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.

That and the alt-right straight out admits to being racist. It's their defining feature. It's sort of funny to see on one side "ISLAM ISN'T A RACE!!!" and on the other "Yeah, we're racist."

 whembly wrote:
The other thing we have to recognize is that Bannon is going to be the "Thug" in Trump's administration.

He's the guy that's going to fight in the gutters.

We'll know the gak hits the fan if you "hear" from Bannon in this administration.

Is he? I kinda got the impression that honor was going to go to the presidential Twitter account, assuming they don't change his password.

 Spinner wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The other thing we have to recognize is that Bannon is going to be the "Thug" in Trump's administration.

He's the guy that's going to fight in the gutters.

We'll know the gak hits the fan if you "hear" from Bannon in this administration.

Is he? I kinda got the impression that honor was going to go to the presidential Twitter account, assuming they don't change his password.

Trump is all talk.

As evidenced by his former political opponents, it seems that Trump forgives if you "bend the knee" so to speak.

Bannon? He stuck me as someone you don't ever want to get on his bad side. Now that he's in position of power, that kind of personellel cannot be healthy.

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The other thing we have to recognize is that Bannon is going to be the "Thug" in Trump's administration.

He's the guy that's going to fight in the gutters.

We'll know the gak hits the fan if you "hear" from Bannon in this administration.

Is he? I kinda got the impression that honor was going to go to the presidential Twitter account, assuming they don't change his password.

Trump is all talk.

As evidenced by his former political opponents, it seems that Trump forgives if you "bend the knee" so to speak.

Bannon? He stuck me as someone you don't ever want to get on his bad side. Now that he's in position of power, that kind of personellel cannot be healthy.

Makes me wonder just how many parallels there will be with Nixon as explained in that article i linked the other day. It's been a long time since I last read All the President's Men, so who would Bannon be?

Do you think we might have a new McCarthy on our hands, or not that bad? Because literally nothing I have read on Bannon has sounded positive.

ender502 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 ender502 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:


I can only hope he can do that with our budget.

Nah, he will do what every Republican administration has done. He will cut taxes and increase military spending. He will not be able to radically effect most spending cause...well, he doesn't control it. We will get pretty much the same budget but with less revenue to cover the bills.

Just another spend and borrow Republican.

ender502

He doesn't control spending. Got it. Of course you imply he can cut taxes. He does not control tax rates either.

But why be accurate, right?

I was just pointing out how he will be just as incompetent as every other Republican president. Cut taxes, keep spending, borrow more. Am I missing something? Didn't think so.

I suggest actually learning about what Republican presidents have done before commenting. It helps you to be "accurate."

ender502

It'd be much better to go full Democrat, increase federal spending, increase tax rates, increase globalization ie. cost the country jobs. Am I missing something? Maybe stripping away 2nd Amendment rights, but that's pretty debatable.


And two other points: pointing out how failed immigration enforcement results in crimes committed, even if not every time, isn't racist. Try sensationalizing all you want, you're off base and won't win the argument that way.


Also, just because it seems to have been buried.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Do you think we might have a new McCarthy on our hands, or not that bad? Because literally nothing I have read on Bannon has sounded positive.

McCarthy level? Nah...

Goon level? You betcha.

Getting back to Romney visiting Trump. Yaknow... I think he'd be a great for the VA post. Clean fething house and turn that system around.

 Just Tony wrote:
It'd be much better to go full Democrat, increase federal spending, increase tax rates, increase globalization ie. cost the country jobs.

Yep, it would be better given that the republican party is in favor of increasing federal spending, increasing globalization, and decreasing tax rates for the wealthy. It's not like the republican party in recent history has been the paragons of fiscal responsibility, the main difference between the two is that the democrats at least make a token acknowledgement of the idea that we should increase taxes to pay for increased spending while the republicans increase spending and then cut taxes to increase our debt even more.

And two other points: pointing out how failed immigration enforcement results in crimes committed, even if not every time, isn't racist.

It's racist because it depends on acting like illegal immigrants are exceptionally likely to commit crimes (other than the "crime" of being in the country without paperwork), which comes from racist stereotypes.

 Just Tony wrote:

ender502 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 ender502 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:


I can only hope he can do that with our budget.

Nah, he will do what every Republican administration has done. He will cut taxes and increase military spending. He will not be able to radically effect most spending cause...well, he doesn't control it. We will get pretty much the same budget but with less revenue to cover the bills.

Just another spend and borrow Republican.

ender502

He doesn't control spending. Got it. Of course you imply he can cut taxes. He does not control tax rates either.

But why be accurate, right?

I was just pointing out how he will be just as incompetent as every other Republican president. Cut taxes, keep spending, borrow more. Am I missing something? Didn't think so.

I suggest actually learning about what Republican presidents have done before commenting. It helps you to be "accurate."

ender502

It'd be much better to go full Democrat, increase federal spending, increase tax rates, increase globalization ie. cost the country jobs. Am I missing something? Maybe stripping away 2nd Amendment rights, but that's pretty debatable.


And two other points: pointing out how failed immigration enforcement results in crimes committed, even if not every time, isn't racist. Try sensationalizing all you want, you're off base and won't win the argument that way.


Also, just because it seems to have been buried.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

except none of that is true. Obama cut the deficit by 66%, and we have the lowest unemployment rate in decades, and no guns have been taken. When you need the budget balanced or a surplus, you need the democrats in charge. they're just better for the economy and everything really.

 sebster wrote:
The alternative, such as hoping for the return of manufacturing jobs through Trump magic is just plain old not very sensible.

Well, no, if I was depending on magic, it would not be very sensible. However, I'm depending on market forces acting in response to Trump's proposed actions. If the cost of tariffs in one of your primary markets would raise costs to the point that it cannot be considered competative, then the answer is to start manufacturing locally. This is why companies like Toyota, Honda, Daimler AG, etc etc have US plants.

I'm willing to bet that Trump really is crazy enough to piss off US corporations by jerking up tariffs.

Just in time for Trump (Pence) to appoint a Supreme Court judge an Indiana lawmaker is pushing an unconstitutional bill banning all abortion. If I were cynical I would think it was presented just for the legal battle.

Meh, red states have been introducing these bills every single year for the past two decades.

Peregine do you live in a border state?

And two other points: pointing out how failed immigration enforcement results in crimes committed, even if not every time, isn't racist.

It's racist because it depends on acting like illegal immigrants are exceptionally likely to commit crimes (other than the "crime" of being in the country without paperwork), which comes from racist stereotypes.

Mitochondria wrote:
Peregine do you live in a border state?

I feel a dose of truthiness is coming.

prepare to see all americans with mexican ancestory be painted as illegals.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Is Bannon really an Anti-Semite? I keep seeing the accusations, but there's nothing supporting it. His colleges, who admit he was an donkey-cave says he supports Israel, and it would seem that the accusation originated from his Ex-wife, but we only have her word for it.

Bill Kristol spoke out against Trump as the Republican candidate. Bannon, as editor of Breitbart, ran an article calling him the 'renegade jew'. When another columnist drew the ire of Breitbart, they ran a piece saying "“hell hath no fury like a Polish, Jewish, American elitist scorned". Calling people out as jews the moment you disagree with them on anything is a very fethed up way to look at the world, and pretty obviously anti-semitic.

And supporting Israel is quite common among far right racists. They see israel as a useful ally agaisnt another of their enemies, Muslims.

Also, isn't Trump's son in law and daughter Jewish, and doesn't he want to foster good relations with Israel? How is that anti-semitic behavior? It does not seem logical.

No-one said Trump is anti-semitic. Just that he's happy to work with them, if it furthers his ambitions. In fact, that's while I say about Trump on any subject - Trump has no ideology, he'll work with whoever helps further his own ambitions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Clinton has never had her email scandal go to court. No judge was ever involved and she was never in a position to have a judge rule against her.

Pence faces a real possibility of punishment by the court if he doesn't comply with FOIA laws. Clinton was expressly told that while she was careless and incompetent her violations wouldnt be brought before a court. Totally different situations.

Ah, so the difference is that Pence's matter was serious to reach a court. Good point.

 thekingofkings wrote:

And two other points: pointing out how failed immigration enforcement results in crimes committed, even if not every time, isn't racist.

It's racist because it depends on acting like illegal immigrants are exceptionally likely to commit crimes (other than the "crime" of being in the country without paperwork), which comes from racist stereotypes.

by their very definition, illegal immigrants have all committed a crime, and by doing so are very likely to commit fraud like fake SSN and such to be able to get basic services. illegal alien is not a race, there are alot of Russian illegal aliens as well, and they are white and usually Christian, and far more often than not, speak English.

sirlynchmob wrote:

except none of that is true. Obama cut the deficit by 66%, and we have the lowest unemployment rate in decades, and no guns have been taken. When you need the budget balanced or a surplus, you need the democrats in charge. they're just better for the economy and everything really.

Which isn't even touching on the whole Reaganomics link... There's a fething reason it keeps getting buried ITT.... It's a load of bollocks, and anyone trying to sell you on the idea it works a) doesn't have a clue, or b) does have a clue, but is selling snake oil anyway.


For the-I-don't-know-numbereth time... Trickle-down, Reaganomics, whatever you want to call it is a sham... There was a much better, more descriptive name for it when it was first trotted out in the 1920s: Horse and Sparrow economics.

 sebster wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Clinton has never had her email scandal go to court. No judge was ever involved and she was never in a position to have a judge rule against her.

Pence faces a real possibility of punishment by the court if he doesn't comply with FOIA laws. Clinton was expressly told that while she was careless and incompetent her violations wouldnt be brought before a court. Totally different situations.

Ah, so the difference is that Pence's matter was serious to reach a court. Good point.

Which is a weird recollection of events.

Both Hillary and Pence have not faced any criminal charges, and neither has faced a criminal court.

Both have been taken to court by private parties using FOIA laws, and both times the courts have ruled in favor of the private parties and ordered the release of more records.

The cases are remarkably similar in that regard.

 Ahtman wrote:
Just in time for Trump (Pence) to appoint a Supreme Court judge an Indiana lawmaker is pushing an unconstitutional bill banning all abortion. If I were cynical I would think it was presented just for the legal battle.

I don't doubt it.

In other news, the special snowflake who vandalized Trump's Hollywood star has been charged.

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20161117/man-who-admitted-vandalizing-donald-trumps-star-charged-with-felony

He flips houses for a living and looks like he'd be a good host of one of those "no money down" real estate shows.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

except none of that is true. Obama cut the deficit by 66%, and we have the lowest unemployment rate in decades, and no guns have been taken. When you need the budget balanced or a surplus, you need the democrats in charge. they're just better for the economy and everything really.

Which isn't even touching on the whole Reaganomics link... There's a fething reason it keeps getting buried ITT.... It's a load of bollocks, and anyone trying to sell you on the idea it works a) doesn't have a clue, or b) does have a clue, but is selling snake oil anyway.


For the-I-don't-know-numbereth time... Trickle-down, Reaganomics, whatever you want to call it is a sham... There was a much better, more descriptive name for it when it was first trotted out in the 1920s: Horse and Sparrow economics.

Also, the US debt under Reagan increased from around $700billion to around $2trillion. Reagan basically enacted Keynesian stimulus policies in order to achieve his growth.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
It'd be much better to go full Democrat, increase federal spending, increase tax rates, increase globalization ie. cost the country jobs.

Yep, it would be better given that the republican party is in favor of increasing federal spending, increasing globalization, and decreasing tax rates for the wealthy. It's not like the republican party in recent history has been the paragons of fiscal responsibility, the main difference between the two is that the democrats at least make a token acknowledgement of the idea that we should increase taxes to pay for increased spending while the republicans increase spending and then cut taxes to increase our debt even more.

And two other points: pointing out how failed immigration enforcement results in crimes committed, even if not every time, isn't racist.

It's racist because it depends on acting like illegal immigrants are exceptionally likely to commit crimes (other than the "crime" of being in the country without paperwork), which comes from racist stereotypes.

What Peregrine said.

And yes, using two incidents to define an entire people is preudicial. I'll call racism because you haven't mentioned those criminally minded (and mostly white) Canadians. Why no wall there? I get it as a rhetorical tool. Blame the ones that look and sound different. It's way easier to get people all fired up. It's also racism.

ender502

we could go into detail about all the illegal Russians, but you dont hear alot of it in the news, but you do hear about illegals from Mexico. As for Canada, how often do Canadians commit any crimes here (with the exception of the entire Toronto Maple Leafs orginization)

 Breotan wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Just in time for Trump (Pence) to appoint a Supreme Court judge an Indiana lawmaker is pushing an unconstitutional bill banning all abortion. If I were cynical I would think it was presented just for the legal battle.

I don't doubt it.

In other news, the special snowflake who vandalized Trump's Hollywood star has been charged.

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20161117/man-who-admitted-vandalizing-donald-trumps-star-charged-with-felony

He flips houses for a living and looks like he'd be a good host of one of those "no money down" real estate shows.

Or maybe get a spot on The Apprentice?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Just in time for Trump (Pence) to appoint a Supreme Court judge an Indiana lawmaker is pushing an unconstitutional bill banning all abortion. If I were cynical I would think it was presented just for the legal battle.

I don't doubt it.

In other news, the special snowflake who vandalized Trump's Hollywood star has been charged.

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20161117/man-who-admitted-vandalizing-donald-trumps-star-charged-with-felony

He flips houses for a living and looks like he'd be a good host of one of those "no money down" real estate shows.

Or maybe get a spot on The Apprentice?

I can see Trump doing that just so he can fire him.

 Just Tony wrote:
So the economy is going to tank, right? An armchair economist calls that? We're talking about the same plan that WAS successful during Reagan's presidency and part of Bush's, until he broke from those policies?

Reagan's plan said that the economy would grow so fast that the cut would cover itself. The economy did grow, though really this was just rebound from stagflation and the recession the Fed had to inflict to stop inflation, and even then growth wasn't as fast as it was under Clinton. Growth certainly never reached the ludicrous estimates that Reagan predicted, and as such his tax cut caused a massive deficit blow out, and left the US with a structural deficit that is still in place today, driving the deficit ever higher. that has never been recovered from since.

And now we have Trump promising a bigger tax cut for the rich, sold on the promise of even greater growth.

And the rubes lined up again.

I should run for president. I'd promise every pays 1c in taxes, and it would be paid for because it would produce gabillionity% growth. I'd be so popular it wouldn't even matter that I wasn't American. It certainly wouldn't matter that my economic plan was utter gibberish.

And more than terrorists are jeopardizing the security of the nation, but not in your world apparently. I say once again, ask Casey Chadwick or Kathryn Steinle how they feel about the lack of border security. You'll need a necromancer, though.

You should ask the roughly 2,500 people who die in motor vehicle accidents each month whether border security should be a bigger issue than road safety. You will still need that necromancer, and also a basic understanding how 2,500 is a bigger number than 2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
But djones is right. Britons never never never shall be slaves (to Uncle Sam)

The same song also claims Britons rule the waves, but there's seven carrier fleets in America that are proving that completely and utterly wrong right now

Wasn't there a study that showed that illegal immigrants were less likely to commit crime after coming here than Americans citizens?

 CptJake wrote:
Interesting graphic:

Spoiler:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-09/trump-redefined-us-politics-after-hillary-spent-nearly-twice-much-vote-nothing

That's actually kind of misleading, because it's just showing admin and background costs, mostly for campaign offices, which are actually a small part of campaign. It doesn't include TV or internet ads, for instance.

I mean, the conclusion is right, Clinton way outpsent Trump, and lost despite it, but the graphic isn't showing what the conclusion states.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Wasn't there a study that showed that illegal immigrants were less likely to commit crime after coming here than Americans citizens?

It's kind of inconclusive either way because the isn't really a great source of data. We have some approximations and reasonable guesses that the numbers are no worse than citizens, but the studies arguably have too much confidence in their proof. But what is pretty clear is that there is no compelling evidence that illegal immigrants are worse than citizens by any significant margin.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think that one thing everyone can agree on (even if you were a Hillary supporter) is that it is nice to see that the candidate that VASTLY outspent the other didn't get a chance to buy the Presidency.

I raised this a while back, just after Trump won. I suggested that maybe it actually offered up a new way forward in politics. After all, if it's clear that campaign spending is miles past the saturation point, so that campaigns are perfectly viable on much smaller budgets... and then you add to that the idea that campaigns now can raise a lot more funds direct from the public through micro-transactions, then maybe there's a new way forward. One where campaigns will gain a lot from claiming to be independent of corporate interests than they will get from any corporate dollars.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
Alternatively, it's a brave new world in which traditional media and being prepared, professional and surrounding yourself with a large, well organized team doesn't mean gak when you can just shout increasingly ridiculous lies until you are voted into office.

This is the ugly flip side, yeah. My hope is that Trump's buffoonery didn't bother people because they'd come to take for granted how things work because they'd been governed by people with a decent understanding of government for so long. Four years of Trump nonsense will snap people back to reality.

Hopefully.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
SPLC is an absolute joke. I wouldn't trust them at all.

Well they aren't part of your political bubble, so I guess that's probably inevitable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
He is absolutely right though that our government has repeatedly in the past round up members of our society and placed them in camps out of fear. This specific precedent was set by a Democrat President, House, and Senate. So we can stop pretending it's a one party issue.

Mmm, yes. The actions of the Democrats 70 years ago are totally relevant to ideas being half suggested by an incoming Republican administration.

This really is tribalism taken to the craziest of extremes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Nevermind that SPLC put Ben fething Carson on their extremist list, before forcing to remove him after much criticisms.

That didn't put him on their extremist list, you've been getting your news from rightwing gak posts again. What SPLC did was give a list of some of the extremist things Ben Carson had said. There was an issue that the SPLC implied they considered SPLC was an extremist, and when this was pointed out they withdrew the 'extremist file' categorising. But they stand by the list of things Carson said, and that's still on the site, as it should be because it's impossible to deny Carson has said some extremist, crazy ass bs. Carson has stated that redefining marriage led to the fall of the Roman Empire, and would do the same to the US. He thinks the New World Order is only held back by the US and its Judeo-Christian values, and therefore any plan to move away from those values is a NWO plot to take over the world... fething seriously. He thinks ACA is slavery, and he said it is worse than 9/11.

Now, given Carson has never said anything about violent action, and given his medical and philanthropic work the guy is owed respect in a lot of ways... but let's be clear here, his politics are fething bonkers.