Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Sean.3516

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Major arsehole attitude and yes I hope you'd require stiches afterwards.

It’s like these kids walked into the middle of some cultural exhibition and started mocking and demeaning this guy.

1st. They were being mocked and called racial epithets by these Black Israelite scum.

2nd. The kids respond by breaking into a positive school chant, to drown the racists out.

3rd. Philips arrives in out of nowhere and walks into the middle of the crowd beating his drum chanting and drum beating in an effort to defend the Black Israelites from the kids.

Each of these points are factually accurate and corroborated by all witness testimony bar Philips and corroborated by the video. If you think Ove gotten anything wrong tell me.

All assertions of racism are based on the circumstantial evidence that these kids were mostly white and that Philips is a Native American.

These kids stood their ground and reacted exactly how one should react to this rubbish: by laughing in it’s face.

Midlife

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Although I agree with about 90% of Trump’s policies, I don’t submit to the cult of personality that many MAGA people do

This is far more interesting than arguing about kids in MAGA hats.

Tell me, what are the 90% of his policies you agree with.

Economic, climate change, immigration, tax reform, trying to repeal health care, repeal of financial regulations?

looksee

If I saw someone wearing a Sinn Fein t shirt, I wouldn’t assume that that person agreed with Gerry Adams that the Brighton bombing was a “Completely legitimate action”
This is what’s happening with the kids. People are tarring them with the brush of trumps personality because they like his policies,

to which I responded

Originally Posted by looksee
So maybe they should wear half and half caps, to show that they kinda support the hats that Trump specifically created and promoted, but they have reservations. Or maybe the reservations could be printed on the caps. MAGABNWT.

And Sean3516 made the completely irrelevant reply

Or we could all just stop making assumptions about their moral character without evidence?

How can you answer a point that has nothing to do with anything? If anything I am offering them a get-out clause.

dr.fuzzenstein

Midlife wrote: »

This is far more interesting than arguing about kids in MAGA hats.

Tell me, what are the 90% of his policies you agree with.

Economic, climate change, immigration, tax reform, trying to repeal health care, repeal of financial regulations?

He must be part of the top 1% that actually benefit from Trump's policies, because otherwise there's no way any fully functional adult with an IQ over 50 could buy into this MAGA sh*t.
And like most rabid Trump supportes i am willing to bet lives anywhere on Earth except, of course, the good ole' US of A.

Sean.3516

Midlife wrote: »

This is far more interesting than arguing about kids in MAGA hats.

Tell me, what are the 90% of his policies you agree with.

Economic, climate change, immigration, tax reform, trying to repeal health care, repeal of financial regulations?

Midlife wrote: »

This is far more interesting than arguing about kids in MAGA hats.

Tell me, what are the 90% of his policies you agree with.

Economic, climate change, immigration, tax reform, trying to repeal health care, repeal of financial regulations?

My own political beliefs mirror the American conservative right concept of negative rights as opposed to positive rights that was espoused by the philosopher John Locke.

As far as the economy is concerned I think the government should stay out of it. I believe in a laissez fairs approach. Trump believes the govt should intervene to protect industrial workers who’s jobs will probably be taken by tech in the near future, I’m against that.

With climate change. I believe in it but I’m not in favor of massively regulating industries in order to deal with it. I’d like someone to investigate how much of climate change is actually being mitigated by these regs. Plus in 40 yrs nobody will be driving a car and renewables will be much more efficient because there is in fact a market for renewable energy if it is efficient and cost effective

With health care. I believe it should be entirely privatized. Govt healthcare leads to rationing and ridiculous waiting times and it has been shown doesn’t actually increase life expectancy unless you have a quality system funded by massive taxation (which I’ll get to in a minute). People with a profit incentive tend to provide a better product than the govt who’s chief concern is universality over quality. Trump wants to move towards private care.

On immigration, I think he’s pretty much right to want the wall. They obviously need it. And the threat to human life from gangs has been shown. The money he’s asking for is a pittance compared to the USA’s 4 trillion dollar budget. If there wasn’t a welfare state there’d be no need for restrictions on legal immigration because you don’t need to weed out freeloaders because there’s nothing for them to take advantage of.

On taxes I think a progressive income tax shouldn’t exist. Flat Tax or a national sales tax is the way. So any tax cuts is fine with me.

I don’t know what his stance on fincancial regs is? Probably the same as all regs. Govts should never bail out banks, if they know they’re going to be bailed out you just incentivize their recklessness.

So yea. There’s your summary
I’d say I actually agree with Trump on 75% of issues.

Also tariffs, I disagree with him on. Their just silly economically speaking unless their purpose is to be sanctions. If you tariff foreign steel. You’ve basically just made steel more expensive for everybody using steel because you wanted to help one industry.

Sean.3516

looksee wrote: »

to which I responded



And Sean3516 made the completely irrelevant reply



How can you answer a point that has nothing to do with anything? If anything I am offering them a get-out clause.

What I meant was that instead of assuming that everyone in a MAGA hat follows Trump religiously on 100% of all issues and assuming that they like all of the stupid and toxic personality traits he has, we show some base level respect for people who we might disagree with?

I believe it’s fundamentally immoral to apply maligned motive to someone without evidence.
It’s bad to launch character attacks on an individual without any evidence.

Even if you hold the belief that all of Trump’s policies are racist, then you should be saying that the guys in the MAGA hats are misguided because you have no evidence that those individuals support those policies out of maligned motives.

everlast75

Slag off anyone taking issue over social media with kids with MAGA hats.

Ignore plight of kids literally dying at the border because of Trump's policy.

Hypocrisy etc etc.

Eric Cartman

everlast75 wrote: »

Slag off anyone taking issue over social media with kids with MAGA hats.

Ignore plight of kids literally dying at the border because of Trump's policy.

Hypocrisy etc etc.

what kids have died at the hands of the US border agents or ICE ?

Sean.3516

everlast75 wrote: »

Slag off anyone taking issue over social media with kids with MAGA hats.

Ignore plight of kids literally dying at the border because of Trump's policy.

Hypocrisy etc etc.

How exactly are kids on the border dying over Trump’s policy? Explain that one to me.

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

what kids have died at the hands of the US border agents or ICE ?

Two children died in border camps while in the custody of border agents at the end of last year... Suspect you'll get really pedantic about this...

Sean.3516

batgoat wrote: »

Two children died in border camps while in the custody of border agents at the end of last year... Suspect you'll get really pedantic about this...

They did due to dehydration, because their parents decided to march them across a f##king desert without sufficient food or water. They were severely ill by the time the border patrol picked them up.

And the agents did try to help. As I recall a girl was being transported to a hospital when she died.

It’s pretty despicable to claim that ICE or the border patrol was responsible for their deaths.

Eric Cartman

batgoat wrote: »

Two children died in border camps while in the custody of border agents at the end of last year... Suspect you'll get really pedantic about this...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46682354

His father declined further medical assistance,

Regarding the second one. Both were illness related, both the choldren were offered medical assistance and sent to US hospitals without the parents having to foot the bill.

Are you telling me that if they werent picked up by ICE that those kids would have seen a doctor ? unlikely.

everlast75

Sean.3516 wrote: »

They did due to dehydration, because their parents decided to march them across a f##king desert without sufficient food or water. They were severely ill by the time the border patrol picked them up.

And the agents did try to help. As I recall a girl was being transported to a hospital when she died.

It’s pretty despicable to claim that ICE or the border patrol was responsible for their deaths.

And what was the reaction from Trump supporters?

Well, that's the parents fault, which if you want to talk about despicable, take a chair because you're rowing in behind that defence.

Or Sessions' reason for implementing it? To act as a deterrent.

They shut the border entry down and denied people *their right* to claim asylum. They seperated kids from their parents.

There will be investigations by the house. Sessions et al will be shown up for what they are.

Sean.3516

batgoat wrote: »

Two children died in border camps while in the custody of border agents at the end of last year... Suspect you'll get really pedantic about this...

The reason kids are still in camps by themselves is because the democrats were unwilling to change the law.
They wanted Trump to fix it with an executive order,

The Democrats want them kept in the camps so they can campaign on it.

Obama tried to fix it with an exec order before 2015 and it was struck down in a court.

It’s the law in the US that when you are arrested your parents don’t get to come to jail with you. That’s why there was separations.

It wasn’t a maliciously motivated law, it’s just something nobody ever bothered changing or even paying attention to until Trump became president.

Quin_Dub

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The reason kids are still in camps by themselves is because the democrats were unwilling to change the law.
They wanted Trump to fix it with an executive order,

The Democrats want them kept in the camps so they can campaign on it.

Obama tried to fix it with an exec order before 2015 and it was struck down in a court.

It’s the law in the US that when you are arrested your parents don’t get to come to jail with you. That’s why there was separations.

It wasn’t a maliciously motivated law, it’s just something nobody ever bothered changing or even paying attention to until Trump became president.

The Democrats wouldn't change the law??

Up to 3 weeks ago, the GOP controlled all three branches of government.. How could the Democrats "not change the law"

The issue with separations is that Trump changed the interpretation. Previously, crossing the border was not treated as a felony arrest, so the kids could stay in detention wth their parents.

Under Trump they make a felony arrest and the kids get separated.

So.. Trump changed the approach and directly caused the issue.. Not the Democrats, not even a little bit

aloyisious

It might make interesting reading for US industrialists and business people. Standards and Poor have put a figure of US$ 6,000,000,000 [6 Billion] as the cost in lost US Business earnings by the Govt shutdown.

I guess the US must thank these GOP senators for saving them and the US a much larger loss to the economy. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/426852-six-gop-senators-vote-to-advance-stopgap-without-wall-funding

It's worth noting the same Senate also rejected a bill giving Don a slightly smaller figure for the wall.

Pedro K

Sean.3516 wrote: »

With health care. I believe it should be entirely privatized. Govt healthcare leads to rationing and ridiculous waiting times and it has been shown doesn’t actually increase life expectancy unless you have a quality system funded by massive taxation (which I’ll get to in a minute). People with a profit incentive tend to provide a better product than the govt who’s chief concern is universality over quality.

I really can't stomach this at all. I can't understand how any human being can sit back and be ok with, even an advocate for, a system where if you can't afford medical care, you just don't get it.

Imagine your own mother or father had a stroke, and needed ongoing therapy to learn how to walk or talk again. You'd be happy with them not getting that therapy if they can't afford it? I think it's disgusting

seamus

Pedro K wrote: »

I really can't stomach this at all. I can't understand how any human being can sit back and be ok with, even an advocate, for a system where if you can't afford medical care, you just don't get it.

Generally sheltered, privileged individuals whose entire life has been handed to them on a plate.

The kind of people who believe that poverty is a choice and is caused by laziness, unironically unaware that 90% of their own lifestyle was provided to them by their family's wealth.

everlast75

It is amazing to me that there are still some who have not learned the lesson that to Trump, loyalty is a one way street....

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1089691564283183105

Wanderer78

Pedro K wrote: »

I really can't stomach this at all. I can't understand how any human being can sit back and be ok with, even an advocate, for a system where if you can't afford medical care, you just don't get it.

Imagine your own mother or father had a stroke, and needed ongoing therapy to learn how to walk or talk again. You'd be happy with them not getting that therapy if they can't afford it? I think it's disgusting

you d be surprised how common this thinking is, even from well informed, well educated and intelligent people, i know one such person, and theyve been self employed for most of their life, and been reasonably successful at doing so. unfortunately some individuals truly believe the ethics and thinking of the business way, ideologies such as 'supply and demand', truly works all the time, in all situations. theres a disturbing disconnect from reality, in this thinking, econ 101, has been powerful and successful in many ways, but it doesnt solve all human issues, in fact, it creates many of them.

Quin_Dub

everlast75 wrote: »

It is amazing to me that there are still some who have not learned the lesson that to Trump, loyalty is a one way street....

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1089691564283183105

It should also be noted that the 1st version of this tweet referred to a "JillianTurner" instead of the Gillian Turner he actually meant.

The result ? Some poor unfortunate random 17 year old girl from California got all kinds online abuse from his "supporters"

everlast75

aloyisious wrote: »

It might make interesting reading for US industrialists and business people. Standards and Poor have put a figure of US$ 6,000,000,000 [6 Billion] as the cost in lost US Business earnings by the Govt shutdown.

I guess the US must thank these GOP senators for saving them and the US a much larger loss to the economy. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/426852-six-gop-senators-vote-to-advance-stopgap-without-wall-funding

It's worth noting the same Senate also rejected a bill giving Don a slightly smaller figure for the wall.

Well, they will be happy to hear that Trump has threatened either a shutdown or an emergency Order in three week's time if he does not get what he Anne Coulter wants with the negotiations.

serfboard

Sean.3516 wrote: »

All Muslims may not be Islamic terrorists but all Islamic terrorists are Muslims. In the absence of enough personal information to vet people it’s perfectly acceptable ban the entire group of people who come from these high risk countries.

Hmmm, let's see now. Let's apply this logic to Britain anytime from 1968-1998:

All Irish may not be Republican terrorists but all Republican terrorists are Irish. In the absence of enough personal information to vet people it’s perfectly acceptable [to] ban the entire group of people who come from this high risk country.

How does that sound to you?

Leroy42

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Or we could all just stop making assumptions about their moral character without evidence?

This was posted in relation the labelling of the kids wearing MAGA hats

Sean.3516 wrote: »

All Muslims may not be Islamic terrorists but all Islamic terrorists are Muslims. In the absence of enough personal information to vet people it’s perfectly acceptable ban the entire group of people who come from these high risk countries.

And this was in relation to Muslims.



I'm just going to leave these posts on here together

duploelabs

Anyone have a ratio of islamic terrorist attacks versus right wing 'white' terrorist attacks in the states?

everlast75

duploelabs wrote: »

Anyone have a ratio of islamic terrorist attacks versus right wing 'white' terrorist attacks in the states?

Not sure - but the latter incidents contribute to the NRA's profits, and those profits go into the election campaigns of predominantly Republican politicians so that might explain why there is nothing more than "thoughts and prayers" uttered every time there is a multiple shooting in the U.S.

Timberrrrrrrr

duploelabs wrote: »

Anyone have a ratio of islamic terrorist attacks versus right wing 'white' terrorist attacks in the states?

Well i think the only way you will get that ratio is 8f the US actually start classing white terrorist attacks as such.

Brown person stabs someone = Terror attack

White person shoots multiple people = lone wolf/disgruntled/mentally ill etc etc

duploelabs

everlast75 wrote: »

Not sure - but the latter incidents contribute to the NRA's profits, and those profits go into the election campaigns of predominantly Republican politicians so that might explain why there is nothing more than "thoughts and prayers" uttered every time there is a multiple shooting in the U.S.

Exactly my point. American security policy seems to dictate that you're only a terrorist according to the colour of your skin, otherwise you're a lone wolf. I would love to see what dirt is dragged up in the Mueller investigation about the financial affairs of the NRA, both the money coming in and going out

https://www.salon.com/2019/01/24/robert-muellers-probe-extends-to-nra/

Professor Moriarty

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well i think the only way you will get that ratio is 8f the US actually start classing white terrorist attacks as such.

Brown person stabs someone = Terror attack

White person shoots multiple people = lone wolf/disgruntled/mentally ill etc etc

Actually, you're wrong. If a white person shoots multiple people, then it's their own fault for not carrying a gun.

Dytalus

duploelabs wrote: »

Anyone have a ratio of islamic terrorist attacks versus right wing 'white' terrorist attacks in the states?

Best I can find with a Google Search (I may be able to find more later when back home, not in a position to do extensive research now) shows the following, based on a paper released by the Government Accountability Office:

• Far Right Extremist attacks accounted for 62 incidents, totalling 106 deaths
• Islamic Extremist attacks accounted for 23 incidents, totalling 119 deaths

These figures only cover from Sept 12th 2001 up until the end of 2016 though, and almost half of the deaths caused by islamic extremists (41%) were caused in the Orlando night club attack.

In 2018, however, every single ideologically motivated murder was caused by far right extremism. In only one of the documented instances was the perpetrator noted as switching from white nationalist to radical islamist beliefs prior to the murder.