Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

Have you voted? ;)


LasraelLarson
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Jedy2 said:

Obama 2011 ban for twice as long as Trumps.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/30/did-obama-really-start-muslim-ban-before-donald-trump-6415102/

& the additional countries on the list...  again Obama (2015.) 

what did Sally Yates do then i wonder?  or the media?

i think i remember...  it was JACK SHIT!  yeah complete silence, cause reasons.

& ALL the usual media culprits are dubbing a "Narrative" buzzword ...  if it was an actual "Muslim Ban", why are the top 5 most populace Muslim countries not listed?

i'm glad she got fired!  pity Trump can't send her ass to Mexico...  & "crocodile tears" Schumer is just performing classic Democrat obstructionism.  YAWN.   need to make sure there is a solid candidate running against him for 2018, so we can wave buh-bye to him as well.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, LasraelLarson said:

& ALL the usual media culprits are dubbing a "Narrative" buzzword ...  if it was an actual "Muslim Ban", why are the top 5 most populace Muslim countries not listed?

When has the US ever had the balls to stand up to places like Saudi Arabia? If there's one thing holier to a capitalist than the Bible, it's the Dollar.

But as much as they are making this out to be a Muslim ban (and in all fairness, that was the way Trump was portraying it during his election campaign), it's actually worse than that: it's a nationality ban. People are banned not for ideologies or crimes, but for being born in a certain place. Sure, Obama went and banned Iraqi refugees, but those were refugees, not regular migrants. If people have the money to travel and the competency to get the right paperwork, their race or nationality shouldn't hold them back. At least it's only 3 months, compared to some nations with permanent bans.

So far, this is the second policy Trump's going for that's just a weaker version of an Israeli policy (the ban and the wall). It will be interesting to see what benefit it has, if any. And, just maybe, the media that so condemns Trump for following up on his promises might start turning their attention to the same injustices in Palestine. I doubt it, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doro said:

 

So far, this is the second policy Trump's going for that's just a weaker version of an Israeli policy (the ban and the wall). It will be interesting to see what benefit it has, if any. And, just maybe, the media that so condemns Trump for following up on his promises might start turning their attention to the same injustices in Palestine. I doubt it, though.

Not being a media, I can condemn Israel wholeheartedly. 

(Being an East-European philosemite, rooting for Israel in 1967 doesn't stop me from calling some of their policies fascist) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, LasraelLarson said:

Obama 2011 ban for twice as long as Trumps.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/30/did-obama-really-start-muslim-ban-before-donald-trump-6415102/

& the additional countries on the list...  again Obama (2015.) 

what did Sally Yates do then i wonder?  or the media?

i think i remember...  it was JACK SHIT!  yeah complete silence, cause reasons.

& ALL the usual media culprits are dubbing a "Narrative" buzzword ...  if it was an actual "Muslim Ban", why are the top 5 most populace Muslim countries not listed?

i'm glad she got fired!  pity Trump can't send her ass to Mexico...  & "crocodile tears" Schumer is just performing classic Democrat obstructionism.  YAWN.   need to make sure there is a solid candidate running against him for 2018, so we can wave buh-bye to him as well.

According to Joe Finner, who worked on National Security during the Obama administration, there was no month during 2011 where there were no refugees arriving from Iraq.  Yes there was a slow done that year as part of the review of all refugees from Iraq after a specific threat, that lead to 2 refugees being arrested.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

As for sacking Sally Yates, that is not a good thing, she is meant to be the person that upholds the law and constitution above everything else, it doesnt matter who is in power.  She did not think that the executive order was lawful.  As such it was her job to speak out and do what she did.  Trump sacking her make it looks like anyone that tries to stand up to him faces being fired, that is not a good thing in any county, that is the kind of thing you expect in North Korea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

 Trump sacking her make it looks like anyone that tries to stand up to him faces being fired, that is not a good thing in any county, that is the kind of thing you expect in North Korea

In North Korea they use the firing squad. But yes, the message has been sent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

Yeah the message is Trump is becoming a dictator.  Screw the law

Is it actually against the law to fire her? I'm of the opinion that having anyone above the ability to be removed from power is a more worrying option than a temporary president firing a lawyer in an acting position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Doro said:

Is it actually against the law to fire her? I'm of the opinion that having anyone above the ability to be removed from power is a more worrying option than a temporary president firing a lawyer in an acting position.

No it is not against the law, but firing someone for doing there job because they dared to speak out against you, is not a smart move.  We have alread yseen Trump refuse to talk to sections of the media, now sacking someone for doing their job.  It is not a good start

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

 

When your boss assigns a task to you, and you're publicly insubordinate about it, how long do you expect to stay at that position?

 

When you are the top legal person in the country, it is your job to speak out when someone does something illegal, even if that person is the President.  The whole point of her job is to see that the law is upheld.  

Should Trump be able to give orders that break the law, is he now above the law

39 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

And I don't fault Trump for telling the media to go fuck themselves, they've done nothing but give him grief since he was elected because Trump wasn't their anointed President - and the pretentious assholes think we're all morons for electing Trump.

Yeah the press never gave Obama a hard time did they.  Every President in living memory has been give a hard time by sections of the press, they just got on with it.  Trying to silence sections of the press is a slippery slope.  How long before you only get news through Trump approved press. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

waaay to much to quote, so screw it...

RE: Sally Yates:

if she has some contentious points that the executive order may breach constitutional law, then it is her job to outline that concern to the president.

SHE HAS NOT OUTLINED SHIT!  saying, "i don't believe this is constitutional." has no explanatory value whatsoever.

once she has outlined the constitutional conflict, if she then feels that strongly in opposition, she has a right to resign.  but that is her job, to advise the president of the conflicts.  actual statute, or precedent with regard to constitutional law where they would open themselves to litigation.

not only did she not outline the constitutional conflict, she then refused to enact the executive order.  it was well within the bounds of the constitution (order had even been vetted through her department) & the President had EVERY right within the constitution to order it.

Sally Yates is just terrible at her actual job.  she completely deserved termination.

RE: the executive order?

lets actually read the words actually contained in:

Quote

 

PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
 
Section 1. Purpose.
The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States.  Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program.  Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States.  The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.  The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.  In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
 
Sec. 2. Policy.
It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.
 
Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern.
(a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.
 
Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs.
(a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.
 
Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017.
(a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
 
Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility.
The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.
 
Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System.
(a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.
 
Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security.
(a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.
 
Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity.
The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.
 
Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection.
(a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:
(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.
(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.
 
Sec. 11. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
      (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
      (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
 
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE, January 27, 2017


 

 
yeah fail to see the concern.  3 month visa suspension to beef up vetting procedures.  big whoop.  and constitutionally sound and well within the Presidents procedural powers. non issue, but everything Trump does is now cause for a protest march & histrionics.  there is no constitutional conflict & no grounds for legal challenge, but it will be fun to watch Trump win another battle the usual culprits currently claim he can't do.
 
suckers. :P

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

This video demonstrates the basics of the Republican/Democrat interactions that's been going on in the US as far as I can remember:

 

As far back as you can remember...ok, sure.

Bringing Milo Yiannopoulos (or his supporters)  into any conversation to back up an argument is a bit silly.  The man doesn't have the point of view(s) he does because he feels it's important to show that a queer can have a different opinion than your average liberal--he's doing it because it serves his self interest.  He's fine with the fact that most free thinking, somewhat intelligent, non self-loathing gay people wouldn't bother to cross the road to spit on him because that's not his audience.  It never has been.  This is the same person who thinks that there is something fundamentally wrong with being gay, simply because rural society historically hasn't been kind to queers and it can be a horribly lonely, miserable experience (direct quote from him).  And then he blasts gays who choose to live in a "liberal metropolis".  Of course, I mean...how dare they be happy.  He just wants people to be miserable like he is. 

As for the video, if you know anything about Milo...if you've read some of the hateful shit he has spouted...let's put it this way, he has every right to say some of the stupid shit he does, but you can't act surprised when people want to smack the shit out of him (and his supporters).  It's not a surprise that hate begets hate...and sometimes that leads to violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

Thank you for proving my point about Liberals that are intolerant of ideological diversity.

If you honestly believe that Milo is genuinely coming from a place of  "ideological diversity"...well, by all means--keep drinking the Kool-Aid, brother.

Let me guess, you're a fan of Ann Coulter as well? LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There does seem to be this disconnect in the left right now between what they preach and what they practice. For them, they believe they're tolerant, and forward-thinking, and morally superior, and yet they think it's perfectly acceptable to resort to violence over a difference of opinions. They seriously believe it's their moral duty to attack those they disagree with, and probably because they've had it drilled into them that the "other side" deserves it for various dishonest reasons, like being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc..

The irony being that while they're labouring under the delusion that they're fighting fascists for a noble cause, they're actually reinforcing fascism. This lack of self-awareness, and their mind-blowing levels of hypocrisy are getting beyond the joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Doro said:

snip (stupid quoting system)

 

Yes, all liberals are secretly fascists.  And the Republican party has never enforced their morally superior views on the masses...anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-gun control, anti-regulation, anti-environment...yada yada yada.  

There has always been a disconnect between the right when it comes to practicing what they preach.  After all, it's hard to be a god loving Christian when you are condemning people to hell from your pulpit.  The fringe left has simply taken a page out of the right's book of hypocrisy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Almagnus1 said:

Because all Republicans are exactly the same thing.... /rollseyes

Except that the fringe IS the DNC Leadership.  The Democratic party is so thoroughly infested with SJWs that it's no longer viable without severe change.  If the Democrats don't straighten things out by 2018, they're going to lose EVEN MORE of the House and Senate, and greatly improve the odds that Trump stays in office until 2024.

Republicans aren't stupid (despite what these Democrats would have you believe), and there's no chance in Hell they'd vote for an SJW.

"SJW" belongs right up there with "alternative facts" and the rest of the bullshit that people like you spout.  It's like watching a bunch of self entitled kids trying to come up with cool names to call the unpopular kid down at the playground.  Grow up and learn to think for yourself.  Do you even know who the DNC leadership consists of right now--or are you just going by what Fox News tells you is going on over at the DNC?

Name me one Republican that hasn't ran on all (or nearly all) those (anti-) platforms I mentioned.  Good luck.

 

21 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

So even if the Democrats do something stupid and start a civil war, it's going to be like this scrappy young kid trying to pick a fight with an NFL line backer.

 

my money is on the the scrappy young kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

And this is why the Democrats lose - when presented with factual information, they immediately jump to conclusions and insult people.  Especially when any sane person can just look it up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee

 

1.  Given your post history, you probably should never play the "he insulted me" victim card.

2.  You didn't provide any factual information--you said the DNC  "is so thoroughly infested with SJWs that it's no longer viable".  Unless of course, opinions have become actual facts in the post Trump era (shall I put that into the "alternative fact" category for you?).  That's right up there with "3-5 million people voted illegally--all for Hillary of course--and that is a fact because some random dude named Gregg said so"

/shrug.

 

Edited by Papi
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Papi, read about how Blue Dog Democrats are getting marginalised within their own party. If the Democrats become more dominated by the "Progressive" wing of their party, they ARE going to continue to lose House and Senate seats. The 'fringe' left and their anti-free-speech violence seem to face little opposition from Dem leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FundinStrongarm said:

Papi, read about how Blue Dog Democrats are getting marginalised within their own party. If the Democrats become more dominated by the "Progressive" wing of their party, they ARE going to continue to lose House and Senate seats. The 'fringe' left and their anti-free-speech violence seem to face little opposition from Dem leadership.

It's time for a change in the Democratic Party.  If that means the Blue Dog Democrats--which, in my mind, are part of the "establishment" are starting to feel the pinch, I'm fine with that.  What is considered progressive?  Sometimes people throw words around and attach a negative connotation to them so I'm curious as to where you are coming from.  The priorities in the U.S. are fucked.  We want to spend more...billions more...on defense, and yet providing free college and health care to the next generation is a non-starter.  We continue to be dependent on fossil fuels (and the thugs who supply them) instead of making a break towards a more dominant solar/nuclear energy sector.  All of this is politically risky and initially costly, but it's where I think we need to go in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

1. He basically gathered enough of the traditionally Democrat-leaning voters to beat Hillary in enough of the states to give him a margin of almost 80 points (304-227).  While California is this crazily populated, Democrat leaning state, the rest of the country basically said "No" to the Democrats, which means most of their core voters across the middle and low class whites, and traditional racial voters, have abandoned that party.

2. Look at how the Democrat party has reacted since the election.  They are blocking everything the Republicans do because they are Republicans.  

 

 

1. Clinton was a terrible candidate (I've never argued otherwise).  When the reality of it all settles in, the only person Trump could have lost to was her.  You can argue against that, but I honestly believe that Bernie would have decimated him.

2. The first thing Mitch McConnell proclaimed when Obama won the presidency was that his goal was to make it a one-term presidency.  He vowed no cooperation from the get-go.  So again...the Democrats are just taking a page from the Republican handbook.  But it's not like Trump's initiatives have all passed the sanity check.  He's already had to make revisions on some of his rushed executive orders due to pure buffoonery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Papi said:

It's time for a change in the Democratic Party.  If that means the Blue Dog Democrats--which, in my mind, are part of the "establishment" are starting to feel the pinch, I'm fine with that.  What is considered progressive?  Sometimes people throw words around and attach a negative connotation to them so I'm curious as to where you are coming from.  The priorities in the U.S. are fucked.  We want to spend more...billions more...on defense, and yet providing free college and health care to the next generation is a non-starter.  We continue to be dependent on fossil fuels (and the thugs who supply them) instead of making a break towards a more dominant solar/nuclear energy sector.  All of this is politically risky and initially costly, but it's where I think we need to go in the long run.

 

3 minutes ago, Papi said:

1. Clinton was a terrible candidate (I've never argued otherwise).  When the reality of it all settles in, the only person Trump could have lost to was her.  You can argue against that, but I honestly believe that Bernie would have decimated him.

2. The first thing Mitch McConnell proclaimed when Obama won the presidency was that his goal was to make it a one-term presidency.  He vowed no cooperation from the get-go.  So again...the Democrats are just taking a page from the Republican handbook.  But it's not like Trump's initiatives have all passed the sanity check.  He's already had to make revisions on some of his rushed executive orders due to pure buffoonery.

The only time the Democrats have held a majority in the House in the last 25 years was when the Blue Dogs held close to 45 seats - a high water mark for them. Since then , they've been squeezed out by progressives in primaries and the Democrats haven't come close to a majority since (because the progressives go on to lose bs Republicans, except in urban areas).

"Progressives" have been around for over 100 years in the US. They've mostly pushed for more government control over people's lives in one form or another. Currently, the SJWs and Progressives are closely aligned.

I'm pretty much diametrically opposed to your vision of the US's future, although military spending just for the sake of it isn't my cup of tea.

1. I don't think Bernie would have won either. There's lots of crazy crap that he's said and done that never came out during the primaries.

2. Agreed. It usually goes both ways. This time is no different than other times in this regard.

As for taking pages from playbooks, I think it is the alt-right taking from standard left wing tactics. Identity politics being the main issue there.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too many interesting posts today to quote / reply.

From the news it seems to me that progressives are really losing their grasp on reality.

The whole "didn't win the popular vote" is STILL being spouted to a point beyond "sore losers" and has reached the level of delusional.

One minor official in the Obama government suggested a military coup, amongst other things, as a means to remove Trump. Well duh... the military is a very strong Trump / Republican constituency.

Liberal Berkley, often considered the birthplace of 60's free speech in America, had riots yesterday in an attempt to silence Milo.

The left is losing it and rushing off the same cliff as Labour and Jeremy Corbyn.

The left is screaming about all things Trump but don't seem to realize Trump is part of a world-wide movement.

It truly makes me laugh to watch them... but is also dangerous as many progressives are "true believers" and those are always the most dangerous. They consider themselves the pillars of tolerance except for those who disagree with them. They consider themselves justified in doing so because... well... they are right... obviously.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, fittybolger said:

1. The whole "didn't win the popular vote" is STILL being spouted to a point beyond "sore losers" and has reached the level of delusional.

2. One minor official in the Obama government suggested a military coup, amongst other things, as a means to remove Trump. 

3. Liberal Berkley, often considered the birthplace of 60's free speech in America, had riots yesterday in an attempt to silence Milo.

4. The left is screaming about all things Trump but don't seem to realize Trump is part of a world-wide movement.

5. but is also dangerous as many progressives are "true believers" and those are always the most dangerous.

1. Well, he didn't win the popular vote.  But he can always fall back on the fact that 3-5 million people voted illegally--which isn't a delusional statement at all.

2.  Got a link?

3. Milo needs to be silenced.  Seriously, he's a self-loathing pig.  It's not like he's a comedian doing stand-up.  He's an editor for a reputable (LOL) news agency, Breitbart News, for fucks sake!

4. Speaking of world-wide movement...http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-women-idUKKBN1550DU

5.  But not as dangerous as elevating Steven Bannon to the National Security Council position while downgrading the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--y'know the people who should probably always be on that Council.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Papi said:

1. Well, he didn't win the popular vote.  But he can always fall back on the fact that 3-5 million people voted illegally--which isn't a delusional statement at all.

2.  Got a link?

3. Milo needs to be silenced.  Seriously, he's a self-loathing pig.  It's not like he's a comedian doing stand-up.  He's an editor for a reputable (LOL) news agency, Breitbart News, for fucks sake!

4. Speaking of world-wide movement...http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-women-idUKKBN1550DU

5.  But not as dangerous as elevating Steven Bannon to the National Security Council position while downgrading the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--y'know the people who should probably always be on that Council.

.

1. Yes, he didn't win the popular vote. He's also the duly elected POTUS.

2. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/3-ways-to-get-rid-of-president-trump-before-2020-impeach-25th-amendment-coup/

3. Your statement that someone "needs to be silenced" speaks volumes. Right along with those in Berkeley, you want to control the speech of those you disagree with.

4. There's a number of movements around the world. One of them is a backlash against left wing tactics. Another is against Trump.

5. Agreed. Those others should be on the NSC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...