The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

It's not just his popularity, nor his policy. Romney also advocated border security and non-amnesty. Yet that didn't produce this result. What is emboldening him is the rhetoric. The moment he said that most Mexicans, oh sorry, most "illegal aliens", are rapists that spoke to the racist ideology of those like David Duke. As well as a multitude of like comments. Banning Muslims? Great! How about banning Jews too? That's the thought process. Once again, Romney warned about this calling it "Trickle Down Racism". Had Ted Cruz stolen Trump's limelight you wouldn't be seeing this, at least not to this level.

As I recall, Romney's flavor of immigration reform included amnesty of some sort.

We did amnesty in 1986. But we never got border security. How many millions have come into the country since then?
Doing the same thing over again is not "immigration reform".

[aretood2]

As I recall, Romney's flavor of immigration reform included amnesty of some sort.

We did amnesty in 1986. But we never got border security. How many millions have come into the country since then?
Doing the same thing over again is not "immigration reform".

It appears as though the flaw was not implementing border security, not amnesty. Before 1986 there were already a large number of immigrants entering illegally. The likelihood that there'd be less had nothing been done is well...extremely low.

[Annoyed]

Amnesty by itself is wrong. What message does that send to those who have played by the rules, applied for entry / citizenship, and done things the proper way?
"Sorry, sucker!" seems to be loud and clear.

Proper immigration reform is as follows:
1: Effective border security whether it's by wall or machine gun towers, I don't care. But they must be closed so that all entry is through official entry points.
2: Deportation of all persons in this country illegally, whether it's by sneaking in or overstaying your visa/whatever.

[SGalisa]

You will ignore the fact that the media gave Trump close to 2 billion in free air time

Unlike Hillary Clinton with her fancy commercials of political propoganda, Trump doesn't need TV and radio commercials for his advertising. He does it on Twitter and other outlets. Those cut down on Taxpayers and others supporting financial (campaign) costs.

Donald Trump's biggest problems --sometimes-- is stumbling during his speeches or twitter/other outlet methods (especially if blurting out) with
*both feet in mouth* before thinking problem scenario completely thru...

Trump slandered the family of a fallen army Captain.

Yep, classic case in point example, tho you didn't mention or left out that the family was Muslim, plus that the parents were being praised at the DNC (Democrat platform, not Republican-- would Trump have said anything differently if those same Muslim parents of the fallen soldier were presented at the Republican platform..?). ..Trump was basing his comments on what he saw between the father and mother at the DNC, and combined that imagery with what he's heard -- which can often be a dangerous combination leading to having both feet shoved into mouth scenario..! Trump was nit-picking about the DNC because that's what he was doing all week, but tossed in the controversial (negative) Muslim ID.. a no-no to do, even if on a diplomatic Republican platform.

Biggest danger with some of Trump's comments is if/when he might ever do that with the wrong leader of another country or opposing organization (as noted above with the Muslim family/soldier details). Hillary is a bit more verbally sophisticated, thus capable of being deceptive in order to capture her audience's attention or inattention..

[Womble]

Trump slandered the family of a fallen army Captain.

And loved his comment about his wife's naked image of the cover of some paper - the New York Post (I looked it up). His comment though:

In Europe, pictures like this are very fashionable and common.

*snort* Dumba$$!

Attacking Trump's wife is a very low move. Especially for sexy photos from back when she was a model.

He is also not terribly wrong about "in Europe". Granted, former models rarely become First Ladies, but Carla Bruni used to be a model and there are definitely naked photos from her old shoots out there, just run a Google Image search. She posed for Playboy at some point. Somehow it does not bother anybody.

[SGalisa]

Well, Sanders' supporters and other Dems ought to take a real shine to this.

Wall Street for Hillary?:Clinton has $48.5M in hedge fund backing, compared to Trump's $19K

Hedge fund owners and employees have so far this election cycle contributed nearly $48.5 million for Hillary Clinton, compared to about $19,000 for Donald Trump, an indication that Wall Street is clearly backing the Democratic presidential nominee.

Well, those Hedge fund folks better be careful on what they say or support.. According to Cal Thomas, that support just might backfire somehow.
(bold font & colors mine..)

"Hillary's Recycled Speech"
by Cal Thomas, Posted: Jul 30, 2016 12:01 AM
(Copyright © Townhall.com. All Rights Reserved.)

Environmentalists should be pleased with Hillary Clinton's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention Thursday night, because it was largely recycled talking points we have heard for decades.

Putting aside the theatrics designed to make Hillary Clinton appear to be something she is not -- the white pantsuit was a nice touch, as white is traditionally the color of purity and also the color of the suffragettes -- we've heard it all before.
. . .
What would an acceptance speech by a Democrat be without promises of more programs? ...the way of Democrats. They pile on more programs so distracted voters won't notice the failure of the old ones. For the left, intentions matter more than results.

Hillary Clinton's proposals will add hugely to the debt, now approaching $20 trillion. But wait. She will pay for all this new stuff by taxing those obscenely wealthy Wall Street people, who paid her and her husband millions to speak to them. No one knows what about. She won't release the transcripts.
. . .
Despite the claims of her husband that she is the best "change maker" he's ever known, change was what President Obama promised, but failed to deliver. She would be Obama's third term.

Really?? Actually, Prez.Obama did manage to make changes -- look at Chicago, Illinois. It's worse now than it was before Obama came to live in Wash.DC.. tho not necessarily for the better, as most Dems think of his "contributions" as.
As several folks on the radio and various social blog sites have noted---- Strange that Prez.Obama isn't going back to Chicago, ILL, which if he stated earlier in his term that he would -- but now is NOT, plus, that he would not take on any Security after leaving the USA presidency -- which he is also renegging on, because he not only bought a 5.million dollar home in DC--at the expense of the TAXPAYER's providing buckeroos, but apparently he also has well staffed himself and his family with extra Security.. instead of living like the little people who daily have no protection at all..

To the rest of the world, who do not live in the USA or thus have to pay for the TAXES yet to be forced upon us in the USA, it's easy to say how admirable one is of a "Tax and Spend Democrat". Our TAXES pay for our leaders and former leaders pensions, benefits, AND security, if they take it under the TAXpayer system some how.

So, for Democrats in general -- For decades, they've always been known as
"Tax and Spend Democrats".. Take from the middle payer tier and make the middle class even poorer. Also, Take from those (whom the leader-elect promised their supporters) promises of returning favors from corps, etc., and then later lie on how to achieve it and take even far more in the resulting end process. That seems to be the core of a corrupted political system -- regardless of party affiliation, if corrupted (to the core). Is Hillary Clinton any different? Or will she end up being the proverbial *knight* dressed in *white* shining armor..aka, her white pantsuit at the DNC..? Trump's (current) wife wore a white dress, but did Hillary copy that image or make a statement by her own version of wearing the color white?

"Full List of Hillary's Planned Tax Hikes"
Posted by John Kartch and Alexander Hendrie on Thursday, July 28th, 2016, 2:56 PM
(Copyright © 2013, Americans for Tax Reform)

Hillary Clinton has made clear she intends to dramatically raise taxes on the American people if elected. She has proposed an income tax increase, a business tax increase, a death tax increase, a capital gains tax increase, a tax on stock trading, an "Exit Tax" and more (see below). Her planned net tax increase on the American people is at least $1 trillion over ten years, based on her campaign's own figures.

Hillary has endorsed several tax increases on middle income Americans, despite her pledge not to raise taxes on any American making less than $250,000. She has said she would be fine with a payroll tax hike on all Americans, she has endorsed a steep soda tax, endorsed a 25% national gun tax, and most recently, her campaign manager John Podesta said she would be open to a carbon tax. It's no wonder that when asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos if her pledge was a "rock-solid" promise, she slipped and said the pledge was merely a "goal." In other words, she's going to raise taxes on middle income Americans.

Income Tax Increase – $350 Billion...
Business Tax Increase -- $275 Billion...
"Fairness" Tax Increase -- $400 Billion: ...These proposals include a "fair share surcharge," the taxing of carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and a hike in the Death Tax.

But there are even more Clinton tax hike proposals not included in the tally above.
Capital Gains Tax Increase...
Tax on Stock Trading -- Clinton has proposed a new tax on stock trading. Costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts. The tax increase would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Again, no dollar figure for this tax hike has been released by the Clinton campaign.

"Exit Tax" – Rather than reduce the extremely high, uncompetitive corporate tax rate, Clinton has proposed a series of measures aimed at inversions including an "exit tax" on income earned overseas.

and a reinforcement of the previous two quoted articles (from above), see below---

"Hillary Admits She Would Not Veto Middle Class Tax Hike"
Posted by John Kartch on Tuesday, January 12th, 2016, 4:27 AM
(Copyright © 2013, Americans for Tax Reform)

...Moderator Alicia Menendez: "Democrats have introduced a plan that Senator Sanders supports that you've come out against because it is funded by a payroll tax. If that were to reach your desk as President, would you veto it in order to make good on your tax pledge?"

Hillary Clinton: "No. No."

Clinton's outright admission that she would break her middle class tax pledge follows a Dec. 6 remark that the pledge was a mere "goal." The "goal" comment took place during an interview on ABC's This Week hosted by George Stephanopoulos:

Stephanopoulos: "You are also saying no tax increases at all on anyone earning $250,000. Is that a rock solid read-my-lips promise?"

Clinton: "Well, it certainly is my goal. And I've laid it out in this campaign. And it's something that President Obama promised. It's something my husband certainly tried to achieve. Because I want Americans to know that I get it."

The plan referenced in Monday's forum is the FAMILY Act, which calls for a payroll tax increase on all Americans, levied on all wages up to $113,700.

Said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform: "Hillary is up front saying, 'I'm going to lie my way into office.'".
. . .

Well, if that last potential statement is true, then it perfectly fits in with
Dinesh D'Souza's latest documentary
"Hillary's America".

"7 Things the Left Doesn’t Want You to Know About Their History"
by Dinesh D'Souza, Posted: Jul 26, 2016 12:01 AM
Townhall, Copyright © Townhall.com. All Rights Reserved.

As I noted before---

..."Hillary's America" which is in theaters now. ..It was very interesting to say the least.

. . .
Ohhhh, watch the film.. it's very eye-opening, especially to all of the voices declaring reparations from 200+ years of slavery, etc. Anyone voting for any Democrat or FOR Hillary should see the film. The film didn't state this specifically, but maybe implied that Once America is tied-up and bound, the rest of the world will end up in that same ball&chain (imprisonment) mode. Maybe that is how the OneWorldGov will start? Maybe it will start from Europe, while America (the USA) struggles within its own "sea to polluted sea" continental borders.

The above notation (nor do I think the film itself) does not translate that ALL democrats are as described (corrupted evil) in the film, but the selected few seem to fit that category, IF the info is true. What's that saying?
Absolute POWER corrupts Absolutely..?

This election will end up being a downhill snowball/falling boulder effect one way or another. *sigh*

[garhkal]

Don't you think Trump's incredible level of popularity emboldened him to run? I have no doubt he looked at Trump's numbers and thought that the only thing driving them was the part of his platform about securing the border and tossing the lawbreakers out, and thought that people would support his racist ideas.
Sorry, wrong answer.

It might have emboldened him, but that certainly is NOT on trump (or his supporters)..

On the issue of welfare, there's a lot of waste invovled. For example, social workers in say... Metropolis want to train someone who is in their caseload for welding because there is a need for welders due to a sudden reduction in skyscrapers (thanks Superman). The problem is that a bunch of red tape keeps them from giving these people that training thus the only other solution is continued government paid support. Instead of investing a relatively small amount of funds in the short term into retraining an individual, they'll have to spend a larger amount of funds in the long term sustaining them.

Now that i will give you. Too much fraud and waste. Though it seems nearly every time someone does try to get something done to reign that in, people 'whine' that it will leave the helpless out in the lurch, and we can't/shouldn't be that heartless..

I would like to see more workfare style reforms like those in the 90's and make welfare a bit more selective for immigrants. If a family has been here 10 years and they've been working and supporting themselves and then fall into bad times. Sure, they should be able to get help from the system they've been paying into all of those years. But if a brand newly arrived family can't find the opportunity they need...I'd say they should go for the short term style support (or if feasible, help them return home?)

Again, i fully agree. Limit it to those who have 'paid their dues'.. I would also like to see it 'stop being a lifestyle' (it seems) where mom was on it, so kids wind up living on it, cause with all the benefits they rake in, they are better off STAYING on it, than getting off and working for a living..

Another thing is that sometimes jobs aren't there. Maybe, depending on the situation, instead of giving someone handouts for what could be years and years, make a smaller investment by helping them get a job elsewhere and relocate there. It's all about doing the most help with the least expenditure. It is, in fact, cheaper to teach a man how to fish rather than feeding him a fish every day. Our system started to go in that direction before, it just needs to get there.

That's what it initially Was for.. A help Up. but somewhere along the line it mutated into a Hand out, which people feel entitled too, then demand... and too many politicians don't argue against, cause they 'want the votes'..

The reason I pair that off with immigration is to keep it so that it is clear that if one is to immigrate here it is not to receive "free government money." That means that a quota free system would result in immigration levels being dictated by the market. People will flock to where there are jobs and flee where there are none. If Central Americans know that there is no job or government aid to be had here, they wouldn't come. Unless they're fleeing violence but I did mention something about screening to make sure immigrants come to work and such...

Why not go back to how it used to be (iirc before the 50s), to where to Emegrate here, you had to Prove you could support yourself via having a job, or sufficient funds, OR having someone who would pay your way TILL you got situated...
Heck, iirc that's how Australia still is..

It appears as though the flaw was not implementing border security, not amnesty. Before 1986 there were already a large number of immigrants entering illegally. The likelihood that there'd be less had nothing been done is well...extremely low.

And who was it that failed to do that.. The Democrats who 'Promised Reagan' to do so, if Amnesty was signed..

Amnesty by itself is wrong. What message does that send to those who have played by the rules, applied for entry / citizenship, and done things the proper way?
"Sorry, sucker!" seems to be loud and clear.

Especially when its been done at least twice before.
It also tells those who ARE currently going through the proper route, "You should have just said screw being legal and doing the right thing, just wait around, whine enough and liberals will eventually ***** and moan enough that enough people will tell their senators "Give them amnesty".

[Gatefan1976]

D'souza is a convicted criminal, a liar, and an ignorant political wanna-be. He is the "brown-ish" person the right brings out to spew pseudo-intellectual garbage for their cause.

He looks at the democratic party as it was 50 years ago, not what it is now. 50 years ago, yes, it was the Republicans who pushed for social change and social justice, they were essentially the modern version of the left, and 50 years ago if I were American, I would be voting Republican.
Thing is, the values of the parties have essentially flipped since that time, and Dinesh likes to ignore that fact because he is an intellectual fraud.

[Coco Pops]

Whatever happened to those threats to leave for Canada over Obamacare that Rush Limbaugh made? Isn't he a big fat liar?

Here's another liar..

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/co...rticle/2597153

[Coco Pops]

Next week in Australia it's census time on the night of Tuesday the 9th of August.

Now what's to stop people making up all kinds of random poop on the census form just to be an ass?

Would anyone do that too I wonder?

[Annoyed]

There was a discussion around here last week about schools being biased to the left..

This is from a college, but it ought to make the point.

'Green Lives Matter' college course title has some critics seeing red

Black Lives Matter has taken offense at police saying “Blue Lives Matter” and others who say “All Lives Matter,” but now a Wisconsin school is risking ire by branding a class on environmentalism “Green Lives Matter.”

The course at University of Wisconsin at Green Bay will encourage students to support the “environmental justice movement” by “the merging of civil rights and environmental concerns.” But even Scott Furlong, the dean of social sciences at the school, acknowledged that the class name plays on what has become a loaded term.

Liberal activism in education. Is that what schools are for?

[Falcon Horus]

Attacking Trump's wife is a very low move. Especially for sexy photos from back when she was a model.

Well, it's at his level of communication.

He is also not terribly wrong about "in Europe". Granted, former models rarely become First Ladies, but Carla Bruni used to be a model and there are definitely naked photos from her old shoots out there, just run a Google Image search. She posed for Playboy at some point. Somehow it does not bother anybody.

It felt more like he thinks that naked ladies feature on the cover of papers more often than not, which is not the case. It's certainly njot fasbionable and definitely not common.

Did Carla Bruni ever feature on the front page of French newspaper? Naked, I mean.

[Gatefan1976]

Well, those Hedge fund folks better be careful on what they say or support.. According to Cal Thomas, that support just might backfire somehow.
(bold font & colors mine..)

Cal Thomas.............
More Christian bull.

God designed norms for behavior that are in our best interests. When we act outside those norms—such as for premarital sex, adultery, or homosexual sex—we cause physical, emotional, and spiritual damage to ourselves and to our wider culture. The unpleasant consequences of divorce and sexually transmitted diseases are not the result of intolerant bigots seeking to denigrate others. They are the result of violating God's standards, which were made for our benefit.

—?Cal Thomas, Immutable Morals

Yet another right wing nautical instrument who has never read the first amendment.
Your "god" has power over 2 things in your system, and Jack just left town.........
I don't -care- if you don't like it, I don't care how you want to "interpret" it, or excuse it, or run up a bunch of apologists to defend it, the non establishment clause is quite, quite clear. Moral law is not in the hands of ANY religion, and no religion has the right to declare it's morals superior to any other. The first amendment expressly forbids things like Sharia law taking hold in the US political and legal system, it -ALSO- forbids Christianity, or Judaism, or Jedi-ism, or Heathanism, or Sikhism, or Buddhism, or ANY religion taking over your political or legal system.
Your inability to realise this is simply not an issue.

Really?? Actually, Prez.Obama did manage to make changes -- look at Chicago, Illinois. It's worse now than it was before Obama came to live in Wash.DC.. tho not necessarily for the better, as most Dems think of his "contributions" as.

And WVA is still a 97% white state filled with people living off the government teat, has high crime rates, pathetic education standards, and the stupidest people in your nation according to "IQ studies"
Guess if you get rid of the Chocolate, the milk just curdles............

Look, I can bring out strawmen as well!!
Difference between the two examples, I know mine is garbage.

As several folks on the radio and various social blog sites have noted---- Strange that Prez.Obama isn't going back to Chicago, ILL, which if he stated earlier in his term that he would -- but now is NOT, plus, that he would not take on any Security after leaving the USA presidency -- which he is also renegging on, because he not only bought a 5.million dollar home in DC--at the expense of the TAXPAYER's providing buckeroos, but apparently he also has well staffed himself and his family with extra Security.. instead of living like the little people who daily have no protection at all..

He is not "buying" the house, he is leasing it so his children can finish school rather than be uprooted, geez, what an A-hole, thinking of his kids............
As for the security, Secret service protection is STANDARD for all retired POTUS, so, as usual, you have no clue what you are talking about, just the Ex spade is getting "special treatment", so that's something to get upset about.
Jesus would be proud..............

To the rest of the world, who do not live in the USA or thus have to pay for the TAXES yet to be forced upon us in the USA, it's easy to say how admirable one is of a "Tax and Spend Democrat". Our TAXES pay for our leaders and former leaders pensions, benefits, AND security, if they take it under the TAXpayer system some how.

It's the same in EVERY OTHER WESTERN NATION, but no, how would WE know about it..........
America, the nation that found it's knob, and thinks the rest of the world "just doesn't get it".......

So, for Democrats in general -- For decades, they've always been known as
"Tax and Spend Democrats".. Take from the middle payer tier and make the middle class even poorer. Also, Take from those (whom the leader-elect promised their supporters) promises of returning favors from corps, etc., and then later lie on how to achieve it and take even far more in the resulting end process.

You DO realise that -that- method is why the Republicans have embraced Trump after getting screwed for 30 odd years, right?
Don't believe me, ask Annoyed.

That seems to be the core of a corrupted political system -- regardless of party affiliation, if corrupted (to the core). Is Hillary Clinton any different?

Not really, she peddles hope rather than fear however.

Or will she end up being the proverbial *knight* dressed in *white* shining armor..aka, her white pantsuit at the DNC..? Trump's (current) wife wore a white dress, but did Hillary copy that image or make a statement by her own version of wearing the color white?

She wore White, Bill wore Blue, Chelsey wore Red............
OMFG!!!
RED WHITE AND BLUE!!!
They were trying be the American flag!!
(They even had stars at their convention!!!)

and a reinforcement of the previous two quoted articles (from above), see below---

Politicians CANNOT promise anything.
You have not worked that out after HOW many years of being alive?

Well, if that last potential statement is true, then it perfectly fits in with
Dinesh D'Souza's latest documentary
"Hillary's America".




As I noted before---

Yeah, see my other post on this garbage.

[Gatefan1976]

Next week in Australia it's census time on the night of Tuesday the 9th of August.

Now what's to stop people making up all kinds of random poop on the census form just to be an ass?

Would anyone do that too I wonder?

Around 5% of the population do Coco, generally the same people who Donkey vote.

[Coco Pops]

Around 5% of the population do Coco, generally the same people who Donkey vote.

I did not know that..

I thought that because its compulsory and all most people wouldn't put funny stuff on the forms.

This year we are doing them online and paper forms you have to actually request.