You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:Are you arguing with me or a boogeyman you created you think I represent? Have I ever used that term “fake news” like a Trumpkin or to disparage an entire organization? Have I ever linked Breitbart.
Fair enough. You don’t care about the border or immigration law. A lot of Americans do, and Donald Trump was primarily elected (not by me remember, I’m the “far right wing Republican” that voted for Clinton) because of his immigration rhetoric. I bet money Congress, to include Democrats, finally does something on immigration before August.
Then you can continue to tell us how you don’t care what the law says, how you’ll support obstructionism at the detriment of people you allegedly care about, because saying “fuck you” to Trump is more important than actually helping people.
I love these conversations, because your posts perfectly represent the “fuck Trump” mentality that much of the left is enamored with. And it’s great to get those arguments solidified and out in the open. Your opinions are your own, but the raw hatred isn’t.
Yes it's true that I see you more than anyone else as the embodiment of a Trump supporter on this board. Even if you did vote for Hillary. You are no where near as critical of Trump as you have been of Obama...so it makes you an easy target.
It is raw hatred...I've never denied that. But even without all of that...I still remain staunch in my stance that 'immigration reform' is the Republicans' Obamacare. All this a-do about putting brown people back where they came from is like ice cream cake. I also remain convinced that this isn't a matter of law or immigration at all...it's as feel good to a sect of the population that I cannot relate to. I believe that whether a Mexican is here legally doesn't matter to many of the Trump supporters. It's just about getting them out by any means necessary.
So I'd say my hatred is well matched.
And that's your prism, not mine or many others. Sure, there's absolutely a racist component to the immigration debate. Just like a lot of people just voted for Obama because he was black. That doesn't mean that Obama wasn't a worthy candidate or was somehow less qualified or capable. Stupid people agreeing with you doesn't mean the end point is inherently wrong. There is a valid list of reasons to want a secure border, and you don't get to excuse them because an invalid reason to want to secure the border is rooted in white supremacy. If 50k Norwegians moved into your neighborhood tomorrow to the point everything in your neighborhood was foreign to you, would you not be a little upset. What if they were here illegally? What if they were selling whatever product you make right out in public for 50% less, but without all the red tape you have to abide by to make your items profitable? You wouldn't feel any resentment? Ask why your own government is letting this happen without any control?
I'm not saying the situation is anything like that nationwide, but it absolutely has happened to communities across the nation. For someone who claims to be an advocate for the black community, I'd think you'd have some interest in immigration since illegal immigrants directly compete with poor, black Americans for housing and labor. If we don't do anything to deter illegal immigration, if we essentially have an open border, what's going to stop millions more economic migrants from showing up. Nothing. So we have to enforce the fucking law, or we don't have a border. Illegal immigrants learned that if you show up with a kid, it's a free pass until Sessions/Trump started the zero tolerance policy. I know on the conference today, the DHS secretary said there's been a %300+ increase in child trafficking since Obama chose to not enforce the policy. Now I'll be the first to say that figure means bullshit without the raw numbers. Going from 1 to 4 isn't the same as going from 10k to 40k children. So it's obviously worth the look to figure out how much spin is loaded in that figure and how accurate it is. But has anyone thought to ask how many kids are exploited because crying mothers makes people feel bad and that's become an argument?
Maybe it's a bullshit statistic. But you should fucking look it up. Cause that does matter. Smugglers and free people alike are making a dangerous journey to illegally enter the US putting themselves and others in danger, to include those children. Wasn't it just a month ago that a tractor trailer was found with dead migrants from the heat trying to sneak in? If you remove the reward, they're not going to take the risk.
Re: US Politics Thread
PaSnow wrote:Anyone see a story last night that Roger Ailes supposed met with Russians in May of 2016 & was offered the dirt on Hillary (hacked emails) for $2mil?
I think I'm starting to piece it all together. Russians proposed the hacked emails for a coupla million, Trump had Michael Cohen payout the money from the Trump Foundation charity bank account, money was exchanged, emails went up onto Wikileaks.
So many crimes in that statement right there, so many.
I have some contacts in the Philly PD. Let me know if you want an interview.
You complimenting my detective work? 
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:PaSnow wrote:Anyone see a story last night that Roger Ailes supposed met with Russians in May of 2016 & was offered the dirt on Hillary (hacked emails) for $2mil?
I think I'm starting to piece it all together. Russians proposed the hacked emails for a coupla million, Trump had Michael Cohen payout the money from the Trump Foundation charity bank account, money was exchanged, emails went up onto Wikileaks.
So many crimes in that statement right there, so many.
I have some contacts in the Philly PD. Let me know if you want an interview.
You complimenting my detective work?
Re: US Politics Thread
mitchejw wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:Are you arguing with me or a boogeyman you created you think I represent? Have I ever used that term “fake news” like a Trumpkin or to disparage an entire organization? Have I ever linked Breitbart.
Fair enough. You don’t care about the border or immigration law. A lot of Americans do, and Donald Trump was primarily elected (not by me remember, I’m the “far right wing Republican” that voted for Clinton) because of his immigration rhetoric. I bet money Congress, to include Democrats, finally does something on immigration before August.
Then you can continue to tell us how you don’t care what the law says, how you’ll support obstructionism at the detriment of people you allegedly care about, because saying “fuck you” to Trump is more important than actually helping people.
I love these conversations, because your posts perfectly represent the “fuck Trump” mentality that much of the left is enamored with. And it’s great to get those arguments solidified and out in the open. Your opinions are your own, but the raw hatred isn’t.
Yes it's true that I see you more than anyone else as the embodiment of a Trump supporter on this board. Even if you did vote for Hillary. You are no where near as critical of Trump as you have been of Obama...so it makes you an easy target.
It is raw hatred...I've never denied that. But even without all of that...I still remain staunch in my stance that 'immigration reform' is the Republicans' Obamacare. All this a-do about putting brown people back where they came from is like ice cream cake. I also remain convinced that this isn't a matter of law or immigration at all...it's as feel good to a sect of the population that I cannot relate to. I believe that whether a Mexican is here legally doesn't matter to many of the Trump supporters. It's just about getting them out by any means necessary.
So I'd say my hatred is well matched.
And that's your prism, not mine or many others. Sure, there's absolutely a racist component to the immigration debate. Just like a lot of people just voted for Obama because he was black. That doesn't mean that Obama wasn't a worthy candidate or was somehow less qualified or capable. Stupid people agreeing with you doesn't mean the end point is inherently wrong. There is a valid list of reasons to want a secure border, and you don't get to excuse them because an invalid reason to want to secure the border is rooted in white supremacy. If 50k Norwegians moved into your neighborhood tomorrow to the point everything in your neighborhood was foreign to you, would you not be a little upset. What if they were here illegally? What if they were selling whatever product you make right out in public for 50% less, but without all the red tape you have to abide by to make your items profitable? You wouldn't feel any resentment? Ask why your own government is letting this happen without any control?
I'm not saying the situation is anything like that nationwide, but it absolutely has happened to communities across the nation. For someone who claims to be an advocate for the black community, I'd think you'd have some interest in immigration since illegal immigrants directly compete with poor, black Americans for housing and labor. If we don't do anything to deter illegal immigration, if we essentially have an open border, what's going to stop millions more economic migrants from showing up. Nothing. So we have to enforce the fucking law, or we don't have a border. Illegal immigrants learned that if you show up with a kid, it's a free pass until Sessions/Trump started the zero tolerance policy. I know on the conference today, the DHS secretary said there's been a %300+ increase in child trafficking since Obama chose to not enforce the policy. Now I'll be the first to say that figure means bullshit without the raw numbers. Going from 1 to 4 isn't the same as going from 10k to 40k children. So it's obviously worth the look to figure out how much spin is loaded in that figure and how accurate it is. But has anyone thought to ask how many kids are exploited because crying mothers makes people feel bad and that's become an argument?
Maybe it's a bullshit statistic. But you should fucking look it up. Cause that does matter. Smugglers and free people alike are making a dangerous journey to illegally enter the US putting themselves and others in danger, to include those children. Wasn't it just a month ago that a tractor trailer was found with dead migrants from the heat trying to sneak in? If you remove the reward, they're not going to take the risk.
No, just no. Logic/reason doesn't matter. Saving the kids didn't matter either until it became politically advantageous for them to matter. They certainly weren't interested in saving the kids when they were caged under the previous administration, but there's outrage when the law is actually followed. If you don't like the law, change it; don't stomp your feet. Jesus Christ, what a bunch of pussies.
Here's what drives me crazy on this: the big complaint was that the Republicans were being obstructionists. On some level they were, but the democrats also weren't too interested in working with them either. Now both shoes are on the other feet and both sides have reversed roles as though there's nothing wrong with what they are now doing. Well they did it, so it's okay. NO, IT'S NOT OKAY. It's all a game to them and they win regardless of who supposedly has the power and we lose. The more people like mitch lose their minds, the more they have a stranglehold on the power. None of this changes until enough people on both sides (the people, not the politicians) get their collective heads out of their asses.
I've had friends agree with me on FB over and over about how bad both sides are, then follow it with more of a barrage on Trump. These are otherwise smart people that just go along with being the pawn. It's sad.
Re: US Politics Thread
Politics have always has a cult of personality component to it, but ever since Clinton it's been the deciding factor way more than the politics of it.
Bill didn't win on policy - he won because the economy tanked but mostly because he was a hip, smooth guy.
Bush Jr didn't win on policy. Frankly I'm not sure why he won other than he wasn't Gore, who was the opposite of Clinton. If they had another Clinton personality to run, that person would have won. In fact, Hillary may have won had she run.
Obama didn't win on policy, he won because he was an African-American (this isn't racist, look at the voter turnout), he had some of that Clinton polish to him, and wasn't a Bush.
Trump didn't win on policy - he won because he wasn't a Clinton.
The other thing I've felt over the years is that I appreciate the last president a lot more when they are out of office than when they are in office. When their political career is over, they somehow end up sounding a lot more intelligent. Probably because they no longer have to play the political game and take on more of the ambassador (not officially) role. I was a Regan guy, but Clinton has been my favorite president since Regan. That doesn't mean he didn't make political mistakes (they all do), but he got most of it right and the big mistakes he made were more on the personal side than the political side.
There's something we're just not getting right in the political process anymore. Maybe it's always been fucked up and social media has just made it more obvious, but it felt like the sides worked together in the past until the election year. After the election they worked together again until the next election year in 4 years. Maybe it was the Clinton impeachment that changed it. I don't know and the reason or timing isn't as important as acknowledging it and changing it. The best thing for this country is balance of policy from both sides because they both have valid stances on issues. When either side gets too much of their policy in place, bad things start happening. I don't think it's coincidence that we've gone back and forth between presidential leadership since Bush Sr. We can't do everything for business or the country will fail; we can't go socialist or the country will fail. That balance is what allowed us to prosper and it's important to sustaining what we have. If we ever lose it (sorry hippy tree huggers), there will be no country left to socialize.
Re: US Politics Thread
Bush Jr didn't win on policy. Frankly I'm not sure why he won other than he wasn't Gore, who was the opposite of Clinton. If they had another Clinton personality to run, that person would have won. In fact, Hillary may have won had she run.
Combination of factors. Bill was still in notorious shame over his BJ incident, Al chose not to use him much on the campaign trail (Remember Bush's campaign slogan was 'Family Values' to capitalize on it). Also Ralph Nader had a pretty significant impact on the results. And lastly Al Gore chose quite possibly the worst VP choice of all time in boring Joe Lieberman. Just an awful decision. I think James posted here a few years back, Al Gore had a pretty tough primary run with Bill Bradley, a likeable & energetic politician from NY. Bradley put up a pretty good fight & I think it got a bit nasty. Seems Gore couldn't get past the personal dislike and chose not to select him as VP, and the choise of Leiberman from NH was even looked at as extending an olive branch to the Northeast sector. Had he chose Bradley, he was a lock.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
buzzsaw wrote:Bush Jr didn't win on policy. Frankly I'm not sure why he won other than he wasn't Gore, who was the opposite of Clinton. If they had another Clinton personality to run, that person would have won. In fact, Hillary may have won had she run.
Combination of factors. Bill was still in notorious shame over his BJ incident, Al chose not to use him much on the campaign trail (Remember Bush's campaign slogan was 'Family Values' to capitalize on it). Also Ralph Nader had a pretty significant impact on the results. And lastly Al Gore chose quite possibly the worst VP choice of all time in boring Joe Lieberman. Just an awful decision. I think James posted here a few years back, Al Gore had a pretty tough primary run with Bill Bradley, a likeable & energetic politician from NY. Bradley put up a pretty good fight & I think it got a bit nasty. Seems Gore couldn't get past the personal dislike and chose not to select him as VP, and the choise of Leiberman from NH was even looked at as extending an olive branch to the Northeast sector. Had he chose Bradley, he was a lock.
Was he worse than Palin? I always thought Lieberman was a Republican.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
How do we get Sessions gone. Him and Steven Miller are the cancers.
