POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Donald didn't negotiate with terrorists and exchange 5 known killers for 1 deserter either. Trump hasn't gone on foreign soil and apologized for our past behavior. Trump has never passed legislation to give our tax dollars to another country to fund abortion. Trump is not a Muslim sympathizer who refuses to utter the phrase "radical Islamic terrorist".
You see we got the power to turn back time,
So let’s try Kasich and O’Malley this time
And while we’re at it, let’s give McCain a re-do
So that Sarah Palin can stay hunting caribou.
Hey! That’s the power to turn back time!
So let’s try Kasich and O’Malley this time
And while we’re at it, let’s give McCain a re-do
So that Sarah Palin can stay hunting caribou.
Hey! That’s the power to turn back time!
Of course you wouldn't. You dam liberals think everything is perfect and on the right track while our country is going down the shit hole.
I wonder if Bernie Sanders realized he was speaking in "Wells Fargo Arena" when speaking of banks
Not at all, just shows the hypocrisy of Crazy Bernie and the rest of the Liberal idiots. Anybody buying what Hilary is selling should be forced sterilization, so they can not reproduce more offspring.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ands-up-as-he-tries-to-help-autistic-patient/
From what I saw there was no provocation by this man nor was he "starting it off". There are other examples but I guess we shouldn't get into all that on a message board. I wish it was that simple: Comply don't die. I wish it was as simple as: Deadly force shouldn't be FIRST resort. I support the police (family members are in law enforcement) and I support BLM.
This is way after the fact, but I support amnesty for illegals because of how big of an effect on our economy it would have to kick 11 million people out. Not to mention the destruction of families, and the fact that it's unrealistic to think that it's even possible to round them all up.
I don't think that's too crazy for Johnson to support considering Marco Rubio supported the same thing with a ten year probationary path to citizenship.
If you can listen to Gary Johnson's views and not agree with him then by all means, don't vote for him. But don't decide that others are wasting their vote for supporting a candidate that most aligns with their values.
If you want to hear more from Johnson look up his interview on the Joe Rogan Podcast.
I don't think that's too crazy for Johnson to support considering Marco Rubio supported the same thing with a ten year probationary path to citizenship.
If you can listen to Gary Johnson's views and not agree with him then by all means, don't vote for him. But don't decide that others are wasting their vote for supporting a candidate that most aligns with their values.
If you want to hear more from Johnson look up his interview on the Joe Rogan Podcast.
I really liked Johnson. But Amnesty is a non starter. To make matters worse, he won't attack hillary over the emails.
I am interested though, what makes you say we can't afford to kick out 11 million illegals?
"Hillary will break up big banks."![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
She has been working on it since 2001. Dragging them down $250K at a time
He has been critical of both Hilary and Trump. He actually aligns the most with Bernie on social issues. He is probably the most fiscally conservative candidate of them all. Look at his work as governor of New Mexico. He realizes that just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it should be illegal. I don't personally opt to smoke weed or abort babies, but to each their own.
We can't afford to kick out 11 million people out because they spend money. Losing 11 million people's worth of rent money, grocery money, gas money, etc, will put many people out of business. I'm not saying they should get away with murder. I support Kate's Law, if you commit crimes (felonies), you should be out.
So you think those 11 million illegals spend more money than they drain in handouts?
It is way after the fact, and yet it doesn't matter. But you should keep talking about it every chance you get. Because it is just one more of many issues that weigh heavy on the minds of American voters, and will result in Donald Trump becoming President in January. What has become, or more specifically, is a smaller portion of the population continues to examine these issues, saying this is how you need to look at this situation, this is why what you want cannot be . . . Meanwhile, a larger and more steadfast portion of the population, a portion of the population that feels more connected to this country by land and by time simply says, to hell with all of that. And while this is certainly and likely not the way that you think average voters should got about their decision making processes, I would like to offer you a great piece of advice that I read on a message board not long ago:
don't decide that others are wasting their vote for supporting a candidate that most aligns with their values.
Hell no DNC, WE WONT VOTE HILLARY
JILL, not HILL.
i fully expect 50% of berners to either vote trump, Jill stein or not vote and that will wrap this election up if true.
JILL, not HILL.
i fully expect 50% of berners to either vote trump, Jill stein or not vote and that will wrap this election up if true.
Gonna throw this up on Facebook. Don't care how much is based in reality. Hell, I only read half of it, but it SPEAKS THA TRUTH.
I love those arguments. Trump did not invade Poland. Trump did not kill Abraham Lincoln. Trump did not behead Louis XVI.
"Hey, you know what Trump didn't do?"
"What?"
"He didn't systematically kill Christians in the Middle East."
"By golly, he sounds amazing. He's got my vote."
"Hey, you know what Trump didn't do?"
"What?"
"He didn't systematically kill Christians in the Middle East."
"By golly, he sounds amazing. He's got my vote."
Thanks... Or GFY... I really have no idea if you were agreeing with me or what.
Shut up. No one takes you seriously when you post BS like that from the Washingtonpost of all papers.
LOL. You really think I would believe anything out of the paper that hired 20 "journalist" to go after Trump while the founder and owner of the paper is a hardcore anti-Trump guy?
And just for the record, I don't give a dam what it would do in the short term. You people just refuse to try and solve the problem by saying it is to late to do anything. This is why the democratic party is destroying this country. It's broke, **** it, lets just move on.
Not a democrat by any means first of all, secondly I posted two other links, what's your counter against them?
You can disagree with me all you want, I was just making my case for Johnson, because posters were dismissing him. Your perspective on life will not allow you to have compassion for illegal immigrants or see what the economic implications would be of deporting them. That's understandable. My perspective causes me to disagree with both Trump and Hillary.
In fairness I didn't click on any of the links you provided because the first one I saw was Washington Post. That tells me all I need to know.
As for compassion, I have more than Hillary or Bernie. I have no problem deporting illegal immigrants with criminal records or people that have been deported and keep coming back. **** Sanctuary cities and screw anyone that thinks it;s ok to be here, make money and not pay taxes or play by the rules.
Just speaking on deporting:
"Obama’s government has deported more than 2.5 million people—up 23% from the George W. Bush years. More shockingly, Obama is now on pace to deport more people than the sum of all 19 presidents who governed the United States from 1892-2000, according to government data."
And:
"U.S. immigration officials are planning a month-long series of raids in May and June to deport hundreds of Central American mothers and children found to have entered the country illegally, according to sources and an internal document seen by Reuters.
The operation would likely be the largest deportation sweep targeting immigrant families by the administration of President Barack Obama this year after a similar drive over two days in January that focused on Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina"
So, weird thing here, when the right says they want to deport illegals...Obama is doing that big time, but at the same time,the left, who portrays that they are caring and welcoming....they arent. So, I believe the take is...we will deport..the left is just portraying that they won't to get low info votes.
"Obama’s government has deported more than 2.5 million people—up 23% from the George W. Bush years. More shockingly, Obama is now on pace to deport more people than the sum of all 19 presidents who governed the United States from 1892-2000, according to government data."
And:
"U.S. immigration officials are planning a month-long series of raids in May and June to deport hundreds of Central American mothers and children found to have entered the country illegally, according to sources and an internal document seen by Reuters.
The operation would likely be the largest deportation sweep targeting immigrant families by the administration of President Barack Obama this year after a similar drive over two days in January that focused on Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina"
So, weird thing here, when the right says they want to deport illegals...Obama is doing that big time, but at the same time,the left, who portrays that they are caring and welcoming....they arent. So, I believe the take is...we will deport..the left is just portraying that they won't to get low info votes.
That's a bunch of bullshit and you know it. Facts never tell the truth. Liberals wouldn't do that to people.
That just tells me the left will say whatever it takes to get votes. They know full well they aren't planning on keeping illegal immigrants here. However, when they talk about doing so they market themselves as compassionate and for the people. By the time the election is over, many people have turned a blind eye to a lot of the facts. Myself included, I had no idea about those deportation numbers.
Bernie calling out the Koch Brothers about money in politics and failing to mention George Soros. Can't have it both ways Bernie you jacka$$.
Is it disturbing to anyone else that there wasn't a single American flag on the stage or in the entire building at the DNC convention tonight?
You're probably right, but that is beside the point. He shouldn't have shot that guy. He was on the ground, with a knee in his torso, two officers on him, not swinging, not reaching for anything, just not being still enough for the officer's liking apparently. Okay, fine, his fault. Taze him and cuff him, rough him up a little if you must, do what you have to do to do your job.
But you heard the officer shout swear to God man, if you don't blah blah blah.... right before shooting.
I am a man and you are a man. Go listen to that clip and how that officer said that, then watch how he follows up, burying the pistol into the guy's vital organs and making the conscious decision to end his life seconds later.
If you hear the way he said swear to God, you know, as a man, that there is one and only one context in which a guy says that with that particular tone. It's a testosterone filled man-ego thing. You're trying to control somebody (whether justified or not), they're not complying, and you feel like you have to teach him a lesson about crossing you and put him in his place, because he's not submitting enough and you're trying to assert dominance.
That cop does not think this guy is going to be able to overcome the two cops with guns out who are on top of his body. That cop has control of the situation.. that's not the issue. He wants to see the other dog with his tail between the legs. He doesn't get it, and then he commits murder over it.
If that black guy was fighting two non-cops, and one non-cop was on top with his knee in the guy and point-blanked him in the heart, would that guy get off on self-defense charges based on that video? Hell no.
So we know it's not self-defense. And if you admit it's not self-defense, then the only difference is that it was a cop, and the guy wasn't being perfectly compliant.
So now you're basically saying that the right and just American punishment for not following a cop's order to the T is immediate death. Because again, no court would ever rule those shots in the video as self-defense. Cop gives you an order, you do a crappy job following the order, you are executed on the spot. That's disgusting. That's not what America stands for.
You saw the same ego thing at the McKinney pool incident when the officer literally came in doing GD barrel rolls like James Bond and ended up slamming a 110 lb girl in a bikini onto the ground repeatedly. They were totally justified in breaking up the pool party considering those kids didn't have passes to that pool. The officers were right in rounding up the kids, despite what the liberals say.
But tell me, in what context do you feel the need to use your grown man size to slam a visibly unarmed 110 lb girl into the ground for your own safety? Uh, none. That's called being a control freak and policing with your ego.
I was just watching COPS 2 days ago (great show, lots of great cops on there), and they asked the LEOs what got them into the line of work. You got a lot of standard answers, lot of women talking about helping the community, older guys talking about trying to keep the peace, and then you'd occasionally get answers like one of the young guys who just said something like "I love the feeling of an encounter - when someone turns to challenge me, I get that thrill - who doesn't like being in a fight at a bar?"
Well, okay, that's an understandable sentiment, and it's good to have bravery in threatening situations. But talking like you love excuses to throw down completely undermines this idea that all cops are these calm, logical purveyors of justice who could never conceive of abusing their power. Even if you feel that way (which I do at times), saying it on TV shows that you lack a certain level of maturity which could easily translate into a big ego crisis at the wrong time in the heat of the moment. Being in the mood to pick fights over your man ego is a conflict of interest when you're wearing the badge.
So I will spare you the bull that cops are going around killing people for being black (they're not) if you spare me the bull of denying that there's a small percentage of cops who get in these situations for selfish, egotistical reasons.
Many BLM people are just mindless... they know their opinion before the facts come out "ooga booga cop bad, black guy innocent", doesn't matter what actually occurred. In their minds, it can't possibly be justified that a white cop would ever shoot a black person.
But people like you are doing the exact same thing. You know your opinion before the facts come out, and it's not apt to change even if it turns out that the victim was merely being annoying and the cop was acting like an obvious johnson-waving broey numbskull. Let me amend that. Murderer if he was in any other profession.
I completely agree that officers are not hunting down black people at random. The stats show that their killings are proportional along lines of racial crime.
And officers in general are not hunting down anyone, for that matter. Most officers are decent people, just doing their jobs.
But there is a certain subset of them who join the force because they like the feeling of power or once they gain the badge, it starts to get to their head and make them want to seek out confrontation.
So if I see an officer "bro out" and see his young man/testosterone side kick in and he kills my family member without excellent justification, then I will beat the life juice out of him just the same way that I will end a random stranger who tries to murder a loved one. I'll deal with the legal consequences.
This GD insanity of "never question the police even up to what would be considered murder in any other context" needs to go.
It's a mindless position held by some conservatives, and the irony is that it is the least conservative attitude one can have.
What the hell happened to not trusting too much power in the hands of the government? The way some conservatives talk, a cop should be able to thrust himself deep into your wife and laugh as you watch, and you'd better just sit there and know your place because, dammit, he's a law enforcement officer and respect the badge and blah blah blah.
Stop it. I don't trust anybody with that degree of power because all humans are flawed. Law enforcement officers are incredibly important, but they are also mortal and make mistakes, and while there are many brilliant LEOs, there are also numbskulls who joined for the wrong reasons. Guys who you'd never want dating your daughter.
Don't be a lemming. Don't trust anybody else with 100% power over you, worst of all an extension of the government. Always fight to make sure there are checks and balances, because people are flawed. Period.
Last edited:
Not even close. Those illegals are here for one purpose and that is votes. To hell with what they will do to this country as long as they vote democrat.
Nothing in these disprove that illegals cost more than they provide in tax base and are just op-eds. EG, none explored cost of healthcare, education, and wage suppression as a trade-off. I do agree that deporting 11m is not feasible and would not even get through Congress. I also agree any mass deportation would hurt the economy for a period. It is too bad the left got greedy on immigration and showed they would just ignore any law that benefitted them. If you want blame, there it is.
Last edited:
Because they are basically made up due to the way they are now calculated and what is now defined as deportations. If someone believes this admin is tough on immigration they probably still go to the mailbox each day hoping to get their $2500 healthcare premium reduction letter.
From the LA Times:
Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.
On the other side of the ledger, the number of people deported at or near the border has gone up — primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency's deportation statistics.
The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now.
The shift in who gets tallied helped the administration look tough in its early years but now may be backfiring politically. Immigration advocates plan protests across the country this week around what they say will be the 2 millionth deportation under Obama — a mark expected to be hit in the next few days. And Democratic strategists fret about a decline in Latino voter turnout for this fall's election.
Until recent years, mostpeople caught illegally crossing the southern border were simply bused back into Mexico in what officials called "voluntary returns," but which critics derisively termed "catch and release." Those removals, which during the 1990s reached more 1 million a year, were not counted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement's deportation statistics.
Now, the vast majority of border crossers who are apprehended get fingerprinted and formally deported. The change began during the George W. Bush administration and accelerated under Obama. The policy stemmed in part from a desire to ensure that people who had crossed into the country illegally would have formal charges on their records.
In the Obama years, all of the increase in deportations has involved people picked up within 100 miles of the border, most of whom have just recently crossed over. In 2013, almost two-thirds of deportations were in that category.
At the same time, the administration largely ended immigration roundups at workplaces and shifted investigators into targeting business owners who illegally hired foreign workers.
"If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero — it's just highly unlikely to happen," John Sandweg, until recently the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in an interview.
Even when immigration officials want to deport someone who already has settled in the country, doing so is "virtually impossible" because of a lengthy backlog in the immigration courts, Sandweg said. Once people who have no prior removals or convictions are placed in deportation proceedings, actually removing them from the country can take six years or more in some jurisdictions, Sandweg said.
This basically sums up my position as well. It's also one of the most eloquent statements on the matter I've seen.
As with most things that are divisive the reality is somewhere in the middle.
