Donald Trump

Discussion in 'Speakers Corner' started by Richard 1200, Apr 7, 2017.

  1. Thought exercise. If half of your politicians are determined to give up the sovereignty of your country to a foreign power, where would you like to compromise?

    Ha, I tricked you. This isn't a thought exercise - this is Brexit.

    Trump opposes the globalist agenda that is attempting to supplant the traditional nations of the West. It isn't hard to see that this is true, it's undeniably happening and Trump is undeniably attempting to block it.

    The only question is - do you support globalism or do you support nationalism? I won't attack your arguments if you prefer one over the other but I will sure as shit-bird fill your position full of holes if you try to "re-frame" what is actually occurring : o D
  2. ha, you tricked nobody from where i'm sitting with yer 10% of soverinty at brussels where we can debate it further, where only 2/3% of the votes go against the uk.
    300 years bud, 300 fugging years of too wee too poor too dumb.. :D
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. Yep, the amount when looked at within the U.S. annual budget is very small, certainly not worth the fuss created and yes, if you look at the main blockers at the moment and since Trump has been elected, almost all of those now trying to block it, have called for a wall of some kind in the past.

    As with most of these things when the bs is paired back it comes down to what it has always been...but,but,but, it's Trump
  4. Actually from Exi's description, fin being 300 years old would explain a lot :D
  5. Which is really why Macron etc hate trump. The Dems simply hate him because he’s not a Dem
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. i'm not upset I just enjoy the irony, i'm not sure i'm that uninformed either: conquering still requires migration. Conquering just requires bigger guns and better organisation over the those whose lands you wish to inhabit; the Mexicans just can't get their shit together ;). I'm fairly sure the Native Americans would have thought it was illegal which is why they took so many scalps, but they were also shot, stabbed, strangled and ok maybe not run over but certainly dragged behind the horses of 'illegal aliens'. I started late in human history as we were talking about the US, quite happy to concede that they are not the 1st to think of it; just that they have a rich history in it. in the UK immigration until the last 60-70 years have all been white Europeans so it has been quite easy to assimilate and blend in within a few generations (apart from the gingers - bloody vikings!)

    I haven't questioned the hypocrisy of the dems and reps, 100% agree - they both want a wall/ fence and are playing party politics. The hardship I was referring too was indeed the 800,000 that will have their pay checks (yanks can't spell that correctly either) stopped which is a deliberate act to apply pressure and in the hope that people blame the republicans - it's all handbags at 10 paces really but it is Trump who has closed government, and also agree the Dems could concede and agree the budget: very difficult for them to do so now without losing face. If i was them i'd do it on the premise that Trump is 'starving' 800,000 government employees and it was the only way to stop him harming them. Anyone impacted won't automatically get reimbursed backpay: reimbursement needs to be approved (hopefully it will) and the individuals have to request it (hopefully not too onerous a task).

    A choice to take drugs is not hardship and without the demand it wouldn't keep coming. The reasons for people taking drugs can't be levied at Trump. US domestic policy has done little to thwart it for, well, the middle of human history as you put it.
  7. He maybe the most uncouth and least presidential president they have ever had but that is what they wanted.

    Many of the things he is tackling were supposed to have been dealt with by both the democrats and the republicans and neither did shit because for many of them, it was nice to have things to attack each other about come election time.

    As to trump closing the government, he's hardly the inventor of this tactic or the first or last to use it but it can't be easy for those involved.

    The cost of the wall in budgetary terms for the U.S. annual budget is peanuts and given both democrats (some who are now objecting) and republicans have said they now do not want the wall where they have previously said they wanted it, then the wall is not the problem, the cost is not the problem , for the democrats, they are still bitching that they lost to Trump.

    Before Trump the last two previous shutdowns carried out by a presidents, were Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama, both democrats.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. But he is the first to cause pay cheques (can't write check again) to be stopped and not really looking for any compromise position by walking out of talks.
  9. If you mean as of today, 1 day more than Clinton then yes. Walking or storming out of talks according to the democrats, them not budging so why is he wasting time talking to them is his version.

    On the plus side, not if your cheques are involved but as I understand it they are suspended and not stopped. Clinton did it twice totalling $400 million cost to the government, when Obama did it, there was a cost of $2.1 billion to the government. Now if Trump takes it another month at a cost of $5 billion to the government, the price he was asking for the wall, then you have to ask of the democrats, why block it when you then could have just allowed the wall and at least gotten something for that $5 billion but gain, democrats are not interested in Americans, their own mantra is ,but it's Trump.

    If the shutdown gets to that $5 billion mark and the people look at the democrats and ask why on earth did you do this as it clearly was not about the money or our security, then given the next elections are a short time away and the democrats have still not rebuilt, he may well get in again.
  10. I understand the outrage at a huge number of Govt employees missing a post- Christmas paycheck. It must be very hard for those affected to cope.

    The answer is to re-open the government.

    Turning now to an entirely unrelated matter, what do you think would be the best way to address the murders of US citizens by illegal aliens, and the influx of meth, heroine and fentanyl, causing many hundreds of deaths each month ... all of whom and of which come into the US across an effectively open Southern Border?

    I'm asking for a friend ... and some widows, some orphans, some suddenly childless parents and such.
  11. When does the statute of limitation apply to the USA and its conquering by Europeans? There must be one, as I don't see people creating over any other invasions that took place earlier in history - for example, uh, everywhere there are people.

    However, to the point in question. If you see conquering a nation as just another form of migration, why are you not concerned about non-legal, uncontrolled immigration? That has me puzzled for sure.

    Addressed in an earlier post of mine.
    However, for clarity, how do you rate the hardship incurred on 800,000 govt employees compared to the hardship caused by uncontrolled migration across the Southern border in terms of serious crimes committed by illegal aliens on US citizens - including the murder of a legal immigrant in the case of Cpl Ronil Singh - and the sheer quantity of lethal drugs smuggled across an open border?

    Just a comparative will do - worse, less bad or roughly equal?

    And a question for the audience - why do Representatives, Senators and other such public employees continue to be paid during the Shutdown? Anyone know?

    Umm. Are you suggesting that if all narcotics, including fentanyl, were made legal, the problem of smuggling across the Southern border could be reduced to simply a question of child traffickers, sex-traffickers, rapes of migrant women on their way to the Southern border and the murders that are committed by illegal aliens once they have illegal entered the US?

    I admire your out-of-the-box thinking but have my doubts. As a compromise, do you suggest the decriminalisation of narcotics first, then build the Wall? That could fly. (???)
  12. Since 1976 every President except Dubya has had a shutdown. Some appear to have had a shutdown almost every year.
    2018 (President Donald Trump): Dec. 22
    2018 (President Donald Trump): Jan. 20
    2018 (President Donald Trump): Feb. 9.
    2013 (President Barack Obama): Oct. 1
    1995-1996 (President Bill Clinton): December 5,
    1995 (President Bill Clinton): Nov. 13
    1990 (President George H.W. Bush): October 5
    1987 (President Ronald Reagan): December 18
    1986 (President Ronald Reagan): October 16
    1984 (President Ronald Reagan): October 3
    1984 (President Ronald Reagan): September 30
    1983 (President Ronald Reagan): November 10
    1982 (President Ronald Reagan): December 17
    1982 (President Ronald Reagan): September 30
    1981 (President Ronald Reagan): November 20
    1979 (President Jimmy Carter): September 30
    1978 (President Jimmy Carter): September 30
    1977 (President Jimmy Carter): November 30
    1977 (President Jimmy Carter): October 31
    1977 (President Jimmy Carter): September 30
    1976 (President Gerald Ford): September 30
    • Useful Useful x 1
  13. It is possible that many will look at Trump and ask "Why on earth did you do this"? It clearly is all about appealing to his base, and winning the next election after the failures in the mid terms.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. A friend of a friend, who works on the border patrol and whose father once talked to a Homeland Security agent told me

    Misconception : “Building a wall would greatly reduce heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and fentanyl trafficking.”

    "Proponents of a border wall often claim that it would help the United States solve its opioid addiction problem by blocking heroin smugglers from Mexico. This reveals a misunderstanding of how cross-border smuggling works.

    The vast majority of the drug that enters from Mexico does so through “ports of entry”—the 48 official land crossings through which millions of people, vehicles, and cargo pass every day. “Heroin seizures almost predominantly are through the port of entry and either carried in a concealed part of a vehicle or carried by an individual,” then-U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske told a congressional committee last year. “We don’t get much heroin seized by Border Patrol coming through, I think just because there are a lot of risks to the smugglers and the difficulty of trying to smuggle it through,” he said.

    “The most common method employed by Mexican TCOs [Transnational Criminal Organizations] involves transporting drugs in vehicles through U.S. ports of entry (POEs),” the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) reported in its 2016 National Drug Threat Assessment. “Illicit drugs are smuggled into the United States in concealed compartments within passenger vehicles or commingled with legitimate goods on tractor trailers,” according to the document.

    Heroin is small in volume. “It’s a relatively small amount—40-50 tons, we think—of heroin that feeds the heroin epidemic in the United States,” Gen. John Kelly, then the commander of U.S. Southern Command, told a Senate committee in 2015. The amount has probably increased somewhat today, but still takes up little space: all the heroin consumed in the United States in an entire year could probably fit into two 40-foot shipping containers".

    You are right about reopening the government and pay the ordinary American people who keep the country running. These fatuous political clowns appear to have totally lost the plot.
    #155 Jez900ie, Jan 13, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  15. So, I have this straight?

    There's nothing that can be done to block the flow of drugs into the US so there is no point making it more difficult to transport it across the Southern Border. Turning the movement of drugs across an open border into a non-trivially difficult operation across a secure border will have no effect.

    The Dems (and RINOs) are so opposed to a Wall - one that is supported by Trump as distinct from a Wall that the Dems themselves were insistent upon - that there is no point bringing hardship to 800,000 public employees to force the issue, which would in any event be Trump's fault, entirely. Because, you know - Trump.

    Illegal aliens making their way across the Southern Border and who subsequently murder citizens of the US don't even rate a mention when discussing the Wall.

    You spoke to someone who spoke to someone (who undoubtedly spoke to dookie at some point) and you have the skinny on the whole situation.

    Have I missed anything?

    May I suggest:

    1. Legalise drugs. The amount of fentanyl alone that crossed the Southern Border is enough to kill every man, woman and child in the continental USA, which would solve many, many issues.

    2. Trump should resign, an election should be called, only Dems and RINOs allowed to run, and the Wall can then be built to protect the (largely empty, see No1) USA. Because, you know - not Trump.

    3. Illegal aliens will no longer be illegal cos - who would object? (See No 1)

    4. Your friend's, friend's, dad's friend's uncle should be placed in charge.

    I apologise if I don't seem to be taking the matter seriously but ... you started that : o )
  16. No you have some of it wrong. Building a $25Billion wall is not the solution to the drug problem confirmed by the people who manage the southern border.

    Then to be fair, you wandered of topic somewhat.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. i guess it depends how long they go unpaid for and if any deaths are caused, at the moment i would say the 800,00 is not as bad

    :) those are a lot of words you are attempting to insert into my mouth. i'm not suggesting other conquerings are any more morally just, just highlighting the fact that actually migration has always existed some of it organised some of it not, conquering has and will kill far more innocents than casual migration. I have concerns about people who don't contribute or act in a way that supports the community they migrate to (this can be with or without personal gain) - there will be a lot of mexicans that have migrated to the US that contribute in a positive way. There are more serious crimes than that you cite, he was indeed a migrant himself, perpetrated by American Citizens.

    Mexico has some serious organised crime issues domestically, with whole villages being wiped out when the cartels move in and i can understand why the 'Mericans' don't want that crossing the border. But a wall is not going to stop drug smuggling or anyone serious about getting across the border. The harder you make it for the good but desperate migrants the more likely you are to encourage and place power in the hands of the criminals and increase exploitation?

    i support controlled migration, i don't think the US or the proposed UK ones are fit for purpose.

    Would i legalise narcotics, hmm, proponents would cite benefits including ensuring purity to the consumer, making it safer, potentially reducing cost, raising taxes, reducing crime. Clearly there needs to be some control in place but it could work - this is different to whether i agree to their usage.
    • Useful Useful x 1
  18. aye, build a wall, that will stop the multi billion pound industry crossing from Mexico. its only businesses in the uk that can adapt when we put barriers in the way of trade..
    • Funny Funny x 2
  19. LOL. Brilliant.

    So you are with the Dems, wanting to spend $25B on a Wall, as opposed to the $5.7B Wall Trump is asking for. So you you are against a cheap wall. I wish you'd said.

    The Wall will be an impediment to the movement of drugs across an open border. It will also be an impediment to the free movement of illegal immigrants across an open border.

    Are you saying that because the Wall is not a complete solution to the problems outlined, it isn't worth building? Because, that's not what most Border Agents are currently saying (as opposed to what a friend of a friend of somebody whose dad once spoke to DHS may have once told you).


    Let's attempt to introduce a bit of logic into this "discussion".
    Does your front door lock? If so, why? Do you lock you car when not in use? Why? Do you keep the key to your Ducati in the ignition overnight? Why not?