|
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. |
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 03 2016 11:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:46 Souma wrote:On March 03 2016 02:04 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 02:01 Souma wrote:On March 03 2016 01:55 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 01:50 Souma wrote:On March 03 2016 01:18 oneofthem wrote:
it's incredibly difficult for sanders unless hillary has some unexpected catastrophe.
moreover, it is instrumental for sanders and hillary to work together to craft a coalition with enthusiasm. if sanders or his followers persists in this 'rather trump than hillary!!' idiocy they are simply what i said, more interested in protest than governance.
regardless of their policy position i'd never feel good handing either a national campaign or the federal government over to people without political common sense. the amount of reckless shit sandernistas could do is seemingly unlimited. Aaand what's wrong with wanting to protest against the DNC? I'd rather see Trump win the Presidency over Hillary and watch the country burn than carry on the same nonsense for another 8+ years just because people who have just enough to be comfortable with their lives are okay with waiting for actual systemic change while millions struggle. It wasn't political common sense when the country went to war with one another to free the slaves, but similarly there always comes a point when it's much more beneficial for the long run to meet catastrophe head on than to crawl along the trodden road of minuscule change when a significant amount of lives are in the balance (oh look at this radical comparing the civil war to the present, stfu it's an analogy). Say Hillary gets the nomination and a decent amount of young voters do go out and vote for her and she wins the Presidency (which I think is the much more likely case than Trump winning, because Trump is dumb enough to scare enough people to show up to vote against him on the Democratic side). The only policies she'll be able to get through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and filibustered Senate will be policies the Republicans want, and she will of course compromise and I have no doubt in my mind she will pass bills with high "unintended" consequences as has been the history of her career. Come midterms she will meet the same fate as Obama and not be able to drum up enough support to defend against another Republican wave, as she is less inspiring than Obama. The referendum that we all thought Obama had after his reelection was not even enough to make the Republicans buckle. So for all this talk about "Sandernistas" not being realistic about change, the naivete of the "realist" is pretty hilarious. It's even funnier when the "Bernie bros" are being blamed for turning their backs on the corruption of a party that disables them to capitalize on one of the most terrible parties in the history of the nation which in turn causes the "Bernistas" to plea to an outsider to bring them a semblance of decency within politics. Next time you want someone to vote a certain way, it might be a good idea to not kick them in the balls first. Me voting for the DNC now (which I didn't do in 2012 anyway) would be akin to me lending money to someone who conned me. because this is also the election where democrats can take the congress. they will get obliterated in the midterm election. there are incrediblly high stakes just due to how radically unpredictable and rash trump is. i've talked about trade and whatnot. moreover, hillary has always been a tough fighter for the less privileged and i have faith in her to balance that fight with not pushing for bad policy. No, there's really no way for Democrats to take the gerrymandered House without something extraordinary. We can take the Senate but taking the House would require unprecedented turnout, which is tough for Hillary to garner. High-stakes election? Absolutely. Really I don't think there's such a thing as a non-high stakes Presidential election, although this is special due to Trump (but really, even if it wasn't Trump it'd be just as bad with Cruz or even Rubio). I know you have faith in Hillary. My beef is with the establishment as a whole. I would absolutely love to see the Democratic party crash and burn at this point. They need a wake-up call, just as the Republican party has needed one for a very long time and got one in the form of Trump. The gerrymandering are being thrown out by the court. One of the appeals was just finalized and undid all the non-sense the Republicans did. More cases will follow I assume. I actually haven't read about this. Shoot me a source? This is the first one that came up in google. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/opinion/racial-gerrymandering-in-north-carolina.htmlThe NC judge threw out the maps and its doubtful the Supreme Court will take up the case before the deadline. I think the Supreme court denied a stay of the order too.
Yeah... This is fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I don't believe anything surmountable will happen that will drastically change the bleak look for Democrats and the lower house for this upcoming election. The Supreme Court won't be making any significant decisions any time soon.
|
|
|
I said when this was first coming out that it seemed like a stupid way to hide personal emails from public record and thought she would have a good explanation. Pretty clear that she doesn't. It's true others have done stuff like this, it's also true when people weren't in positions of power or on the wrong side of that power, they were discharged (military) and or prosecuted for much less.
Personally I think what she actually did isn't that big of a deal most likely (as in little or no damage was probably caused). But it's pretty much impossible to look at her answers as this has progressed and not start shaking your head.
|
Open Letter on Donald Trump from GOP National Security Leaders
We the undersigned, members of the Republican national security community, represent a broad spectrum of opinion on America’s role in the world and what is necessary to keep us safe and prosperous. We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity, we nonetheless are obligated to state our core objections clearly:
His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence.
His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world.
His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.
His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combatting Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.
Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor.
Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II.
His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy.
He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation.
His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs.
Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office.
Source
|
On March 03 2016 13:35 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +Open Letter on Donald Trump from GOP National Security Leaders
We the undersigned, members of the Republican national security community, represent a broad spectrum of opinion on America’s role in the world and what is necessary to keep us safe and prosperous. We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity, we nonetheless are obligated to state our core objections clearly:
His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence.
His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world.
His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.
His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combatting Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.
Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor.
Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II.
His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy.
He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation.
His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs.
Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office. Source
Wow. Getting an anti-endorsement from GOP leaders in anything is pretty much Trump's wet dream. He's probably happy as fuck about this.
|
|
|
On March 03 2016 13:37 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 13:35 kwizach wrote:Open Letter on Donald Trump from GOP National Security Leaders
We the undersigned, members of the Republican national security community, represent a broad spectrum of opinion on America’s role in the world and what is necessary to keep us safe and prosperous. We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity, we nonetheless are obligated to state our core objections clearly:
His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence.
His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world.
His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.
His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combatting Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.
Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor.
Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II.
His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy.
He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation.
His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs.
Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office. Source Wow. Getting an anti-endorsement from GOP leaders in anything is pretty much Trump's wet dream. He's probably happy as fuck about this.
I have to imagine one line of attack will be how they aren't just stupid, but weak too since they are only okay with a little torture.
|
On March 03 2016 13:35 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +Open Letter on Donald Trump from GOP National Security Leaders
We the undersigned, members of the Republican national security community, represent a broad spectrum of opinion on America’s role in the world and what is necessary to keep us safe and prosperous. We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity, we nonetheless are obligated to state our core objections clearly:
His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence.
His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world.
His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.
His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combatting Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.
Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor.
Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II.
His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy.
He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation.
His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs.
Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office. Source
It's funny that someone just mentioned a couple pages ago that Trump's healthcare page looks like something written by an amateur, when this reads like a parody of the Declaration of Independence that a grade schooler would write to their parents.
|
United States43212 Posts
On March 03 2016 13:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:48 KwarK wrote:
Externalities exist. It's cheaper to pay for someone's abortion than to live in a society with unwanted children. Not sure that's true either. There's plenty of reasons for being pro-choice without inventing your own new economics. I don't know what percentage of unwanted children end up costing more than they contribute to the economy, but even if it's 20% (an absurdly high number), those 20% will have to be a 4x greater burden per person than the other 80% gain for your statement to be true.
You assume that people who have abortions won't ever have children later on when they're more financially secure and better able to provide a solid home for them. That's simply untrue. A teenage girl who aborts a fetus in order to stay in school and finish her career, rather than have a child with her deadbeat high school boyfriend, isn't going to never have children. She's going to have children in her early 30s once her career is solid and her marriage to her college boyfriend is ten years old.
If you let people choose when they'll have children then they'll choose the times when they're most able to support those children and provide them a solid home. If you force them to have children when they themselves don't think they can properly take care of them then you're fucking over their children and making them far more likely to be a burden ont he rest of us.
This isn't some kind of "new economics". This is pretty fucking basic. If the people most intimately involved in the situation are saying "I don't want to have a baby" then maybe it's not a good time for them to have a baby. Later on when they're saying "but now would be a great time to have a baby" is probably a better time. If you make the assumption that it's babies now or babies later (which is a perfectly logical assumption to make, most people know how many children they want) it's not a particularly complicated decision.
|
On March 03 2016 13:44 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 13:35 kwizach wrote:Open Letter on Donald Trump from GOP National Security Leaders
We the undersigned, members of the Republican national security community, represent a broad spectrum of opinion on America’s role in the world and what is necessary to keep us safe and prosperous. We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity, we nonetheless are obligated to state our core objections clearly:
His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence.
His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world.
His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.
His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combatting Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.
Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor.
Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II.
His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy.
He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation.
His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs.
Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office. Source It's funny that someone just mentioned a couple pages ago that Trump's healthcare page looks like something written by an amateur, when this reads like a parody of the Declaration of Independence that a grade schooler would write to their parents.
Uh, no, it doesn't. Any comments on the contents?
|
On March 03 2016 13:18 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 11:53 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 11:46 Souma wrote:On March 03 2016 02:04 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 02:01 Souma wrote:On March 03 2016 01:55 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 01:50 Souma wrote:On March 03 2016 01:18 oneofthem wrote:
it's incredibly difficult for sanders unless hillary has some unexpected catastrophe.
moreover, it is instrumental for sanders and hillary to work together to craft a coalition with enthusiasm. if sanders or his followers persists in this 'rather trump than hillary!!' idiocy they are simply what i said, more interested in protest than governance.
regardless of their policy position i'd never feel good handing either a national campaign or the federal government over to people without political common sense. the amount of reckless shit sandernistas could do is seemingly unlimited. Aaand what's wrong with wanting to protest against the DNC? I'd rather see Trump win the Presidency over Hillary and watch the country burn than carry on the same nonsense for another 8+ years just because people who have just enough to be comfortable with their lives are okay with waiting for actual systemic change while millions struggle. It wasn't political common sense when the country went to war with one another to free the slaves, but similarly there always comes a point when it's much more beneficial for the long run to meet catastrophe head on than to crawl along the trodden road of minuscule change when a significant amount of lives are in the balance (oh look at this radical comparing the civil war to the present, stfu it's an analogy). Say Hillary gets the nomination and a decent amount of young voters do go out and vote for her and she wins the Presidency (which I think is the much more likely case than Trump winning, because Trump is dumb enough to scare enough people to show up to vote against him on the Democratic side). The only policies she'll be able to get through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and filibustered Senate will be policies the Republicans want, and she will of course compromise and I have no doubt in my mind she will pass bills with high "unintended" consequences as has been the history of her career. Come midterms she will meet the same fate as Obama and not be able to drum up enough support to defend against another Republican wave, as she is less inspiring than Obama. The referendum that we all thought Obama had after his reelection was not even enough to make the Republicans buckle. So for all this talk about "Sandernistas" not being realistic about change, the naivete of the "realist" is pretty hilarious. It's even funnier when the "Bernie bros" are being blamed for turning their backs on the corruption of a party that disables them to capitalize on one of the most terrible parties in the history of the nation which in turn causes the "Bernistas" to plea to an outsider to bring them a semblance of decency within politics. Next time you want someone to vote a certain way, it might be a good idea to not kick them in the balls first. Me voting for the DNC now (which I didn't do in 2012 anyway) would be akin to me lending money to someone who conned me. because this is also the election where democrats can take the congress. they will get obliterated in the midterm election. there are incrediblly high stakes just due to how radically unpredictable and rash trump is. i've talked about trade and whatnot. moreover, hillary has always been a tough fighter for the less privileged and i have faith in her to balance that fight with not pushing for bad policy. No, there's really no way for Democrats to take the gerrymandered House without something extraordinary. We can take the Senate but taking the House would require unprecedented turnout, which is tough for Hillary to garner. High-stakes election? Absolutely. Really I don't think there's such a thing as a non-high stakes Presidential election, although this is special due to Trump (but really, even if it wasn't Trump it'd be just as bad with Cruz or even Rubio). I know you have faith in Hillary. My beef is with the establishment as a whole. I would absolutely love to see the Democratic party crash and burn at this point. They need a wake-up call, just as the Republican party has needed one for a very long time and got one in the form of Trump. The gerrymandering are being thrown out by the court. One of the appeals was just finalized and undid all the non-sense the Republicans did. More cases will follow I assume. I actually haven't read about this. Shoot me a source? This is the first one that came up in google. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/opinion/racial-gerrymandering-in-north-carolina.htmlThe NC judge threw out the maps and its doubtful the Supreme Court will take up the case before the deadline. I think the Supreme court denied a stay of the order too. Yeah... This is fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I don't believe anything surmountable will happen that will drastically change the bleak look for Democrats and the lower house for this upcoming election. The Supreme Court won't be making any significant decisions any time soon.
It won't make a difference because the issue of gerrymandering is massively overblown. There are some problem districts, but out of 400+ reps, it doesn't change much.
|
On March 03 2016 13:58 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 13:44 oBlade wrote:On March 03 2016 13:35 kwizach wrote:Open Letter on Donald Trump from GOP National Security Leaders
We the undersigned, members of the Republican national security community, represent a broad spectrum of opinion on America’s role in the world and what is necessary to keep us safe and prosperous. We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity, we nonetheless are obligated to state our core objections clearly:
His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence.
His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world.
His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.
His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combatting Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.
Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor.
Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II.
His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy.
He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation.
His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs.
Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office. Source It's funny that someone just mentioned a couple pages ago that Trump's healthcare page looks like something written by an amateur, when this reads like a parody of the Declaration of Independence that a grade schooler would write to their parents. Uh, no, it doesn't. Any comments on the contents?
Well it sounds reasonable. I'm actually fucking scared of Trump leading the most powerful NATO state.
|
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1087016697987364&id=150225644999812
Recently there has been media attention regarding an incident where 30-40 youth were removed from the Donald Trump Rally in Valdosta on Monday evening. Several people have made allegations that these youth who were predominantly African American, were removed solely based on their race.
To clear up these allegations, everyone must understand that the Trump Campaign rented the entire PE Complex where the event was held which made the event under Georgia Law a private event. It is true that spectators obtained tickets to the rally but they were free and issued by the Trump Campaign. This means that his campaign staff had the right to decide who can and cannot enter and remain on the premises. That is the law, regardless if I or anyone else likes it or not.
Second, the youths were clearly being disruptive and according to various sources to include law enforcement, the Trump staff, and other spectators who observed the initial actions of the youth, they were being disruptive to include using profanity, well before law enforcement made contact with them. This and only this reason was why they were asked to leave the complex. Further, once the youths were escorted outside the complex, they tried to re-enter by jumping in front of others who were waiting to enter the complex. At that point, law enforcement advised the youth again that they must leave the property. To be clear, the youth at that time could have been arrested but law enforcement decided not to which was one of our initial objectives in the first place; to avoid arresting spectators if possible. Body-camera video of the incident showed the youths were disruptive and used profanity against law enforcement. But even then, no force was used against these youth and they were even given alternate protest locations where they may go.
But to suggest that this incident was racially motivated is unfair and simply not factual. If these students had not had a previous agenda to be disruptive, this incident would not have happened. if anyone wishes to place blame on why this happened, the blame lies solely with the youths; period.
Brian Childress
Chief of Police
In regards to the twitter post posted earlier in the thread showing the people being removed from the Trump Rally.
|
On March 03 2016 14:06 Nyxisto wrote:
Well it sounds reasonable. I'm actually fucking scared of Trump leading the most powerful NATO state.
Why? He's the only one with the balls (literally) to stand up to Putin, who is basically a Russian version of him.
|
On March 03 2016 14:11 ElMeanYo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 14:06 Nyxisto wrote:
Well it sounds reasonable. I'm actually fucking scared of Trump leading the most powerful NATO state. Why? He's the only one with the balls (literally) to stand up to Putin, who is basically a Russian version of him.
Yeah, and as we all know Putin has been GREAT for Russia...
|
On March 03 2016 14:06 wei2coolman wrote:https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1087016697987364&id=150225644999812Show nested quote +Recently there has been media attention regarding an incident where 30-40 youth were removed from the Donald Trump Rally in Valdosta on Monday evening. Several people have made allegations that these youth who were predominantly African American, were removed solely based on their race.
To clear up these allegations, everyone must understand that the Trump Campaign rented the entire PE Complex where the event was held which made the event under Georgia Law a private event. It is true that spectators obtained tickets to the rally but they were free and issued by the Trump Campaign. This means that his campaign staff had the right to decide who can and cannot enter and remain on the premises. That is the law, regardless if I or anyone else likes it or not.
Second, the youths were clearly being disruptive and according to various sources to include law enforcement, the Trump staff, and other spectators who observed the initial actions of the youth, they were being disruptive to include using profanity, well before law enforcement made contact with them. This and only this reason was why they were asked to leave the complex. Further, once the youths were escorted outside the complex, they tried to re-enter by jumping in front of others who were waiting to enter the complex. At that point, law enforcement advised the youth again that they must leave the property. To be clear, the youth at that time could have been arrested but law enforcement decided not to which was one of our initial objectives in the first place; to avoid arresting spectators if possible. Body-camera video of the incident showed the youths were disruptive and used profanity against law enforcement. But even then, no force was used against these youth and they were even given alternate protest locations where they may go.
But to suggest that this incident was racially motivated is unfair and simply not factual. If these students had not had a previous agenda to be disruptive, this incident would not have happened. if anyone wishes to place blame on why this happened, the blame lies solely with the youths; period.
Brian Childress
Chief of Police In regards to the twitter post posted earlier in the thread showing the people being removed from the Trump Rally.
But nothing about the white supremacists and others shoving folks and screaming that they are scum?
|
maybe we dont want to aspire to be russia
|
On March 03 2016 14:11 ElMeanYo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 14:06 Nyxisto wrote:
Well it sounds reasonable. I'm actually fucking scared of Trump leading the most powerful NATO state. Why? He's the only one with the balls (literally) to stand up to Putin, who is basically a Russian version of him.
If you actually think that someone who literally has no experience in politics other than "lol wall, nao!" can go toe to toe with someone who has 15 years of actual leadership experience, including war efforts and dealing with bush, obama and clinton, you're really, REALLY delusional.
He will eat trump for breakfast. His pouting snout won't help when putin starts exploiting and abusing him. Which he will. We're talking some dumb populist vs. a hardcore politician who learned his trade in the KGB.
There's a reason why people don't go toe to toe with putin. That has nothing to do with balls, but with brains.
edit: apart from the obvious problem that anyone who thinks that a leader like putin would do good for his country is an idiot. But that's a different story.
|
Also what he says makes no sense at all. He says he's gonna bomb the hell out of ISIS and be best friends with Putin, but Russia is not going to be amused at all about the US randomly starting to bomb shit unilaterally. I don't think he actually knows anything about foreign politics, he's America's Berlusconi
|
On March 03 2016 14:11 ElMeanYo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 14:06 Nyxisto wrote:
Well it sounds reasonable. I'm actually fucking scared of Trump leading the most powerful NATO state. Why? He's the only one with the balls (literally) to stand up to Putin, who is basically a Russian version of him.
I don't think you know anything about Putin if you think he's a Russian version of Trump. Trump is pretty much the farthest thing from a senior KGB agent cum quasi-dictator I can imagine without going into Ghandi/Mother Theresa territory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
