|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 08 2015 09:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 09:04 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 08 2015 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 08:44 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 08 2015 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 08:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:
This must be his final testing the waters of how crazy he can be without losing poll numbers. It just has to be.
Setting aside whether or not it's a good idea (it's not), It's EVEN LESS feasible than building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and having than pay for it, which seemed to be the least possible thing on anyone's dockets. You'd need some kind of truth detecting force field around the United States. It's starting to seem more and more likely that Trump is in it to destroy the Republican party and get cashed out by the Clinton Foundation after the election. I think most of the people on this thread seriously misunderstand what the average GOP voter thinks of Islam. I think people have a pretty good grasp on it. Some are just more willing than others to accept it. Trump's just saying what a significant number of Republicans think but usually only say anonymously. Hard to tell if the politicians themselves actually believe it or use coded language just to appeal to the worst parts of the party. Trump's getting another shot at it in about 20 minutes on Greta. We'll see if he walks it back or if he doubles down. "Should Muslims be able to buy as many guns as they want?" would be a good question to hear him answer from the hip. I really doubt they do, because most of them seem to imagine a false dichotomy where we can either: 1) Despise all Muslims because they are "brown" or 2) Ignore the overwhelming evidence that a large minority of Muslims hold very radical beliefs about the West/America/non-Muslims. Personally, I'll have to wait and hear Trump's explanation before I decide whether I agree with what he seems to be saying or not. Barring law-abiding citizens from coming back to America is obviously unconstitutional, but reforming our immigration programs and protocols to limit the number (or even halt temporarily) of Muslim's entering the country might be a legitimate solution (among others). I think we do neither ourselves nor moderate Muslims a favor by pretending there is not a serious problem within the Muslim communities around the world. He wasn't really clear about Muslims who leave (just said be "very vigilant") but he did say Muslim members of the Military would be allowed back in. I think he sold it as expected, didn't expect him to call Greta a "whore" after he thought he hung up though.
I agree, mostly what I expected. i think he's going to hedge on that point because it's lose-lose if he comes down solid either way. Without saying whether I support the tactic or not, it's definitely served him well this election. He can take questionable positions without ever actually taking them, effectively garnering the support of the more extreme elements without ever alienating the more moderate side.
LOL. He didn't actually do that did he?
|
I'm also sure that Trump will hold a meeting with some leaders of the Muslim community to show how much they love him
|
On December 08 2015 09:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 09:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 09:04 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 08 2015 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 08:44 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 08 2015 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 08:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:
This must be his final testing the waters of how crazy he can be without losing poll numbers. It just has to be.
Setting aside whether or not it's a good idea (it's not), It's EVEN LESS feasible than building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and having than pay for it, which seemed to be the least possible thing on anyone's dockets. You'd need some kind of truth detecting force field around the United States. It's starting to seem more and more likely that Trump is in it to destroy the Republican party and get cashed out by the Clinton Foundation after the election. I think most of the people on this thread seriously misunderstand what the average GOP voter thinks of Islam. I think people have a pretty good grasp on it. Some are just more willing than others to accept it. Trump's just saying what a significant number of Republicans think but usually only say anonymously. Hard to tell if the politicians themselves actually believe it or use coded language just to appeal to the worst parts of the party. Trump's getting another shot at it in about 20 minutes on Greta. We'll see if he walks it back or if he doubles down. "Should Muslims be able to buy as many guns as they want?" would be a good question to hear him answer from the hip. I really doubt they do, because most of them seem to imagine a false dichotomy where we can either: 1) Despise all Muslims because they are "brown" or 2) Ignore the overwhelming evidence that a large minority of Muslims hold very radical beliefs about the West/America/non-Muslims. Personally, I'll have to wait and hear Trump's explanation before I decide whether I agree with what he seems to be saying or not. Barring law-abiding citizens from coming back to America is obviously unconstitutional, but reforming our immigration programs and protocols to limit the number (or even halt temporarily) of Muslim's entering the country might be a legitimate solution (among others). I think we do neither ourselves nor moderate Muslims a favor by pretending there is not a serious problem within the Muslim communities around the world. He wasn't really clear about Muslims who leave (just said be "very vigilant") but he did say Muslim members of the Military would be allowed back in. I think he sold it as expected, didn't expect him to call Greta a "whore" after he thought he hung up though. Sounds like he walked back from "everyone" to "everyone except _____ and we'll be vigilant about them too." The increased vigilance still violates the 1st Amendment, I'm pretty sure, but won't play nearly as well with the base as doing so. Did he really call her a whore? Holy crap.
Yup and yup. I couldn't believe it either I had to rewind and listen to it several times just to be absolutely sure.
|
I'll give Trump credit for this: he seems to have taken to heart my advice that it is pointless to prevent Syrian refugee Muslims that we have tons of screening power over into the country while we have tons and tons of international travel daily with minimal screening power.
I think he forgot that we have minimal screening power over all country entry though...certainly not enough to reasonably determine if every international traveler is a Muslim as far as I know (unless we do just limit it to brown people with long beards).
|
On December 08 2015 09:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 08:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 08 2015 08:44 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 08 2015 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 08:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:
This must be his final testing the waters of how crazy he can be without losing poll numbers. It just has to be.
Setting aside whether or not it's a good idea (it's not), It's EVEN LESS feasible than building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and having than pay for it, which seemed to be the least possible thing on anyone's dockets. You'd need some kind of truth detecting force field around the United States. It's starting to seem more and more likely that Trump is in it to destroy the Republican party and get cashed out by the Clinton Foundation after the election. I think most of the people on this thread seriously misunderstand what the average GOP voter thinks of Islam. They still have a boner for the Constitution. And not letting Muslim citizens back into the U.S. directly flies in the face of the 1st Amendment. He might walk that back though.(I mean, if he doesn't care about the 1st Amendment...what about...the second??? Dun dun daaaaah) Has Trump ever formally walked anything back that he's said during the campaign? Usually he just denies saying it, says it was taken out of context, or does that passive aggressive bullshit of "Did you know [Douchebag Thing X]? I heard some people saying and thinking [Douchebag Thing X]. Is that true? Maybe, I don't know!" to try and throw out a stupid statement without needing to take credit for it in case it backfires. (Which is ingenious politically, btw. But still.)
I think the answer is No. Trump is using a Gish Gallop writ large to keep ahead of such criticism. He says at least two impossible and reprehensible things a day. Trump never actually has to address the criticism of past remarks because he can stay riding that wave of stunned confusion from today's reprehensible remark. As long as it takes the critics two days to right up the column taking his latest thing apart, Trump can always stay ahead and never answer for all the lies and falsehoods he peddles.
|
I'm more surprised that people seem to still get surprised over stuff Trump says. He's obviously just kicking stuff up because Cruz and Rubio have been gaining on him big in Iowa and NH recently.
|
On December 08 2015 09:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 09:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 08 2015 08:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 08 2015 08:44 Cowboy64 wrote:On December 08 2015 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 08:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:
This must be his final testing the waters of how crazy he can be without losing poll numbers. It just has to be.
Setting aside whether or not it's a good idea (it's not), It's EVEN LESS feasible than building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and having than pay for it, which seemed to be the least possible thing on anyone's dockets. You'd need some kind of truth detecting force field around the United States. It's starting to seem more and more likely that Trump is in it to destroy the Republican party and get cashed out by the Clinton Foundation after the election. I think most of the people on this thread seriously misunderstand what the average GOP voter thinks of Islam. They still have a boner for the Constitution. And not letting Muslim citizens back into the U.S. directly flies in the face of the 1st Amendment. He might walk that back though.(I mean, if he doesn't care about the 1st Amendment...what about...the second??? Dun dun daaaaah) Has Trump ever formally walked anything back that he's said during the campaign? Usually he just denies saying it, says it was taken out of context, or does that passive aggressive bullshit of "Did you know [Douchebag Thing X]? I heard some people saying and thinking [Douchebag Thing X]. Is that true? Maybe, I don't know!" to try and throw out a stupid statement without needing to take credit for it in case it backfires. (Which is ingenious politically, btw. But still.) I think the answer is No. Trump is using a Gish Gallop writ large to keep ahead of such criticism. He says at least two impossible and reprehensible things a day. Trump never actually has to address the criticism of past remarks because he can stay riding that wave of stunned confusion from today's reprehensible remark. As long as it takes the critics two days to right up the column taking his latest thing apart, Trump can always stay ahead and never answer for all the lies and falsehoods he peddles.
other than the time he said he'd take syrian refugees and then like 2-3 weeks later said we shouldn't let any into the country? don't think so.
|
When %25 of Muslims living in the US think violence against Americans is justified in the name of Jihad and %51 want to live under Sharia as opposed to the US Constitution, I mostly agree with what Trump is saying.
Coming to the US is not a right, it's a privilege. Rather not have immigration of a certain group where %25 believe in Jihad and %51 want Sharia Law. Europe is already getting f*cked by this, rather stop it from happening here in the US.
Muslim immigration should be stopped at least for some time until we can distinguish between the Radicals and the peaceful ones.
|
The Chicago Police Department's chief of detectives retired suddenly from his post Monday amid resignations of other top officials in the police department following the release of the Laquan McDonald shooting video .
Source
While I would prefer these folks be held liable for the inevitable finding of infringing on people's constitutional rights, I suppose them losing their jobs is a decent consolation.
|
On December 08 2015 08:01 Mohdoo wrote:
Winning Iowa on a platform that even slightly differs from the bible is impossible.
Jesus would lose Iowa on the basis of being too brown, too redistributive, and not enough interested controlling sex/women's bodies.
|
|
|
On December 08 2015 10:37 Eskendereya wrote:
When %25 of Muslims living in the US think violence against Americans is justified in the name of Jihad and %51 want to live under Sharia as opposed to the US Constitution, I mostly agree with what Trump is saying.
Coming to the US is not a right, it's a privilege. Rather not have immigration of a certain group where %25 believe in Jihad and %51 want Sharia Law. Europe is already getting f*cked by this, rather stop it from happening here in the US.
Muslim immigration should be stopped at least for some time until we can distinguish between the Radicals and the peaceful ones.
Interestingly, only 16% of the Muslim individuals polled in that sample think that Jihad is a violent holy war against unbelievers of Islam. 51% believe it's a personal struggle to be more religious, 11% think it's a peaceful struggle to undermine non-muslims, and 18% don't know or can't judge.
(it's actually interesting because there is a specific question about using violence to institute sharia...but he doesn't quote that result, even though it's still spoooooky at 19%)
Then again the poll has multiple definitions of Sharia to choose from, and the plurality (45%) said that it is up to the individual Muslim to determine Sharia.
But I doubt you actually read the results or methodology of the poll and just quoted Trump's quotes from it. I don't think he's read it either, though, so you're in good company.
Another fun result from the poll you'll never hear from Trump: only 9% of those Muslims polled believe that ISIS' beliefs are the correct interpretation of the faith (and I doubt all of that 9% would say they support them, since that's not what the question asks). Oh, and 32% of the respondents were Caucasian; only 16% were Middle Eastern.
|
Reading has never been Eskendereyas strong suit. And Dick Cheney just said Trump was wrong to suggest the ban should apply to any American citizen. This is the dark reality we live in.
Edit: apparently both parties are calling fir everyone to denounce Trump. It only took him Godwining himself to get there.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 08 2015 09:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled Monday that Canada and Mexico can slap more than $1 billion in tariffs on U.S. goods in retaliation for meat labeling rules it says discriminated against Mexican and Canadian livestock.
At issue were U.S. labels on packaged steaks and other cuts of meat that say where the animals were born, raised and slaughtered.
The WTO has previously found that the so-called "country of origin" labeling law put Canadian and Mexican livestock at a disadvantage. It ruled Monday that Canada could impose $780 million in retaliatory tariffs and Mexico could impose $228 million.
"We are disappointed with this decision and its potential impact on trade among vital North American partners," said Tim Reif, general counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
The labels are supported by some U.S. ranchers and by consumer groups. They are opposed by meatpackers who say they require costly paperwork.
The WTO's decision shifts responsibility to Congress, which is considering working a repeal of the labeling law into a massive year-end spending bill.
Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, said Monday that he will look for "all legislative opportunities" to repeal the labeling law. "We must prevent retaliation, and we must do it now before these sanctions take effect," Roberts said. Source
get rekt farm lobby hahaha
|
The world’s biggest climate polluters rallied around a stronger target for limiting warming on Monday, saying they were open to the 1.5C goal endorsed by the most vulnerable countries.
In the final push to a climate agreement, the US, Canada, China and the European Union declared they were now on board with demands from African countries to adopt an even more ambitious goal to limit warming.
“We can’t go home and say ’we saved the planet, check.’ This issue will continue to be a top priority for the president and the White House coming out of Paris heading into next year and for remaining time that he is in office because there is more work to do,” a White House official said.
Small island states say the current temperature goal of 2C would bring doom, drowning low-lying areas, and forcing mass migration.
They want an agreement from Paris that would seek to keep warming at around 1C, which is about the current level of warming above pre-industrial levels.
Source
|
On December 08 2015 12:14 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 09:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled Monday that Canada and Mexico can slap more than $1 billion in tariffs on U.S. goods in retaliation for meat labeling rules it says discriminated against Mexican and Canadian livestock.
At issue were U.S. labels on packaged steaks and other cuts of meat that say where the animals were born, raised and slaughtered.
The WTO has previously found that the so-called "country of origin" labeling law put Canadian and Mexican livestock at a disadvantage. It ruled Monday that Canada could impose $780 million in retaliatory tariffs and Mexico could impose $228 million.
"We are disappointed with this decision and its potential impact on trade among vital North American partners," said Tim Reif, general counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
The labels are supported by some U.S. ranchers and by consumer groups. They are opposed by meatpackers who say they require costly paperwork.
The WTO's decision shifts responsibility to Congress, which is considering working a repeal of the labeling law into a massive year-end spending bill.
Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, said Monday that he will look for "all legislative opportunities" to repeal the labeling law. "We must prevent retaliation, and we must do it now before these sanctions take effect," Roberts said. Source get rekt farm lobby hahaha
More like get rekt consumers. Why shouldn't meat be labeled by country of origin? I want to know if my beef is american or foreign, especially if any of the processing is taking place in China.
|
On December 08 2015 12:28 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 12:14 oneofthem wrote:On December 08 2015 09:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled Monday that Canada and Mexico can slap more than $1 billion in tariffs on U.S. goods in retaliation for meat labeling rules it says discriminated against Mexican and Canadian livestock.
At issue were U.S. labels on packaged steaks and other cuts of meat that say where the animals were born, raised and slaughtered.
The WTO has previously found that the so-called "country of origin" labeling law put Canadian and Mexican livestock at a disadvantage. It ruled Monday that Canada could impose $780 million in retaliatory tariffs and Mexico could impose $228 million.
"We are disappointed with this decision and its potential impact on trade among vital North American partners," said Tim Reif, general counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
The labels are supported by some U.S. ranchers and by consumer groups. They are opposed by meatpackers who say they require costly paperwork.
The WTO's decision shifts responsibility to Congress, which is considering working a repeal of the labeling law into a massive year-end spending bill.
Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, said Monday that he will look for "all legislative opportunities" to repeal the labeling law. "We must prevent retaliation, and we must do it now before these sanctions take effect," Roberts said. Source get rekt farm lobby hahaha More like get rekt consumers. Why shouldn't meat be labeled by country of origin? I want to know if my beef is american or foreign, especially if any of the processing is taking place in China.
Quite funny, that's one thing the EU did well. By law, it's required to have country of origin, the country of processing and an identification number on the packaging, as well as a label if it's processed etc.
I see no reason whatsoever to not have those.
|
On December 08 2015 12:28 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 12:14 oneofthem wrote:On December 08 2015 09:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled Monday that Canada and Mexico can slap more than $1 billion in tariffs on U.S. goods in retaliation for meat labeling rules it says discriminated against Mexican and Canadian livestock.
At issue were U.S. labels on packaged steaks and other cuts of meat that say where the animals were born, raised and slaughtered.
The WTO has previously found that the so-called "country of origin" labeling law put Canadian and Mexican livestock at a disadvantage. It ruled Monday that Canada could impose $780 million in retaliatory tariffs and Mexico could impose $228 million.
"We are disappointed with this decision and its potential impact on trade among vital North American partners," said Tim Reif, general counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
The labels are supported by some U.S. ranchers and by consumer groups. They are opposed by meatpackers who say they require costly paperwork.
The WTO's decision shifts responsibility to Congress, which is considering working a repeal of the labeling law into a massive year-end spending bill.
Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, said Monday that he will look for "all legislative opportunities" to repeal the labeling law. "We must prevent retaliation, and we must do it now before these sanctions take effect," Roberts said. Source get rekt farm lobby hahaha More like get rekt consumers. Why shouldn't meat be labeled by country of origin? I want to know if my beef is american or foreign, especially if any of the processing is taking place in China.
I'm pretty sure we don't import cuts of meat from China. Maybe if it was frozen. There is a reason that article focuses on two counties right next to the US.
|
On December 08 2015 12:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 12:28 Bigtony wrote:On December 08 2015 12:14 oneofthem wrote:On December 08 2015 09:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled Monday that Canada and Mexico can slap more than $1 billion in tariffs on U.S. goods in retaliation for meat labeling rules it says discriminated against Mexican and Canadian livestock.
At issue were U.S. labels on packaged steaks and other cuts of meat that say where the animals were born, raised and slaughtered.
The WTO has previously found that the so-called "country of origin" labeling law put Canadian and Mexican livestock at a disadvantage. It ruled Monday that Canada could impose $780 million in retaliatory tariffs and Mexico could impose $228 million.
"We are disappointed with this decision and its potential impact on trade among vital North American partners," said Tim Reif, general counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
The labels are supported by some U.S. ranchers and by consumer groups. They are opposed by meatpackers who say they require costly paperwork.
The WTO's decision shifts responsibility to Congress, which is considering working a repeal of the labeling law into a massive year-end spending bill.
Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, said Monday that he will look for "all legislative opportunities" to repeal the labeling law. "We must prevent retaliation, and we must do it now before these sanctions take effect," Roberts said. Source get rekt farm lobby hahaha More like get rekt consumers. Why shouldn't meat be labeled by country of origin? I want to know if my beef is american or foreign, especially if any of the processing is taking place in China. I'm pretty sure we don't import cuts of meat from China. Maybe if it was frozen. There is a reason that article focuses on two counties right next to the US.
$5.2 million worth of meat in 2014.
So pretty much nothing, true.
|
I don't really care where my meat comes from as long as it passes the FDA inspection
And if this makes my beef cheaper then I have no beef with this rule
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
