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.
Prestor Jon wrote: Party affiliation of the voter doesn't matter in presidential elections or mid term elections either. Every voter in the district gets the same ballot with the same choices on it. For presidential elections everyone in their respective state has the same president and Vice President candidates to choose from regardless of the voter's affiliation, Democrat, Republican, Independemt or 3rd party. The fastest growing political affiliation is registered Independent but Independents are still less numerous than the 2 big parties and win an Independent doesn't reflect your voting record. A voter can be an Independent and still consistently vote for one particular party's candidates, being Independent just means they're not an official Party member.
Yes they are given same options but if somebody votes for R no matter who he is(I refer to example provided shortly after by my post about girlfriend's mother who basically said she's forced to vote for Trump because she always votes for R) it's irrelevant what options he/she is given. He/she will vote for the candinate of party he/she always votes.
I'm talking about voting behaviour. Not whether they are official member of party. That's irrelevant. What matters is whom they vote and huge swathes vote for R no matter who he/she is if he/she is R. So once Trump got through primaries he was quaranteed votes of those persons because they always vote for R. Even if Trump had said he would launch nuclear war right off the bat they would STILL vote for R.
If I was in control, the wall would be more than just a wall it would be generating money for the US economy. Firstly it should be architecturally interesting and a viable tourist destination! You could have the official wall of barbed fences in front and then a lovely tourist wall slightly behind. A sort of Great Wall of America where by tourists could walk along it and there could be school visits to see your states stretch. As for environmental concerns there could be small wildlife hatches (obviously not big enough for human use) so that animals could pass through. All that capital could be regenerated, however I don't see the Trump administration making money out of it. Perhaps there could be a toll station built into the border control gates? So that anyone passing back through paid a set amount.
Okay now I know you are just trolling but ah well. You do realize what you propose is actually counter-effective for fighting illegal immigration? That happens a lot by simply coming as a "tourist" and then overstaying. Now you are suggesting to use it to encourage tourism. Instant way to bypass the wall then. Ahahaha.
And you also would stiffle tourism with all those tolls etc. And btw none of those walls you mentioned were tourists attractions before they were abandoned. Chinese wall by like centuries. So still US poor&middle class would have to pay and their lives would suffer. Do they care it might generate more cash after they die? No.
And again: If you want to stop illegal immigration there's actually ways to do that that work. But instead money is used to this. With only purpose to boost Trump's ego at the cost of normal peoples lives.
I honestly think the money spent on a stupid wall would be more effectively spent literally paying people to go somewhere else.
Makes me think of all the silly plans for investigating welfare receipients for "cheaters" that are magnitudes more expensive than just shrugging and handing out checks.
If the goal is to do a task and save money, piling security on top of security is ineffective. The easiest solution to US immigration issues is to nation build. Once our immediate neighbors have economies of their own, the people who live there will have less incentive to come here and other countries having strong consumer economies isn't exactly a bad thing for us if our goal is generating new opportunities for people (who live here).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/02 07:09:09
Y'know..........
I didnt like Obama when he was elected or when he left. I didnt like bush.
But I didnt go to bed scared thinking "Oh god, what did the president do now"
BigWaaagh wrote: Just in case there was any inkling left as to what an economy-size donkey-cave Trump is. I mean, really!? Who the feth gets "hostile" towards Australia?
Somebody with mind of a child. Australian prime minister probably said something like "you should reconsider the ban" and Trump got pissed off cutting phone off right away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I honestly think the money spent on a stupid wall would be more effectively spent literally paying people to go somewhere else.
Makes me think of all the silly plans for investigating welfare receipients for "cheaters" that are magnitudes more expensive than just shrugging and handing out checks.
If the goal is to do a task and save money, piling security on top of security is ineffective. The easiest solution to US immigration issues is to nation build. Once our immediate neighbors have economies of their own, the people who live there will have less incentive to come here and other countries having strong consumer economies isn't exactly a bad thing for us if our goal is generating new opportunities for people (who live here).
And of course you could say...Hunt down the companies that hire those illegals. Like Trump's own companies.
Make sure there's no jobs available for illegal immigrants and what you think they are going to do? No work, no money, life sucks.
edit:
U.S. officials said that he used his calls with both Turnbull and Peña Nieto to mention his election win or the size of the crowd at his inauguration.
So let's see...Narrow win in elections, one of the worst differences in popular votes and notably smaller crowd in inauguration...Guess that's reason to be proud of? For some? Me I would rather try to boast on something that's actually positive for me.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/02 07:46:09
BigWaaagh wrote: Just in case there was any inkling left as to what an economy-size donkey-cave Trump is. I mean, really!? Who the feth gets "hostile" towards Australia?
People actually voted for, actively chose and desired, this guy for President of the United States, and think this is how responsible and effective government should be run...way to step up to the job bub, get in a stupid phone-rant and twitter fight with one of America's closest allies over a intentionally misconstrued and almost irrelevant number of refugees to score brownie points in the echo chamber...
There are no words.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
It's hit the papers over here now - Trump's rant at the Australian Prime Minister.
I was under the impression that Trump was a business expert, able to handle these types of discussions and negotiations with ease...
What a shambles!
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Just as a comment on the earlier thing where people were talking about Trump refusing to deal with CNN and how it's because the station is biased.
I know the right wing has been primed for decades to hate the MSM, whatever. But assuming Trump's feud with CNN is about biased coverage is letting yourself be manipulated. As you all said during the primary, Donald Trump isn't a conservative, he just plays one on TV. And his feud with CNN is just another example, Trump dresses it up in ideological terms (and even turns the term 'fake news' back on the left, reminds me of Hitler calling Churchill a warmonger ). But in reality the feud with CNN is all personal, just like everything with Trump. See, CNN is run by Jeff Zucker. Trump and Zucker go way back, Zucker was the executive at NBC who brought The Apprentice to that network. Trump had assumed that given his close relationship with Zucker, he would get friendly treatment from CNN, much the same way that NBC gave him softball bs with Saturday Night Live and Jimmy Fallon.
When that didn't happen, Trump got pissed and vindictive, because that is what Trump does. And now instead of just acknowledging that the president is having a hissy fit, Republicans are falling back on their tried and tested lines about the meanie MSM.
BigWaaagh wrote: Just in case there was any inkling left as to what an economy-size donkey-cave Trump is. I mean, really!? Who the feth gets "hostile" towards Australia?
I posted about this before. The joke of it is that Trump has some good reasons to walk away from the deal - Obama signed it as he walking out the door, and it's a pretty weird deal in general (Australia doesn't want to let these refugees in here because it might give an economic incentive for people to risk their lives attempting to arrive by boat... but having them settled in the US hardly removes that economic incentive). And Australia is always going to prioritise close US relations over the placement of some refugees. So there's was plenty of room for Trump to back out of the deal gracefully.
Of course, Trump doesn't do gracefully. He does angry, blowhard and crazy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/02 09:11:21
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
It's hit the papers over here now - Trump's rant at the Australian Prime Minister.
I was under the impression that Trump was a business expert, able to handle these types of discussions and negotiations with ease...
What a shambles!
Business expert? Guy has managed to bankrupt his companies multiple times. He's rich more thanks to his dad than own merits. As finns(not complementarily) says pappa betalar(swedish actually but you hear that often enough it might just as well be finnish also by now).
So far Trump has done nothing surprising with his presidency. He's predictable clown. Too bad clown with power :(
tneva82 wrote: Somebody with mind of a child. Australian prime minister probably said something like "you should reconsider the ban" and Trump got pissed off cutting phone off right away.
Just to clarify, the dispute here isn't just over Trump's muslim ban. It relates to a specific deal between the US and Australia, part of which involves the US taking some refugees currently sitting in detention camps in Australia.
I'm not going to claim too much credit for seeing that Trump was a narcisstic manchild who confused bullying and shouting with negotiation. I think there was quite a few million people before me who made that observation
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/02 09:53:16
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
BigWaaagh wrote: Just in case there was any inkling left as to what an economy-size donkey-cave Trump is. I mean, really!? Who the feth gets "hostile" towards Australia?
Well in some ways I could understand getting annoyed with Australia, we all know he doesn't want Refugees and wants to change things, so he would get up set at having to honour a previous deal. If you read into it, it makes Australia look bad too, they have 1,250 Refugees they don't want and are trading them to another nation like bargaining chips. Certainly from Trumps point of view I don't see why he should honour the agreement, as Australia is a huge and very wealthy country with a relatively small population. I don't know the reasons behind this deal but it looks like a case of pass-the-refugee-parcel no one wants. The problem is people and also Trump himself forget his was never a politician, he seeks to run the USA like his business which could be a good thing, but speaking to foreign leaders in such a way could be quite bad. As he said, he is putting America first, so hopefully that should mean no foreign appeasement for a change.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/02 09:54:38
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
tneva82 wrote: Somebody with mind of a child. Australian prime minister probably said something like "you should reconsider the ban" and Trump got pissed off cutting phone off right away.
Just to clarify, the dispute here isn't just over Trump's muslim ban. It relates to a specific deal between the US and Australia, part of which involves the US taking some refugees currently sitting in detention camps in Australia.
Well I don't know what they were talking. Point was it could be PM making something that even remotely critizes Trump.
Could also have been "don't build the wall" or "reconsider your stance on enviroment protection" or "don't tighten work imigration rules" or "could you consider toning down tone in your twitter tweets" or "too bad your inauguration crowd was so small". Trump feels it's critique at him and he can slash out at will.
He has huge massive bloated ego to protect. Only way to avoid getting slashed out is basically keep repeating "yes my lord! yes your majesty!" to whatever he says. If not you will be facing his wrath.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/02 10:17:47
Sentinel1 wrote: Certainly from Trumps point of view I don't see why he should honour the agreement
Because part of being able to make deals with other nations is having a reputation for being trustworthy. If every other country knows that any deals they make with the US are subject to change as soon as a new president comes in then why should they bother making a deal in the first place? Are those ~1000 refugees really such an unacceptable burden on the US that it's worth trashing our reputation and sacrificing our future bargaining power to avoid them?
And let's not overlook the fact that this is Australia we're talking about. You know, a close ally that we actually care about, not some irrelevant minor country that can be discarded at will if it's convenient to do business elsewhere. Breaking a deal, in a spectacularly public and insulting manner, is just unbelievable incompetence. It's absolutely inexcusable that the president of the US would be such an arrogant clown.
As he said, he is putting America first, so hopefully that should mean no foreign appeasement for a change.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
It's hit the papers over here now - Trump's rant at the Australian Prime Minister.
I was under the impression that Trump was a business expert, able to handle these types of discussions and negotiations with ease...
What a shambles!
Business expert? Guy has managed to bankrupt his companies multiple times. He's rich more thanks to his dad than own merits. As finns(not complementarily) says pappa betalar(swedish actually but you hear that often enough it might just as well be finnish also by now).
So far Trump has done nothing surprising with his presidency. He's predictable clown. Too bad clown with power :(
Being bankrupt in the USA is different from being bankrupt in Britain or Finland.
It's no big deal in the USA. Nobody takes you seriously unless you've been bankrupt at least twice
Most American dakka members have probably been bankrupt at one time
tneva82 wrote: Somebody with mind of a child. Australian prime minister probably said something like "you should reconsider the ban" and Trump got pissed off cutting phone off right away.
Just to clarify, the dispute here isn't just over Trump's muslim ban. It relates to a specific deal between the US and Australia, part of which involves the US taking some refugees currently sitting in detention camps in Australia.
I'm not going to claim too much credit for seeing that Trump was a narcisstic manchild who confused bullying and shouting with negotiation. I think there was quite a few million people before me who made that observation
You identified this story first - days before British media outlets. Everybody else is just catching up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/02 10:38:12
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Sentinel1 wrote: Certainly from Trumps point of view I don't see why he should honour the agreement
Because part of being able to make deals with other nations is having a reputation for being trustworthy. If every other country knows that any deals they make with the US are subject to change as soon as a new president comes in then why should they bother making a deal in the first place? Are those ~1000 refugees really such an unacceptable burden on the US that it's worth trashing our reputation and sacrificing our future bargaining power to avoid them?
And let's not overlook the fact that this is Australia we're talking about. You know, a close ally that we actually care about, not some irrelevant minor country that can be discarded at will if it's convenient to do business elsewhere. Breaking a deal, in a spectacularly public and insulting manner, is just unbelievable incompetence. It's absolutely inexcusable that the president of the US would be such an arrogant clown.
As he said, he is putting America first, so hopefully that should mean no foreign appeasement for a change.
No you completely missed my point, I am not disagreeing that the USA shouldn't honour agreements, I was questioning the morality of the deal in the first place. Here are 1,250 who landed in Australia seeking refuge there, the Ausies don't want them so make a deal with Obama to get rid of them. Is it not wrong for Australia to treat them in this way? Surely said deal makes them as bad as Trump on such matters. Regarding honouring the agreement, many politicians when coming to power scrap or U-turn policies they have never agreed with. Whether Trump can force this one through, I don't know.
What's this about a Democrat trying to get a bill through Congress for using military force against Iran?
And I read that Trump's putting Iran on notice
I can't be the only one that has noticed this, but the USA seems more and more like an oligarchy that's always in a perpetual state of war.
1950s - Korean War
1960s/1970s Vietnam
1980s Grenada
1990s Iraq/Yugoslavia
and of course the last 15 years have seen us with a shambolic war on terror.
This is not new in history. The British Empire were always fighting somebody year after year, but the USA was supposed to be the opposite of Britain when it was formed...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: What's this about a Democrat trying to get a bill through Congress for using military force against Iran?
And I read that Trump's putting Iran on notice
I can't be the only one that has noticed this, but the USA seems more and more like an oligarchy that's always in a perpetual state of war.
1950s - Korean War
1960s/1970s Vietnam
1980s Grenada
1990s Iraq/Yugoslavia
and of course the last 15 years have seen us with a shambolic war on terror.
This is not new in history. The British Empire were always fighting somebody year after year, but the USA was supposed to be the opposite of Britain when it was formed...
the liberal world order needs to make up its mind, Korea, Vietnam, the Iraq war (1990's) and Yugoslavia, all wars fought to help others, not for our personal glory, and wars I might add that others fought beside us. Should the US aid in defending others or not?
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: What's this about a Democrat trying to get a bill through Congress for using military force against Iran?
And I read that Trump's putting Iran on notice
I can't be the only one that has noticed this, but the USA seems more and more like an oligarchy that's always in a perpetual state of war.
1950s - Korean War
1960s/1970s Vietnam
1980s Grenada
1990s Iraq/Yugoslavia
and of course the last 15 years have seen us with a shambolic war on terror.
This is not new in history. The British Empire were always fighting somebody year after year, but the USA was supposed to be the opposite of Britain when it was formed...
the liberal world order needs to make up its mind, Korea, Vietnam, the Iraq war (1990's) and Yugoslavia, all wars fought to help others, not for our personal glory, and wars I might add that others fought beside us. Should the US aid in defending others or not?
I hear what you're saying, but as an example, Vietnam was a war that didn't really have to be fought. Yugoslavia should have been better handled by Europe (the EU was useless in that regard) and both Iraq wars were highly dubious in my book, given that the USA had been supporting Saddam for years.
The last 15 years however, have not been America's finest hour...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The South American Origin internment camps will be quite something to behold.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Yodhrin wrote: "Donald Trump (jokingly?) threatens to invade Mexico during diplomatic call with Mexican President"
Really? So first talks about occupying Iraq and now this? And he was supposed to be the non-warhawk...I sure hope you are just joking.
And so far he has been pretty much spot on on what he says to do and what he does. Lies about reasons and effects but not what he says he's going to do.
edit: "Our military isn't, so I just might send them down to take care of it" Ugh so not a joke. Though at least this seems to be referring to drug cartels but sheesh you don't send in military uninvited into another country even to chase criminals.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/02 11:53:28
"Donald Trump (jokingly?) threatens to invade Mexico during diplomatic call with Mexican President"
*begins hearing Ron Perlman's Fallout voiceover all the time*
Alternative facts: you call it invasion, Trump calls it investment.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
WrentheFaceless wrote: I wouldnt be so sure about that, Repubs are starting to say they're not going to vote for DeVos
Good. She's utterly unqualified for the job.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
The Trump administration wants to revamp and rename a U.S. government program designed to counter all violent ideologies so that it focuses solely on Islamist extremism, five people briefed on the matter told Reuters.
The program, "Countering Violent Extremism," or CVE, would be changed to "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism," the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.
Such a change would reflect Trump's election campaign rhetoric and criticism of former President Barack Obama for being weak in the fight against Islamic State and for refusing to use the phrase "radical Islam" in describing it. Islamic State has claimed responsibility for attacks on civilians in several countries.
The CVE program aims to deter groups or potential lone attackers through community partnerships and educational programs or counter-messaging campaigns in cooperation with companies such as Google (GOOGL.O) and Facebook (FB.O).
Some proponents of the program fear that rebranding it could make it more difficult for the government to work with Muslims already hesitant to trust the new administration, particularly after Trump issued an executive order last Friday temporarily blocking travel to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries.
Still, the CVE program, which focuses on U.S. residents and is separate from a military effort to fight extremism online, has been criticized even by some supporters as ineffective.
A source who has worked closely with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on the program said Trump transition team members first met with a CVE task force in December and floated the idea of changing the name and focus.
In a meeting last Thursday attended by senior staff for DHS Secretary John Kelly, government employees were asked to defend why they chose certain community organizations as recipients of CVE program grants, said the source, who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.
Although CVE funding has been appropriated by Congress and the grant recipients were notified in the final days of the Obama administration, the money still may not go out the door, the source said, adding that Kelly is reviewing the matter.
The department declined comment. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
PROGRAM CRITICIZED
Some Republicans in Congress have long assailed the program as politically correct and ineffective, asserting that singling out and using the term "radical Islam" as the trigger for many violent attacks would help focus deterrence efforts.
Others counter that branding the problem as "radical Islam" would only serve to alienate more than three million Americans who practice Islam peacefully.
Many community groups, meanwhile, had already been cautious about the program, partly over concerns that it could double as a surveillance tool for law enforcement.
Hoda Hawa, director of policy for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, said she was told last week by people within DHS that there was a push to refocus the CVE effort from tackling all violent ideology to only Islamist extremism.
"That is concerning for us because they are targeting a faith group and casting it under a net of suspicion," she said.
Another source familiar with the matter was told last week by a DHS official that a name change would take place. Three other sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said such plans had been discussed but were unable to attest whether they had been finalized.
The Obama administration sought to foster relationships with community groups to engage them in the counterterrorism effort. In 2016, Congress appropriated $10 million in grants for CVE efforts and DHS awarded the first round of grants on Jan. 13, a week before Trump was inaugurated.
Among those approved were local governments, city police departments, universities and non-profit organizations. In addition to organizations dedicated to combating Islamic State's recruitment in the United States, grants also went to Life After Hate, which rehabilitates former neo-Nazis and other domestic extremists.
Just in the past two years, authorities blamed radical and violent ideologies as the motives for a white supremacist's shooting rampage inside a historic African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina and Islamist militants for shootings and bombings in California, Florida and New York.
One grant recipient, Leaders Advancing & Helping Communities, a Michigan-based group led by Lebanese-Americans, has declined a $500,000 DHS grant it had sought, according to an email the group sent that was seen by Reuters. A representative for the group confirmed the grant had been rejected but declined further comment.
"Given the current political climate and cause for concern, LAHC has chosen to decline the award," said the email, which was sent last Thursday, a day before Trump issued his immigration order, which was condemned at home and abroad as discriminating against Muslims while the White House said it was to "to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals."
The program, "Countering Violent Extremism," or CVE, would be changed to "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism," the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.
At long last the Dylan Roof's of this world can get the man off of their backs.
Good time to buy shares in fertiliser manufacturers perhaps.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
WrentheFaceless wrote: I wouldnt be so sure about that, Repubs are starting to say they're not going to vote for DeVos
Good. She's utterly unqualified for the job.
When did being unqualified ever stop a person from advancing in American politics?
Automatically Appended Next Post: @reds8n
I think it's somewhere around 200 Americans a day are killed in violent crime by other Americans.
Never mind Middle Eastern refugees, I think there's a case to prevent Americans from getting into America.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/02 11:57:10
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: What's this about a Democrat trying to get a bill through Congress for using military force against Iran?
And I read that Trump's putting Iran on notice
I can't be the only one that has noticed this, but the USA seems more and more like an oligarchy that's always in a perpetual state of war.
1950s - Korean War
1960s/1970s Vietnam
1980s Grenada
1990s Iraq/Yugoslavia
and of course the last 15 years have seen us with a shambolic war on terror.
This is not new in history. The British Empire were always fighting somebody year after year, but the USA was supposed to be the opposite of Britain when it was formed...
the liberal world order needs to make up its mind, Korea, Vietnam, the Iraq war (1990's) and Yugoslavia, all wars fought to help others, not for our personal glory, and wars I might add that others fought beside us. Should the US aid in defending others or not?
I hear what you're saying, but as an example, Vietnam was a war that didn't really have to be fought. Yugoslavia should have been better handled by Europe (the EU was useless in that regard) and both Iraq wars were highly dubious in my book, given that the USA had been supporting Saddam for years.
The last 15 years however, have not been America's finest hour...
The south Vietnamese were willing, but not able to fight, they deserved a chance. Where I might concede that the second Iraq war was dubious, the first certainly was not,. Liberating Kuwait is likely one of the best things we have done in the last 100 years.
Is it just me or should USA look into a two state solutions?
All I see on the news is how much the left is killing the right. How badly the right leads. Each one of them is more interested in destroying the other then making your country better.
Canada is no better but at this rate 50% hates the other 50% when is the civil war starting? I do not understand the protests and the constant hate if anything that shows the USA becoming weak, it would be the constant disrespect amongst the masses........daily. Good thing is ever since the news went after trump the blm people moved on now that the news doesn't hunt for random killing by the police ( good shoot or not)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/02 12:32:08
I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
). But in reality the feud with CNN is all personal, just like everything with Trump. See, CNN is run by Jeff Zucker. Trump and Zucker go way back, Zucker was the executive at NBC who brought The Apprentice to that network. Trump had assumed that given his close relationship with Zucker, he would get friendly treatment from CNN, much the same way that NBC gave him softball 
