Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

FartyBlartFast

everlast75 wrote: »

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

Already covered in the post you are responding to. It's not enforcing immigration that the people are unhappy about - illegal immigration numbers have been going down since Bush Jr, yet there was no national outcry since we weren't dealing with children being left in their own feces in concentration camps, en masse - its that they don't trust ICE to enforce the law within the confines of human rights.

The agency has lost its legitimacy with the general public, and they only have themselves to blame.

Flows from the top down.

The rank and file got the go ahead from Donny. The Facebook group is quite telling

Not only the vile, racist Facebook group (that mocked actual dead children) and Trump, but the fact that leadership was on the facebook group.

And that same leadership then publicly lied about not having knowledge of it, despite literally being a member along with thousands of other ICE employees.

When thousands of employees, and even leadership, of a government agency are partaking in mocking dead migrant children, the only reason I can think why someone would want these same people dealing with isolated migrant children is because they share the same sentiment that those kids lives don't matter and they can just die for all they care.

peddlelies

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

The agency has lost its legitimacy with the general public, and they only have themselves to blame.

First you say no one is stopping them from doing their jobs, which I showed is incorrect. Then you post the above without backing it up.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/453442-poll-51-percent-support-immigration-raids

Here's a recent poll, 51% support the immigration raids versus 35% against.

If they've lost their legitimacy why does a majority still support their actions?

FartyBlartFast

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence wrote: »

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

The moderator asked you to substantiate on post 1,826.

Since then you have posted 3 times in this thread. The post I am quoting now, a post about Dixiecrats, and a post about ISIS.

You have not done as asked. Please do so, as we are eager for you to - as you were told to despite refusing - spell it out for us.

If you look at my original post I did not mention Kamala Harris colour

Ahem, from your first post on the matter... and quoted by the moderator who said you need to answer on it.

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence, literally just yesterday: kamala harris would be too controversial she has put many black americans in jail And she is not a "black american".

And this wasn't just a once off, either...

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence, also literally just yesterday: i dont either way, why cant blacks be slave owners too back then. but many people would because of the money.

And further in I did spell it out what I meant
Now please put up where I did for all to see
If you don’t we will know I am vindicated and it will be you who will need to substantiate on why you are obsessed with a post I never made

Absolutely! Here you go, I'll do you one better and quote not only the post where you point blank refused to "spell it out" (your exact words in the matter), but the moderators response where they demanded you do spell it out... which you have not since.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence wrote: »

kamala harris would be too controversial
she has put many black americans in jail
And she is not a "black american". she did not come from slavery.

but the biggest issue facing her is her family lineage. if it is true, which is likely, one side of her family were actual slave owners from Jamaica then how would she recover.

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence wrote: »

i dont either way, why cant blacks be slave owners too back then.
but many people would because of the money.
she was born wealthy to jamician and tamil indian immigrants 50 odd years ago.
look i dont have to spell it out.

Yes, yes you do..

This isn't the conspiracy theory forum.

That's definitely going to need some form of corroboration.

You're beginning to look more and more like the embodiment of a particular Jean Paul Sartre quote.

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

Regards black Americans
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans

I think this should finish this

FartyBlartFast

peddlelies wrote: »

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

The agency has lost its legitimacy with the general public, and they only have themselves to blame.

First you say no one is stopping them from doing their jobs, which I showed is incorrect. Then you post the above without backing it up.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/453442-poll-51-percent-support-immigration-raids

Here's a recent poll, 51% support the immigration raids versus 35% against.

If they've lost their legitimacy why does a majority still support their actions?

A majority does not support their actions, the overwhelming majority do not support the child separation and concentration camps.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/6/18/17475740/family-separation-poll-polling-border-trump-children-immigrant-families-parents

This is why ICE have damaged their legitimacy so badly, along with the now out in the open fact that they have thousands of racists in their ranks all the way up to leadership.

They make jokes about dead migrant children as children die in their custody, in squaler and covered in their own feces. The only people who would give that legitimacy are people who hold their same hatred of minorities, to the extent they are happy to see children die to feed it.

Hence the overwhelming public opinion against these concentration camps and child separation under ICE custody. Except Trump supporters, it's hugely popular among them...

FartyBlartFast

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence wrote: »

Regards black Americans
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans

I think this should finish this

Please quote the part of that link that states why kamala Harris is not black.

Not African American, because that is not what you said - quote where it says in that link why she is not black.

StringerBell

StringerBell wrote: »

It will be counter productive though in the long run, sure his brainwashed masses will lap it up. They will parrot and excuse anything, we have seen that in this very thread on a regular basis.

It is going to help the Democrats too though as it provides a energy to anybody who isn't lost already to really understand that no matter who the candidate will be, they simply must remove this stain from the office.

First time I've felt positive about them actually taking back the WH, Trump is doing the work for them of ensuring their voters don't become complacent

Its actually only been 2 days since I posted this (about the foolishness his parrots display when assuming cause dear leader did it, its a good thing) Feels like longer! Christ imagine actually working in the media or legal departments over there with this fella in the office causing headlines almost non stop.

jochenstacker

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence wrote: »

Regards black Americans
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans

I think this should finish this

At this stage you're just embarrassing yourself.
Absolutely vile stuff. And once again proof that Trump supporters don't support him despite his racism, but because of it.
I would immediately write off anyone with a MAGA hat as a collosal asshole.

MrFresh

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence wrote: »

Regards black Americans
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans

I think this should finish this

She is of Jamaican ancestry, of which 90% of people are of African ancestry.

Cody montana

jochenstacker wrote: »

At this stage you're just embarrassing yourself.
Absolutely vile stuff. And once again proof that Trump supporters don't support him despite his racism, but because of it.
I would immediately write off anyone with a MAGA hat as a collosal asshole.

And incredibly stupid.
I can see mass burnings of maga gear in the future.

Thargor

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence wrote: »

Regards black Americans
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans

I think this should finish this

What?

TomOnBoard

Cody montana wrote: »

jochenstacker wrote: »

At this stage you're just embarrassing yourself.
Absolutely vile stuff. And once again proof that Trump supporters don't support him despite his racism, but because of it.
I would immediately write off anyone with a MAGA hat as a collosal asshole.

And incredibly stupid.
I can see mass burnings of maga gear in the future.

They'll simply burn on the fires of history, along with all the other meaningless, bull**** slogans that have characterised Presidential elections for decades...

aloyisious

peddlelies wrote: »

The detention centers are over run, who's denying that?

How many of the people there were rounded up by Trump's secret police or military against their own free will. They chose to go there and knew the implications of crossing the border illegally.

How many are there because of their ethnicity?

How many people there are forced into hard labour or executed?

The answer to all of those questions is zero. The use of the words "concentration camp" might make you feel so righteous inside fighting the evil dictatorship that is the Trump regime, but in my view it's laughable. When people see that term they think of Nazi Germany, there is a direct correlation there.

The answer to your 1st on over-run is NO ONE is denying that.

The answer to your 2nd is a DOUBLE NEGATIVE [no round up by secret police or military] BUT those detained did not choose to go to the camps.

The answer to your 3rd on ethnicity is YES if you look at Dons view as to who is coming north illegally across the Mexican border: Mexicans and people from south/ern America. As Don believes ethnicity in involved where the illegals are concerned so it'd be safe to say that ethnicity has a direct correlation to those illegals detained.

The answer to your 4th is zero. The federal laws of the US don't allow for such behaviour.

Ref concentration camp, while it refers to a camp where people are concentrated, I agree with you that there is a difference between the US regime's intent and use of its camps and those of the other regime mentioned. However the fact remains that the US camps where the detained illegals are concentrated are not up to scratch. The US is not a ****hole of a country, its a 1st world country with a working govt & health professionals in govt agencies capable of preventing deaths of detained children in the camps.

Any US head of state who allows such a situation in the camps run by federal agencies under his remit while the agencies own internal watchdogs have highlighted the poor state of affairs, deaths etc within the camps is criminally negligent and derelict in respect to his duties. I know the camps were in use by the previous US Admin but the buck now stops at Dons desk. If he was genuinely intent on decrying the failures of the Obama Admin, he can do a lot by closing or at least upgrading the camps health and building codes to US standards. A failure to implement change there speaks loudly.

Leroy42

Just to correct a point. Trump is not only allowing it, it is a deliberate policy to try to deter others from coming.

The conditions are not some weird surprise created by an unexpected influx. They are deliberately created and there is nothing being done to remedy the issues.

People continue to discuss this as if is is down to incompetence or simply lack or resources when it is a deliberate policy decision. This is exactly what Trump wants. He wants kids separated as it deters families travelling. He wants people crammed in, it will put off others from trying.

Cody montana

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just to correct a point. Trump is not only allowing it, it is a deliberate policy to try to deter others from coming.

The conditions are not some weird surprise created by an unexpected influx. They are deliberately created and there is nothing being done to remedy the issues.

People continue to discuss this as if is is down to incompetence or simply lack or resources when it is a deliberate policy decision. This is exactly what Trump wants. He wants kids separated as it deters families travelling. He wants people crammed in, it will put off others from trying.

Well clearly it’s not working.
Maybe stopping aid to Central American countries contributed?

StringerBell

Cody montana wrote: »

Well clearly it’s not working.
Maybe stopping aid to Central American countries contributed?

Mexico was in net migration territory with the US at the beginning of Trumps reign. Stopping the aid to countries in such desperate need of help is of course a massive contributor to the problem. Trump doesn't actually care if it works or not, so long as he can show his support how tough he is on them "others" He actually needs them, you have to have a scapegoat to unite your base when they run on fear and hate. That it will eventually backfire/not work out to his advantage in the long run is not a consideration, that's too far down the line. He and his ilk don't think beyond the end of their nose.

Foreign direct aid and soft power is the only realistic solution but it tends to be a little too nuanced for the average Trumpette to really grasp imo. They run off "feel" and emotion instead of fact and the seen to be doing something even if its not productive rather than the patient approach which yields long term benefits.

This is not completely a Trumpette problem of course, but in my experience those type are drawn to the likes of him, and other conmen like Farage, Johnson etc if you wanted a UK comparison.

Gbear

Cody montana wrote: »

Well clearly it’s not working.
Maybe stopping aid to Central American countries contributed?

Republican strategies to prevent crime, drug use or abortions don't work either.

The base don't believe in facts so you don't need to show results. What they do believe in is spite.

"Close your legs", "Don't do drugs", "Go home".

They're used to magical thinking, so they're perfectly happy to accept magical solutions, and if they appeal to their bloodymindedness, even better.

pixelburp

Gbear wrote: »

Republican strategies to prevent crime, drug use or abortions don't work either.

The base don't believe in facts so you don't need to show results. What they do believe in is spite.

"Close your legs", "Don't do drugs", "Go home".

They're used to magical thinking, so they're perfectly happy to accept magical solutions, and if they appeal to their bloodymindedness, even better.

There's also the belief in "the wealth bible", which also explains the depth of inhumanity Trump's base can feel. That variation of Christianity that says all wealth and health is a reward from God; ergo the rich must be inherently good people, while those poor and sick clearly must be immoral, or bad people, to have been struck down with illness and poverty.

How can you even hope to reach out to those people on subjects like the ACA, immigration or any kind of wealth fairness? During Trump's failed attempts to repeal the ACA, this was the logic claimed by at least one GOP senator on-air (whose name eludes me ATM), his logic being as above - "good people don't get sick".

looksee

pixelburp wrote: »

There's also the belief in "the wealth bible", which also explains the depth of inhumanity Trump's base can feel. That variation of Christianity that says all wealth and health is a reward from God; ergo the rich must be inherently good people, while those poor and sick clearly must be immoral, or bad people, to have been struck down with illness and poverty.

How can you even hope to reach out to those people on subjects like the ACA, immigration or any kind of wealth fairness? During Trump's failed attempts to repeal the ACA, this was the logic claimed by at least one GOP senator on-air (whose name eludes me ATM), his logic being as above - "good people don't get sick".

There was a post on here a couple of days ago, by a poster who tried to give the impression - or maybe he actually is - living in the US, that he had a job, a house, a family and he didn't care about anyone else. If others were sick or unemployed that was their fault.

While I am sure you will get this attitude anywhere, in most 'socialist' ie European, countries anyone making a public claim of virtue to this effect would be shouted down; in the great, free, USA it appears it is the norm. It is an attitude that is, what? 100+ years out of date here?

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

looksee wrote: »

There was a post on here a couple of days ago, by a poster who tried to give the impression - or maybe he actually is - living in the US, that he had a job, a house, a family and he didn't care about anyone else. If others were sick or unemployed that was their fault.

While I am sure you will get this attitude anywhere, in most 'socialist' ie European, countries anyone making a public claim of virtue to this effect would be shouted down; in the great, free, USA it appears it is the norm. It is an attitude that is, what? 100+ years out of date here?

I had a post like that but let me just say I never said I lived in the USA
I live in Ireland
I work in a very senior management position and the people I interact with who are at my level are actually worse then me. While we have common ground on many issues I do not agree with how they bully workers in lower positions. One buck loves to get new staff to cry. He gets off on it.
Another had a single mom who had a 2 week old baby evicted on the streets. Not even a second thought. I tried my best to stop it but couldn’t.

I know you might find it hard to believe but you simply do not get into very well paid or powerful jobs by being a socialist.

Igotadose

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence wrote: »

I know you might find it hard to believe but you simply do not get into very well paid or powerful jobs by being a socialist.

Uh? Bernie Sanders is pretty powerful, like all US Senators.

And, how one gets into well paid or powerful jobs in the US is mostly due to luck and connections (and the luck that comes with them.)

I think you're falling into the trap that most Americans do, associating the word 'socialist' with BAD THINGS where really they like Socialism just fine - government supports for farmers to not grow things, amped up to due to trade wars recently, health care for seniors, retirement funding, etc. It's the word "socialist" that winds them up.

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

Igotadose wrote: »

Uh? Bernie Sanders is pretty powerful, like all US Senators.

And, how one gets into well paid or powerful jobs in the US is mostly due to luck and connections (and the luck that comes with them.)

I think you're falling into the trap that most Americans do, associating the word 'socialist' with BAD THINGS where really they like Socialism just fine - government supports for farmers to not grow things, amped up to due to trade wars recently, health care for seniors, retirement funding, etc. It's the word "socialist" that winds them up.

Bernie Sanders may promote the ideals of socialism but he and his wife are capitalists.
As he would say himself you too can become a millionaire by writing a book

pixelburp

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence wrote: »

Bernie Sanders may promote the ideals of socialism but he and his wife are capitalists.
As he would say himself you too can become a millionaire by writing a book

This canard? Socialism does not mean those promoting it should live in caves or on the breadline and if not are hypocrites, it means those wealthier - like the Sanders' - pay their fair and larger share of taxation to balance out those on the bottom rung of society. It's not that hard to rationalise, and is a pretty boilerplate piece of socialist democracy as practised over here.

Igotadose

pixelburp wrote: »

This canard? Socialism does not mean those promoting it should live in caves or on the breadline and if not are hypocrites, it means those wealthier - like the Sanders' - pay their fair and larger share of taxation to balance out those on the bottom rung of society. It's not that hard to rationalise, and is a pretty boilerplate piece of socialist democracy as practised over here.

It's the standard right-wing American position : socialisT Bad! socialisM (if it benefits me - farm subidies, Medicare, tax money spent on what I want like 'spaceforce') o.k.

aloyisious

pixelburp wrote: »

There's also the belief in "the wealth bible", which also explains the depth of inhumanity Trump's base can feel. That variation of Christianity that says all wealth and health is a reward from God; ergo the rich must be inherently good people, while those poor and sick clearly must be immoral, or bad people, to have been struck down with illness and poverty.

How can you even hope to reach out to those people on subjects like the ACA, immigration or any kind of wealth fairness? During Trump's failed attempts to repeal the ACA, this was the logic claimed by at least one GOP senator on-air (whose name eludes me ATM), his logic being as above - "good people don't get sick".

Amoral would be the best description for those in the senior GOP ranks who support Trump. I keep hoping that within the GOP there are people of good morals and moral fibre not infected by the Trump style of stiffing anyone and everyone he and his GOP backers can, get the spine to reclaim the party from his grasp and get things back on track for the sake of their country so that I might get back into my mind the thought that visiting the US would be a worthwhile enterprise; but if they are there, they are well hidden or afraid to show their moral spine in the GOP as it stands now. I wouldn't visit the US under Trump management for any price, no siree, bob.

Edit: I've just listened to a US guest [livefeed] on the Marion Finucane show on how the four congresswomen hate the US. Now it seems to me that it's more likely the four congress members dislike/hate Trump's style of politics than the US itself but the Guest was certain they hate the US itself. To me the guest showed a degree of what is currently called being radicalized.

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

pixelburp wrote: »

This canard? Socialism does not mean those promoting it should live in caves or on the breadline and if not are hypocrites, it means those wealthier - like the Sanders' - pay their fair and larger share of taxation to balance out those on the bottom rung of society. It's not that hard to rationalise, and is a pretty boilerplate piece of socialist democracy as practised over here.

Ireland is not a socialist country.
We have private health insurance and those without are being honest at a serious disadvantage
We have landlords who own multiple properties who stop people on lower incomes buying a house
We have employees who are on if and when contracts
Corporation tax is 12.5% of what we decide is the profit
Ireland is a capitalist country where state decisions and state expenditure is nothing more then a stimulus package for the wealthier in society.
For example I believe in capitalism but I do NOT believe in The state and the people bailing out banks and large corporations when they fail
10 years ago the bond holders should have been burnt but the state decided to nationalize the debt.
Is this the socialist democracy you like?

looksee

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence wrote: »

I had a post like that but let me just say I never said I lived in the USA
I live in Ireland
I work in a very senior management position and the people I interact with who are at my level are actually worse then me. While we have common ground on many issues I do not agree with how they bully workers in lower positions. One buck loves to get new staff to cry. He gets off on it.
Another had a single mom who had a 2 week old baby evicted on the streets. Not even a second thought. I tried my best to stop it but couldn’t.

I know you might find it hard to believe but you simply do not get into very well paid or powerful jobs by being a socialist.

In that case it removes my reaction from 'I suppose living in that environment it rubs off and he doesn't know any better, it's the accepted norm' to contempt for that kind of attitude.

It is not, in fact, essential to have a superior, self-absorbed attitude towards everyone else to be 'successful' or 'powerful'. I know a number of high achieving people who live very comfortably without flaunting their success or wealth, and others who regard 'senior management' as a pinnacle of achievement.

it is up to everyone to take care of themselves. my life is good because i have a good job, own my own home and i have very little debt. i am happy. but i used my work ethic and my intelligence to achieve this.

So were you supported in your studies by family money, or by the socialist state that offered health, financial and educational support to get you to this independent situation?

Cody montana

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence wrote: »

Ireland is not a socialist country.
We have private health insurance and those without are being honest at a serious disadvantage
We have landlords who own multiple properties who stop people on lower incomes buying a house
We have employees who are on if and when contracts
Corporation tax is 12.5% of what we decide is the profit
Ireland is a capitalist country where state decisions and state expenditure is nothing more then a stimulus package for the wealthier in society.
For example I believe in capitalism but I do NOT believe in The state and the people bailing out banks and large corporations when they fail
10 years ago the bond holders should have been burnt but the state decided to nationalize the debt.
Is this the socialist democracy you like?

We are both.

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

looksee wrote: »

In that case it removes my reaction from 'I suppose living in that environment it rubs off and he doesn't know any better, it's the accepted norm' to contempt for that kind of attitude.

It is not, in fact, essential to have a superior, self-absorbed attitude towards everyone else to be 'successful' or 'powerful'. I know a number of high achieving people who live very comfortably without flaunting their success or wealth, and others who regard 'senior management' as a pinnacle of achievement.



So were you supported in your studies by family money, or by the socialist state that offered health, financial and educational support to get you to this independent situation?

Were you big around 15 years ago. We as a nation love flaunting it.
Cars and mansions is how we do it

marno21

Lets not forget this is the level we are operating at here

https://mobile.twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1035348264344801282?lang=en

It’s a bit like the ACA. Polling clearly shows more support for it when you refer to it as the ACA rather than that dirty word “Obamacare”.