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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump calls for end to tariffs and trade barriers

I thought Trump was against NAFTA, TTIP and the EU.

Is he now in favour of them?

What does it all mean?

It means Trump panders to whatever audience is in front of him, nothing more.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So the only thing I have found really damning about this Newsome guy is he looks like a discount Mathew McConaughey. I don't mean like 1/2 off here. This is the liquidation event Mathew McConaughey. 90% off or give Ted your best offer type of scenario.

That's about it though.

He's a gun confiscator, illegal criminal alien hugger and the rpitomy of SF nannystate cronyism.

So...just your usual nonsensical talking points then?

Oh yea now I remember why I don't post in this thread

I mean, you never provide any proof of anything you claim, so until you do it is nonsensical talking points. And when asked for it you proceed to either ignore that or spout something else.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So the only thing I have found really damning about this Newsome guy is he looks like a discount Mathew McConaughey. I don't mean like 1/2 off here. This is the liquidation event Mathew McConaughey. 90% off or give Ted your best offer type of scenario.

That's about it though.

He's a gun confiscator, illegal criminal alien hugger and the rpitomy of SF nannystate cronyism.

So...just your usual nonsensical talking points then?

Do you dispute his points at all?

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So the only thing I have found really damning about this Newsome guy is he looks like a discount Mathew McConaughey. I don't mean like 1/2 off here. This is the liquidation event Mathew McConaughey. 90% off or give Ted your best offer type of scenario.

That's about it though.

He's a gun confiscator, illegal criminal alien hugger and the rpitomy of SF nannystate cronyism.

So...just your usual nonsensical talking points then?

Do you dispute his points at all?

Did he actually have any? He just rattled off talking points.

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So the only thing I have found really damning about this Newsome guy is he looks like a discount Mathew McConaughey. I don't mean like 1/2 off here. This is the liquidation event Mathew McConaughey. 90% off or give Ted your best offer type of scenario.

That's about it though.

He's a gun confiscator, illegal criminal alien hugger and the rpitomy of SF nannystate cronyism.

So...just your usual nonsensical talking points then?

Do you dispute his points at all?

What points? There's 0 evidence beyond Frazzled's word that what he says is true. Come on.

Yeah, gotta say I got no idea what Frazz is talking about, unless he's just making an assumption of Hollywood type = stuff he was babbling, and nothing more.

Umm anyone remotely familiar with Newsom would know those to be true. Weather you think those are positive or negative is the point of debate.

Gavin Newsom
Gavin Newsom
@GavinNewsom
It's been 5 years since 20 first graders were shot dead at Sandy Hook.

Since then:
14 killed in San Bernardino
49 killed in Orlando
58 killed in Vegas
26 killed in a Texas church
Enough.

We have a message for the @NRA: If you hurt people, we ARE coming for your guns.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Umm anyone remotely familiar with Newsom would know those to be true. Weather you think those are positive or negative is the point of debate.

So instead of enlightening us with sources, actual points or anything of real sustenance you and frazz just say "if you know him you would know it is true"

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Newsom-pledges-to-make-SF-a-sanctuary-for-illegal-2600279.php

Sanctuary city advocate....

So I’d challenge him for proof rather than dismissing him off the bat.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Umm anyone remotely familiar with Newsom would know those to be true. Weather you think those are positive or negative is the point of debate.

So instead of enlightening us with sources, actual points or anything of real sustenance you and frazz just say "if you know him you would know it is true"

I’m just on my phone right now, but I will get some stuff when I get home. If you can’t wait till then, you can use google easily enough.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Umm anyone remotely familiar with Newsom would know those to be true. Weather you think those are positive or negative is the point of debate.

So instead of enlightening us with sources, actual points or anything of real sustenance you and frazz just say "if you know him you would know it is true"

I’m just on my phone right now, but I will get some stuff when I get home. If you can’t wait till then, you can use google easily enough.

Nah man burden of proof is on the person who brings forth the debate point

(I really hate all this burden of proof stuff. It's not like this is a scientific conference or something. It is a bunch of people shooting the gak on the internet)

Something to do with a Tariff Free Zone involving Russia maybe

 Da Boss wrote:
(I really hate all this burden of proof stuff. It's not like this is a scientific conference or something. It is a bunch of people shooting the gak on the internet)

That's how debates or discussions work tho. Otherwise it devolves into people yelling "NUH UH" at each other.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
(I really hate all this burden of proof stuff. It's not like this is a scientific conference or something. It is a bunch of people shooting the gak on the internet)

That's how debates or discussions work tho. Otherwise it devolves into people yelling "NUH UH" at each other.

NUH UH!

The Auld Grump

 Wolfblade wrote:

That's how debates or discussions work tho. Otherwise it devolves into people yelling "NUH UH" at each other.

The President does seem to be a good example of this issue. Lots of accusation s and claims, but little proof.

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So the only thing I have found really damning about this Newsome guy is he looks like a discount Mathew McConaughey. I don't mean like 1/2 off here. This is the liquidation event Mathew McConaughey. 90% off or give Ted your best offer type of scenario.

That's about it though.

He's a gun confiscator, illegal criminal alien hugger and the rpitomy of SF nannystate cronyism.

So...just your usual nonsensical talking points then?

Do you dispute his points at all?

"That which is presented without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."

 Vulcan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump calls for end to tariffs and trade barriers

I thought Trump was against NAFTA, TTIP and the EU.

Is he now in favour of them?

What does it all mean?

It means Trump panders to whatever audience is in front of him, nothing more.

I think the key quote in that link was "No tariffs, no barriers. That's the way it should be. And no subsidies. I even said, 'no tariffs'," (emphasis mine); Boeing et al have always hated the way strategic industries are supported in Europe and Canada (no matter that they get equivalent support through tax breaks, etc.). So I guess this will turn into the USA offering to remove tariffs if the rest of the G7 stop subsidising key industries.

 Jadenim wrote:
So I guess this will turn into the USA offering to remove tariffs if the rest of the G7 stop subsidising key industries.

I predict Hell levying a tariff on Snow Blowers before that happens.

Speaking of proof and evidence, a court has ruled that the EPA must present the science which shows that humans are NOT causing climate change.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/judge-orders-epa-to-produce-science-behind-pruitts-warming-claims/

Trump refuses to sign G7 statement, threatens Canada, insults Trudeau on Twitter

Welp.

Yeah, when I read that bit about "no subsidies", I pictured quite a lot of American farmers suddenly turning very pale and worried.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Speaking of proof and evidence, a court has ruled that the EPA must present the science which shows that humans are NOT causing climate change.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/judge-orders-epa-to-produce-science-behind-pruitts-warming-claims/

Don't worry, I'm sure the Trump administration will treat this as an order to manufacture some "science" to support the party position and it will be done as efficiently and honestly as anything else associated with Trump.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Yeah, when I read that bit about "no subsidies", I pictured quite a lot of American farmers suddenly turning very pale and worried.

No no, we're talking about socialism and obstacles to the free market, not the proper rewards for the hard-working farmers of America who truly embody everything that is good about our country (and reliably press 'R' every year).

Ok, here is some stuff with Gavin.

To give an actual link to what Whembly gave earlier.

https://www.facebook.com/GavinNewsom/videos/vb.10128918116/10156117522448117/?type=2&theater

He's basically conflating the NRA with mass shooters, and admits he's gonna come grabbing for our guns. He's basically saying the NRA causes mass shootings, even though no NRA member has ever committed such a crime.

 whembly wrote:
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Newsom-pledges-to-make-SF-a-sanctuary-for-illegal-2600279.php

Sanctuary city advocate....

So I’d challenge him for proof rather than dismissing him off the bat.

And here from Whembly's other post, he is pro-sanctuary city. Which, just so its out there, is quite illegal. Illegal immigrants have committed a Felony by crossing the US border. Sanctuary Citys are breaking the law by Aiding and Abetting a fugitive from federal justice.


This is on top of him being flaky and irresponsible. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the guy was Mayor during the big San Francisco oil spill and he want on vacation to Hawaii instead of staying and dealing with the situation. And he couldn't even show up to work most of the time when he was Lt Governor.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-lieutenant-governor-attendance-20180420-story.html

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Many-are-miffed-by-S-F-mayor-gone-missing-3211436.php

Guys guys, did you know Democrats don't adhere to every point on the Republican platform?

I'm sure that must be an indictable offense or something right?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sanctuary Citys are breaking the law by Aiding and Abetting a fugitive from federal justice.

No. Remember, sanctuary cities aren't providing any active assistance to immigrants in evading federal justice, they are merely refusing to provide assistance to the federal government. Or are you now going to make the argument that state and local police departments are under the authority of the federal government and must provide work (without financial compensation for their labor) as directed by the federal government? Shall we extend this principle to individuals too, and charge anyone who does not provide full cooperation and answer every question the police ask with aiding and abetting a fugitive? Are the police allowed to declare that you are now an unpaid slave of the police department and order you to perform whatever labor they require? I'm sure this won't produce any issues with a police state...

 ScarletRose wrote:
Guys guys, did you know Democrats don't adhere to every point on the Republican platform?

I'm sure that must be an indictable offense or something right?

This is exactly as bad as what Frazz was being criticized for last page.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Trump refuses to sign G7 statement, threatens Canada, insults Trudeau on Twitter

Welp.

Wait Canada is flooding the US with cars? I can't even name a Canadian car manufacturer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Yeah, when I read that bit about "no subsidies", I pictured quite a lot of American farmers suddenly turning very pale and worried.

In my own experience, farmers are habitually in denial how dependent what they do is on government money. Something about bootstraps and such and those damn city folk always giving out money to minorities or something. SO I wouldn't be remotely shocked if they maintained that line right into the financial grave.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:


https://www.facebook.com/GavinNewsom/videos/vb.10128918116/10156117522448117/?type=2&theater

He's basically conflating the NRA with mass shooters, and admits he's gonna come grabbing for our guns. He's basically saying the NRA causes mass shootings, even though no NRA member has ever committed such a crime.

Is this the same guy who made that comment so stupid it made even Trump look smart? The one where he ranted about how Trump was pardoning Jack Johnson of "trafficking women" and such?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, here is some stuff with Gavin.

To give an actual link to what Whembly gave earlier.

https://www.facebook.com/GavinNewsom/videos/vb.10128918116/10156117522448117/?type=2&theater

He's basically conflating the NRA with mass shooters, and admits he's gonna come grabbing for our guns. He's basically saying the NRA causes mass shootings, even though no NRA member has ever committed such a crime.

 whembly wrote:
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Newsom-pledges-to-make-SF-a-sanctuary-for-illegal-2600279.php

Sanctuary city advocate....

So I’d challenge him for proof rather than dismissing him off the bat.

And here from Whembly's other post, he is pro-sanctuary city. Which, just so its out there, is quite illegal. Illegal immigrants have committed a Felony by crossing the US border. Sanctuary Citys are breaking the law by Aiding and Abetting a fugitive from federal justice.


This is on top of him being flaky and irresponsible. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the guy was Mayor during the big San Francisco oil spill and he want on vacation to Hawaii instead of staying and dealing with the situation. And he couldn't even show up to work most of the time when he was Lt Governor.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-lieutenant-governor-attendance-20180420-story.html

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Many-are-miffed-by-S-F-mayor-gone-missing-3211436.php

Holy crap the leaps in logic. Okay, saying something causes something and saying something commits something are two wildly different things. A sanctuary city does not aid illegal immigrants, nor does it harm them. A Sanctuary City is neutral ground. The city does not punish you, but it also doesn't protect you from the people whose job it is to actually enforce FEDERAL law.

Your final point about the oil spill has been disproved as another poster has already provded a link with evidence about him cutting his trip to Hawaii short to come back and deal with the issue. So here you are pulling a Whembly.

So yeah, do you actually have anything of substance on the guy or what? This goes for Frazzled as well as Whembly.

 Frazzled wrote:
Oh yea now I remember why I don't post in this thread

Come on, man. You've been here a long time. What you did here was say that Newsom was "Mayor Daley corrupt" and so on. When people asked you what specifically you meant, you threw a smoke grenade and disappeared like Batman. Now you're floating some vague, undefined evil about him again.

Grey Templar did pretty much the same thing, and then when asked to explain, he threw out some really weak sauce about how he had poor attendance, and was on vacation for 2 days during an oil spill (and omitted that he cut the vacation short to deal with the spill!)

You guys can't throw around these charges of deep corruption and then bring nothing to the table, and then get butthurt when people are dubious of your claims when you're throwing them out there and then backing into the bushes instead of explaining them.

So far as sanctuary cities I definitely don't agree with them in either concept or execution; but I also think that prosecutorial discretion does come into play, and ultimately illegal immigration is the sole purview of the federal government. I don't think the state or local police can be forced to do ICE's legwork, but if the federal government decided to withhold highway funds or various other kinds of federal assistance as a result I sure wouldn't cry a bitter tear, either. You're either on the same page or you aren't.

GT lives in California. When people ask you to explain what you mean, it's a reasonable request, we're going to assume you know more than we do as a sort of local. If you make these claims and then produce nothing we're kind of forced to assume bad faith.