EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3779
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15681 Posts
On May 10 2016 11:12 oneofthem wrote: trump's whole approach of 'tougher negotiation' is counterproductive to expanding sphere of influence. at a time when china is offering concrete money on the table to say, central asia, trump is looking at negotiation on foreign t-bond holdings against our allies and trying to scrap the whole international open market that yield great influence by way of trade interest. it's just nonsense to say trump will expand u.s. influence. republicans are so used to saying anything is better than Clinton that they aren't seeing someone could be worse. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17979 Posts
On May 10 2016 11:12 oneofthem wrote: trump's whole approach of 'tougher negotiation' is counterproductive to expanding sphere of influence. at a time when china is offering concrete money on the table to say, central asia, trump is looking at negotiation on foreign t-bond holdings against our allies and trying to scrap the whole international open market that yield great influence by way of trade interest. it's just nonsense to say trump will expand u.s. influence. No no no. Trump will make deals. The best deals. And make Americuh great again. You can't just come in here and say his policy is bad when he says he will make deals, and solve the problem of bad policy! | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
SEATTLE — The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Monday denied a permit to a $700 million project to build the nation’s largest coal-export terminal in northwest Washington state. The agency found the Gateway Pacific Terminal would interfere with the rights of Lummi tribal members to fish in their traditional grounds. Seattle District Commander Col. John Buck said in a statement that after a review, he determined that the project can’t be permitted as currently proposed. The project, a venture between Seattle-based SSA Marine and Cloud Peak Energy, would handle up to 54 million metric tons of dry bulk commodities, mostly coal, at a deep water port at Cherry Point. Coal would be shipped by train from Montana and Wyoming for export to Asia. The Lummi Nation last year asked the Corps, the federal agency overseeing the permitting process, to deny permits for the project. They argued that tribal members fish in the area, and that the federal government has a legal obligation to protect fishing rights secured in an 1855 treaty. Like many tribes, the Lummi signed a treaty with the U.S. government in which it ceded its land but reserved the right to hunt and fish in “usual and accustomed” areas. “It’s great news for the Lummi, a great win for treaty rights and Indian country,” tribal chairman Tim Ballew said in an interview Monday, adding the announcement was met by applause. “The record established, and everybody knew, this project would have negative impacts to treaty fishing rights.” He anticipated that dispute hasn’t ended. “Quite possibly there’s a long road again of us, but our priority is always to protect Cherry Point,” he added. Project developers had asked the corps to find that the project posed less than a minimal impact on the tribe’s fishing rights. The company had argued that the most productive fishing for the tribe does not occur near the wharf and that the tribe didn’t provide real evidence that they fished a lot in the area. Source | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1057 Posts
On May 10 2016 10:49 SK.Testie wrote: The "Trump cost" of the wall was initially around 10 billion. The more likely figure is about 15-25 billion + upkeep. There's spaces that are weak points where a wall cannot conceivably be built as well. But this narrows things down a great deal. Again, if there was a 30% - 50% decrease in illegal immigration the monetary benefit according to my information would offset the cost. And this is a cost saved on a yearly basis overall. So a net gain decade after decade. It's not stupid like Jon Oliver attempted to make it out to be. And it makes managing a completely wide open border far more manageable. You know where your weak spots are. America has 16,500 border officers and they're pretty much all voting for Trump as he's officially endorsed by them. Their official endorsement + Show Spoiler + March 30, 2016 The National Border Patrol Council is the official organization representing our nation’s Border Patrol Agents. We represent 16,500 agents who selflessly serve this country in an environment where our own political leaders try to keep us from doing our jobs. The NBPC has had a longstanding practice of not endorsing presidential candidates in the primaries. We will not, however, shy away from voicing our opinions as it pertains to border security and the men and women of the United States Border Patrol. As such, we are breaking with our past practice and giving our first-ever endorsement in a presidential primary. We think it is that important: if we do not secure our borders, American communities will continue to suffer at the hands of gangs, cartels and violent criminals preying on the innocent. The lives and security of the American people are at stake, and the National Border Patrol Council will not sit on the sidelines. As an organization we expect our elected officials to aggressively pursue the interests of the country. America has already tried a young, articulate freshman senator who never created a job as an attorney and under whose watch criminal cartels have been given the freest border reign ever known. Unlike his opponents, Donald Trump is not a career politician, he is an outsider who has created thousands of jobs, pledged to bring about aggressive pro-American change, and who is completely independent of special interests. We don’t need a person who has the perfect Washington-approved tone, and certainly NOT another establishment politician in the W.H. Indeed, the fact that people are more upset about Mr. Trump’s tone than about the destruction wrought by open borders tells us everything we need to know about the corruption in Washington. We need a person in the White House who doesn’t fear the media, who doesn’t embrace political correctness, who doesn’t need the money, who is familiar with success, who won’t bow to foreign dictators, who is pro-military and values law enforcement, and who is angry for America and NOT subservient to the interests of other nations. Donald Trump is such a man. Mr. Trump is as bold and outspoken as other world leaders who put their country’s interests ahead of all else. Americans deserve to benefit for once instead of always paying and apologizing. Our current political establishment has bled this country dry, sees their power evaporating, and isn’t listening to voters who do all the heavy lifting. Trump is opposed by the established powers specifically because they know he is the only candidate who actually threatens the established powers that have betrayed this country. You can judge a man by his opponents: all the people responsible for the problems plaguing America today are opposing Mr. Trump. It is those without political power – the workers, the law enforcement officers, the everyday families and community members – who are supporting Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump will take on special interests and embrace the ideas of rank-and-file Border Patrol agents rather than listening to the management yes-men who say whatever they are programmed to say. This is a refreshing change that we have not seen before – and may never see again. Mr. Trump is correct when he says immigration wouldn’t be at the forefront of this presidential campaign if months ago he hadn’t made some bold and necessary statements. And when the withering media storm ensued he did not back down one iota. That tells you the measure of a man. When the so-called experts said he was too brash and outspoken, and that he would fade away, they were proven wrong. We are confident they will be proven wrong again in November when he becomes President of the United States. There is no greater physical or economic threat to Americans today than our open border. And there is no greater political threat than the control of Washington by special interests. In view of these threats, the National Border Patrol Council endorses Donald J. Trump for President – and asks the American people to support Mr. Trump in his mission to finally secure the border of the United States of America, before it is too late. Sincerely, Brandon Judd President National Border Patrol Council How high will this wall be? After the Mexican president said Mexico will never pay for it, Trump decided to make it 10 feet higher. Was it not high enough originally? Will it have 10 unnecessary feet on it now? Starting with a minimum of a 6 foot fence, it's at least 16 feet high now from his statements. How high does it have to be before ladders and ropes become ineffective? I'd suspect much higher than 16 feet and even then, extremely long rope ladders can be lowered by determined individuals. How thick will it be? A chain link fence isn't going to keep anyone out as people will start bringing wire-cutters. Professional smugglers could also bring sledge hammers, picks, and dynamite or just crash a car through the wall (perhaps with a ram/shovel on front). So, the wall would have to be extremely thick before it becomes very difficult to bash through. At a minimum, 5 feet thick at the base. Probably much thicker if you go by what the great wall of China needed to be to keep invaders out. And if it's extremely thick and tall, it'll be significantly more expensive than any of the estimates I've seen. And even after you spend all that money to keep people from climbing over or bashing holes through, then professional smugglers will just build tunnels. They're quite good at it already and have been doing it for decades in the drug trade. Do you really think that someone is going to cross 100s of miles of desert and inhospitable conditions and then get to a wall and say, "Damn, a wall, I guess I'll just turn around"? You might be able to force more of the desperate immigrants into the hands of professional smugglers (who have no qualms raping people), but you won't turn them back with a wall. An invisible wall of electronic surveillance backed up by an increase in patrolmen is a significantly better solution if you're concerned with getting actual results. A literal wall is incredibly dumb and won't do much of anything at all. Most people were flabbergasted when Trump specified that he literally meant a wall. It just doesn't work. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 10 2016 10:49 SK.Testie wrote: The "Trump cost" of the wall was initially around 10 billion. The more likely figure is about 15-25 billion + upkeep. There's spaces that are weak points where a wall cannot conceivably be built as well. But this narrows things down a great deal. Again, if there was a 30% - 50% decrease in illegal immigration the monetary benefit according to my information would offset the cost. And this is a cost saved on a yearly basis overall. So a net gain decade after decade. It's not stupid like Jon Oliver attempted to make it out to be. And it makes managing a completely wide open border far more manageable. You know where your weak spots are. America has 16,500 border officers and they're pretty much all voting for Trump as he's officially endorsed by them. Their official endorsement + Show Spoiler + March 30, 2016 The National Border Patrol Council is the official organization representing our nation’s Border Patrol Agents. We represent 16,500 agents who selflessly serve this country in an environment where our own political leaders try to keep us from doing our jobs. The NBPC has had a longstanding practice of not endorsing presidential candidates in the primaries. We will not, however, shy away from voicing our opinions as it pertains to border security and the men and women of the United States Border Patrol. As such, we are breaking with our past practice and giving our first-ever endorsement in a presidential primary. We think it is that important: if we do not secure our borders, American communities will continue to suffer at the hands of gangs, cartels and violent criminals preying on the innocent. The lives and security of the American people are at stake, and the National Border Patrol Council will not sit on the sidelines. As an organization we expect our elected officials to aggressively pursue the interests of the country. America has already tried a young, articulate freshman senator who never created a job as an attorney and under whose watch criminal cartels have been given the freest border reign ever known. Unlike his opponents, Donald Trump is not a career politician, he is an outsider who has created thousands of jobs, pledged to bring about aggressive pro-American change, and who is completely independent of special interests. We don’t need a person who has the perfect Washington-approved tone, and certainly NOT another establishment politician in the W.H. Indeed, the fact that people are more upset about Mr. Trump’s tone than about the destruction wrought by open borders tells us everything we need to know about the corruption in Washington. We need a person in the White House who doesn’t fear the media, who doesn’t embrace political correctness, who doesn’t need the money, who is familiar with success, who won’t bow to foreign dictators, who is pro-military and values law enforcement, and who is angry for America and NOT subservient to the interests of other nations. Donald Trump is such a man. Mr. Trump is as bold and outspoken as other world leaders who put their country’s interests ahead of all else. Americans deserve to benefit for once instead of always paying and apologizing. Our current political establishment has bled this country dry, sees their power evaporating, and isn’t listening to voters who do all the heavy lifting. Trump is opposed by the established powers specifically because they know he is the only candidate who actually threatens the established powers that have betrayed this country. You can judge a man by his opponents: all the people responsible for the problems plaguing America today are opposing Mr. Trump. It is those without political power – the workers, the law enforcement officers, the everyday families and community members – who are supporting Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump will take on special interests and embrace the ideas of rank-and-file Border Patrol agents rather than listening to the management yes-men who say whatever they are programmed to say. This is a refreshing change that we have not seen before – and may never see again. Mr. Trump is correct when he says immigration wouldn’t be at the forefront of this presidential campaign if months ago he hadn’t made some bold and necessary statements. And when the withering media storm ensued he did not back down one iota. That tells you the measure of a man. When the so-called experts said he was too brash and outspoken, and that he would fade away, they were proven wrong. We are confident they will be proven wrong again in November when he becomes President of the United States. There is no greater physical or economic threat to Americans today than our open border. And there is no greater political threat than the control of Washington by special interests. In view of these threats, the National Border Patrol Council endorses Donald J. Trump for President – and asks the American people to support Mr. Trump in his mission to finally secure the border of the United States of America, before it is too late. Sincerely, Brandon Judd President National Border Patrol Council what's the annual upkeep cost of the wall, including staffing costs? I'd guesstimate in the $2-5 billion range. It couldn't possibly reduce illegal immigration by 50%; even 30% would be extremely unlikely, unless you up the cost by having more staff. More like 10-15%. There's also the nature of pressure dynamics that apply to things like illegal immigration, so the question is what would be the net change in illegal immigrant presence per year. And how much is it worth to keep out one illegal for one year? That's a question I'd like some answers to. As to that endorsement; it just looks like a public sector union backing someone who's looking to increase their budget. It also contains sufficient factually unsound statements and hyperbole, along with some utter nonsense; that makes me regard it as standard political trash. also, some of what that other poster ninja'd me with  It seems like Trump doesn't understand that walls don't stop people, the purpose of walls is to slow them down to enable countermeasures to be taken. walls have to be manned to do anything. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On May 10 2016 05:03 Stratos_speAr wrote: If you want to burn up your vote to say "fuck you" to the establishment, then that's your right, but if you're going to do that, you also have to accept ethical responsibility if that "fuck you" ends up completely destroying the welfare of this country when you knowingly voted for someone just to cause political upheaval. False dichotomy. You have to accept ethical responsibility for voting for a status quo that leaves an unjust power structure untouched. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
Or just Annex Mexico and actually make them pay for the wall  | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17979 Posts
On May 10 2016 12:00 Slaughter wrote: Considering that a lot of illegals come here legally and just overstay visas I would think a much cheaper and probably more effective way to tackle the issue would be to reform the department and the system that oversees that and to give them a better budget. Or just Annex Mexico and actually make them pay for the wall Also, the southern border of Mexico is a LOT shorter, so the wall would be significantly cheaper if you welcome Mexico into Americuh and just keep the Hondurans, Salvadorians, Costa Ricans and other Central American Latinos out. Of course, you do add quite a lot of coastline, and you can ask Italy and Greece how easy it is to stop immigrants from flooding your coast in leaky boats... | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On May 10 2016 11:12 oneofthem wrote: trump's whole approach of 'tougher negotiation' is counterproductive to expanding sphere of influence. at a time when china is offering concrete money on the table to say, central asia, trump is looking at negotiation on foreign t-bond holdings against our allies and trying to scrap the whole international open market that yield great influence by way of trade interest. it's just nonsense to say trump will expand u.s. influence. You don't need a strong dollar if you fix the trade balance with protectionist tariffs and a revitalization of good old American industry. Say it with me: inflate, deflate, devalue, default. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
and as extensive as global supply chain gets for every manufacturing thing nowadays, you are looking at broad tariffs against everyone. export will be rekt as well as import in the ensuing trade war and you have a lot of disruption on the supply side, and a lot of price increase for consumers. it's going to be a rather nasty short term shock and without corresponding and large boost in helicopter money you'll have a severe deflation much like smoot hawley. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23217 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23217 Posts
On May 10 2016 14:16 oneofthem wrote: why? hillary would just steal that election with her vote rigging powers Can we not pretend the vulnerabilities of electronic voting machines have not long been proven? I'd love Cascade to give us an independent analysis of exit polling/hand counted ballots vs electronic results. All I can say is that even if she did win, we'd have the angriest most dissatisfied electorate in modern politics. Trump said the only reason she's got a shot was because she's a woman, and that's already getting shrugs and "eh's" from people. Instead 50 of 60 minutes of Anderson Cooper was on Trump and Hillary's husbands infidelity, with analysis on whether Hillary was an enabler. Democrats seem to be clueless as to what they are in for. | ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
On May 10 2016 11:08 Plansix wrote: After 8 years of embarrassing international relations with George W. Bush at the helm, I cannot think of a worse follow up than then thin skinned egomaniac that is Trump. This is a mean that held a grudge for 30 years because the article called his hands small. These are other sovereign nations, they sometimes say not nice things during private discussions. Sometimes they even say them publicly. didnt obama show up to cuba recently and no one there http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/28/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-raul-castro-snubbed-barack-obama/ | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 10 2016 14:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Can we not pretend the vulnerabilities of electronic voting machines have not long been proven? I'd love Cascade to give us an independent analysis of exit polling/hand counted ballots vs electronic results. All I can say is that even if she did win, we'd have the angriest most dissatisfied electorate in modern politics. Trump said the only reason she's got a shot was because she's a woman, and that's already getting shrugs and "eh's" from people. Instead 50 of 60 minutes of Anderson Cooper was on Trump and Hillary's husbands infidelity, with analysis on whether Hillary was an enabler. Democrats seem to be clueless as to what they are in for. okay. i agree people are dumb for not voting hillary. what's your point | ||
| ||
