Observer Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) Why wouldn't we ban Syrian refugees given what little we really know about those coming in? While we're at it, why wouldn't we do a lot more to secure our borders? Why shouldn't we bring all immigration (legal and illegal) down to a trickle until we can improve the process and until a time when our economy and jobs environment is better equipped to absorb higher numbers? Banning refugees is its own thread. You took Trump's soundbyte bait. He loves you for it. Let me take you through how Trump's mind works. Trump sees shooing in Orlando. Trump says "What has happened in Orlando is just the beginning...I called it and asked for the ban [on immigrants]." "Appreciate the congrats for being right..." Trump took the shooting and pushed his anti-immigrant agenda. He could have pushed his agenda to get more Peking Duck served in school cafeterias and it would have been almost as relevant to this shooting. At least when Clinton pushed her firearm legislation agenda, there was a firearm involved. Edited June 14, 2016 by Observer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 That's OK. Trump's reaction to this is "You see folks, we need to ban Syrian refugees." That and self-congratulations that this proves he was right somehow about immigration. Those are the choices. Yet Gary Johnson hopes for 3%. I have no clue why people are not looking at the other candidates more seriously. If there ever was a year for a viable third party run, this is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 I have no clue why people are not looking at the other candidates more seriously. If there ever was a year for a viable third party run, this is it. Party trumps all and people don't want to vote for someone they perceive can't win and the 3rd party candidates rarely get much exposure. Banning refugees is its own thread. You took Trump's soundbyte bait. He loves you for it. Let me take you through how Trump's mind works. Trump sees shooing in Orlando. Trump says "What has happened in Orlando is just the beginning...I called it and asked for the ban [on immigrants]." "Appreciate the congrats for being right..." Trump took the shooting and pushed his anti-immigrant agenda. He could have pushed his agenda to get more Peking Duck served in school cafeterias and it would have been almost as relevant to this shooting. At least when Clinton pushed her firearm legislation agenda, there was a firearm involved. Trump's position on immigration is the most sound except for the practicality of deporting all and getting Mexico to write a check. There are so many reasons to limit immigration. It's really a no-brainer. The terrorism threat is just one piece of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Hillary: People Under FBI Investigation Should Lose Constitutional Rights. Will any journalists ask Hillary or Obama about her statement? (A rhetorical question, I know, I know.) Saudi Arabia Has Funded 20% Of Hillary’s Presidential Campaign, Saudi Crown Prince Claims. Goldman Sachs hired prostitutes to win Libyan business, court told. Will any journalists ask Hillary about this story? (A rhetorical question, I know, I know.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Party trumps all and people don't want to vote for someone they perceive can't win and the 3rd party candidates rarely get much exposure. So you're admitting that people are lemming idiots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 So you're admitting that people are lemming idiots? Absolutely. Most voters are idiots. Big majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 14, 2016 Author Share Posted June 14, 2016 Hillary: People Under FBI Investigation Should Lose Constitutional Rights. Will any journalists ask Hillary or Obama about her statement? (A rhetorical question, I know, I know.) Will she be put on the "no fly list"? That would be rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 oh wait, i think greggy's serious Not serious about the non-bias. Gave it as a fair warning. Though, if Russia was really serious about releasing those emails, RT would be the first source to break it. I have no clue why people are not looking at the other candidates more seriously. If there ever was a year for a viable third party run, this is it. Why? HRC espouses everything you value on an international level. She's your neo-con. Just embrace her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Why? HRC espouses everything you value on an international level. She's your neo-con. Just embrace her. I think you need to give this line a rest. You're confusing HRC with her husband, and even he was a far cry from a neocon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 I think you need to give this line a rest. You're confusing HRC with her husband, and even he was a far cry from a neocon. Yet you have refused to answer several times whether or not you'll vote for HRC... I find that suspicious. You can admit you're going to vote for her. It's okay. No one will judge you. If you don't think HRC's foreign policy lines up well with your neo-con agenda you haven't done your homework. She is the only one running in this election that represents that out dated and irresponsible foreign policy. The only one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Yet you have refused to answer several times whether or not you'll vote for HRC... I find that suspicious. You can admit you're going to vote for her. It's okay. No one will judge you. If you don't think HRC's foreign policy lines up well with your neo-con agenda you haven't done your homework. She is the only one running in this election that represents that out dated and irresponsible foreign policy. The only one. I don't know how much more clear I can be when I say that the presumptive candidates of the two major parties are a choice between a turd sandwich & a giant douche. It shouldn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out I want no part of either one of them in the general election. But carry on with your fantasy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Trump's position on immigration is the most sound except for the practicality of deporting all and getting Mexico to write a check. There are so many reasons to limit immigration. It's really a no-brainer. The terrorism threat is just one piece of it. Not debating that in this particular discussion. Trump's immigration stance is irrelevant to the Orlando shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 I don't know how much more clear I can be when I say that the presumptive candidates of the two major parties are a choice between a turd sandwich & a giant douche. It shouldn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out I want no part of either one of them in the general election. But carry on with your fantasy It's not fantasy to be curious about your vote considering your political leanings and hers line up pretty well. She is clearly the only one carrying your team's flag on an international level (not domestic). I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I do find it curious that you're being so evasive about it when you're not in denial about what she actually stands for. She's the only one that will push the neo-con agenda further -- at home and abroad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 It's not fantasy to be curious about your vote considering your political leanings and hers line up pretty well. She is clearly the only one carrying your team's flag on an international level (not domestic). I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I do find it curious that you're being so evasive about it when you're not in denial about what she actually stands for. She's the only one that will push the neo-con agenda further -- at home and abroad. You have a very superficial view of the world, and HRC's international positions are not neocon, in as much as she can have a position at all - other than furthering the business of the Clinton Foundation. So yes, if there's a favorable trade wind this month that aligns the Foundation's mission with a neocon view, then she'll espouse it. But don't mistake correlation with causation, which is what most of the websites that you populate tend to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 You have a very superficial view of the world, Considering how little you understand of my view, based on your continual incorrect summations of it, this is a laughable comment. But I appreciate the laugh. and HRC's international positions are not neocon, in as much as she can have a position at all - other than furthering the business of the Clinton Foundation. Incorrect. She voted for the war in Iraq, she believes in regime change as a business opportunity for the US. She espouses every major tenant of the neo-con playbook and more so, her actions as SecState followed that playbook almost to a letter. To say she's not a neo-con is showing either your ignorance of your chosen philosophy (which I don't believe) or your unwillingness to look beyond party affiliation to what's really at her core. She's a neo-con. This is undeniable. But don't mistake correlation with causation, which is what most of the websites that you populate tend to do. Is this an intercept jab? Did Glenn Greenwald hit on your wife or something? Because I'm not sure how you know what websites or news sources I actually go to. It seems awfully disingenuous to assume you know where I source my information. But that's kind of your deal lately. Projecting your own issues onto other people's statements and thinking it's fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Not serious about the non-bias. Gave it as a fair warning. Though, if Russia was really serious about releasing those emails, RT would be the first source to break it. Why? HRC espouses everything you value on an international level. She's your neo-con. Just embrace her. HRC espouses everything everyone values, eventually. You're crediting the world's ultimate opportunist with far more consistency than she deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 HRC espouses everything everyone values, eventually. You're crediting the world's ultimate opportunist with far more consistency than she deserves. She's unquestionably an opportunist. Won't deny that. But the one area she's actually been consistent in is her belief in regime change, the bedrock of the neo-con playbook. Yes, she panders. Yes she's more progressive socially than the traditional neo-con. But her track record in State and Senate, as well as the heroes and mentors she claims to follow, are all the standard bearers for the neo con cause and philosophy. She pushed to destabilize Libya. She voted for Iraq and stood by it. She supported the coup in the Ukraine. She supported the coup in Honduras. She hasn't said boo about what's happening in Brazil. As she said when talking about Libya, regime change is a "business opportunity" for the US. Do we really think she's not going to further push this philosophy once she's commander in chief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 14, 2016 Author Share Posted June 14, 2016 Who wears it better - Hillary or Transamerica? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) She's unquestionably an opportunist. Won't deny that. But the one area she's actually been consistent in is her belief in regime change, the bedrock of the neo-con playbook. Yes, she panders. Yes she's more progressive socially than the traditional neo-con. But her track record in State and Senate, as well as the heroes and mentors she claims to follow, are all the standard bearers for the neo con cause and philosophy. She pushed to destabilize Libya. She voted for Iraq and stood by it. She supported the coup in the Ukraine. She supported the coup in Honduras. She hasn't said boo about what's happening in Brazil. As she said when talking about Libya, regime change is a "business opportunity" for the US. Do we really think she's not going to further push this philosophy once she's commander in chief? This is a gatorman level response. Do me a favor look up the definition off neocon, and then read up on ask the effects you just cited and see which side Hillary was on. Considering how little you understand of my view, based on your continual incorrect summations of it, this is a laughable comment. But I appreciate the laugh. Incorrect. She voted for the war in Iraq, she believes in regime change as a business opportunity for the US. She espouses every major tenant of the neo-con playbook and more so, her actions as SecState followed that playbook almost to a letter. To say she's not a neo-con is showing either your ignorance of your chosen philosophy (which I don't believe) or your unwillingness to look beyond party affiliation to what's really at her core. She's a neo-con. This is undeniable. Is this an intercept jab? Did Glenn Greenwald hit on your wife or something? Because I'm not sure how you know what websites or news sources I actually go to. It seems awfully disingenuous to assume you know where I source my information. But that's kind of your deal lately. Projecting your own issues onto other people's statements and thinking it's fact. The last thing I'm worried about is Glenn Greenwald hitting on my wife, or any female for that matter. I do worry about his hypocritical penchant for sensationalizing non news. Edited June 14, 2016 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) Not debating that in this particular discussion. Trump's immigration stance is irrelevant to the Orlando shooting. Agree but you brought up Trump and my position on immigration was in place years before Trump ran for President. Edited June 14, 2016 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts