting terrorist. Supposedly 15 of the 19 terrorist from that day were Saudi's. I understand to a degree what Trump is trying to do, but I really wish that he would've re-opened the whole 9/11 situation again before going to this extreme. Now, before someone accuses me of having a tin foil hat on & think I'm screaming conspiracy. I am not doing that, but I also 100% believe that the Bush administration had a lot to do with what happened. Whether they were behind it or not....? I can't say that, but I will say 2 things. 1) I think the Gov't knew about it in some form & ignored it; whether that was the NSA, or CIA doesn't matter.Someone knew. They wanted an excuse to go to war....again! 2) The whole 9/11 Commission was a complete joke & full of lies. Far too many questions are unanswered & too many Laws of Physics got destroyed that day & too many coincidences for my taste. I hope he keeps that promise & re-opens it again. Homework assignment: Read up on H.W. Bush's relationship with the Carlyle Group, Bin Laden family and the Asian Partners fund. If anyone accuses you of having a tinfoil hat on, it's because they think the truth sometimes is inconvenient and don't want to here about how American taxpayer money is really controlled. The Bush's started their scumbag web back in the 1930s with Prescott. Check out Norman R.Augustine if you want info on another guy who's had too much power for too long.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Jan 31, 2017 23:19:31 GMT
So here's what I think Trump is up to. He's going to harass the immigrant population and try to give America a more immigrant unfriendly reputation around the world - as immigrants have a tendency to vote Democratic.
This has NOTHING - and it must be repeated - NOTHING to do with finding terrorists. These people have already been vetted. These people are the ones who have dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's and got into the country legally. That's one, and second, all of the terrorist attacks since 911 have been perpetrated by US citizens.
And in at least some cases I know about, these are the people who put their lives on the line to be allies with us to fight ISIS.
The equivalent of the Resistance in Nazi Europe in WW2.
Red meat for his base. Pure politics. Getting things done? No, not, accomplishing absolutely nothing except for getting his supporters riled up.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Feb 1, 2017 1:57:52 GMT
Aside from business interests in Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia Trump would love to get more poor people off the voter roll.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Feb 1, 2017 13:21:35 GMT
Protesters had their signs ready to the point where all they needed to do is fill in the name of whomever President Trump named as his nominee for the Supreme Court. They were already in place and ready to go. Chuckles Schumer already had his bullet points prepared on how the nominee is a bad choice. It didn't matter who the nominee was or his/her qualifications or anything relevant to the position. They will say the same things regardless of whether the nominee is Saint Francis if Assisi or Benito Mussolini. Dumbass millennials who have never read an opinion by Neil Gorsuch, know nothing bout him, yet are out spewing their preprogrammed lines on why he sucks. Does anyone else think this is a problem?
Before any of you lefty fucktards come at me on this, I think it sucks that the republicans wouldn't move on hearings for Merrick Garland. Garland was a good choice and did not have a history of trying to legislate from the bench. Same with Gorsuch. This is not true of several of the current SCOTUS fossils so I'm hoping Gorsuch gets through. Not because he leans conservative but because he's a brilliant judge who puts the law ahead of politics.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Feb 1, 2017 13:40:35 GMT
Protesters had their signs ready to the point where all they needed to do is fill in the name of whomever President Trump named as his nominee for the Supreme Court. They were already in place and ready to go. Chuckles Schumer already had his bullet points prepared on how the nominee is a bad choice. It didn't matter who the nominee was or his/her qualifications or anything relevant to the position. They will say the same things regardless of whether the nominee is Saint Francis if Assisi or Benito Mussolini. Dumbass millennials who have never read an opinion by Neil Gorsuch, know nothing bout him, yet are out spewing their preprogrammed lines on why he sucks. Does anyone else think this is a problem? Before any of you lefty fucktards come at me on this, I think it sucks that the republicans wouldn't move on hearings for Merrick Garland. Garland was a good choice and did not have a history of trying to legislate from the bench. Same with Gorsuch. This is not true of several of the current SCOTUS fossils so I'm hoping Gorsuch gets through. Not because he leans conservative but because he's a brilliant judge who puts the law ahead of politics. Are you fucking kidding me? I can hardly blame the democrats for being obstructive, it's what the republicans did. an eye for an eye. what's good for the goose is good for the gander. That was Obama's pick and it was taken away from him with dirty politics. I am 100% behind them on this. And you're right, I don't give a shit who they nominate, obstruct is what I say.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Feb 1, 2017 13:45:37 GMT
Protesters had their signs ready to the point where all they needed to do is fill in the name of whomever President Trump named as his nominee for the Supreme Court. They were already in place and ready to go. Chuckles Schumer already had his bullet points prepared on how the nominee is a bad choice. It didn't matter who the nominee was or his/her qualifications or anything relevant to the position. They will say the same things regardless of whether the nominee is Saint Francis if Assisi or Benito Mussolini. Dumbass millennials who have never read an opinion by Neil Gorsuch, know nothing bout him, yet are out spewing their preprogrammed lines on why he sucks. Does anyone else think this is a problem? Before any of you lefty fucktards come at me on this, I think it sucks that the republicans wouldn't move on hearings for Merrick Garland. Garland was a good choice and did not have a history of trying to legislate from the bench. Same with Gorsuch. This is not true of several of the current SCOTUS fossils so I'm hoping Gorsuch gets through. Not because he leans conservative but because he's a brilliant judge who puts the law ahead of politics. Are you fucking kidding me? I can hardly blame the democrats for being obstructive, it's what the republicans did. an eye for an eye. what's good for the goose is good for the gander. That was Obama's pick and it was taken away from him with dirty politics. I am 100% behind them on this. And you're right, I don't give a shit who they nominate, obstruct is what I say. This ^^^^ is why we are in the state we're in. GFY
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Feb 1, 2017 14:32:09 GMT
Are you fucking kidding me? I can hardly blame the democrats for being obstructive, it's what the republicans did. an eye for an eye. what's good for the goose is good for the gander. That was Obama's pick and it was taken away from him with dirty politics. I am 100% behind them on this. And you're right, I don't give a shit who they nominate, obstruct is what I say. This ^^^^ is why we are in the state we're in. GFY Really? And who started this? Republican shit doesn't stink I guess. I guess it's perfectly ok when Republicans obstruct a supreme court nomination, but you're totally indignant when the Democrats do it. It's very clear who started this. And I like it. They are threatening to remove the filibuster. I think that's excellent, because one day the Democrats will attain the majority, and then let's see how the Republicans like that. Live by the sword, die by the sword - get over it. It's what the Republicans introduced.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Feb 1, 2017 15:02:30 GMT
This ^^^^ is why we are in the state we're in. GFY Really? And who started this? Republican shit doesn't stink I guess. I guess it's perfectly ok when Republicans obstruct a supreme court nomination, but you're totally indignant when the Democrats do it. It's very clear who started this. And I like it. They are threatening to remove the filibuster. I think that's excellent, because one day the Democrats will attain the majority, and then let's see how the Republicans like that. Live by the sword, die by the sword - get over it. It's what the Republicans introduced. No, you moron, if you read my post you would see I think it sucks that the republitards refused to hold hearings for Merrick Garland, a fairly moderate, eminently qualified jurist. More of the same obstructionist shit isn't good for the country. But assholes want revenge instead of doing what's right and best for the country. GFY. Again.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Feb 1, 2017 17:29:18 GMT
Really? And who started this? Republican shit doesn't stink I guess. I guess it's perfectly ok when Republicans obstruct a supreme court nomination, but you're totally indignant when the Democrats do it. It's very clear who started this. And I like it. They are threatening to remove the filibuster. I think that's excellent, because one day the Democrats will attain the majority, and then let's see how the Republicans like that. Live by the sword, die by the sword - get over it. It's what the Republicans introduced. No, you moron, if you read my post you would see I think it sucks that the republitards refused to hold hearings for Merrick Garland, a fairly moderate, eminently qualified jurist. More of the same obstructionist shit isn't good for the country. But assholes want revenge instead of doing what's right and best for the country. GFY. Again. What was right and what was best for the country was to have held hearings for Merrick. You're offended by obstructionist shit, but only when Democrats do it? And you are surprised that I'm outraged? Stepping back and looking at that from another perspective, this was inevitable. The politics have forced the sides to extremes, which I think is a bad thing, it is destabilizing and that is EXACTLY what enemies of this country want - OR maybe, the extreme right who wants an autocratic government in place seeking cause to impose their will on the people.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Feb 1, 2017 18:32:53 GMT
No, you moron, if you read my post you would see I think it sucks that the republitards refused to hold hearings for Merrick Garland, a fairly moderate, eminently qualified jurist. More of the same obstructionist shit isn't good for the country. But assholes want revenge instead of doing what's right and best for the country. GFY. Again. What was right and what was best for the country was to have held hearings for Merrick. You're offended by obstructionist shit, but only when Democrats do it? And you are surprised that I'm outraged? Stepping back and looking at that from another perspective, this was inevitable. The politics have forced the sides to extremes, which I think is a bad thing, it is destabilizing and that is EXACTLY what enemies of this country want - OR maybe, the extreme right who wants an autocratic government in place seeking cause to impose their will on the people. Maybe I wasn't clear. I was as offended when the republicans blocked Garland as I am with the prospect of another similar scenario with Gorsuch. It's bullshit regardless of who is doing it. I'm offended that you think it's a good idea that dems try to stop Gorsuch from being appointed. Go protest. I hope you get pepper-sprayed. Yes, the extremism has gotten worse and there's plenty of blame to go around for that. I'm a moderate and not happy with either the far left or far right. Bannon, Lizzy Warren, Bhab (haha) are all part of the problem. If you're not in absolute agreement with them you're absolutely wrong. Screw all of them.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Feb 1, 2017 18:40:08 GMT
What was right and what was best for the country was to have held hearings for Merrick. You're offended by obstructionist shit, but only when Democrats do it? And you are surprised that I'm outraged? Stepping back and looking at that from another perspective, this was inevitable. The politics have forced the sides to extremes, which I think is a bad thing, it is destabilizing and that is EXACTLY what enemies of this country want - OR maybe, the extreme right who wants an autocratic government in place seeking cause to impose their will on the people. Maybe I wasn't clear. I was as offended when the republicans blocked Garland as I am with the prospect of another similar scenario with Gorsuch. It's bullshit regardless of who is doing it. I'm offended that you think it's a good idea that dems try to stop Gorsuch from being appointed. Go protest. I hope you get pepper-sprayed. Yes, the extremism has gotten worse and there's plenty of blame to go around for that. I'm a moderate and not happy with either the far left or far right. Bannon, Lizzy Warren, Bhab (haha) are all part of the problem. If you're not in absolute agreement with them you're absolutely wrong. Screw all of them. What the fuck are you doing talking about US politics in the US politics thread? Clearly this belongs in the Trudeau thread.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Feb 1, 2017 18:42:15 GMT
What was right and what was best for the country was to have held hearings for Merrick. You're offended by obstructionist shit, but only when Democrats do it? And you are surprised that I'm outraged? Stepping back and looking at that from another perspective, this was inevitable. The politics have forced the sides to extremes, which I think is a bad thing, it is destabilizing and that is EXACTLY what enemies of this country want - OR maybe, the extreme right who wants an autocratic government in place seeking cause to impose their will on the people. Maybe I wasn't clear. I was as offended when the republicans blocked Garland as I am with the prospect of another similar scenario with Gorsuch. It's bullshit regardless of who is doing it. I'm offended that you think it's a good idea that dems try to stop Gorsuch from being appointed. Go protest. I hope you get pepper-sprayed. Yes, the extremism has gotten worse and there's plenty of blame to go around for that. I'm a moderate and not happy with either the far left or far right. Bannon, Lizzy Warren, Bhab (haha) are all part of the problem. If you're not in absolute agreement with them you're absolutely wrong. Screw all of them. No, what I hope happens is that the Republicans do exactly as they are threatening - to remove the filibuster in order to drive this through. And I would like to see that happen. It will be a knife that cuts both ways and we should see more legislating and a little less politicking.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Feb 2, 2017 15:59:51 GMT
Is this where we discuss Canadian politics since the Trudeau thread is full of American politics?
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Feb 2, 2017 16:10:09 GMT
Is this where we discuss Canadian politics since the Trudeau thread is full of American politics? Any and all leftover political issue debates can be talked about on the "Tuukka's groin-the Apocalypse" thread.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Feb 4, 2017 13:12:59 GMT
Here we go. The laws enacted to prevent another financial crisis like 2008, and consumer protection for people against financial consultants who seek to profit for themselves rather than their clients - Trump is going after that. If anything the language of Dodd Frank should be enhanced, not removed. I know a financial consultant, an honest one, he is concerned that there will be an increase of incidents by financial consultants ripping off their clients.
What's the spin on this? the laws were bad? Consumers don't need to be protected, they should be smart enough to do their own investing?
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Feb 11, 2017 21:20:15 GMT
Now wait a second. Those green card holders from the banned country list dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. And now they can't enter the country. As you just said, they worked hard as fuck to get here, and I know that first hand because I married a Brit woman and that process was a fucking royal pain. That post was from two days ago, before the new policy was enacted. And green card holders (not from the 7 countries listed as terrorist hotbeds) are not banned from entering the country, they are required to be vetted at the consulate and waivered. Just talking pure politics. Trump is on a short leash as far as impeachment goes. Democrats would be willing to impeach - just because. And I think Republicans would be just as eager to impeach as well as they will get every bit of legislation they want with Pence, but with a lot less hassle. So it would serve everyone's interest to impeach him. I think it would have been the same if Hillary if she were elected, if she also proved to be as much of a lightning rod as Trump the same politics would probably hold true.
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Feb 11, 2017 21:29:46 GMT
That post was from two days ago, before the new policy was enacted. And green card holders (not from the 7 countries listed as terrorist hotbeds) are not banned from entering the country, they are required to be vetted at the consulate and waivered. Just talking pure politics. Trump is on a short leash as far as impeachment goes. Democrats would be willing to impeach - just because. And I think Republicans would be just as eager to impeach as well as they will get every bit of legislation they want with Pence, but with a lot less hassle. So it would serve everyone's interest to impeach him. I think it would have been the same if Hillary if she were elected, if she also proved to be as much of a lightning rod as Trump the same politics would probably hold true. There is no way Trump gets impeached with the Republicans holding majorities in the House and Senate. Although I like Mike Pence, I think it is super naive and total wishful thinking on your part to even think that the Republican majority would commit political suicide by removing a President with 86% approval from his partiy's constituents. It's not happening.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Feb 11, 2017 21:50:28 GMT
Just talking pure politics. Trump is on a short leash as far as impeachment goes. Democrats would be willing to impeach - just because. And I think Republicans would be just as eager to impeach as well as they will get every bit of legislation they want with Pence, but with a lot less hassle. So it would serve everyone's interest to impeach him. I think it would have been the same if Hillary if she were elected, if she also proved to be as much of a lightning rod as Trump the same politics would probably hold true. There is no way Trump gets impeached with the Republicans holding majorities in the House and Senate. Although I like Mike Pence, I think it is super naive and total wishful thinking on your part to even think that the Republican majority would commit political suicide by removing a President with 86% approval from his partiy's constituents. It's not happening. No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that if Trump gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar or his dick up an underage farm animal or whatever - he hasn't exactly made great friends with a lot of the Republican pols. So if there is wrong doing I think he would get bounced pretty quick.
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Feb 11, 2017 22:02:21 GMT
There is no way Trump gets impeached with the Republicans holding majorities in the House and Senate. Although I like Mike Pence, I think it is super naive and total wishful thinking on your part to even think that the Republican majority would commit political suicide by removing a President with 86% approval from his partiy's constituents. It's not happening. No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that if Trump gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar or his dick up an underage farm animal or whatever - he hasn't exactly made great friends with a lot of the Republican pols. So if there is wrong doing I think he would get bounced pretty quick. If Trump did something worth getting impeached over, I'd want him impeached too. As I would with any President. He's not getting impeached for hurting liberals feelings though.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Feb 17, 2017 19:24:44 GMT
No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that if Trump gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar or his dick up an underage farm animal or whatever - he hasn't exactly made great friends with a lot of the Republican pols. So if there is wrong doing I think he would get bounced pretty quick. If Trump did something worth getting impeached over, I'd want him impeached too. As I would with any President. He's not getting impeached for hurting liberals feelings though. I'm going to guess that he will be impeached for doing something illegal, possibly immoral and probably more due to ignorance that outright intent, or possibly too much arrogance. I was just stating reality. His base loves the shit he's stirring up. Experienced politicians and those in the public who follow see this for what it exactly is, an inexperienced politician who does not have good knowledge, but believes he does and believes his methodology works no matter the reality. So when he fucks up, because I believe its just a matter of time, he hasn't made any friends in his own party and they will give him up right quick.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Feb 18, 2017 16:11:20 GMT
"The story began with a Jan. 24 speech that Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, gave on the House floor regarding what he described as the unfair way the national media was covering President Trump. He said for instance that the media ignored highs in consumer confidence, which of course it did not. And he ended with an admonition for his constituents: “Better to get your news directly from the president. In fact, it might be the only way to get the unvarnished truth.”" NYT www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/business/media/trump-era-media-censorship.html?emc=edit_th_20170218&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=57048741Of course Bim will say this is fake news and the congressman didn't say that. First, the NYT got the quote right. Second, getting your news from the president? Never get your news from any president, Democrat or Republican or otherwise.
|
|