“Trump for President” reminds me of the old Peanuts cartoons where Charlie Brown is trying to kick the football and Lucy promises over and over not to pull it away – but she always does. Trump has run, or almost run, for president in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, and not he’s doing it again in 2016 and the news media is falling for it yet again.
Never mind his “Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers” nonsense. The real question is, “Are we really stupid enough to believe The Donald is actually running?” Does anyone really think that by the end of this year Trump won’t become bored with his little political stunt and crawl back to his casinos to find something else to amuse him? Are we that dumb? Apparently – yes we are. And isn’t that just a little sad?
It’s so obvious Liberals only care about illegal aliens for the votes.
I’ve decided that since politicians don’t have to conform to the laws that THEY WROTE, then I don’t either.
Never mind your “’Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers” nonsense'” nonsense. If you understood the distinction between “all” “some” and “none” you’d realize that trump wasn’t talking about “all.” In fact he made that clear.
And on that note many ARE rapists and drug dealers.
So why are changing his words? To set up a straw man?
Listen. If we can vote for a black fascist pretending to be for the little guy — or his female choice for successor — then why not give the stupid voters a more clear choice between “them” and something else that’s a little more fresh and a little less “PC”?
Personally, I can’t say I disagree with ANYTHING I’ve heard “the Donald” say. However, I think we can all agree that he’s a little narcissistic and thus, just a bit crazy!
… As if being narcissistic and crazy ever stopped ANY candidate from running for a political office.
“As if being narcissistic and crazy ever stopped ANY candidate from running for a political office.”
I thought it was a requirement.
Just for the very first time, I’m thinking: its not the Pols who are narcissistic, but rather those who vote for them. Those who think if a Pol says what they want to hear, then they must be the best candidate.
And so we get Pols saying all this crazy shit===NOT because they believe it—but because enough of the voters do.
So………..who is narcissistic and crazy==and causing the Pols to sound the same for their votes?
So this is the guy driving the clown car that is the GOP.
If Trump is the candidate when the smoke clears he gets my vote.
Pure and simple, I want to hear someone with a set of balls tell it like it is, not blow smoke up our ass like every one of the useless pieces of shit on both sides of the aisle.
Try looking up the stats before you say what he said wasn’t true as well. I did and the Latinos as a group/percentage is about where is should be but when you get to sex crimes it is disproportionate to population percentage.
So, who is raping the women?
Amazing you can’t get the point of the article. HE’S NOT RUNNING SUCKERS!
You obviously have plenty of money, Marc. CARE TO MAKE A BET?
Yeah – let’s bet. Trump drops out before any real election.
I agree he is likely not running. I agree it’s a huge ego boost.
Nonetheless,
I am concerned it was so easy to change the discourse. All it took was a couple weeks and a national figure on a national stage.
Since the Democratic Party machine has built itself around Illegal Immigration and Gay Marriage, as these falter so does the Democrats.
You know……the thing about crazy is that you don’t just stay crazy… you get worse.
Do I think Trump was consciously playing the Public in his earlier runs? Yes, I do.
Do I think Trump was consciously playing the Public in this run at the beginning? Yes, I do.
Do I think Trump is playing the public now, or has just taken another step towards crazy? I don’t know. Crazy is like that.
As to his statements to date, other than politicians being craven and inept (this DOES include the Donald himself), I don’t think anything he has said is true. Lets sample from above:
1. It’s so obvious Liberals only care about illegal aliens for the votes. //// Often said, but illegals can’t vote. Try again. This is not a quibble, but rather stating the obvious. Whatever you mean….its not what is said….and repeated.
2. And on that note many ARE rapists and drug dealers. /// Do you have any numbers and stats on this? I’ve heard it said they are worse, better, than, the same as the general population. My gut tells me immigrants come here to work. Stealing and raping requires a comfort level with the system…something an immigrant doesn’t have.
3. However, I think we can all agree that he’s a little narcissistic and thus, just a bit crazy! /// Being more than all the rest, Shirley he must be more than a little?
4. Pure and simple, I want to hear someone with a set of balls tell it like it is, not blow smoke up our ass like every one of the useless pieces of shit on both sides of the aisle. /// We all love Trumps balls, but he doesn’t tell it like it is. Prove me wrong: what beyond the obvious to everyone has he identified?
5. I am concerned it was so easy to change the discourse. All it took was a couple weeks and a national figure on a national stage. /// “Ok” but his appeal is not national but rather quite limited to the type of knuckleheads posting here: the teaparty base. All complaint—no solutions.
He is and will remain a media phenomenon until the smoke does clear whether he is running for serious or not. We’ll know when complete financials must be filed by October or some such date. He may not have a choice the way he is destroying his brand/his name. The Public is not attracted to his base message.
Ain’t that the shits?
“limited to the type of knuckleheads posting here: the teaparty base.”
Ha! Bobbo, I did’t know that you are part of the teaparty base. You do post here, right?
Bobbo, try the FBI statistics page on arrests or crimes. That is where I got mine but I think the DOJ or one of the others has the stats about the high number of criminals crossing the border.
Illegals can get driver’s licenses now and that all you need to vote in some areas of the country. Actually they don’t even need that in some places since that penalize someone for trying to violate the law and that would be too harsh.
My philosophy on voting is simple:
Prove who you are when you vote.
Vote on election day only. (fuck voting 30,60 or 90 days early and the only ones who get absentee ballots are military, period)
Les you think I pink on one type of vermin or the other the Republicans want illegals for the cheap labor. A few changes to the laws and all that would change. Hire an illegal 10 years mandatory no probation sentence and anyone (read government officials) who helps or through unlawful actions provides a means for an illegal to vote gets the same sentence.
I like things simple, much like Trump.
Well thanks Mr Diesel….but I decline your Snipe Hunt.
Please link to “anything” you “looked at.” Most stats don’t further qualify the raw numbers. “High” is compared to “low” but without some other reference, such designations are meaningless. High or low to what? High or Low compared to perfection, to zero, to American Population as a Whole?……………….what?
Illegals voting on a drivers license alone? Ok…could happen. How many times? Again………its all compared to what???? ((In context….its so many times that Democratic Pols would weaken immigration enforcement laws to increase their numbers…..so fantasy built on imagination.))
I think proving who you are is valid. One day only voting would be a privilege of the better off. A smooth move if you desire to limit voting to the better off….trickle down democracy of a sort.
Trump lies when he says build a wall. As you note, enforcing the law against the Employers is the only cure. As in all things regulatory, I would start with education, warnings, minimum penalties, ending with increasing jail time for those who are as stupid as Trump.
Illegals should not get drivers licenses. Sanctuary cities should not exist. Bad laws destroy society…… and we have too many of them…… and the good laws aren’t enforced.
Pros and Cons to this work in progress.
If you increase the number of illegal immigrants, their kids are citizens who vote, and of course you are also pushing for amnesty that makes the illegal immigrants voters as well. Tony Blair showed the way.
So you agree—illegals immigrants don’t vote.
American citizens who have lived here all their lives…..do… in very small percentages to the various labels hung onto them.
Thank you for your support.
The original statement was Democrats only care about illegal immigrants for their votes. True statement, that you try to obfuscate with they are not voting now.
Sorry NFS – that is the BIG LIE Pukes put out trying to balance the real fact that they want cheap middle class killing slave labor. Dumbo do care more about general humanity issues. The vote as your own posts reveal are very removed issues only baring fruit if at all 18 years later. Again—–its a lie.
Why can’t you idgits even follow your own direct statements?
Silly Pukes.
So pandering to a demographic is not happening is it bobbo? Dumbos support illegal immigration and they get the Latino vote. It’s really very simple.
Now the Pukes want to do the same.
You really are one dumb liberal.
Does amnesty lead to voting by people who are currently illegal immigrants?
Of course it does.
Now….. how many years between cause and effect with assumed motive are you willing to apply?
Illegal immigration is MAINTAINED TODAY by Pukes wanting slave workers. The notion this is equal to Dumbos wanting voters 20 years from now is —silly.
but you guys all eat that crap like it was ice cream.
“Now….. how many years between cause and effect with assumed motive are you willing to apply?”
The effect is immediate. You pander to illegals you get the Latino vote today. Its there, right in front of your eyes, open them moron.
Obama issues an amnesty by executive order, and goes out and tells an activist group,’There’s four million people I have to register.” Apparently every Democrat but you is aware of this.
http://cis.org/ICE-Document-Details-36000-Criminal-Aliens-Release-in-2013
Just a little snippet for you. You have implied that finding data would be a Snipe hunt which is clearly incorrect.
https://fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43
My statements were made based on the unusually high number of sex crimes based on the Latino percentage of the population.
It is much like the gun argument, when presented with real numbers and facts the left has no leg to stand on.
Yea, they are not even deporting illegal aliens who commit more crimes.
They also cut off the 287G program to let local communities see if the people they have locked up are illegal immigrants.
Deleted spam.
Shitwad spammer
It niggles at me, so I’ll comment: “Media suckered by Trump for President again.” /// I don’t think so. Most of what I have seen is the media bashing Trump…both left and right for different reasons.
No………..sadly……….. Trump and the Media are both playing THE PUBLIC for suckers. Slow news cycle as Iran Nukes, Greek Deficit, and TPPA are too complicated for too many news consumers. So… we get Trump and the other fools covered not for the issues, but for the Horse Race.
Its all crap….. and when you “support” these asswipes, its their crap you are eating.
Sante.
The government doesn’t report about illegal immigrant crimes in their stats, so you have to dig deeper. Also, the media isn’t interested in reporting such crimes either. If George Zimmerman had gone to his Peruvian roots and went by Jorge, no one would have ever heard the name TrayVon Martin.
It is known that in 2010 New York had 4000 prisoners from Latin America and 150 from Western Europe.
http://www.lapdonline.org/top_ten_most_wanted
(They won’t give us a count of illegals, because they can’t count.)
Trump is speaking from fact. Mexico’s rape rate is very high, particularly child rape.
Sure many illegal immigrants are here for jobs, but that doesn’t mean the high rate of crime just disappears.
Except that Trump is actually running this time. He went further than he has before because he realized people weren’t believing his schtick anymore. Now the Hillary donor who criticized Romney for being anti-Hispanic is pretending to be pro-life and anti-illegal-immigration.
We can expect him to drop out, except with so many people bashing him, it wouldn’t surprise me if he got mad and decided to spend lots of many fighting back. After Univision dropped him from their network, he kicked all the Univision execs out of his golf course, which is right next to their headquarters.
“Except that Trump is actually running this time.”
OK, so he filled out the paperwork. A cat has filled out the paperwork.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/08/421140664/for-limberbutt-mccubbins-the-time-is-meow-to-run-for-president
If he fills out financial records this month, then it might go a bit farther, but it still doesn’t say anything about what he will actually do in the future.
“Also, the media isn’t interested in reporting such crimes either.” /// Total BS. The media goes into a frenzy “on their own” when its an illegal 7 times deported kills a nice white girl on the docks in SF. Seems to me there is such a story about every 4 months?
But yeah===when the stats aren’t collected………..you have to dig deeper====>INTO YOUR OWN BS.
Can’t you even understand what you post all by yourself?
How many people heard that Chandra Levy’s abductor was an illegal immigrant from Guatemala? Sure you can’t expect the same coverage as for a Congressman killing an intern, but still.
Charleston church shooting, New York Times led with ‘White man kills…’ How many stories lead with ‘Mexican man’ or ‘Hispanic man’ or ‘Illegal immigrant’?
It is just like those ‘youths’ in France.
Name your dots and make your chain relevant.
Yes, with your nudge, I can remember that Guatamalen–so his illegal status was provided by the Media. But the story overall was COLD! Silly to think the Media should give it equal status.
“How Many….blah, blah, blah….” //// I don’t know….and neither do you. THAT IS MY MAIN POINT. Facts in isolation do not establish the norm just because it fits your prejudice. Why don’t you get just a bit more sophisticated?===>ie–less subject to media manipulation?
Dog whistle BS politics. If you had a brain….. you’d be embarrassed, then you would be motivated to educate yourself/look at yourself/remove the self limiting bias. But you aren’t, so you won’t…… and you will continue to post BS.
White Guy killing Black church goers====totally appropriate. Whats your beef?
We covered Guatamalan illegal kills, and the Mexican 7 times deported. Also totally appropriate. Again—rather than dog whistles……WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
I can hear Hannity now: “Imagine if……..”
Lame.
You’re the one who has been manipulated by the media into not seeing the crimes committed by illegal immigrants. For that matter, you were manipulated by the media with regards to the killings of TrayVon Martin, and the shooting in Ferguson. They chose to report from a certain narrative and you fell for it.
Hows that? Be specific.
We cant afford to support illegal immigrants financially. And the only way we will be able to support a huge influx of immigrants, legal or not, is to keep taking money from working people. The super rich know how to dodge taxes and skirt laws. The rest of us are scared to death of the IRS.
I don’t know about you guys, but I’m tapped out.
You are tapped out huh?
So—do you support the billionaires paying at half the marginal rates you do….or do you think progressive taxation “only makes sense?”
What is your tax rate, and what do you think it should be? And if less…..do you think the ALREADY TOO RICH and the CORPORATIONS…..who do make billions….should pay at least as much as you do or not?
Why?
Does this make any sense to you?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=DnEe4oaSC88
If not, why?
OK bobbo, take a breath, then go back and read my comment, especially the part about the SUPER RICH SKIRTING THE TAX LAWS.
We cant afford to support every immigrant who comes here. That’s just common sense. If you actually worked for a living, you would get that.
Well….. the point is the ALREADY TOO RICH…. are not skirting the tax laws…. they paid Congress to subvert the tax laws and they are fully compliant to the letter of the law BUT NOT THE UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK OF PROGRESSIVE TAXATION.
While I did miss your level of agreement, I still focus on what I responded to: you disatisfaction with the amount of taxes you do pay. You think you should pay less. Why? My Point: do you have any rational at all, any historical context, any broad appreciation, or are you only responding to a dog whistle?
I have never complained about the taxes I pay. GLAD to make so much that that is what is called upon for me to pay. I don’t begrudge sharing the burden of those who are not in my same position.
Why do you?
I think pretty much everyone agrees, (well, perhaps not you), that tax money is squandered on way too many bullshit gov’t programs to list here.
So you like paying taxes, and you’re a good little tax slave, I get it. But doesn’t it ever bother you when you read a story about government waste?
I suggest that liberals like yourself start an Adopt an Illegal” program. Take them in, feed them, pay for their care, put them through college…..put your money where your mouth is.
But don’t put a gun to my head and force me to.
I think pretty much everyone agrees, (well, perhaps not you), that tax money is squandered on way too many bullshit gov’t programs to list here.
So you like paying taxes, //// I do “mind” and agree with your niggling BS that follows…..but I recognize I live in a society that needs to attend to more than just me.
and you’re a good little tax slave, /// The more you make, the more you pay. Given REALITY===would you rather make and pay more, or make and pay less?
I get it. /// No…… you don’t. Your horizon doesn’t get past your own dick.
But doesn’t it ever bother you when you read a story about government waste? /// Yes, all the time. but waste is part of the system/propaganda. You don’t get rid of waste by cutting otherwise worthwhile programs. Grow Up.
I suggest that liberals like yourself start an Adopt an Illegal” program. /// Hows that? I am against most immigration whether legal or not. Its how the ALREADY TOO RICH manipulate the market to keep wages low.
Take them in, feed them, pay for their care, put them through college…..put your money where your mouth is. /// I’d rather keep them out by eliminating the job magnet. That is done WITHOUT a fence or wall and by enforcing working status with well known multi-national corporations who flout the law without fear of enforcement===ie==Republicans.
But don’t put a gun to my head and force me to. /// Nobody does fantasy boy. General taxation for general revenue. Not the RICH having to pay for individual illegal immigrants.
Ha, ha……woe unto the wage slave looking for someone lower to abuse. Grow up.
So are you telling me the IRS doesn’t use force? IRS agents aren’t armed?
Grow up child.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/01/18/gun-toting-at-the-irs/
Thomas demonstrating the Great Sin of simplistic non think says:
7/13/2015 at 7:33 am
So pandering to a demographic is not happening is it bobbo? /// Of course pandering is a synonym for Politics: ON BOTH SIDES. …………. Get that?
Dumbos support illegal immigration and they get the Latino vote. It’s really very simple. /// Correct. So think more closely on what is said. Pandering for the Latino vote is NOT THE SAME THING as pandering for the illegal immigrant vote. Stop the GREAT SIN of CONFLATION of severable ideas and learn to juggle more than one dog whistle at a time.
Now the Pukes want to do the same. /// Yep….funny to watch them strip gears in the attempt to go into reverse.
You really are one dumb liberal. /// How so? Be specific.
>You really are one dumb liberal. /// How so? Be specific.
He was specific.
You are one person.
You are dumb.
You are liberal.
Mr Diesel says:
7/13/2015 at 8:16 am
Mr D……..thank you for the effort. Please pay attention:
http://cis.org/ICE-Document-Details-36000-Criminal-Aliens-Release-in-2013
Just a little snippet for you. You have implied that finding data would be a Snipe hunt which is clearly incorrect. /// No….its finding data that supports the notion that support AS YOU SAID: “the stats about the high number of criminals crossing the border.” That was the isssue being addressed. You have switched horse……….and for your ((…..honestly…….)) education: stop CONFLATING related but distinct issues. Nice link giving some raw data but as I TOLD YOU ALREADY: they stand in a vacuum of HIGH to LOW compared to WHAT>>>>>? Starts with 36,000 criminals with “100’s of violent crimes…..” Whipping up your fantasy world……..but…….500 divided by 36,000 equals: .013 percent. Lets say “1000’s of violent crimes” and double that number to .03%????? ….. Can you see the issue? HIGH or LOW========>COMPARED TO WHAT????
https://fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43 ///// Link times out. I’ll check it later. Same cognitive errors on your part…..I assume?
My statements were made based on the unusually high number of sex crimes based on the Latino percentage of the population. /// heh, heh…..unusually high? ………”C’mon…what does that possibly mean? IE==what compared to what based on what reference statistic??? Try to answer that….. just for yourself.
It is much like the gun argument, when presented with real numbers and facts the left has no leg to stand on. /// Guns kill people in fairly uniform proportion to their presence in the society. Exceptions go both ways but the trend/association/link is there when you take your blinkers off. EXCELLENT UK and Australia programs making guns illegal and the death from guns stat drops DRAMATICALLY. The stated purpose of guns: to keep us safe from the gubment is pure irrational fantasy.
the GAO states, “In fiscal year 2005, the criminal alien population in federal prisons was around 27 percent of the total inmate population, and from fiscal years 2006 through 2010 remained consistently around 25 percent.”
http://americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/illegal_aliens_murder_at_a_much_higher_rate_than_us_citizens_do.html
Excellent link.
……….but lots of wiggle room from the “objective” facts stated>>>to the conclusions drawn therefrom.
More logical: illegals are JAILED more often for crime than legals. No factoring out for the poverty element or the racial bias. That “should” bring the number down….but I’d be guessing or RANTING to say how much.
Statistics “in fact” don’t lie. Liars lie. About everything…. including statistics.
Imagine that?
Phil A. Minion perhaps beginning to froth at the mouth says:
7/13/2015 at 9:11 am
“Now….. how many years between cause and effect with assumed motive are you willing to apply?”
The effect is immediate. You pander to illegals you get the Latino vote today. Its there, right in front of your eyes, open them moron. /// What “facts” do you have to back this up?
Last “survey” I saw a few years ago showed a fairly high (40%–?) number of Latinos being against illegal immigration as it impacts their own job access and social standing…… AND… now and then a survey shows that Latino’s are by nature more conservative than USA Anglos and will vote for Pukes now and then. Their religious and social NATURAL CONSERVATIVENESS just gets overcome by the racial, ethnic, and xenophobic excesses of the Puke Party.
Truth hurts like a bitch.
Beware of CRAP thinking. Eat it long enough….. you think it is ice cream.
bobbo:
“Beware of CRAP thinking. Eat it long enough….. you think it is ice cream.”
If anyone would know…..
Well Mr D…..do as I do: Identify the Crap statements I have made.
………….I’ll wait.
You got the point or you would not have responded.
I got what I got and posted with a request that you have avoided.
When I say people are eating CRAP I give examples of such CRAP and what the better position is. I THINK AND EVALUATE the actual argument/fact pattern/context present.
You and you ilk do non of that. Just braying horseshit as this current shit pile demonstrates.
What have I said is wrong? How is it wrong? What is the better position?
BE SPECIFIC.
You can’t/don’t/wont because in the main…. you don’t think. Just a knee jerk response to the dog whistle.
Good solid Republican Base voter.
Prove me wrong: ……………..go!!!!!
NewFormatSux says:
7/13/2015 at 1:38 pm
Obama issues an amnesty by executive order, and goes out and tells an activist group,’There’s four million people I have to register.” Apparently every Democrat but you is aware of this. /// Ok…..that is “one dot.” Now….over there is another dot called getting more votes. The challenge in naming and connecting the dots is to now find proof that Obaman/Democrats granted amnesty IN ORDER TO have more voters voting the Democratic position. Right now—-you have two dots with no connection……and odds are….. you don’t even know what was just said.
Here is a shaky table on which you will have to draw your lines: Exactly WHY did RONALD REGAN give amnesty to illegals and how do you think Obama did it for any other reason as well?
Hmmmmmmm?
Give it up Bobbo. You’ve lost the argument.
Every single one?
Dithering: My first post made 5 arguments and I later added a Sixth.
Folks here have tended to focus on Dumbos don’t enforce our immigration policy because they want more voters who will vote Democratic.
No one has provided any “proof” or evidence of this. Nothing but bald unsupported assertions seconded by like minded base voters has been posted so far.
So…………..MCCULLOUGH: PROVE ME WRONG: why did Raygun want so many more Democratic voters?
Hmmmmmmm?
As for Reagan, didn’t much care for the man. So Republicans are/were doing it too, so what, I don’t support that. As someone else pointed out, we have immigration laws, if pols get to pick and choose what laws to enforce/obey based on their personal preference, why then should we the people not be allowed to do the same?
I think your being a little disingenuous if you think Dumbos are doing this out of the goodness of their heart. I don’t think you’re that naive. As for yourself, I’ve seen you state that you were against opening the borders. Does that mean you hate Canadians?
Ha! I crack myself up now and then.
McCullough says:
7/13/2015 at 4:04 pm
As for Reagan, didn’t much care for the man. //// Me neither. My fav: Kind man who would give a poor person the shirt off his back, but never stop to consider WHY the man was poor.
So Republicans are/were doing it too, so what, I don’t support that. /// By “it” I assume you don’t mean pandering for Democratic votes? You must mean pandering for votes for their own party?—So Raygun broke open the door but the Pukes did not follow through. Fair enough…………..or……… both Presidents provided amnesty for OTHER REASONS and its just a recognition that Latino would/should serendipitously vote for the party who did that if they weren’t otherwise shit on? No proof either way….although I assume both Presnedents have made official statements as to why they did it???….. Yeah… I know.
As someone else pointed out, we have immigration laws, if pols get to pick and choose what laws to enforce/obey based on their personal preference, why then should we the people not be allowed to do the same? /// No. Silly statement. Ask again if you are actually stumped.
I think your being a little disingenuous if you think Dumbos are doing this out of the goodness of their heart. /// Of course not, thats not how the pol works. I think you are being a lot disingenuous to even make this claim. I HATE ALL POLS. Its only the alternative……..
I don’t think you’re that naive. //// Thank you. We do have enough “history” on point making me wonder why you post a throwaway argument? Just warming up for something GREAT?
As for yourself, I’ve seen you state that you were against opening the borders. Does that mean you hate Canadians? /// I don’t hate people based on all the protected categories…..but on point… the ALREADY TOO RICH do manipulate “laissez fair capitalism” and keep wages low by importing labor from all over the world. The Head of DisneyLand should be JAILED for 30 days bringing in those Puppet Players for cheaper wages than good old Americans. Stuffing Goofy is not a high tech skill in short supply. ITS ALL FRAUD….from top to bottom and every crack.
Ha! I crack myself up now and then. /// Good one…. and thanks. It is good to laugh….. not deliriously though.
ON POINT: the notion that R or D President grant amnesty to get votes is just plain silly. They do it for other more pragmatic reasons and hoping for a boost in voting is just a hoped for side benefit. We both should study it, if we had the interest, but I will assume Regan did it to provide real immigration reform with the hoped for votes and the understood continuing cheap labor pool as secondary issues. Obama the same.
They are politicians: out for themselves, their party, their place in history. Voting is more directly impacted by 5-6 other issues. Silly to emphasize the bottom of the list. That ain’t good thinking.
2 thoughts on this closing thread:
1. Good demonstration of our politics actually playing out NOT on D vs R or lib v Conservative but rather Corporate vs We the People. The Media, a Corporate Entity, keeps the truth from us. Only small cracks here and there. The voters divide up and argue as designed. “♫……and the Beat goes on…..”
2. I’m against Immigration, but for Amnesty. The is the law on the books, and the law of what is. There is law, and there is justice. By failing to enforce immigration law which is easy to do ((move against the Employers)) our actual policy is open border and we attract people to move here to work for less than slave wages, some join the Military. After 5-10-20 years, REALITY demands we treat these people “fairly” —which means according to our actual policy, not the BS law on the Books.
3. The Trump/Puke “build a wall” is fodder for the stupid. Why has been stated above. Trump WANTS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION….the wall is just a distraction to keep everything status quo.
On Second thought says:
7/13/2015 at 5:43 pm
Does this make any sense to you?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=DnEe4oaSC88
If not, why? /////////////// “Do the Rich pay their Fair Share?”–nice topic, lets give it a review:
1. Starts by saying Rich = Top 10% which is 150K/year income and statement is made “this is not rich.” does same with Top 5% at 190K. Sadly==what makes “sense” is if you define Rich at whatever level, and you are at that level, then “by definition” you are rich. So–does it make sense?==this unstated change of definition to make some other unstated point?
On its face, no.
As a piece of flimsy propaganda for the gullible who can’t follow an argument?===>sure.
On to the 2 minute mark, the video conflates/confuses income with rich whereas in my view “rich” is more a concept of disposable income/wealth/retained assets/estate rather than mere income. iow: income is what you get, whereas wealth is what you have. But lets continue to see if this confusion/manipulation is cleared up or relied upon?
On to 3-20, makes the point that the Payroll Tax is not a Tax (Holy Reverse Activist Supreme Court Batman!==things change by simply calling them something else!) because it is (nominally) used to pay for Social Security and the Richs’ contributions are not capped (I thought they were…but I’m not going to parse this irrelevancy). So… this section of the video is presented as some kind of affront to the rich but how and why this is so is not explained.
At 3-20 the (Potentially) excellent subject of comparison to other countries is raised with the bald assertion that the progressive rate in the USA is the highest in the world. I think that is the published base rates……..ignoring totally the smaller print of exceptions, deductions and other tax dodges not available in other countries…but the video has no detail, so I won’t go farther.
Ha, ha… at 4-30 the hardly supported conclusion is made that to say the rich “however defined” are fairly taxed (assuming a 50% rate used in the video) is “simply wrong.” —Evidently this guy has his head in the sand, or elsewhere, and has never heard of Warren Buffet, or Warren’s Secretary, or what deferred income is, or capital gains income tax rate, or Corporations earning Billions in profit and paying zero tax or even getting a tax subsidy.
He’s talking about hard working wage earners whos income is all captured in W-2 statements from employers. Not what “the rich” is really all about.
I stopped at 4:40 as I just don’t want another BS diatribe about trickle down economics and the Rich need more money if America is to succeed.
So….does it make sense? Off course—the poor need less money because they waste it and the Rich need more money because they invest it.
Makes sense to me.
Thanks for the review.
I believe though, it made SO much sense to you that you felt compelled to dissect it to the point where it could no longer threaten your established mindset.
Does wealth offend you, or do you just believe it can’t be obtained honestly through hard work?
Thank you….but you should dissect more. I do it quite often. Its a check on my own bias to actually parse what is said rather than respond with a kneejerk generality ….. as you have done.
Give it a try. Respond to everything said. See what you think. Absent that, you are just coasting on your initial attitudes/statements/general belief that you refuse to analyze.
Hoomans are like that.
My response to your dissection was thoughtful, brief, without kneejerk. (And I suspect you’ve done a lot of “coasting” during your own life.)
Interestingly, your style reminds me of William F. Buckley, Jr. Yikes!!
To wit, Wikipedia says of Buckley:
“… liberals were especially fascinated by Buckley, and often wanted to debate him, in part because his ideas resembled their own, for Buckley typically formulated his arguments in reaction to left-liberal opinion, rather than being founded on conservative principles that were alien to the liberals.”
Of course, flip the viewpoint (conservative for liberal, right for left).
You should consider writing a book about your “perfect world”. I’d buy it, take it to the beach, and enjoy the read!
bobbo –
“So….does it make sense? Off course—the poor need less money because they waste it and the Rich need more money because they invest it.
Makes sense to me.”
Finally, you agree.
On a side note where is Dalls?
Crap, hit enter to quick, Dallas??
I don’t know. I miss the boy. Probably got tired of disagreeing with everyone here…kinda like…forget his name, the other liberal.
We find our pleasures where we do.
• New York Times: “The astonishing thing is that this amusing but frivolous Trump fantasy is taken so seriously by the news media and particularly by the President. It makes a lot of news, but it makes no sense.”
• New Republic: “Donald Trump to me is still the posturing, essentially mindless and totally unconvincing candy man that he’s been in my opinion ever since I watched his first try for the Republican nomination evaporate in Miami in 1968.”
• Newsweek: Donald Trump is “a man whose mind and nerve and mediagenic style have never been tested in Presidential politics and may not be adequate to the trial.”
• New York Times: Trump’s candidacy is “patently ridiculous.”
• New Republic: “Trump is Goldwater revisited…He is a divisive factor in the party.”
• Harper’s magazine: “That he should be regarded as a serious candidate for President is a shame and an embarrassment for the country at large to swallow.”
• Chicago Daily News: “The trouble with trump, of course, is that his positions on the major issues are cunningly phrased nonsense — irrationality conceived and hair-raising in their potential mischief…
• Time: “Republicans now must decide whether he represents a conservative wave of the future or is just another Barry Goldwater calling on the party to mount a hopeless crusade against the twentieth century.”
• National Review: “Trump’s image remains inchoate.… At the outset of his campaign, his image is largely that of the role-playing actor — pleasant on stage, but ill-equipped for the real world beyond the footlights. Trump does not yet project the presidential image. He is not seen as a serious man.”
• Manchester Union-Leader,conservative New Hampshire paper: Trump “lacks the charisma and conviction needed to win.”
• The Ripon Society: “The nomination of Donald Trump would McGovernize the Republican Party.”
• Vice President Nelson Rockefeller dismissed Trump as “a minority of a minority” who “has been taking some extreme positions.”
• New York’s Republican Senator Jacob Javits: Trump’s positions are “so extreme that they would alter our country’s very economic and social structure and our place in the world to such a degree as to make our country’s place at home and abroad, as we know it, a thing of the past.”
• Illinois Republican Senator Charles Percy said Trump’s candidacy was “foolhardy” and would lead to a “crushing defeat” for the Republican Party. “It could signal the beginning of the end of our party as an effective force in American political life.”
• Former President Gerald Ford: “I hear more and more often that we don’t want, can’t afford to have a replay of 1964.” If the Republican Party nominates Donald Trump “it would be an impossible situation” because Trump “is perceived as a most conservative Republican. A very conservative Republican can’t win in a national election.” Asked if that meant Ford thought Trump can’t win, Ford replied to the New York Times: “That’s right.” The Times story went on to observe that Ford thought “Mr. Trump would be a sure-loser in November” and that Trump held “extreme and too-simple views.”
What all those comments tell me is that everyone is scared that he might win and they are trying to convince the unwashed masses that it would be a bad idea to vote for him.
Everyone reading this, be honest now, do we want someone different or do we want the same old shit?
I can’t stand Boner and Old McDonald running both houses now and the useless idiot in the Whitehouse is the worst president (term loosely used) since FDR.
Someone pull the water closet handle please.
If that’s what it tells you then read it again.
Did and reaffirms what I read the first time. Trying to get people to think he is a [insert favorite term here].
If they are all worried he has got to be good.
Nope. Read it very carefully.
Funny, on the news yesterday they went back and checked news stories about Reagan running in 1980. They said the same thing about him.
If you don’t want Trump then just hope that it is a coincidence.
Yup, I switched Trump for Reagan above.
Everyone reading this, be honest now, do we want someone different or do we want the same old shit? /// Wrong question.
Obama, like him or not, at least is competent. Yet because of “politics” the Pukes have been out to destroy him by refusing to work with him, stalling, refusing appointments, and so forth.
The Dumbos do the same to a lesser degree with the Puke Presidents.
Trump looks to me that if elected would get the same treatment from both parties. IE==totally incompetent and unable to act.
What the Presidents do, like them or not, is represent their power bases. For the Dumbos and Pukes today, that means the Big Money that funds their campaigns and retirement desires…AKA…the Corporations.
Trump, like him or not, so some degree unknown beyond the Teaparty Base, is a POPULIST, meaning his power base is not Corporations, but rather We the People.
But he is nuts and would get no populist legislation passed…ie…totally ineffective.
I think what We the People hunger for is some other kind of Populist that seeks a power base that is not corporate. This is the appeal of Warren and Sanders. Hard for a populist to get nominated, so we are pragmatically “stuck” with candidates who can get money from the Corps to get nominated.
What did you think? MONEY is the root of all evil…. and most of our troubles today. MONEY….people lying and cheating to get it. First the Corps, then the Pols. Too many voters too easily misled.
Sad.
Don’t choke bobbo…I agree.
“I think what We the People hunger for is some other kind of Populist that seeks a power base that is not corporate. This is the appeal of Warren and Sanders. Hard for a populist to get nominated, so we are pragmatically “stuck” with candidates who can get money from the Corps to get nominated.”
My problem is that we won’t be able to get anyone like that so Trump is it.
Mr D==I can’t tell. Are you “for” Trump because of what he stands for and what you think he “could do” in office, or is he only a placeholder for all the other candidates being unacceptable to you?
Yes………..the dilemma of the voter who thinks in black vs white, good vs bad, desired vs disliked terms. The prototype Third Party Voter.
Problem is—-even among the unacceptable candidates, some are better/not as bad as the other unacceptable candidates on any or several issues important to you.
So the challenge for the PRAGMATIC voter, Obviously, is to pick the least unaceptable candidate to you. To pick an unelectable candidate is to vote effectively for an unacceptable candidate to you when better/not as bad candidate would have been less distasteful to you.
Pragmatism. …….. I know. so much easier and natural to get all emotional. Its what the Media, Pols, Corps, Advertising, Push Polling plays on.
You can be a dupe………or truly independent.
Ain ‘t choice a Bitch?
Trump is closer to the real world that the current president and the rest of the Republican field. He has dealt with operations of actual businesses, not just Goldman Sachs. He may not make a good president, but he is not likely to do much damage.