ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

鬼殺し wrote:

They won't make that mistake again in a hurry.

Bullshit. I'll play Competence Roulette with candidates who will shake up the status quo before I'll settle for the most stable the establishment has to offer. My ballot box is hardwired to the Michael Moore "Fuck You" option.

So you can either let some anti-establishment candidates with some brains through, or by God me and my ilk will make this a bumpy fucking ride.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Turtledove, you need to understand this, and understand it clearly: everything Trump stands for on immigration was promised, but not delivered, by Democrats in the late Clinton to early Obama eras. The wall, curtailing illegal immigration, everything. Schumer, Hilary, Bill, even Barry O himself.

Do you think Barrack Obama is racist against Hispanic people?

Now as I've said before, I don't think a wall is very useful. Overall, I believe the Trumpian attitude to immigration is based on the economic theory of protectionism in regards to labor, and ultimately I don't believe protectionism is effective. But it's a popular economic theory in the same way that minimum wage laws are popular — indeed, the Trumpian immigration policy has the same intent but different means.

Now if this protectionism was contrasted with a free market approach, then maybe I'd be more anti-Trump than I am. But the Democrats don't advocate that. Indeed, they advocate the most bizarre economic policy of all, reverse protectionism — levying huge taxes on the US (and other Western nations) to provide huge economic advantages to non-western nations, all under the guise of solving global climate change. I think climate change is real (although not "we'll be dead in 15 years" dire as AOC believes), but I don't see how "solutions" like the Paris Accords would solve anything.

As far as rejecting the reverse protectionism like that's all so popular like TPP and the previous iteration of NAFTA, it takes a stubborn nut like Trump to either renegotiate better terms or say no deal. And regarding actual Trump's attempts at protectionism, the masses will fight him tooth and nail, as they have, and he probably won't achieve much. He's simultaneously absolutely necessary on one hand and harmless on the other.

Here's a decent article that does a good job explaining why some reasonable people consider our President Donald Trump a racist.

It covers four major episodes prior to running for President.

It covers seven major reasons that happened while he was campaigning.

And about a dozen things that have happened since becoming President.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Turtledove, you need to understand this, and understand it clearly: everything Trump stands for on immigration was promised, but not delivered, by Democrats in the late Clinton to early Obama eras. The wall, curtailing illegal immigration, everything. Schumer, Hilary, Bill, even Barry O himself.

Do you think Barrack Obama is racist against Hispanic people?

Now as I've said before, I don't think a wall is very useful. Overall, I believe the Trumpian attitude to immigration is based on the economic theory of protectionism in regards to labor, and ultimately I don't believe protectionism is effective. But it's a popular economic theory in the same way that minimum wage laws are popular — indeed, the Trumpian immigration policy has the same intent but different means.

Now if this protectionism was contrasted with a free market approach, then maybe I'd be more anti-Trump than I am. But the Democrats don't advocate that. Indeed, they advocate the most bizarre economic policy of all, reverse protectionism — levying huge taxes on the US (and other Western nations) to provide huge economic advantages to non-western nations, all under the guise of solving global climate change. I think climate change is real (although not "we'll be dead in 15 years" dire as AOC believes), but I don't see how "solutions" like the Paris Accords would solve anything.

As far as rejecting the reverse protectionism like that's all so popular like TPP and the previous iteration of NAFTA, it takes a stubborn nut like Trump to either renegotiate better terms or say no deal. And regarding actual Trump's attempts at protectionism, the masses will fight him tooth and nail, as they have, and he probably won't achieve much. He's simultaneously absolutely necessary on one hand and harmless on the other.

Here's a decent article that does a good job explaining why some reasonable people consider our President Donald Trump a racist.

It covers four major episodes prior to running for President.

It covers seven major reasons that happened while he was campaigning.

And about a dozen things that have happened since becoming President.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

Not much of a point linking that. Everyone with a brain know Trump is racist. Those that deny it are either Trumpist or racists themselves.

"

faerwin wrote:

Not much of a point linking that. Everyone with a brain know Trump is racist. Those that deny it are either Trumpist or racists themselves.

"

faerwin wrote:

Not much of a point linking that. Everyone with a brain know Trump is racist. Those that deny it are either Trumpist or racists themselves.

There's no point in linking it because it's easily debunkable.

"

Trump figures the hundreds of thousands he's put out of work can just wander in to the supermarket, take food and leave an IOU.

No, I'm not The Onion.

AND Nancy Pelosi is his superior in every way, by several magnitudes.

How did he put them out of work? Politics is a two way street not our way or highway which democrats are playing. Trump was will willing to compromise on DACA and few other things but the partial wall is a non starter for democrats. With ideologues like that nothing will get done sadly.

Trump should maybe play ideologue too use his energy powers to get his wall if there can be no compromise. But two wrongs don't a right.



Oh and ever heard of credit cards? Or savings? I suppose government employees who make 50% more than same private sector don't have those? Nah man this is just cheap politics.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

jackof8lades wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Racists love trump. That is a very good indication that his racist messages have been received by at least those that he targeted. There are far more racists in this country than I thought.

It is too bad that doing surveys for racism are so difficult because it would be interesting to see whether the Obama backlash has caused more new racists or Trump has caused more new racists.

Here you are assigning racist motives to ppl who support trump, you have no idea if they are or not but you project your own racism on them anyways.

Turtledove, you need to understand this, and understand it clearly: everything Trump stands for on immigration was promised, but not delivered, by Democrats in the late Clinton to early Obama eras. The wall, curtailing illegal immigration, everything. Schumer, Hilary, Bill, even Barry O himself.

Do you think Barrack Obama is racist against Hispanic people?

Now as I've said before, I don't think a wall is very useful. Overall, I believe the Trumpian attitude to immigration is based on the economic theory of protectionism in regards to labor, and ultimately I don't believe protectionism is effective. But it's a popular economic theory in the same way that minimum wage laws are popular — indeed, the Trumpian immigration policy has the same intent but different means.

Now if this protectionism was contrasted with a free market approach, then maybe I'd be more anti-Trump than I am. But the Democrats don't advocate that. Indeed, they advocate the most bizarre economic policy of all, reverse protectionism — levying huge taxes on the US (and other Western nations) to provide huge economic advantages to non-western nations, all under the guise of solving global climate change. I think climate change is real (although not "we'll be dead in 15 years" dire as AOC believes), but I don't see how "solutions" like the Paris Accords would solve anything.

As far as rejecting the reverse protectionism like that's all so popular like TPP and the previous iteration of NAFTA, it takes a stubborn nut like Trump to either renegotiate better terms or say no deal. And regarding actual Trump's attempts at protectionism, the masses will fight him tooth and nail, as they have, and he probably won't achieve much. He's simultaneously absolutely necessary on one hand and harmless on the other.

This. Now all of sudden Democrats forgot all about their promises because it might make Trump look good. So who's really playing games with government employees lives?

I totaly agree with that. Protectionism is terrible. Whether trade or labor. Sanctions are ok to change behavior like China who has 1m muslims in concentration camps or Russia who steals other countries.

It's strange that this policy issue, of any, has avoided being thrown to federal agencies. Ever since Chevron in 1984, legislators have had to do embarrassingly small amounts of actual legal work.

Instead of arguing about "racist/immoral wall v. ineffective/lip service drones", why not just say something like, "There is bipartisan agreement that border security is important. We should give $5.7b to CBP/ICE/some other 3LA and they can decide how best to spend it"?

If those agencies decide a wall is the best use of that money, then congressional Democrats get to say that they stood up to Trump and can blame the agencies. If the agencies decide a wall isn't the best use of that money, then Trump gets out from under the shutdown and gets to blame the agencies. In either case, the (media-fueled) American rage gets directed at a bunch of unelected federal agents and the world turns.

That's been the plan for over 30 years, so what changed this time?

---

Does anyone feel like they have a good grip on how the current kerfuffle is going to end? I really would hate to see the border wall created by executive order, but it does seem most likely. (Immediately followed by 9th circuit challenge, presumably.)

I keep thinking back to when the crisis du-jour was family separation at the border, and there's Schumer waving his pen around saying that Trump should "just sign an E.O." to solve the problem. It was a disgusting abdication of legislative duty, and here we are again.

Is there really no bipartisan legislation that could possibly be written? Is there really nothing that the democrats can ask for in trade for the wall? Both sides seem convinced by their own polling data that they're going to look better in an extended shutdown scenario and that losing this battle is fatal to 2020.

... Anyone got money on the shutdown continuing until 2020? :D

Whats changed is super division politics. Trump does not even want wall but his hard core base does so he's tossing them 5.8b dollar bone partial when a real wall will cost like 50 billion + from other reports. Dems are standing up to Trump allowing him no political victory because they hate him.

A wall will do little anyway. Most ppl overstay visitor visa and mule drugs in with civilian cars via checkpoints. It's all for politics gov is shut down.

Not that i'm unhappy about it. We didnt have taxes or border security or drug laws 100 years ago. The bureaucracy is out of control always wanting to do something which doesnt do anything or makes it worse.

See homicide rates in Mexico to feed Americans illicit drugs