[MMX2010]

pants Wrote:

Does this answer your question?

No, it doesn't.

Turning my question into an analogy, rather than just answering the question as phrased, shows you can't keep your thoughts organized.

[pants]

(04-21-2017 12:46 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

pants Wrote:

Does this answer your question?

No, it doesn't.

Turning my question into an analogy, rather than just answering the question as phrased, shows you can't keep your thoughts organized.

Does it help if i say the house in my analogy had an open-plan flooring. no doors or walls, as the atmosphere. The kitchen represented america, and the entire house represented the planet.

If that does not help.
Quote me on exactly what i said that needs clarification then. Maybe its simply a typo, i am wrong, or i can explain it.

[Duke Castile]

(04-21-2017 08:41 AM)Sherman Wrote:  

Julian Assange's arrest a 'priority': Jeff Sessions

Another big blow. And we all thought Sessions would actually be interested in going after lawless antifas who break windows. The joke is on us. His greater concern is protecting the security state and going after a hero who dares bring information to the people on how their freedoms and rights are being destroyed by the deep state.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/ju...13061.html

Que the histerics and the setting of hair on fire.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

As I said before in the Trump thread.

The president cannot simply oppose the entire CIA going gunslinger in front of the TV cameras - imagine a president doing this:

Trump before the press:

"Today I have realized that my entire CIA apparatus is either a bunch of liars, hucksters and workers for more powerful people. Thus I have decided to stop believing in anything they say. That said - Assange is now to be left alone and the Syrian gas attack was done likely by some Jihadi group or ISIS. I am basing all my intelligence decisions on my gut feelings and bits and scraps I read on the internet. I will also stop taking questions from you, because you are fake-news."

Marches off to oval office.
-----------------------

You see the problem here? Even if he thinks that Assad did not Sarin-bomb his people and Assange is not much of a threat to the US, he cannot simply waltz out there and oppose the fucking CIA.

People should really come to terms with the fact that if treason is deep enough, then a president cannot do too much. That is what General Eisenhower warned about in his final speech.

[Sherman]

(04-22-2017 01:30 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

As I said before in the Trump thread.

The president cannot simply oppose the entire CIA going gunslinger in front of the TV cameras - imagine a president doing this:

Trump before the press:

"Today I have realized that my entire CIA apparatus is either a bunch of liars, hucksters and workers for more powerful people. Thus I have decided to stop believing in anything they say. That said - Assange is now to be left alone and the Syrian gas attack was done likely by some Jihadi group or ISIS. I am basing all my intelligence decisions on my gut feelings and bits and scraps I read on the internet. I will also stop taking questions from you, because you are fake-news."

Marches off to oval office.
-----------------------

You see the problem here? Even if he thinks that Assad did not Sarin-bomb his people and Assange is not much of a threat to the US, he cannot simply waltz out there and oppose the fucking CIA.

People should really come to terms with the fact that if treason is deep enough, then a president cannot do too much. That is what General Eisenhower warned about in his final speech.

Obama didn't go after Assange and got away with it. Sessions seems to be taking the initiative and doesn't need to be pushed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...96326.html

[MMX2010]

(04-21-2017 12:53 PM)pants Wrote:  

If that does not help.
Quote me on exactly what i said that needs clarification then. Maybe its simply a typo, i am wrong, or i can explain it.

I already did that in my very first post to you.

It didn't work.

Sherman Wrote:

I actually think this thread has more potential for nuanced and skeptical thinking without the annoying chearleading.

Claiming the thread lacks nuanced thinking implies that everyone who likes Trump on this message board has eerily similar biases and cultural experiences that create the same blind spots. It also implies that you and everyone who dislikes Trump possess specific forms of training and/or cultural experiences that make you immune to such biases.

I doubt either of these are true.

Worse for you, I've a pretty good background dealing with Trump's critics, and you don't sound noticeably different from them. If you're not different from them, then you're not providing any nuance in your Trump criticisms.

[pants]

I rephrased it now

(04-19-2017 03:18 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

All I did was point out that eliminating the Paris Climate Accord would place the American environment in 2015-conditions, which (in his neighborhood, and in most American neighborhoods) weren't horrible environmental conditions at all.

When you stop burning fossile fuels the climate will not go back to the condition as it were before we started to burn fossile fuels.

Does this make sense?

EDIT: rephrased

[MMX2010]

(04-22-2017 02:56 AM)pants Wrote:  

I rephrased it now

(04-19-2017 03:18 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

All I did was point out that eliminating the Paris Climate Accord would place the American environment in 2015-conditions, which (in his neighborhood, and in most American neighborhoods) weren't horrible environmental conditions at all.

When you stop burning fossile fuels the climate will not go back to the condition as it were before we started to burn fossile fuels.

Does this make sense?

No, because my question never contained the clause "climate will go back to the condition it was in before we started burning fossil fuels" - which is a highly stringent standard for climate improvement that's currently impossible with today's technology. That clause is also irrelevant to both what you said and to what I asked.

You also didn't highlight the question I asked you, but rather a paragraph (containing zero questions) that was addressed to the entire board, not to you.

[pants]

(04-22-2017 03:40 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(04-22-2017 02:56 AM)pants Wrote:  

I rephrased it now

(04-19-2017 03:18 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

All I did was point out that eliminating the Paris Climate Accord would place the American environment in 2015-conditions , which (..) weren't horrible environmental conditions at all.

When you stop burning fossile fuels the climate will not go back to the condition as it were before we started to burn fossile fuels.

Does this make sense?

No, because my question never contained the clause "climate will go back to the condition it was in before we started burning fossil fuels" (..)

You also didn't highlight the question I asked you, but rather a paragraph (containing zero questions) that was addressed to the entire board, not to you.

So in your original post you used the phrase "environmental conditions", related to the topic of the Paris Climate Accord. If you are not talking about climate change, then what are you referring to with "environmental conditions"?

I answered the question "do you mean that america, or the planet" 3 times already. Was that the question meant for the entire board? Which question is for me?

[Leonard D Neubache]

Roosh was wise to leave this thread open.

It's the most suitable place for post-election members to air their grievances.

[AManLikePutin]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...rest-easy/

Quote:

Illegal aliens who crossed the border as children don’t have to worry about being sent home, President Donald Trump told the Associated Press in a Friday interview.
Illegals enrolled in the President Barack Obama’s “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” DACA program can “rest easy,” Trump said, because “this is a case of heart.”

Federal enforcement agencies are “not [going] after the ‘dreamers,’ we are after the criminals,” he said, using the Democrats’ ‘dreamer’ euphemism for young illegal immigrants. “That is our policy,” he added.

The Friday comments confirm Trump’s reversal of his 2016 campaign promise to stop the DACA quasi-amnesty created by Obama during his 2012 reelection campaign. He created the program in 2012 by telling his immigration enforcement officers to provide young illegals with free work permits instead of repatriation orders. The program has allowed at least 770,000 illegal immigrants to find jobs in major U.S. cities, even though tens of millions of Americans outside the cities are unemployed or have given up trying to find work.

Since his inauguration, Trump’s deputies at the Department of Homeland Security have awarded new work permits to illegals who claim they arrived before age 16, despite Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” slogan.

Trump’s support for the DACA program is one of his biggest “flip-flops,” said Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies. “During the campaign, now-President Trump had said he was going to end that on day one because it’s an unconstitutional action by the president,” Krikorian told Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Friday. Krikorian continued:

And of course he’s right, it’s illegal. And they’ve done nothing to it. They’ve done absolutely nothing.”

Trump’s post-inauguration turnabout on DACA means that pro-American reformers who want to reduce the impact of illegal-alien workers in the job market will need to bring a lawsuit arguing that the federal government illegally awarded work permits to illegal immigrants, say advocates.

Trump’s refusal to reverse or even stop the DACA program is also a bad sign for future immigration reforms, says Krikorian. That’s because he could stop the program and then use the resulting public outcry to pressure Democrats to establish pro-Americans immigration policies. Those policies could include a mandatory requirement that employers check that job applicants are legal residents in the United States.

In August 2016, Obama’s chief economist said the federal is imposing the economic pain of five simultaneous recessions on less-educated Americans, thereby pushing millions of working-age men off jobs, out of the workforce, and into poverty.

Roughly 10 percent of American “prime age” men, or 7 million men aged 25 to 54, have dropped out of the nation’s workforce of 150 million. They are not trying to get jobs, and are not participating in the nation’s labor force.

“This [dropout] is caused by policies and institutions, not by technology,” admitted Jason Furman, an economist who chaired the president’s Council of Economic Advisors. “We shouldn’t accept it as inevitable,” he told a Brookings Institute expert, Dave Wessel on August 10. The primary reason for reduced employment is that “the amount [of money] that employers would want to hire them for some reason has gone down,” he said.

In February, Trump told that the AP that “DACA is a very, very difficult subject for me … It’s one of the most difficult subjects I have because you have these incredible kids.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/penc...mp-n749626

[url=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827002559122567168][/url]

Quote:

Vice President Mike Pence said on Saturday the United States would honor a controversial refugee deal with Australia which means 1,250 asylum seekers will be rehomed in America — a deal President Donald Trump had described as "dumb".

Pence told a joint news conference with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in Sydney that the deal would be subject to vetting, and that honoring it "doesn't mean that we admire the agreement".

"We will honor this agreement out of respect to this enormously important alliance," Pence said at Turnbull's harbor side official residence in Sydney.

Under the deal, agreed with former President Barack Obama late last year, the U.S. would resettle up to 1,250 asylum seekers held in offshore processing camps on South Pacific islands in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

In return, Australia would resettle refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

The White House has already said it would apply "extreme vetting" to those asylum seekers, most of whom are on island camps on the Pacific nations of Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Australia has refused to accept them and instead pays for them to be housed on the impoverished islands.

The deal has taken on added importance for Australia, which is under political and legal pressure to shut the camps, particularly one on Papua New Guinea's Manus Island where violence between residents and inmates has flared.

[Samseau]

That is a huge flip flop on DACA. It's one thing not to get rid of the kids Obama approved, but to continue the policy under his own administration? Does Trump not understand demographics? No one should be able to get into the USA and give their kids citizenship just from birth.

[RaccoonFace]

(04-22-2017 12:53 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Does Trump not understand demographics?

[url=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/314093741562535936][/url]

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(04-22-2017 12:53 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

That is a huge flip flop on DACA. It's one thing not to get rid of the kids Obama approved, but to continue the policy under his own administration? Does Trump not understand demographics? No one should be able to get into the USA and give their kids citizenship just from birth.

This he could have easily opposed contrary to CIA info that we would have to flat-out disbelieve.

[Gmac]

Sounds like a compromise to me.

[Samseau]

(04-22-2017 01:40 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

Sounds like a compromise to me.

And what is the compromise? Democrats still refusing to comply with anything. Looks like a one-sided deal right now.

[Gmac]

(04-22-2017 01:44 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-22-2017 01:40 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

Sounds like a compromise to me.

And what is the compromise? Democrats still refusing to comply with anything. Looks like a one-sided deal right now.

That's why I continue to take Fisto's advice whenever I feel a knee-jerk reaction coming on. I sense a good deal behind the scenes that will likely reveal itself in the near future.

[Yeti]

(04-22-2017 12:53 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

That is a huge flip flop on DACA. It's one thing not to get rid of the kids Obama approved, but to continue the policy under his own administration? Does Trump not understand demographics? No one should be able to get into the USA and give their kids citizenship just from birth.

Trump could be using DACA as leverage. He also appears to have some sympathy for DACA - people who were brought here as children when they didn't really know what was going on. In exchange for not cutting DACA right away, he has a bargaining tool to keep the Democrats at bay - if you oppose me (Trump) on certain parts of immigration enforcement, for example, I'll cut DACA.

Trump doesn't seem to care much about a general amnesty/legalization. He seems to be more concerned about preventing future undocumented immigration. He's right that it's fucked up for people to be coming in without papers. A nation needs laws that are respected.

The direction that this all seems to be heading in at the moment is:
- hard to change immigration laws generally, as you need Congressional approval and you need to get it through a Democratic fliibuster
- so he can focus on things that are easier to control, like funding for immigration enforcement, and perhaps more importantly, tweaking the existing immigration regulations to make immigrating to or staying in the U.S. a really difficult process. Combine this with improving conditions in many of the countries from which people come - Mexico, India, China - and people eventually just say, fuck, I'm going home/not going to the U.S. at all
- some kind of legalization for DACA recipients, or at least a continuation of DACA. Their parents, on the other hand, likely will have a really rough time of it and may continue to live for quite some time in the shadows, without status
- all the while, the borders become more secure and people stop trying to/can no longer sneak in en masse.

In brief, it's possible that in 10 years there will still be a large population without status (who don't want to go home), whose kids have legalized, with still roughly the same immigration laws on the books - that is, a largely family-based immigration legal system in which people with third grade educations can move legally to the U.S. if their family sponsors them.

Maybe this system would have worked in 1900 when people worked in factories. Meanwhile, Canada and Australia use points systems that encourage highly educated people with good skills that augment job creation.

[CaptainChardonnay]

Delete

[CaptainChardonnay]

(04-22-2017 01:51 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

(04-22-2017 01:44 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-22-2017 01:40 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

Sounds like a compromise to me.

And what is the compromise? Democrats still refusing to comply with anything. Looks like a one-sided deal right now.

That's why I continue to take Fisto's advice whenever I feel a knee-jerk reaction coming on. I sense a good deal behind the scenes that will likely reveal itself in the near future.

Could be that now they own him one.

[Fast Eddie]

I'd like to believe Trump's unforgivable cucking on DACA is some kind of negotiation tool, but I highly doubt it.

If Trump meant to use DACA as a negotiating tool, he wouldn't have come out and said he's keeping it before the negotiations even start. Maybe I'm an idiot who hasn't graduated beyond mere checkers, but I think typically if you're planning to use something as leverage you don't preemptively take it off the table. If Trump was ever planning on using DACA during negotiations against the Democrats, why would he make it that much harder for himself by promising to keep it even before the negotiations start? Now if tries to use DACA during negotiations he will face criticism not just for being cruel to "those great kids" but for going back on his word, as well.

I'm not seeing any chess here, just cucking.

[SamuelBRoberts]

You can be mad, but I don't see how this is a flip-flop. This has been his position for a long, long time. I told you this would happen back in January, three months ago.

Donald Trump is not, and has never been, a white nationalist type of guy. He's never talked about immigration in terms of demographics. He's been against it becuase it makes it harder for Americans to find jobs, and because illegals commit crimes at a horrifying rate and suck up social service money, not out of any concern for the United States' racial balance. That's just not who he is. He's always considered himself a guy "With a big heart", and kicking out children would go very strongly against his values. He said as much during the election, though he a little more ambiguous about it. That's why he was elected, because the attacks of "racist!" felt hollow against someone who's so obviously a caring man.

If he was the type of guy you all seem to think he was, he very likely wouldn't have won the election. I say this as someone who would want every single DACA kid's assets confiscated down to the last dime, before brutally beating them and their entire family and flinging them over the border. The US isn't as far to the right as we are. It's getting there, but that's going to take time.

Good things are happening on illegal immigration. They're being deported en-masse, and their cries of "But I'm a good citizen!" are going completely unheard as ICE hands them one-way tickets to Mexico. Here's a story just from today that I picked off the front page from google news.

Quote:

Mario Hernandez-Delacruz is a man of many identities. Hernandez-Delacruz is a father of three, and a homeowner in southwest Detroit. He is a small-business owner, running his own flooring and carpeting business, and a regular taxpayer, giving the government his due. He has followed rules and regulations — keeping his car registered and insured. He is a churchgoing man, and has worked to better his community by volunteering his services at the Spanish United Pentecostal Church. And, he is also an undocumented immigrant.

It was that last part of his identity that on April 14 cost him a one-way plane ticket to Mexico. It didn’t matter that Trump had promised to keep immigrant families together; what mattered was that Hernandez-Delacruz was undocumented. Despite the fact that he had been living in Detroit for 19 years, contributing to his community and supporting his family, new Trump administration policies resulted in his deportation.

Doesn't that just bring a bright smile to your face?

We're getting more than I ever hoped. The idea that illegal immigrants are threat to American jobs is now firmly ensconced in the national culture. I haven't heard that "but they add to the economy!" nonsense in forever. The wall is being built. The Justice Department is adding huge numbers of judges to work through the immigration caselog. Illegals are self-deporting in huge numbers, and no longer bothering to come at all. We've been so successful that the New York Times was telling us Trump didn't need his wall, because he's already able to "declare victory". (Trump, of course, is ignoring this.)

I don't think it's a good idea to take 95% of a loaf, and then scream and call the President a cuck because he's not giving you the last 5%.

[Fast Eddie]

Sam, it doesn't matter what you told us 3 months ago. What matters is what Trump told us prior to Nov 8, 2016. He told us he was going to scrap DACA day 1. How in the fuck is this not a flip flop?

Trump before election: I will scrap DACA day 1.

Trump after election: I will not scrap DACA, in fact I will continue issuing new DACA permits.

The only way that this is not a flip flop is in the sense that flip flop is too mild a term. I'd go with betrayal on this one.

He won the election promising to scrap DACA. It's nonsensical to say that DACA is related to white supremacy and if he had a white supremacy platform he wouldn't have won, because he did promise get rid of DACA and he did win!

And that's fine. I'll continue to wait and see how Trump does on other stuff. But forgive me if I give the man zero benefit of the doubt going forward. If he can betray us so quickly and ostentatiously on an issue like DACA, there is absolutely no reason to look at his other suspect moves and approach them with the initial mindset that it's 4-d chess. If something looks like a betrayal I will consider it as such and not as 4-d chess until proven otherwise.

[Yeti]

(04-22-2017 05:15 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Good things are happening on illegal immigration. They're being deported en-masse, and their cries of "But I'm a good citizen!" are going completely unheard as ICE hands them one-way tickets to Mexico.

From what I've read, the overall numbers haven't changed. ICE hasn't had an increase in funding since January. They apparently don't have the resources to deport more people. Trump wants to change this by increasing funding for ICE so that they have more resources to put people in deportation proceedings, or issue expedited removal orders and get people out without a hearing.

They do, however, seem to be going after different kinds of immigrants, to an extent. They seem to be focusing more on people with prior removal orders who have been in the shadows for a while. ICE is also hanging out at courts more and more and catching people that way, whereas under Obama and Bush (W) that was a no-no.

(04-22-2017 05:15 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

We're getting more than I ever hoped. The idea that illegal immigrants are threat to American jobs is now firmly ensconced in the national culture. I haven't heard that "but they add to the economy!" nonsense in forever. The wall is being built. The Justice Department is adding huge numbers of judges to work through the immigration caselog. Illegals are self-deporting in huge numbers, and no longer bothering to come at all.

They've brought on more immigration judges, maybe even a large percentage increase of the current number (about 300) but it's not going to make a big dent. The case backlog is huge. An increase of even 100 judges, from 300, is not enough to do a lot. I don't know how the situation is going to resolve itself. It seems like the only way to get rid of the backlog of active deportation cases is to just legalize everyone, or offer them cash to self-deport.

I agree with you that people are no longer bothering to come at all. Trump has a lot to do with that, but it's probably due to other factors as well, like improving conditions in Mexico and other countries.

There are so many different things at play - a huge immigration court docket, funding issues for ICE and Customs and Border Protection, a weak Congress on both sides, farmers complaining that they can't find workers, DACA, the failed (so far) Muslim ban, and Trump himself, who seems to be figuring things out but not quite there yet. The two elephants in the room, to me, seem to be 1) Trump needs to go through Congress to get funding and also to make meaningful changes to immigration laws, including a wholesale reform of the current system, which as I mentioned, still allows masses of low-skilled and poorly-educated people to come in, when we need highly-skilled and highly-educated immigrants instead. Whether Trump can do anything about this depends, I think, on his skills in working with Congress and some other things. 2) The 11,000,000 or so people already here who have no status, and the huge backlog of immigration court cases. To deport them, most would be legally required to be in deportation proceedings first. With not many more than 300 judges, I don't see how this will happen.

[SamuelBRoberts]

Obviously it would be better if congress tripled funding for ICE and brought on a thousand new judges, but that's unfortunately out of Trump's control.
He's doing an amazing job with the resources he has available.

Look at how he's targeting people who were previously considered "safe", as in the guy in the linked article above. He's very clearly going after people whose deportations will make others think "I'm not safe here. I'd better leave now, before I'm forced away from my family."

Trump's election made someone very sympathetic to our beliefs into the most powerful man in the world. This does not mean that he's someone who agrees with us 100%, or that he can do everything he wants to. I think it's important to keep that in mind.