[Transsimian]

Le Sigh... Why didn't you warn us before the election.... now we have to suffer under his Cuckliphate for four whole years.

[Sherman]

(03-01-2017 03:20 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 02:09 PM)scrambled Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 01:40 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I believe the compromise Trump will reach on immigration will involve letting the peaceful illegals stay, but they will never get the right to vote. Trump will create a national voter registry to avoid fraud. Children of illegals will get to become citizens, but in exchange we will get a total overhaul on how many legal immigrants are allowed inside the USA (a significantly reduced amount until wages rise past historical norms).

The system doesn't want compromise; and your non-voting legalized residents will eventually and certainlly be fully 'enfranchised' by a future non-Trumpian administration and Congress.

Bingo. There will be no compromise, just one of two outcomes: victory for our side or victory for the enemy. Any "compromise" we make will end up in the latter category. If Trump strikes a deal of amnesty for some kind of increased immigration enforcement, we'll get the amnesty but not the enforcement. Or if we get the enforcement, it'll last only as long as the current administration, but the amnesty will be for keeps. Have we learned nothing from the most saintly cuckservative hero, Ronald Reagan, whose amnesty handed California and soon the entirety of the Southwest to the enemy forever in exchange for nothing?

Government benefits are being given to illegals which is against Federal law. The most obvious solution (upholding existing laws), isn't being discussed. People come to the US because of the huge incentives provided, it makes the risk worthwhile. The system will remain because those in power want it that way.

[Samseau]

(03-01-2017 03:35 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:20 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 02:09 PM)scrambled Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 01:40 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I believe the compromise Trump will reach on immigration will involve letting the peaceful illegals stay, but they will never get the right to vote. Trump will create a national voter registry to avoid fraud. Children of illegals will get to become citizens, but in exchange we will get a total overhaul on how many legal immigrants are allowed inside the USA (a significantly reduced amount until wages rise past historical norms).

The system doesn't want compromise; and your non-voting legalized residents will eventually and certainlly be fully 'enfranchised' by a future non-Trumpian administration and Congress.

Bingo. There will be no compromise, just one of two outcomes: victory for our side or victory for the enemy. Any "compromise" we make will end up in the latter category. If Trump strikes a deal of amnesty for some kind of increased immigration enforcement, we'll get the amnesty but not the enforcement. Or if we get the enforcement, it'll last only as long as the current administration, but the amnesty will be for keeps. Have we learned nothing from the most saintly cuckservative hero, Ronald Reagan, whose amnesty handed California and soon the entirety of the Southwest to the enemy forever in exchange for nothing?

Government benefits are being given to illegals which is against Federal law. The most obvious solution (upholding existing laws), isn't being discussed. People come to the US because of the huge incentives provided, it makes the risk worthwhile. The system will remain because those in power want it that way.

I think you all get it half-right.

Enforcement of voting ID will only last as long as Republicans stay in power. But given the measures Trump is enacting it should be enough to keep Republicans in power for another two decades, easily.

If people grow decadent and foolish, then, oh well, game over for America. But the fact we even have this chance is still a good deal compared to the nothing we were getting before.

[The Beast1]

Any capitulation from Trump on immigration will make him a one term president.

He will lose the heartland. It's do or die and he knows it.

[BassPlayaYo]

When they begin to crack down on legal pot (a la Sessions), that will be the harbinger of the big betrayal.

[Sherman]

One thing to watch closely is how Trump deals with Russia. You can give him a pass on the difficulty of reversing 50 years of policy overnight, but making a deal with Putin is something he has the power to do. If we have another cold war with Russia, then we will know we have been had.

[911]

I'd say arrest a couple of hundred dopeheads from Colorado just before the 2020 elections to turn the state red, just for kicks.

[Kid Twist]

(03-01-2017 02:09 PM)scrambled Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 01:40 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I believe the compromise Trump will reach on immigration will involve letting the peaceful illegals stay, but they will never get the right to vote. Trump will create a national voter registry to avoid fraud. Children of illegals will get to become citizens, but in exchange we will get a total overhaul on how many legal immigrants are allowed inside the USA (a significantly reduced amount until wages rise past historical norms).

The system doesn't want compromise; and your non-voting legalized residents will eventually and certainlly be fully 'enfranchised' by a future non-Trumpian administration and Congress.

I could see this as a possibility as any mature thinker might ... but if you hold this opinion, my question is, "How quickly?"

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(03-01-2017 03:20 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 02:09 PM)scrambled Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 01:40 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I believe the compromise Trump will reach on immigration will involve letting the peaceful illegals stay, but they will never get the right to vote. Trump will create a national voter registry to avoid fraud. Children of illegals will get to become citizens, but in exchange we will get a total overhaul on how many legal immigrants are allowed inside the USA (a significantly reduced amount until wages rise past historical norms).

The system doesn't want compromise; and your non-voting legalized residents will eventually and certainlly be fully 'enfranchised' by a future non-Trumpian administration and Congress.

Bingo. There will be no compromise, just one of two outcomes: victory for our side or victory for the enemy. Any "compromise" we make will end up in the latter category. If Trump strikes a deal of amnesty for some kind of increased immigration enforcement, we'll get the amnesty but not the enforcement. Or if we get the enforcement, it'll last only as long as the current administration, but the amnesty will be for keeps. Have we learned nothing from the most saintly cuckservative hero, Ronald Reagan, whose amnesty handed California and soon the entirety of the Southwest to the enemy forever in exchange for nothing?

Exactly - Reagan looked good on paper but then turned out the usual globalist stooge.

Trump at least is even more of an outsider than Reagan.

The Reagan administration was responsible for the destruction of the middle class which wasn't only felt because back then the world was divided between West and communism, there were no international Chinese trade deals and the public got the "gift" of credit cards which kept the economy pumping. But the stage was set for the destruction of the middle class in the 1980s.

We shall see whether Donald Trump can do it better. I see some encouraging signs like the coal industry promotion and at least some jobs going back to the US.

[Lunostrelki]

(03-01-2017 03:28 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

Or since this is a game forum, I'll put it this way: currently we have foreigners being brought in to fuck our 2s and 3s. Under a skill based system, we'll have foreigners brought in to fuck our 7s and 8s, which is worse. There is a limited supply of hot women in any country, and there is a limited supply of good jobs, as well. It's bad enough that we have Mexicans taking shitty fast food and construction jobs away from Americans. It's way worse if we have Indians and Chinese taking the few precious jobs we have left in finance, engineering, and medicine from Americans.

And yes, they'll still vote Democrat just like the Mexicans because they're smart enough to realize the Democrats are the vehicle to loot and seize control from the white population for their own ethnic blocs.

a) Indians and Chinese already take those jobs, and they'd be doing it in other countries (weakening America overall) if not here. Also who ever heard of Chinese and Indians taking all the hot girls. Usually it's their women who disproportionately end up with white guys if in the US.
b) Nah, Trump can get along quite alright with minorities (the successful ones) when he shows that his policies give everyone legally present in the US opportunities to put their talents to good use, without patronizing them the way the left does.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

The choices of staff Donald Trump picked are terrible:

Quote:

The new National Security Advisor – Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond McMaster – and the Counter-Terrorism advisor to the President of the United States – Sebastian Gorka – both unequivocally state the “terrorist” threat America faces has nothing to do with “true” Islam.

Both men are catastrophically wrong and, therefore, are leading America down a disastrous road towards defeat.

The New York Times, Guardian, and CNN all report Lt General McMaster told members of the National Security Council Thursday he felt “radical Islamic terrorism” was an unhelpful way to describe terrorism because becoming a terrorist is actually “un-Islamic” in the first place.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/03/unfit...-and-gorka

This is terrible and akin to Bush's Religion of Peace mantra.

It is a very negative sign of things to come.

[Samseau]

Perhaps Trump will go the full Eisenhower on all illegals after all:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-wh...tion-play/

Quote:

CNN reported Wednesday on a senior administration official admitting that the White House intentionally misled reporters ahead of President Donald Trump‘s congressional address in order to get generate positive press coverage as part of a “misdirection play.”

Multiple reports Tuesday indicated that Trump would embrace a more moderate tone on immigration and would announce that he was willing to negotiate granting millions of illegal immigrants legal status. Most of those reports, cited to a “senior administration official,” came immediately after anchors lunched with Trump. Some of those outlets then just attributed the claim to the president himself.

But when it was time for Trump to actually give the speech, he said nothing of the sort. CNN’s Sara Murray complained the next day about “the bait and switch that the president pulled when it came to immigration yesterday. He had this meeting with the anchors, he talked about a path to legal status.”

“Basically they fed [them] things that they thought these anchors would like, that they thought would give them positive press coverage for the next few hours. A senior administration official admitted that it was a misdirection play,” she reported.

Host John King wondered why reporters should even trust the White House going forward. “It does make you wonder; so we’re not supposed to believe what the senior-most official at the lunch says — who then they allowed it to be the president’s name says — we’re not supposed to believe what they say?” he asked. “Maybe we shouldn’t believe what they say.”

Is Trump just lying to the media so he can enjoy a few hours of positive coverage? Is all it fake news? Who knows, but keep clicking on these articles and I guarantee you'll see more of them.

[Alpharius]

(03-01-2017 01:56 PM)Penta Sahi Wrote:  

This is what I thought of when I saw the title of this thread.

As a practicing porno freak, money loving, gamer, who is a whoremongering lying drunk who works by day as a gangster rapper and by night as a devil healing masturbator and a party animal on the weekend, I take offense at this.

[Kid Twist]

(03-03-2017 03:57 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

The choices of staff Donald Trump picked are terrible:

Quote:

The new National Security Advisor – Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond McMaster – and the Counter-Terrorism advisor to the President of the United States – Sebastian Gorka – both unequivocally state the “terrorist” threat America faces has nothing to do with “true” Islam.

Both men are catastrophically wrong and, therefore, are leading America down a disastrous road towards defeat.

The New York Times, Guardian, and CNN all report Lt General McMaster told members of the National Security Council Thursday he felt “radical Islamic terrorism” was an unhelpful way to describe terrorism because becoming a terrorist is actually “un-Islamic” in the first place.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/03/unfit...-and-gorka

This is terrible and akin to Bush's Religion of Peace mantra.

It is a very negative sign of things to come.

I always have a difficult time understanding the Zuhdi Jassers of the world. Now I'm confused with the Gorka character too. He always seemed to have an understanding that was solid, but now that Spencer questions him I'm inclined to do so as well.

What a confused world.

Honestly, what (il)logic do you use to state that Muhammad was a good example, in pretty much any context? I mean, the story begins and ends there, it's pretty clear cut and over to begin with.

[pants]

Why was OP banned?

I get there are a lot of Trump supporters on this forum, and i am fine with that.
But there should still be possible to discuss trump critically.
I´m pro trump on certain issues. immigration, trade, anti-pc.

But when it comes to environment, i am anti-trump.

Would be nice to keep this thread as a critical thread. The Donald trump is filled with memes, and cheerleaders of trump.

[911]

I agree with the general tenor of critical debate on Trump, provided it's not trolling.

Pants, are you anti-Trump because you believe in human-caused global warming?

[911]

(03-02-2017 04:28 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:20 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 02:09 PM)scrambled Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 01:40 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I believe the compromise Trump will reach on immigration will involve letting the peaceful illegals stay, but they will never get the right to vote. Trump will create a national voter registry to avoid fraud. Children of illegals will get to become citizens, but in exchange we will get a total overhaul on how many legal immigrants are allowed inside the USA (a significantly reduced amount until wages rise past historical norms).

The system doesn't want compromise; and your non-voting legalized residents will eventually and certainlly be fully 'enfranchised' by a future non-Trumpian administration and Congress.

Bingo. There will be no compromise, just one of two outcomes: victory for our side or victory for the enemy. Any "compromise" we make will end up in the latter category. If Trump strikes a deal of amnesty for some kind of increased immigration enforcement, we'll get the amnesty but not the enforcement. Or if we get the enforcement, it'll last only as long as the current administration, but the amnesty will be for keeps. Have we learned nothing from the most saintly cuckservative hero, Ronald Reagan, whose amnesty handed California and soon the entirety of the Southwest to the enemy forever in exchange for nothing?

Exactly - Reagan looked good on paper but then turned out the usual globalist stooge.

Trump at least is even more of an outsider than Reagan.

The Reagan administration was responsible for the destruction of the middle class which wasn't only felt because back then the world was divided between West and communism, there were no international Chinese trade deals and the public got the "gift" of credit cards which kept the economy pumping. But the stage was set for the destruction of the middle class in the 1980s.

We shall see whether Donald Trump can do it better. I see some encouraging signs like the coal industry promotion and at least some jobs going back to the US.

Reagan's assassination attempt might have dampened his conservative tendencies and altered his legacy. Some say it was done by the same crowd that killed JFK, in order to have their man Bush run the show. I haven't done enough research on this but it's worth looking into, it definitely has a lot of similarities with the Lennon assassination.

Charlotte Iserbyt will confirm that cultural marxism was in full swing during the Reagan years in the education sector, despite her best efforts to stop it as an insider. Phyllis Schlafly was another upstanding heroine who was essentially sidestepped and fairly mistreated by the Reagan administration.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

< Yeah - some folk who had been awake in the early 1980s said that Reagan policies changed after his assassination attempt.

Either way - OP was likely banned because he came in firing with his dick out in the open. He should have proposed a more rational debate especially since we are early in the presidential game and many folk hope and believe that Trump is the savior of the world.

Now I very much hope this to be true myself, but strongly doubt it. He is however likely a setback to the establishment candidates - whether a Bush/Rubio or Hillary globalist puppet served would not have made any difference. But whether Trump is their 5D bet all-along - we have too little info on it so far. Many of his executive orders are anti-globalist and quite good.

However when we are in a war with Iran in 5-6 years and a Carbon tax has been put into place in the US, well then we can assume that OP was right all along, but meanwhile some moderation is merited before you go full Alex-Jones on Donald Trump.

[pants]

(03-10-2017 01:20 PM)911 Wrote:  

I agree with the general tenor of critical debate on Trump, provided it's not trolling.

Pants, are you anti-Trump because you believe in human-caused global warming?

he is good and bad, but its especially environmental issues, and his own ego that are areas i have issues with. Like all the shits going down around the globe, and he is obsessed about arnold schwartznegger not getting good ratings on a reality show.

[Duke Castile]

(03-10-2017 03:42 PM)pants Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 01:20 PM)911 Wrote:  

I agree with the general tenor of critical debate on Trump, provided it's not trolling.

Pants, are you anti-Trump because you believe in human-caused global warming?

he is good and bad, but its especially environmental issues, and his own ego that are areas i have issues with. Like all the shits going down around the globe, and he is obsessed about arnold schwartznegger not getting good ratings on a reality show.

And there you have it folks. The biggest criticisms these people can come up with are nothing but petty grievances where they mostly project their own bias.

Environmental issues: Newsflash buddy, we are ants on this planet and taking manufacturing from China and back here will do more for the environment than any regulation by Zero EVER could.

Shits going down around the globe: Pres Trump is for America first, and it's not our responsibility to interfere in other country's affairs. He's busy cleaning up Zero's mess in the middle east.

His Ego: This comment is beyond stupid. His ego is tied to his declarations. His Ego is what is going to make him work tirelessly to accomplish what he set out to do. His Ego is the only thing standing between the Deep state keeping control and fucking us up BIG TIME along with all the cucks out there trying to make us all bend over. God bless his EGO

Arnold: Pres Trump built a legendary show, it was the first of it's kind and the only one that was a hit. He nurtured it and was the driving force behind it. It makes sense that he has a personal interest/connection with it and seeing Arnie (who is a cuck) fuck it up is probably hard to watch. Also, if you had boundless energy and slept 4-5 hours a night you'd have plenty of time to take a break from winning to criticize losers that fuck up your work.

[Diogenes]

Even if you believe in anthropogenic climate change, is going back to the stone age the best way of dealing with it?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

< Exactly - what is so destructive about Trump's environmental issues? Pipe lines being bad? Please - air has been improving in recent decades and manufacturing done in zero-regulations China is not superior to the world. Global Warming is a scam anyway, so who cares if he is not all for it like Comrade Obama.

We don't know what President Trump will do in the future, but so far it is looking good. Environment - yeah Hunger Games state is indeed so much better.

[pants]

(03-10-2017 04:06 PM)Diogenes Wrote:  

Even if you believe in anthropogenic climate change, is going back to the stone age the best way of dealing with it?

Cause that´s the only alternative?
Even if that was the only alternative, i go with less material wealth, clean food and water.

We are extracting hydrocarbons from the ground.
We burn it and produce CO2.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

At what point does the theory fail in you guys opinion?

The fact that you act all triggered when someone hold belief besides your own tells you this is a discussion you really should have.

btw: I'm a Norwegian working in oil and gas making six figures, so dont tell me i have a dog in this.

[911]

(03-10-2017 04:37 PM)pants Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 04:06 PM)Diogenes Wrote:  

Even if you believe in anthropogenic climate change, is going back to the stone age the best way of dealing with it?

Cause that´s the only alternative?
Even if that was the only alternative, i go with less material wealth, clean food and water.

We are extracting hydrocarbons from the ground.
We burn it and produce CO2.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

At what point does the theory fail in you guys opinion?

The fact that you act all triggered when someone hold belief besides your own tells you this is a discussion you really should have.

btw: I'm a Norwegian working in oil and gas making six figures, so dont tell me i have a dog in this.

It's all good Pants. Here's the short answer on the question:

-human made CO2 is only 4% of total CO2, and it's been growing
steadily well before human CO2 became important. At this point
the greenhouse effect from any extra CO2 is very marginal, because
that effect is limited to a very narrow wave spectrum band. Here is
the relationship between additional CO2 and warming effect:



So in the worst case scenario, if CO2 levels went from the current levels
(just under 400ppm) to 500ppm at the end of the century, the greenhouse effect
would be pretty small, of the order of 0.25C-0.5C tops.

Also, CO2 is a plant fertilizer that makes the photosynthesis process more efficient,
and makes it run on less water. The increase in CO2 levels from 300ppm to
nearly 400ppm, that alone, has meant that we are cereal production has
improved by about 17%.



In other words, about a billion people are getting fed just through the beneficial
fertilizing effects of CO2. And this greening effect is stongest in drier areas like
the African Sahel or northwestern India.

So because of your good work, we're actually making the planet greener, and
attending to the problem of world hunger.

I know this sounds weird, it's so much counter everything you've heard and read,
but it's the truth. I have a STEM background and have invested a lot of hours
doing research, because I've worked in the green sector.

And the notion that there is scientific consensus on the notion of human-made
catastrophic global warming is false:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/25/r...te-change/

I'd recommend looking at Wattsupwiththat, the most widely consulted site
on the subject because everything you know about this subject is false.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/

[Samseau]

Notice how pants doesn't answer the objection of why Trump is bad on the environment when most of the world's current leaders are fine with producing stuff in dirty ass China.

Intellectually bankrupt people will always avoid objections that shut them down completely.