Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It should also be noted that the "death to america" stuff is often taken out of context, in that while it's a direct literal translation, the "death to" thing is used practically more the way someone in the US might use any number of 4 letter words or other exclamatory phrases, "death to traffic" being a common usage.

Death to vegetables! I like it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Death to vegetables! I like it.

"Death to potatoes!"



Also...This is...too strange
Basically, Dem candidate for Chicago mayor hands out cash at church event, while the Republican governor Rauner speaks at the same event...

O_o

I can't help but feel something illegal happened somewhere in there.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
I think the C.I.A. Should leak some documents proving that the leader of Iran has tried to get american citizenship and plan to immigrate, after secretly selling Iranian oil rites to the US.
That would be fun to read.

The only person who would believe it would be Trump.

Who would then use it as evidence for the need for his muslim ban.

It's like you completely misread my post.
I'm saying, How would the Iranian military and the Iranian people feel about that.

I'm also not sure I understand what you mean about a muslim ban. there are travel bans in place from some countries which are "muslim", I guess, as well as travel allowed from other countries that are also "muslim".
If Iran was still Persian I think we would get along much better than we do now. But I'm no expert.

 godardc wrote:
So you are saying you wish for an islamic extremist state, that hate you, me, our allies and our freedom to get nuclear weapons because president Trump said mean things ?

Saudi Arabia, the biggest islamic extremist terrorist bankroll in the world, would certainly like to get nukes - it's just that they know some crazy would immediately start a nuclear war with Israel. And they like having money invested in the US too, which would be forfeit if they attacked US protectorate Israel.

Iran is just the old man on the block shouting at the kids to keep off his lawn. He too would like to have investments instead of sanctions. :-(

 Vaktathi wrote:

Also...This is...too strange
Basically, Dem candidate for Chicago mayor hands out cash at church event, while the Republican governor Rauner speaks at the same event...

O_o

I can't help but feel something illegal happened somewhere in there.

It's Chicago isn't it. Don't they or haven't they had a mayor with the same last name for ...year and years or something. Daily?, if I recall. I'm probably wrong about the name.

 warhead01 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
I think the C.I.A. Should leak some documents proving that the leader of Iran has tried to get american citizenship and plan to immigrate, after secretly selling Iranian oil rites to the US.
That would be fun to read.

The only person who would believe it would be Trump.

Who would then use it as evidence for the need for his muslim ban.

It's like you completely misread my post.
I'm saying, How would the Iranian military and the Iranian people feel about that.

I'm also not sure I understand what you mean about a muslim ban. there are travel bans in place from some countries which are "muslim", I guess, as well as travel allowed from other countries that are also "muslim".
If Iran was still Persian I think we would get along much better than we do now. But I'm no expert.

Iran is still Persian....

We would probably get along a lot better had we not over threw their democratically elected government, installed a violent dictator, called that dictator the best thing since sliced bread and then allowed multiple political factions to start a revolution that ultimately choose a Islamic holy man to become head of state. Because Iranians currently running Iran learned one thing growing up, the West will screw you and Islam was the only way to push them back.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
I think the C.I.A. Should leak some documents proving that the leader of Iran has tried to get american citizenship and plan to immigrate, after secretly selling Iranian oil rites to the US.
That would be fun to read.

The only person who would believe it would be Trump.

Who would then use it as evidence for the need for his muslim ban.

It's like you completely misread my post.
I'm saying, How would the Iranian military and the Iranian people feel about that.

I'm also not sure I understand what you mean about a muslim ban. there are travel bans in place from some countries which are "muslim", I guess, as well as travel allowed from other countries that are also "muslim".
If Iran was still Persian I think we would get along much better than we do now. But I'm no expert.

Iran is still Persian....

We would probably get along a lot better had we not over threw their democratically elected government, installed a violent dictator, called that dictator the best thing since sliced bread and then allowed multiple political factions to start a revolution that ultimately choose a Islamic holy man to become head of state. Because Iranians currently running Iran learned one thing growing up, the West will screw you and Islam was the only way to push them back.

Probably right. we've mucked around a lot. Sometimes I wonder about our lack of long term planning. If we have it I can't really tell.

 warhead01 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Also...This is...too strange
Basically, Dem candidate for Chicago mayor hands out cash at church event, while the Republican governor Rauner speaks at the same event...

O_o

I can't help but feel something illegal happened somewhere in there.

It's Chicago isn't it. Don't they or haven't they had a mayor with the same last name for ...year and years or something. Daily?, if I recall. I'm probably wrong about the name.

If you can't even get the old mayors name right you probably shouldnt comment


But yeah it is a weird thing, and the dude will still lose. Rahm is going to ride the anti-trump wave and he has a huge war chest

Well, if giving cash to politicians is free speech, then politicians giving cash to the electorate should also be free speech.

It's just reverse political lobbying

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Well, if giving cash to politicians is free speech, then politicians giving cash to the electorate should also be free speech.

As long as they don't explicitly state they're buying votes, ofc. That would probably be illegal. ;-)

Spetulhu wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Well, if giving cash to politicians is free speech, then politicians giving cash to the electorate should also be free speech.

As long as they don't explicitly state they're buying votes, ofc. That would probably be illegal. ;-)

Oh, but of course not! These cash payments are to encourage voting in general, not voting for any particular candidate!

Huckabooboo declares Mueller probe a hoax

These idiots don't quite know how to stop digging do they?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Huckabooboo declares Mueller probe a hoax

These idiots don't quite know how to stop digging do they?

Further denial only matters in how poor the administration will look after the fact. The base will eat whatever lies are given, the rest know full well the investigation is far from a witch hunt.

That's odd. First he said he believed Putin, and then after the widespread outrage over him acting like Putin's lapdog in Helsinki, said that he believed the US intelligence community. Now a few days later we're back to before that. I assume the base will continue to support this dishonest, incompetent buffoon for reasons that at this point I truly cannot fathom.

Speaking of pants on head stupid, K. Gillibrand just stated that the first thing the Democrats should do when they retake Congress is abolish ICE.

 Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of pants on head stupid, K. Gillibrand just stated that the first thing the Democrats should do when they retake Congress is abolish ICE.

Yeah, I still don't get the "abolish ICE" movement. The job still has to be done, so is the intent to just split up ICE's duties amongst other agencies? Rename the agency?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of pants on head stupid, K. Gillibrand just stated that the first thing the Democrats should do when they retake Congress is abolish ICE.

Yeah, I still don't get the "abolish ICE" movement. The job still has to be done, so is the intent to just split up ICE's duties amongst other agencies? Rename the agency?

I believe the sentiment could be summed up as "repeal and replace."

 Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of pants on head stupid, K. Gillibrand just stated that the first thing the Democrats should do when they retake Congress is abolish ICE.

Actually, that's probably a good idea. Build an new agency to handle immigration, with new directors. Thoroughly review existing ICE staff, fire problem ones and provide better training for the rest. Then nuke ICE and start the new agency when you are ready to go.

ICE is too problematic to keep it going. It's the Pinto. Sure, Ford could have fixed it and kept the model going, but it was far easier to kill it and just make a new compact that didn't have that awful baggage.

But without ICE, how will the US be able to handle the lawless lands of the borders that were so prevalent back in... 2002?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of pants on head stupid, K. Gillibrand just stated that the first thing the Democrats should do when they retake Congress is abolish ICE.

Yeah, I still don't get the "abolish ICE" movement. The job still has to be done, so is the intent to just split up ICE's duties amongst other agencies? Rename the agency?

I believe the sentiment could be summed up as "repeal and replace."

Yes, abolish the existing agency and then set up a new one that doesn't have a racist purpose. People seem to "forget" that you don't actually need someone to go around terrorising latinos and forming denaturalisation task forces.

But if they abolish ICE during the Trump administration, he'll just replace it with a group called the "Gold Shirts" or something like it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of pants on head stupid, K. Gillibrand just stated that the first thing the Democrats should do when they retake Congress is abolish ICE.

Yeah, that sort of contrarian sillyness isnt going to help anything, though im sure it will play with the far left end of the base in primaries. The job still needs doing, ICE exists for a reason, not just to deport people.

 Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of pants on head stupid, K. Gillibrand just stated that the first thing the Democrats should do when they retake Congress is abolish ICE.

I believe an argument that Republicans would understand is; "The agency is so bloated and corrupted by bad policies and misspending, that the only way forward is to completely abolish it, and then rebuild it into an organisation that will make America great again".

Of course, it is also possible that Republican will find such an argument asinine and stupid (this time around).....who knows.



.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of pants on head stupid, K. Gillibrand just stated that the first thing the Democrats should do when they retake Congress is abolish ICE.

Yeah, that sort of contrarian sillyness isnt going to help anything, though im sure it will play with the far left end of the base in primaries. The job still needs doing, ICE exists for a reason, not just to deport people.

Whatever useful thing that ICE does can be handled by a new agency and new people, without the racism.

I feel like that is a bad precedent to set. Better to reform what is existing; we need to practice and it reinforces the idea that agencies can (and should) undergo reforms. There are plenty of areas where reforms are needed but destroy & rebuild isn't viable.

Why not? We did just that when ICE was founded.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of pants on head stupid, K. Gillibrand just stated that the first thing the Democrats should do when they retake Congress is abolish ICE.

Yeah, that sort of contrarian sillyness isnt going to help anything, though im sure it will play with the far left end of the base in primaries. The job still needs doing, ICE exists for a reason, not just to deport people.

Whatever useful thing that ICE does can be handled by a new agency and new people, without the racism.

Are you the impression that creating a new agency won't immediately be staffed by the people from the old agency?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-to-seek-repeal-of-californias-smog-fighting-power/ar-BBL00jT

Party of State's rights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Why not? We did just that when ICE was founded.

"We did it before" is a poor justification.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-to-seek-repeal-of-californias-smog-fighting-power/ar-BBL00jT

Party of State's rights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Why not? We did just that when ICE was founded.

"We did it before" is a poor justification.

States rights as long as it is what the Republicans want.