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.

 whembly wrote:
If you think I'm talking past you, then please restate your question and I'll give it an honest reply.

I said nothing about what was or wasn't legal. Lots of unjust things are legal, but it doesn't change that they're fundamentally wrong. Segregation was legal when Martin Luther King Jr. spoke those words.

You jump in saying that I'm moving goalposts. So... I dunno what's going on here.

I'll break it down;

moi: I dunno... maybe ask other mid-east nations to take 'em
Ustrello says: but they do
moi: incorrect, states that Middle Eastern states aren't taking in refugees and posts a link about the GulF states as evidence
someone: *map of middle-eastern states filled with refugees*
moi: but there are no gulf states on that map

That's called moving the goal post (aka the Bait and Switch aka Equivocation fallacy), because you claimed one thing (with evidence only supporting another thing), then claimed the other thing which isn't anymore supported than the first thing you claimed, given that numerous media sources have been criticized for creating this myth out of whole cloth despite numerous press states from the Saudi's in particularly that they're accepted 500,000* "Arab brothers and sisters in distress").

*that number is unlikely

 whembly wrote:
I would say they're all "real". Good thing many of those were mitigated, stopped or just plain dumbassery.

FBI-arranged "dumbassery" is not terrorism. Nor is it really a meaningful "terrorist" plot if someone tries to paypal $1000 to the leader of ISIS.

No idea (as I've stated before).

Then why are you willing to advocate stricter limits on immigration if you don't even know how effective the restrictions could even in theory be?

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
If you think I'm talking past you, then please restate your question and I'll give it an honest reply.

I said nothing about what was or wasn't legal. Lots of unjust things are legal, but it doesn't change that they're fundamentally wrong. Segregation was legal when Martin Luther King Jr. spoke those words.

But all I'm saying that we have the moral right to justify who can come into this country, in just about any criteria (I'm not advocating for strict ban on ALL muslims or ALL central americans or ALL blue-eyed 'umies). For instance:
-Should a British Muslim immigrating to the US warrant greater scrutiny? No. The UK is a stable nation with a melting pot of identities.

-Should a Somali Muslim immigrating to the US warrant greater scrutiny? Maybe... since Somalia is a cesspool of jihadi activities. How this "scrutiny" is manifested... I have no idea.

Is that so fundamentally wrong?

You jump in saying that I'm moving goalposts. So... I dunno what's going on here.

I'll break it down;

moi: I dunno... maybe ask other mid-east nations to take 'em
Ustrello says: but they do
moi: incorrect, states that Middle Eastern states aren't taking in refugees and posts a link about the GulF states as evidence
someone: *map of middle-eastern states filled with refugees*
moi: but there are no gulf states on that map

That's called moving the goal post (aka the Bait and Switch aka Equivocation fallacy), because you claimed one thing (with evidence only supporting another thing), then claimed the other thing which isn't anymore supported than the first thing you claimed, given that numerous media sources have been criticized for creating this myth out of whole cloth despite numerous press states from the Saudi's in particularly that they're accepted 500,000* "Arab brothers and sisters in distress").

*that number is unlikely

I said "other" mid-east nations. That's not ALL mid-east nations.

Yes, I did followup by stating "not the wealthy mid-east nations", but that doesn't qualify as moving the goal post. But, I'm willing to be wrong in this as you posted that wiki? later on the postings. I find it interesting that for PR purposes they don't classify them as 'refugees'.

Even then, I want to get off this particular segue.

 whembly wrote:
Is that so fundamentally wrong?

Yes. Where someone is from shouldn't matter, only where they want to go and why. Seriously. Now we're just conflating radical attacks. The Paris attacks were instigated mostly by native born European citizens. ISIS targets native born Muslims for radicalization. There's really no reason to regard a Muslim from Britain as anymore or less dangerous than one from Somalia, and no reason to regard Muslims from abroad as a greater or lesser risk than those born here, because it's not something you can just boil down to "he's a muslim out him on the extreme vetting list."

I said "other" mid-east nations. That's not ALL mid-east nations.

It's like I might as well not even bother.

I find it interesting that for PR purposes they don't classify it as 'refugees'.

Racism Around the World, With Hats;

Curious thing. The Saudi government is racist, but like most parts of the world they have their own little spin on it. There's a long history in the middle east of people with darker toned skin being regard as "more Arab" than people with lighter tones though that tradition has kind of fallen by the wayside. For the Saudis everyone in the "Arab World" is Arab, but only people from the Arabian Peninsula are "real Arabs." Somewhere around the Young Turks period of the Ottoman Empire this shift began to take place on the Arabian Peninsula, and its still there. The other Arabs are just for cheap labor, and maybe get to be "real Arabs" someday. As part of the enduring legacy of the Palestinian diaspora, there's also prejudice against refugees because "once they come they never leave" and the Saudi's are more aware than most regimes of the precariousness of being a wee bit of a tyranny in the modern world. While China might invest its efforts into building an information bubble, Saudi Arabia has never really operated that way. To keep PR up, they generally just reinterpret things to their preference and make sure the paperwork reflects it (on top of providing better than you'd think social services... so long as you're "on board" as it were).

 Ustrello wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:
Only 1 of those countries pictured are Gulf States.

Oh I forgot that Lebenon, Turkey, and Iraq aren't in the Middle east (Hey maybe that is a good thing we can strike the Middle East quagmire being started with the Iraq war then under Wubya)

Lordofhats quote of whembly specifically mentioned Gulf States. A picture was then shown that only shows 1 Gulf State and 3 states that aren't Gulf States, that's all. Sorry if I bunched up your panties with my words.

 whembly wrote:
What do you think my "worldview" consist of?

Dyed-in-wool Republican nonsense supplemented by a healthy does of idiots on Twitter.

No. I'm simply asking is it really wise to import Muslims from the most backward, violent and jihad-addled parts of the Islamic world? If yes, should more scrutiny be employed based on this? Note, this isn't saying "more scrutiny for all muslim"....

Yes it's wise because clearly not all of those people are backwards, violent, jihad-addled Muslims. Plus, we do scrutinize these people more than others, something that you've been told repeatedly but simply ignore.

It's more of a statement that Omar Mateen was on the FBI's radar, rather than advocating for "watchlists".

Then why bring it up?

This is NOT what I'm asking. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

No, this is what I was doing:

 LordofHats wrote:
He's just carrying what you're saying to its conclusion, something I find many people fail to do.

You're trying to suggest a "national conversation" about what to do about radicalization "problem" in this country. There's nothing you can do that doesn't stifle the freedoms of citizens in the United States.

Not the wealthy gulf-states.

This blatant goalpost moving has already been addressed, so I'll leave it alone.

And please, stop with the twitter dig.

Why? It shouldn't ruffle your feathers because you've repeatedly admitted to getting lots of information from Twitter, so much that you even have a cutesy nickname for that I refuse to type because I'm a grown man. I mean, for feth's sake, you bragged about how you follow(ed) Milo Yiannopoulos because he's "hilarious."

 whembly wrote:
I'm not even sure what to do, and I just spitballed an answer to scooty... yet, ya'll wanna latch onto that.

Yeah, god forbid the people in this thread hold you accountable for the things you say.

 whembly wrote:
Is that so fundamentally wrong?

Yes, because:

1) You haven't yet established that this additional security will accomplish anything, or even what it will consist of. This is especially amusing given your supposed libertarian/conservative beliefs. You should be against additional government regulations, but here you are giving a blank check to add "security" because we might as well, even without knowing anything about the solution.

2) You're applying a region-dependent model to a thoroughly globalized world. Terrorists can organize and recruit over the internet, it's not like you can declare certain places to be safe from their influence.

Cracked apparently read DakkaDakka OT's US Politics Thread's mind today and posted a topical article about the most recent trend in ISIS propaganda

 CptJake wrote:
No, there is no real difference that you can discern from a tweet and an article. When that tweet turns into an actual proposed amendment or bill and we see details, maybe your argument holds up. As it stands, Clinton advocated the criminalization of flag burning, just as Trump seems to do. Only difference is that she blew tax dollars to have actual legislation drafted for it. He spent about 30 seconds typing.

If Trump wanted to say he wanted flag burning to be illegal in only some circumstances he could have done so. The only reason to believe he was arguing for any other than a total ban on all acts of flag burning was because you want to pretend it might be true. Your imagination is not actually a useful part of this debate.

In contrast, the bill that Clinton sponsored had clear, stated limitations. It was still a gak bill, of course, but we can't pretend those limits weren't there.

Your argument relies on making stuff up. Don't do that.

 nels1031 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:
Only 1 of those countries pictured are Gulf States.

Oh I forgot that Lebenon, Turkey, and Iraq aren't in the Middle east (Hey maybe that is a good thing we can strike the Middle East quagmire being started with the Iraq war then under Wubya)

Lordofhats quote of whembly specifically mentioned Gulf States. A picture was then shown that only shows 1 Gulf State and 3 states that aren't Gulf States, that's all. Sorry if I bunched up your panties with my words.

And that was proven wrong literally posts after that, so no you are still wrong.

 Frazzled wrote:
Was he vetted? How'd that work out?

Good point. Clearly what's needed is extreme vetting.

Trump is the first mountain dew president.

 whembly wrote:

But all I'm saying that we have the moral right to justify who can come into this country, in just about any criteria (I'm not advocating for strict ban on ALL muslims or ALL central americans or ALL blue-eyed 'umies). For instance:
-Should a British Muslim immigrating to the US warrant greater scrutiny? No. The UK is a stable nation with a melting pot of identities.

-Should a Somali Muslim immigrating to the US warrant greater scrutiny? Maybe... since Somalia is a cesspool of jihadi activities. How this "scrutiny" is manifested... I have no idea.

Is that so fundamentally wrong?

The "wrong" part is that you keep using "Muslim" as a qualifier. If you simply left it as "someone from peaceful country is safe, someone from violent horrible country is not as safe," then I would have no problem.

All religions have their bad apples that should not result in punishing the religion as a whole. After all, what religion was Bundy and the rest of the Branch Dildonians? Should their actions bring greater scrutiny on all Christians?

 whembly wrote:
No... radical Islamism wins when we ignore that it's a problem. Just look at how much effort it takes to get the Obama administration, the FBI and the media to admit that Omar Mateen was radicalized when he attacked that nightclub.

This is empty political rhetoric. Obama launched 4,000 drone strikes. We can argue whether this was effective, or whether some other approach might be more , but claiming it was ignoring the problem is nonsense.

If you honestly want a conversation on Islamic terror, that really is one of the basic realities you have to agree to before that conversation can begin. The second reality would be that the number of Muslims who want to commit such attacks, or support attacks is a minute portion of the total population.

On the flip side, the left would have to accept that there is a problem with extremism that produces lethal terror attacks within Islam.

That would probably be the bare minimum reality that would need to be accepted for this conversation to begin.


EDIT - amended one agreed truth after a dakkaite made a good point via PM.

 whembly wrote:
No. I'm simply asking is it really wise to import Muslims from the most backward, violent and jihad-addled parts of the Islamic world? If yes, should more scrutiny be employed based on this? Note, this isn't saying "more scrutiny for all muslim"....

Dude, refugees don't come from the nice places. Refugees flee from countries wracked by civil war and despotic governments. And yes, this means that it is possible that you'll get some fethed up people who may be vulnerable to developing extremist views once settled in another country.

This does mean, that yes, the price of giving 15,000 people a new life is that one or two of them might do something horrible later in life. But claiming that such a risk means not allowing anyone in means, basically, that you are arguing for no refugee intake at all.

Well... seems like I kicked the hornets nest...

I recognized I'm a stubborn mule, so Imma drop this.

Just read this from The Atlantic (yes, I do read other sites ):
Too Much Stigma, Not Enough Persuasion.

Did anyone else follow Trump's announcement that he saved jobs from that air conditioner company moving to Mexico.

It turns out Trump has had his running mate Mike Pence offer up a pile of incentives to get Carrier to keep half the jobs in Mexico. So Trump the great deal maker ended up signing off on a deal to have government pay, while 1,000 jobs still went to Mexico. That's the art of negotiation, apparently.

It also opens the door for any company in the future who decides it wants to offshore some jobs. If they wanted to offshore 5,000 jobs, why wouldn't they claim they wanted to offshore 10,000, get Trump to hand over umpteen million in government dollars, and still offshore the 5,000 positions they originally planned for?

That said, saving 1,000 jobs makes a difference to some families. But to really get an idea of how much this deal was just a piddly thing on the national scale, here's a couple of comparisons. Since 2000 about 5.2 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the US. For Trump to recover manufacturing back to that peak, he would need to make another 5,200 deals equal to the Carrier deal. Or to compare to Obama, who's auto-bailout saved 1.5 million jobs, Trump would need to make another 1,500 Carrier sized deals, just to equal Obama's auto bailout.

And remember, Republicans hated the auto bailout. But now Trump is pouring money into PR stunts that save a tiny number of jobs, and it's Trump the great dealmaker. Suddenyly government money to prop up industry is okay again. I personally am shocked about this reversal.

 whembly wrote:
But all I'm saying that we have the moral right to justify who can come into this country, in just about any criteria (I'm not advocating for strict ban on ALL muslims or ALL central americans or ALL blue-eyed 'umies).

This is strong argument, and one that is very hard to argue against. A similar argument was made by the Australian Prime Minister in the 1990s regarding our own refugee issues. It was an argument that won over most of the population, in the end. By the time he left office we had children spending years in barbed wire camps.

There's a bit more to it than that, and I don't want to vilify Prime Minister Howard for a very difficult issue that four subsequent Prime Ministers have failed to resolve, but it's pretty clear that there is a lot of danger in talking only about the rights of people in your country, and ignoring what rights might be given to people in the rest of the world who are in desperate need.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nels1031 wrote:
Lordofhats quote of whembly specifically mentioned Gulf States. A picture was then shown that only shows 1 Gulf State and 3 states that aren't Gulf States, that's all. Sorry if I bunched up your panties with my words.

If you'd actually read the thread, you'd have seen Whembly was trying to walk it over to gulf states, having originally wanted ME nations to take more refugees.

Golden rule of the internet - make sure you actually know what the hell is going on before making smug posts.

 sebster wrote:
If you'd actually read the thread,

Nah, not interested. I don't have to read anything in this thread to post in it.

Although there have been some posts in the last few pages that would be nice to tear apart.

 sebster wrote:
you'd have seen Whembly was trying to walk it over to gulf states, having originally wanted ME nations to take more refugees.

Just skimming the thread, saw a quote about Gulf states, saw a picture that didn't include the Gulf States, barring 1. Seemed odd, pointed it out. Butt hurt ensues. Simple as that.

 sebster wrote:
Golden rule of the internet - make sure you actually know what the hell is going on before making smug posts.

If that were true, your post count would be much lower

 nels1031 wrote:
I don't have to read anything in this thread to post in it.

No, you don't, but it sure does increase the chances that your posts will offer something useful to the discussion instead of being just an opportunity to insult someone.

 nels1031 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
If you'd actually read the thread,

Nah, not interested. I don't have to read anything in this thread to post in it.

Although there have been some posts in the last few pages that would be nice to tear apart.

 sebster wrote:
you'd have seen Whembly was trying to walk it over to gulf states, having originally wanted ME nations to take more refugees.

Just skimming the thread, saw a quote about Gulf states, saw a picture that didn't include the Gulf States, barring 1. Seemed odd, pointed it out. Butt hurt ensues. Simple as that.

 sebster wrote:
Golden rule of the internet - make sure you actually know what the hell is going on before making smug posts.

If that were true, your post count would be much lower

That is a very doltish attitude to take

Great image:

 nels1031 wrote:
Nah, not interested. I don't have to read anything in this thread to post in it.

While that is technically true, it does result in you wasting everyone's time, including your own. Maybe if there's nothing here you find interesting enough to read... don't post.

Although there have been some posts in the last few pages that would be nice to tear apart.

So you haven't read the thread, but you've read posts you want to tear apart.

You are Schrodinger's troll.

Just skimming the thread, saw a quote about Gulf states, saw a picture that didn't include the Gulf States, barring 1. Seemed odd, pointed it out. Butt hurt ensues. Simple as that.

You're confusing 'butt hurt' with people explaining your mistake to you. I know that protects your ego, but it also keeps you from learning, from getting smarter.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

No. I'm simply asking is it really wise to import Muslims from the most backward, violent and jihad-addled parts of the Islamic world? If yes, should more scrutiny be employed based on this? Note, this isn't saying "more scrutiny for all muslim"....

Yes it's wise because clearly not all of those people are backwards, violent, jihad-addled Muslims. Plus, we do scrutinize these people more than others, something that you've been told repeatedly but simply ignore.

I mean, just look at how awesome the vetting process in the US is:

 whembly wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be frank I think it is a pretty good idea to prevent future mass murderers from entering the USA. To take it a logical step further, we ought also to throw out any future mass murderers who currently are resident in the country.

Was he vetted? How'd that work out?

Do you really think we can "vet" out future potential mass killers? Unless this guy was FB friends with Bin Laden.

Really, I don't think there's anything we can do to stop this type of lone wolf attack.

100%? No, of course there really isn't. Nor will there ever be. This type of occurrence is just a part of our reality with a "war on terror" policy as part of our life.

To think that a "vetting" process can eliminate criminal activity from this, or any, portion of the population is patently absurd. To think that violent crimes and criminal acts committed by immigrants is something new, or mutually an "immigrant thing", is just as absurd. The fact that Muslims have become the boogeyman for certain elements of the country is the reactionary manifestation of the uninformed to something they feel they have no control over and need to quantify, feel threatened by and don't bother to check the facts behind the headlines. The fact that we have millions of immigrants in this country, with approx. 70,000 refugees admitted in 2015 alone, and what, barely a relative handful of "terrorist" attacks on our soil shows that the current processes seem to be working as they should.

Relative handful of "terrorist" attacks??? lil' bit more than a handful.

Here's 73 that happened or were foiled:
http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/10/a-timeline-of-73-islamist-terror-plots-since-911/

I don't know what this "extreme vetting" looks like and very dubious that it would make any impact.

The fact of the matter, we can dictate whatever we want for immigration. No one has a right to come here... just because.

Yes! Relative handful. You really need to read what I typed a bit better. The word "relative handful" was purposefully chosen because...I'll use your numbers...73 attempts in 16 years with a pool of 16m new immigrants coming to the US during that time. Frankly, after reviewing those numbers, I'm thinking "relative handful" may have been an overstatement.

And I'm fairly certain they don't come here "just because", but maybe just because of this:
To quote the Lady:

'New Colossus'
(statue of liberty poem)

"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Our country is great because we don't succumb to blind, xenophobic fear. We seek a bigger and better future than one cowering from that which is different.

 sebster wrote:



Dude, refugees don't come from the nice places. Refugees flee from countries wracked by civil war and despotic governments.

I dunno man, what I've seen of Ireland from the airport, and on the telly, it looks pretty damn nice... or is that because all the refugees to left?


More serious: I agree with this... There are a number of reasons for becoming a refugee, and chief among them are the reasons you've listed, and the reason so many have left is because things simply became too bad to bear. What evidence we have, based on incidents, is that terrorists, and criminals at large, generally speaking, are not hidden amongst the innocent, just waiting to pop out and create havoc.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

No. I'm simply asking is it really wise to import Muslims from the most backward, violent and jihad-addled parts of the Islamic world? If yes, should more scrutiny be employed based on this? Note, this isn't saying "more scrutiny for all muslim"....

Yes it's wise because clearly not all of those people are backwards, violent, jihad-addled Muslims. Plus, we do scrutinize these people more than others, something that you've been told repeatedly but simply ignore.

I mean, just look at how awesome the vetting process in the US is:

Spoiler:

Here's an actual diagram of "The Screening Process for Refugee Entry into the United States". When people complain about "letting in just anybody", they're speaking from an absolutely wrong and uninformed position. Honestly, after reviewing the hurdles in front of refugees and the screening they endure, I wonder how many of our ancestors would have been kicked out of the system if they would have had to face such scrutiny and how many of us would be typing on Dakka with a different flag by our name than the Stars and Stripes? A bit of perspective, humility and compassion is really needed in this argument from those wanting to deny people suffering unimaginably, a better life.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states

Heh, WaPo went and assembled the 282 promises Trump made during the campaign. I won't repost them here, even spoilered, because it's crazy long.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-will-give-you-everything-here-are-282-of-donald-trumps-campaign-promises/2016/11/24/01160678-b0f9-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.b5f43757e81e

Some highlights, though;

7. Call the executives at the parent company of Carrier, an air-conditioning manufacturer that is closing a plant in Indiana and moving to Mexico, and threaten to impose a 35 percent tariff on air conditioners imported into the United States. Trump predicts the company will say: “Sir, we’ve decided to stay in the United States.”

Already broken, despite offering up a bunch of incentives, the company is still moving 1,000 of the originally planned 2,000 jobs. The president of Carrier did not make that statement, possibly because he's less comfortable lying than Trump is.

12. Leave the federal minimum wage at $7.25 per hour, which is already too high.

13. Raise the federal minimum wage to $10 per hour, as $7.25 is too low and “the minimum wage has to go up.”

At what point do we start feeling sorry for the people who voted for this guy?

25. “I don’t settle cases. I don’t do it.”

Except for the couple of hundred cases you had settled, and the Trump U case you settled almost as soon as the election was finished.

39. Eliminate the $19 trillion national debt within eight years by “vigorously eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government, ending redundant government programs and growing the economy to increase tax revenues.”

This pretty obviously a crazy bit of nonsense, so not much different to anything else Trump has claimed, except it's worth highlighting because of how it fits with the rest of Trump's claims. Go through his claims and you'll see his promise of a massive tax cut, and also a constant stream of spending promises, a massive boost to military expenditure, big spending on border security, all while protecting medicare/medicaid and social security. So his actual, stated programs will hammer the deficit, and at the same time he claims he'll not only wipe the deficit, but produce an impossible, economy wrecking surplus in excess of $2 trillion a year.

The whole thing would be funny, except, you know, now this lying idiot holds real power over the lives of the people who bought in to this. A couple of years ago we might have wondered who would have been foolish enough to buy in to the obvious scam in Trump University, except now we have an answer to that - there's a bit over 60 million people who bought in to this, on some level or another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
More serious: I agree with this... There are a number of reasons for becoming a refugee, and chief among them are the reasons you've listed, and the reason so many have left is because things simply became too bad to bear. What evidence we have, based on incidents, is that terrorists, and criminals at large, generally speaking, are not hidden amongst the innocent, just waiting to pop out and create havoc.

Yep, and to the extent that a terrorist might be hidden, or more likely they might become a terorrist later (or their children), there is something very wrong with seeing only that tiny risk, while ignoring the good done by giving millions of people good lives and an opportunity to contribute to their new country.

 sebster wrote:

39. Eliminate the $19 trillion national debt within eight years by “vigorously eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government, ending redundant government programs and growing the economy to increase tax revenues.”

This pretty obviously a crazy bit of nonsense, so not much different to anything else Trump has claimed, except it's worth highlighting because of how it fits with the rest of Trump's claims. Go through his claims and you'll see his promise of a massive tax cut, and also a constant stream of spending promises, a massive boost to military expenditure, big spending on border security, all while protecting medicare/medicaid and social security. So his actual, stated programs will hammer the deficit, and at the same time he claims he'll not only wipe the deficit, but produce an impossible, economy wrecking surplus in excess of $2 trillion a year.

The whole thing would be funny, except, you know, now this lying idiot holds real power over the lives of the people who bought in to this. A couple of years ago we might have wondered who would have been foolish enough to buy in to the obvious scam in Trump University, except now we have an answer to that - there's a bit over 60 million people who bought in to this, on some level or another.

Just to put the sheer audacity of this lie into perspective: current federal revenue is 3.2 trillion/year, while spending is 3.8 trillion/year. IOW, it would take six years to pay off the debt if we abolished the entire federal government and all of its spending, while still keeping taxes at their current levels. Promising to do it in eight years while cutting taxes is utter lunacy, and the fact that people voted for such an obvious, blatant lie should be terrifying.

 Peregrine wrote:
Just to put the sheer audacity of this lie into perspective: current federal revenue is 3.2 trillion/year, while spending is 3.8 trillion/year. IOW, it would take six years to pay off the debt if we abolished the entire federal government and all of its spending, while still keeping taxes at their current levels. Promising to do it in eight years while cutting taxes is utter lunacy, and the fact that people voted for such an obvious, blatant lie should be terrifying.

Yep, we're pretty much at the "feth it, why shouldn't a politician promise unicorns and flying cars for every citizen" stage.

My one, true goal of this election cycle is finally achieved. Hillary is (allegedly) done with politics.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/mcauliffe-says-clinton-finished-politics/

McAuliffe Says Clinton Is Finished With Politics

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime friend and associate of Bill and Hillary Clinton, said Wednesday that he thinks Hillary is finished with politics, the Washington Post reported.

During an interview on WTOP’s “Ask the Governor” program, McAuliffe said that Clinton’s loss to President-elect Donald Trump has been especially tough for the Clintons.

“I mean, this is hard on anybody,” he said. “I mean, can you imagine having to go through this? I’ve had many conversations with the Clinton family. We’re friends. It’s hard, very tough. I think on Election Day everybody felt pretty good. I think the Trump campaign thought they were gonna lose. And you know, this is what happens in elections.”

McAuliffe went on to say that he thinks Hillary will leave the political arena.

“I think so, sure. I don’t think Hillary has any interest in running again. I’ll let her speak for herself. I haven’t asked her that. I think the president’s probably going to go back, working on all the good deeds he’s done before in helping people around the globe,” McAuliffe said.

“You know, there are elections. We’ve got to move forward. As governor of Virginia, I’ve got to move forward.”

Seems like a Pyrrhic victory to me.

 Breotan wrote:
My one, true goal of this election cycle is finally achieved. Hillary is (allegedly) done with politics

I doubt there's any allegedly about it.

Losing a presidential run has been the death blow to many political careers. Losing to Trump? With people still hounding how she's a criminal and should be in prison? She's done. There's no real future for her in the political realm at this point and she knows it. If she couldn't win this election the party isn't going to back her in another against a Trump rerun or some Republican alternative coming out in 2020.