Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blotsfan

Trump Regime thread.

Recommended Posts

Love the personal insults because I haven't heard of a journalist and just wanted you to source your claims. So sorry. Things generally aren't black and white as hard as that. Why does Obama want it passed if its this mega-evil thing? Is there no good side to it at all?

 

This is fucking hilarious, on a different note:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably wouldn't have gone the personal insult route if you weren't a condescending prick towards me. All you had to do was look at the bottom of the page to see the guys qualifications or click his links for his sources. You should be able to tell if an article is professionally written without somebody having name recognition. A "trade deal" that gives up the sovereignty of every nation involved to a tribunal selected by multinational corporations is VERY black and white and it's not a stretch that Obama would be serving these corporations because he's done it literally his entire presidency. He tried to pass the deal in secret lol. Obama is a fucking scum bag of the highest order. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. He's just as bad as Trump or Hillary Clinton but he's much more tactful and like-able so people eat up all of his bull shit. It was the same thing with Bill Clinton.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how you take being called a republican as an insult even though you pretty much toe the Republican Party line on major issues.

Being Libertarian, I "toe the line" on major issues with both parties.

 

Drugs, Gay Marriage, Military spending (cuts)... All "democrat or liberal" views. Abortion, I understand and sympathize with both sides.

 

Sorry I do not fit into your box of preconceived notions. Lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably wouldn't have gone the personal insult route if you weren't a condescending prick towards me. All you had to do was look at the bottom of the page to see the guys qualifications or click his links for his sources. You should be able to tell if an article is professionally written without somebody having name recognition. A "trade deal" that gives up the sovereignty of every nation involved to a tribunal selected by multinational corporations is VERY black and white and it's not a stretch that Obama would be serving these corporations because he's done it literally his entire presidency. He tried to pass the deal in secret lol. Obama is a fucking scum bag of the highest order. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. He's just as bad as Trump or Hillary Clinton but he's much more tactful and like-able so people eat up all of his bull shit. It was the same thing with Bill Clinton.

 

You really need to take a chill pill recently, lol. "You should be able to tell if an article is professionally written." What type of pseudo-logic is that? Some fake shit looks very well written. And for the record, the page in question was blocking me from scrolling down. It was scrolling me back up to the top of the article and popping up an ad every time I tried, part of the reason why I was suspicious of the site in the first place.

 

TIL asking people to cite sources is condescending. Ok, sean. I will refrain from actually trying to engage you in a debate in the future. You get your panties in too much of a twist if someone calls you out on the incredible amount of hyperbole you use in your posts to make the other side look like fucking Hitler, lol.

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't just blindly follow the policies of the party that I'm registered to. (that was a slight personal insult, there you go.)

 

Because you know me so well, right? lol

 

Please provide evidence of your claims or stop talking shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because you know me so well, right? lol

 

Please provide evidence of your claims or stop talking shit.

Honestly, it's more of just me being disappointed with your comments lately. We've never seen eye to eye 100% when it comes to politics but I've always respected your opinion. I think it's important to recognize the good Trump does and he already has done good. A lot of liberals seem to just have a knee jerk, hateful response anything he says or does without any logic involved. It seems like you've gone the other way in defending his bafoonery too much. I expected you to remain critical of him and the GOP when called for which there have been plenty of instances where this is pretty obviously the case already.

Edited by seanbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your disappointment burns inside of me like a thousand suns. What exact issue up to this point in the process do you really disagree with me on that much? Not that it really matters, but it should be pretty severe to illicit such a reaction.

 

Hopefully the voter ID stuff isn't it, because that's a debate not even worth having. It's a completely unimportant issue. It's stupid for Trump and Republicans to spend so much time and energy on it, but if you require people to show an ID to vote... Oh well. The over sensationalized rhetoric you provided for it and suppressing the masses is ridiculous. How many people can't show an ID when they vote... and why?

 

I will even go over stuff that we haven't gone over in this thread to cover other threads... Feel free to attack any of the opinions. Explain this harrowing disappointment you speak of. lol

The wall is going to be a massive waste of money and probably not even work. It does provide a lot of extra jobs though. Put me down for against. On that note, defunding sanctuary cities? Trump's memorandum also wants to deport criminals and those under deportation orders. Call me a fan -- I will not support the protection of criminals from deportation.

 

He wants pipelines to be made with and fixed with American steel... Potentially limits my idea of a free market, but I honestly don't know how much steel is already imported for such jobs. I don't know what the impact would be -- maybe increased cost though. I like the idea of it, not the practicality. Mostly against. He wants to speed up government regulations in the manufacturing industry. Sounds good to me. He also is keeping the Keystone pipeline in business.. I don't like the idea of taking peoples land for the purpose of constructing the pipeline, eminent domain is bullshit and theft. The pipeline itself though, I am fine with, I would allow for construction to be completed.

 

The TPP is a fucking disaster.. glad we are done with that. Federal hiring freeze we already talked about a bit I think, we don't need more worthless jobs and positions If anything our government is too complex with too many different positions and agencies to worry about. I approve. I also like that the ACA is being repealed. It's ineffective, costs too much (and costs continue to raise as many states' premiums rose 50, 60, 70, 100+ %), and doesn't actually cover the people it promises to. I've read a few different GOP plans and not really a huge fan of those either. I am not sure there is an answer out there right now.

 

Have at it. I am sure I missed something so bring other stuff up as well.

Edited by Favre4Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does Obama want it passed if its this mega-evil thing? Is there no good side to it at all?

 

The benefits to TPP is that it would've established the US as a bigger trade partner in the region, scaling back China's influence there.

 

Whether that's worth it or not is a debate, but there was definitely a positive side to it.

 

The US is now banning Muslim refugees from entering the country. Not refugees. This is not about security. This is about getting rid of Muslims. Every day this country gets more and more shameful.

 

https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/825081267968425985

Edited by Zack_of_Steel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to do this. But Imma have to.

 

It would make zero sense to ban Christian refugees from Muslim majority countries if your objective in so doing is to prevent "the terrorists" from getting over here disguised as a refugee. Because they're Muslim, not Christian.

 

I know, I know, not PC and all that.

 

Thus, I don't think this interview "proves" anything.

 

That said, I am completely not for this ban. There are a ton more people killed in the US by American citizens compared to Muslim terrorists pretending to be refugees. It's a scare tactic to drive more fear into the hearts of Americans, and it will almost certainly result in a rise of violence against Muslims in the US, and those here with no ill intent- virtually all of them- will be included in that.

 

Also, how in the world is he going to tell the difference?

"Before you enter the US, tell me, is Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior?"

 

"Um... yes?"

"Ok good, you may proceed."

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, the first amendment is a thing (for now). We're not a theocracy and we never should be.

 

Secondly, what stops someone from pretending to be Christian? Or pretending to convert?

 

If the real issue is that we currently have no way of vetting refugees and the only possible solution is to increase the screening, why should we just let someone go without being vetted because he's wearing a cross on his neck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, the first amendment is a thing (for now). We're not a theocracy and we never should be.

 

Secondly, what stops someone from pretending to be Christian? Or pretending to convert?

 

If the real issue is that we currently have no way of vetting refugees and the only possible solution is to increase the screening, why should we just let someone go without being vetted because he's wearing a cross on his neck?

 

He didn't say that....

 

Per him, prior to his Presidency, Muslims had a much easier time acquiring refugee status than Christians. In his mind and probably in the mind of other people who support him, this will be seen as a balancing of the scales. The other side is obviously going to blow this up and pretend like it's a ban on all Muslims.

 

Now I don't know the numbers on Christian VS Muslim refugees and I am not going to pretend to.

 

I don't agree with just taking in every single refugee that seeks to come here... But if it were as extreme as just banning a religion -- I pretty much agree with Thanatos. Scare tactics are dumb, in short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

He didn't say that....

 

Per him, prior to his Presidency, Muslims had a much easier time acquiring refugee status than Christians. In his mind and probably in the mind of other people who support him, this will be seen as a balancing of the scales. The other side is obviously going to blow this up and pretend like it's a ban on all Muslims.

 

Now I don't know the numbers on Christian VS Muslim refugees and I am not going to pretend to.

 

I don't agree with just taking in every single refugee that seeks to come here... But if it were as extreme as just banning a religion -- I pretty much agree with Thanatos. Scare tactics are dumb, in short.

 

That's the issue though. Its not based in any sort of fact. In reality, the refugees all go through a super-strict vetting process. In fact, a lot of people that went through the process for a few years and were ready to come here are now learning that they can't. They're stuck in a war-zone just because trump and his idiot base are racist morons.Innocent people will die because of this for no good reason.

 

 

Throughout the election, trump said we need to kick out the illegal immigrants because its not fair to the legal ones.

 

Glad to see how well he's treating the legal ones.

 

https://twitter.com/tparsi/status/825405243567513600

Edited by Zack_of_Steel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we're banning U.S. residents too? This will go over well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll go swimmingly. The rural americans will cheer for it, the racist suburbanites will cheer for it, and they'll all believe Trump is making America the way it should be. For the Whites, by the Whites.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, the first amendment is a thing (for now). We're not a theocracy and we never should be.

 

Secondly, what stops someone from pretending to be Christian? Or pretending to convert?

 

If the real issue is that we currently have no way of vetting refugees and the only possible solution is to increase the screening, why should we just let someone go without being vetted because he's wearing a cross on his neck?

 

First Amendment does not apply to non-citizens. Never said we were a theocracy, either, not sure how this would make us one.

 

Secondly- yes, that's why I think its stupid. How do you vet that?

 

The third thing though, everyone is being vetted, even if they're Christians. He's just targeting Muslims specifically with a ban, not more vetting. At least not atm.

 

Look, overall, I agree with you. Just feel like your argument against is weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First Amendment does not apply to non-citizens. Never said we were a theocracy, either, not sure how this would make us one.

 

Secondly- yes, that's why I think its stupid. How do you vet that?

 

The third thing though, everyone is being vetted, even if they're Christians. He's just targeting Muslims specifically with a ban, not more vetting. At least not atm.

 

Look, overall, I agree with you. Just feel like your argument against is weak.

 

If the US says "Christians = Good. Muslims = Bad." it means we as a country have decided that we are treating people differently based on religion.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

I don't see any part of that that says "this only applies to citizens. You can establish a state religion that counts for foreigners."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You either need a complete ban on anyone entering the US from these areas, or you need no interference outside of basic checks that are already part of our airports. Discriminating based on religion is absolutely unacceptable.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Discriminating based on religion is absolutely unacceptable.

 

You voted for it.

 

 

It looks like a stay has been granted, so the order is not going to be enforced while the lawsuit is pending.

 

https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/825520404777287680

 

^Guy was retweeted by the official ACLU twitter, so I'm sure the account is legit.

 

A great win, but I'm sure it won't be the last fight.

Edited by Zack_of_Steel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the US says "Christians = Good. Muslims = Bad." it means we as a country have decided that we are treating people differently based on religion.

 

I don't see any part of that that says "this only applies to citizens. You can establish a state religion that counts for foreigners."

 

We already do that but with other labels... Look at getting into college, as long as you are a minority you have a good chance of having school paid for.

 

Also, Thanatos is right... Non-Americans have no inherent right to come to America. You are living in another country, who has its own laws.. You aren't entitled to ours, "just because". Talk about anarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, Thanatos is right... Non-Americans have no inherent right to come to America. You are living in another country, who has its own laws.. You aren't entitled to ours, "just because". Talk about anarchy.

 

No, but deciding which people are allowed in based on religion is clearly an example of the US government stating which religion it prefers, something not allowed by the first amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The order banned refugees from certain countries. Nothing to do with religion -- even if the predominant religion in most of those nations is Islam.

Although, a judge in New York has ordered a national stay on the policy.

Edited by Favre4Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The order banned refugees from certain countries. Nothing to do with religion -- even if the predominant religion in most of those nations is Islam.

 

Although, a judge in New York has ordered a national stay on the policy.

 

The whole conversation was in response to what I said about this:

 

https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/825081267968425985

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You voted for it.

 

Yep. Because there were two options, and I preferred the option I selected. Don't pretend that everyone who voted for Trump is somehow in complete agreement with this policies he wants to propose. I'd rather people get discriminated against than I would be in poverty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where was all this outrage when the Master of Empathy and our 44th President banned refugees from Iraq for 6 months due to terrorism concerns (psst, same thing Trump did). Trumps "Muslim Ban" was set to last 3-4 months too, lol. I think I read something like the last 6 Presidents used this same law to LEGALLY tell refugees to kick rocks.

 

This "Ban on Muslims" thing is getting old already.

Edited by Favre4Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where was all this outrage when the Master of Empathy and our 44th President banned refugees from Iraq for 6 months due to terrorism concerns (psst, same thing Trump did). Trumps "Muslim Ban" was set to last 3-4 months too, lol. I think I read something like the last 6 Presidents used this same law to LEGALLY tell refugees to kick rocks.

 

This "Ban on Muslims" thing is getting old already.

 

Theres a difference between stopping applications for new refugees and sending back ones that have already been approved, not to mention that this ban goes way beyond refugees. If you have been living in the US for decades you could still be banned from entering under the policy.

 

But could you get this memo that it isn't about Muslims to Rudy Giuliani? Because he's claiming Trump wanted it to target Muslims (skip to 3 minutes, 7 seconds).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×