The Political Discussion Thread

[magi877]

Unrelated to my post, but I'll drop this here for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war

proxy wars should be a thing of the past. i believe though they will become all the rage again unfortunately

especially with the whole China/Russia even India's growing practice of neo-expansionism/export of influence

proxy wars and any other war we are not compensated for (YES!! America should charge for its "services"! ) should be left alone and far away from North America

great example would be the nagging and near conditioned responses of professional poli's who react to Russia and Iran's presence in Syria:
- it IS in their backyards

-they WERE invited by the official govt of Syria to be there

but, US and western politicians and pundits insist that we can't just let Russia and Iran have such a presence

so,we went there half assed and yes we helped the Kurds, but our presence was not only unwanted but illegal by international law.

now, we have partially created yet another military dependency (the Syrian Rojava Kurds) and are in the process of leaving them 'hanging' for domestic political expediency.

ridiculous to continue this way!

it is this old thinking that has led, in part, to the current "crap sandwich" our world is in now

[Gatefan1976]

proxy wars should be a thing of the past. i believe though they will become all the rage again unfortunately

especially with the whole China/Russia even India's growing practice of neo-expansionism/export of influence

proxy wars and any other war we are not compensated for (YES!! America should charge for its "services"! ) should be left alone and far away from North America

great example would be the nagging and near conditioned responses of professional poli's who react to Russia and Iran's presence in Syria:
- it IS in their backyards

-they WERE invited by the official govt of Syria to be there

but, US and western politicians and pundits insist that we can't just let Russia and Iran have such a presence

so,we went there half assed and yes we helped the Kurds, but our presence was not only unwanted but illegal by international law.

now, we have partially created yet another military dependency (the Syrian Rojava Kurds) and are in the process of leaving them 'hanging' for domestic political expediency.

ridiculous to continue this way!

it is this old thinking that has led, in part, to the current "crap sandwich" our world is in now

Can you make any of this make more sense?

EDIT: should I link this and the last post you made to make it have some kind of flow?
I get the basics of where you are coming from, but the change ups are so stark as to be distracting. Agrue A point, not 5 and we might get somewhere.

[magi877]

Can you make any of this make more sense?

honestly i do not see why it is hard to understand

US needs to bring all forces home; stop giving "aide" to nations for infrastructure,etc, because it gets us nothing in return

the longer we continue to maintain a presence anywhere of any type in the world, it makes those nations less likely to do things for themselves

China Russia and others are continuing to address issues as they see fit in THEIR "backyards". We need to stay out of it

Syria is in Russia's and Iran's backyards. It is THEIR problem to deal with, it is most certainly NOT ours

We have engaged in globalism now for what? 20 - 30 yrs? Can anyone honestly say that globalism has brought more peace to the world? There has been near constant warfare since.

[Gatefan1976]

And what about France? Notice the riots in the street over there when their people are asked to pay the freight for these environmental schemes?

What does France -specifically- have to do with the issue of greenhouse gas?

If your issue truly is, "who will pay for it" the answer is, our progeny. The world sits at a dinner table, and we are eating everything without caring about the bill, and when the bill comes due, we are squabbling over who has to pay what.
The developed nations produce more rubbish, should not the developed nations pay more?
The evolving nations produce the most, so should we not help them produce less?
Is it not the role of the government to safeguard our resources so they are sustainable?

[SGalisa]

Incorrect. The Dems actually offered 5 times what Trump wanted for border security, only not a penny for the Wall (should we capitalize it now?)

Yep.
The WALL will do 2 things, and jack just left town.

Whether or not the Dems previously agreed on funding for "border protection" that doesn't necessarily state it meant a SOLID border WALL. Perhaps they changed their mind (about building any type of walls, that is) if they did intend to do that during Obama's presidential term.


President Trump is Never going to get the Dems to agree on a border WALL or proper funding for it. If it ever does happen, it might be a miracle. The whole problem behind the WALL issue is that Trump started discussing it by instigating that "Mexico will (or would) pay for the WALL" and the MSM jumped on that and hasn't let go of it ever since. Trump ended up portraying a fooling response and thus, being played as one of the biggest fools to ever govern.

Next item... Keeping the gov't (Federal) agencies "shut down" isn't going to change anything, except help me get caught up on the mountains of paperwork I have to do in my job...

Also, since Nancy Pelosi clearly spelled out that Congress will NOT fund "Homeland Security" ...so, here is a question----
Does that include NO more TSA security at the airports or train/subway stations, etc.? Because if it does, and *safety* is no longer being monitored 24/seven/365 etc, that just puts our nation back to a vulnerable PRE-September 11, 2001 situation. That means anyone and anything can possibly pass thru. Not cool nor acceptable... Even NY Democrat lefty Chucky Schumer should realize that!

No funding for Homeland Security... hmmm...
So, does that translate as no more checking thru luggage or scanning each person AND their personal items as they enter the gateway path to the air? Inquiring minds would like to know...

But to her mind, it is, and always will be. SG conflates politics with religion all the time.

Yep.
. . .
She has a 1 party view, forget two.

I perceive things differently than you (GF) obviously do. Ideally, what I would like ----worldwide peace and prosperity----will not happen as long as humans keep mucking the planet and political nonsense up. I doubt if there exists a genuine political party that can successfully achieve that "ideal" peace and prosperity without destroying over half of the people and planet in the process. I foresee the next ten ...maybe 20 to 30 years, if WWIII hasn't broken out yet... as very interesting times AND on a global scale, not just national or continental (American Continent side of the earth).

Politics is not my strength, but I know when opposite sides oppose each other. Clearly, the *current* Democratic party is opposed to mostly ALL things Trump will ever present. Their goal is to oust him one way or another, and to do so before the year 2020 arrives in our timeline. Since most of the MSM/media has strongly been anti/Never "President" Trump, the MSM/media will most likely side with this goal, provoking it to the very end, too.

It will be interesting to see how this whole scenario unfolds, and WHO, if such a moment occurs, will replace Trump, and especially if those in governing positions decide they don't like VP Mike Pence, either.

[Gatefan1976]

Whether or not the Dems previously agreed on funding for "border protection" that doesn't necessarily state it meant a SOLID border WALL. Perhaps they changed their mind (about building any type of walls, that is) if they did intend to do that during Obama's presidential term.

The dems agreed on actual, functional boarder defence, they always have. their exceptions have been, and always will be about people with no choice in the matter. Dreamers who came in 20 years ago as 2 year olds and people asking not for immigrant status, but refugee status.
Border control is fine, all nations need it, what they do not need is knee jerk..... jerk reactions.

President Trump is Never going to get the Dems to agree on a border WALL or proper funding for it. If it ever does happen, it might be a miracle.

Because it is a useless expense!!

The whole problem behind the WALL issue is that Trump started discussing it by instigating that "Mexico will (or would) pay for the WALL" and the MSM jumped on that and hasn't let go of it ever since.

WTF??
Why should they ley go of it? Trump said Mexico WILL pay, now he is shutting down your government because YOU, the American taxpayer won't pay for his wall.

Just how stupid are Americans?

Trump ended up portraying a fooling response and thus, being played as one of the biggest fools to ever govern.

It's not a play, he is a idiot.

Next item... Keeping the gov't (Federal) agencies "shut down" isn't going to change anything, except help me get caught up on the mountains of paperwork I have to do in my job...

Cool, you are one of those non-essential wastes of space people like annoyed are upset about for being in a government job.
Do your duty and quit "big government"

Also, since Nancy Pelosi clearly spelled out that Congress will NOT fund "Homeland Security" ...so, here is a question----

Actually, she said the wall.

Does that include NO more TSA security at the airports or train/subway stations, etc.? Because if it does, and *safety* is no longer being monitored 24/seven/365 etc, that just puts our nation back to a vulnerable PRE-September 11, 2001 situation. That means anyone and anything can possibly pass thru. Not cool nor acceptable... Even NY Democrat lefty Chucky Schumer should realize that!

You don't have funding for it now you silly person, the TSA is showing up without pay right now.
how freaking ignorant are you?

No funding for Homeland Security... hmmm...
So, does that translate as no more checking thru luggage or scanning each person AND their personal items as they enter the gateway path to the air? Inquiring minds would like to know...

No, they still do it without pay because it's their job.
The house and senate passed clean funding bills for the government, it was your dumbass president who shot them down. I don't blame Dems, or repubs for this one, this is ALL your idiot in chief who thinks he is better than anyone else.
He is a MORON.
if you follow him, YOU are a MORON.
Democrat, independent, republican, follow trump, you are a MORON

I perceive things differently than you (GF) obviously do. Ideally, what I would like ----worldwide peace and prosperity----will not happen as long as humans keep mucking the planet and political nonsense up. I doubt if there exists a genuine political party that can successfully achieve that "ideal" peace and prosperity without destroying over half of the people and planet in the process. I foresee the next ten ...maybe 20 to 30 years, if WWIII hasn't broken out yet... as very interesting times AND on a global scale, not just national or continental (American Continent side of the earth).

Why do you think I would want something different?
You have NO IDEA what I want, and if you did, you might not argue so hard.

Politics is not my strength, but I know when opposite sides oppose each other. Clearly, the *current* Democratic party is opposed to mostly ALL things Trump will ever present. Their goal is to oust him one way or another, and to do so before the year 2020 arrives in our timeline. Since most of the MSM/media has strongly been anti/Never "President" Trump, the MSM/media will most likely side with this goal, provoking it to the very end, too.

Yes, politics is not your strength, keep out of it.
Nor is Media.

It will be interesting to see how this whole scenario unfolds, and WHO, if such a moment occurs, will replace Trump, and especially if those in governing positions decide they don't like VP Mike Pence, either.

Pence is safe if he did nothing wrong.

[SGalisa]

Why should they ley go of it? Trump said Mexico WILL pay, now he is shutting down your government because YOU, the American taxpayer won't pay for his wall.

Just how stupid are Americans?

It is NOT the American taxpayers paying for this (not with the Federal money already there).
It's the governmental workers *who* won't put the existing treasury money (or whatever it's termed as) into Paying for the Wall. The money exists. The gov't workers (CONGRESS) will not allocate existing funds to provide any funding for a physical, solid Wall --- which is what Trump wants.

Cool, you are one of those non-essential wastes of space people like annoyed are upset about for being in a government job.

Hey, I'd like to think I'm one of those "non-essential wastes of space"... but (some of) the rest of my coworkers would flip out if I left. Especially the ladies who don't want to bother feeding the *green* plants...I do that (with a few drops of miracle gro). Amazingly, most of the plants actually grow...

Cool, you are one of those non-essential wastes of space people like annoyed are upset about for being in a government job.
Do your duty and quit "big government"

If I worked for the gov't, I wouldn't have a job at the moment... that thing called "gov't shutdown"??? The "Federal Register" was pretty barren yesterday... only 2 agencies listed in it. I've seen it nearly bare after the first week of the new year, but NOT like this was.

Besides, I'm not in the Federal or State, but private sector of Governmental Compliance. Private company working with many industries... Just work with gov't regs/laws, and I do the *brainless* stuff, so I can avoid dealing with the headaches.

Actually, she said the wall.

I heard her distinctly said with words to this sort of effect that Congress was not going to fund "Homeland Security"... it was one of the agencies that would NOT be funded (or restocked with new funding) on the gov't list of agencies. She also said that the matter would or might be revisited in September, but not before then. It was sort of a direct in-your-face response to Trump's "security" issues.

You don't have funding for it now you silly person, the TSA is showing up without pay right now.
how freaking ignorant are you?

No, they still do it without pay because it's their job.

Really...? Work for free? No money to buy food or pay bills... That doesn't work too well, not in the USA. Maybe on a welfare plan, tho.
Once they find out they're not being paid at all ever again (if that is what this situation includes)... watch them walk out the door... perhaps at a fast trot. ...sounds of Door SLAM..!

Yes, politics is not your strength, keep out of it.
Nor is Media.

I do mostly keep out. Not because of informational data, but because I'm just tired of hearing the same old, same old and watching most of these conversations going nowhere.

Pence is safe if he did nothing wrong.

He'll be another Gerald Ford. Useless as "acting President". Dems and the "establishment" (GOP) will see to that. They will probably inform him to agree with the Dem and global agenda, or step aside.
Then, will Enter your new USA leader... it's a gut feeling in a lot more people than just myself.

[Gatefan1976]

It is NOT the American taxpayers paying for this (not with the Federal money already there).

Where do you think governments get their money? Space force?

It's the governmental workers *who* won't put the existing treasury money (or whatever it's termed as) into Paying for the Wall. The money exists. The gov't workers (CONGRESS) will not allocate existing funds to provide any funding for a physical, solid Wall --- which is what Trump wants.

A physical wall is USELESS.
Spend 3 times the amount on drones, agents and such and the democrats will be fine with it, but a wall is USELESS.

If I worked for the gov't, I wouldn't have a job at the moment... that thing called "gov't shutdown"??? The "Federal Register" was pretty barren yesterday... only 2 agencies listed in it. I've seen it nearly bare after the first week of the new year, but NOT like this was.

Comprehension isn't your thing either.

Besides, I'm not in the Federal or State, but private sector of Governmental Compliance. Private company working with many industries... Just work with gov't regs/laws, and I do the *brainless* stuff, so I can avoid dealing with the headaches.

Unsurprising.

I heard her distinctly said with words to this sort of effect that Congress was not going to fund "Homeland Security"... it was one of the agencies that would NOT be funded (or restocked with new funding) on the gov't list of agencies. She also said that the matter would or might be revisited in September, but not before then. It was sort of a direct in-your-face response to Trump's "security" issues.

Yes, DHS was under issue, because of the WALL, nothing else.

Really...? Work for free? No money to buy food or pay bills... That doesn't work too well, not in the USA. Maybe on a welfare plan, tho.
Once they find out they're not being paid at all ever again (if that is what this situation includes)... watch them walk out the door... perhaps at a fast trot. ...sounds of Door SLAM..!

They are doing it NOW you simpleton. Some 800k workers are either working without pay, or have been furloughed. You want 8 departments to quit, keep your attitude.

I do mostly keep out. Not because of informational data, but because I'm just tired of hearing the same old, same old and watching most of these conversations going nowhere.

No, it's a lack of information.

He'll be another Gerald Ford. Useless as "acting President". Dems and the "establishment" (GOP) will see to that. They will probably inform him to agree with the Dem and global agenda, or step aside.
Then, will Enter your new USA leader... it's a gut feeling in a lot more people than just myself.

So, being a convicted criminal doesn't matter any more?

[Coco Pops]

A wall is a totally useless thing, even a useless gesture. But Dear Leader is digging his bonespurs in and won't budge.

[Annoyed]

Several posts recently say the wall will be useless.

To the contrary. A wall will actually be effective at stopping illegal crossings, which is why Democrats and business-butt-kissing Republicans oppose it. They don't WANT to effectively stop illegal crossings.

Yes, we have the ability to monitor the border and stop crossings with other tools. But those other tools are subject to political will. Policymakers can set policy that effectively leaves the border open, such as denying border guards weapons or the authorization to use those weapons, as I think Obama did at some point.

A wall wouldn't be subject to the whims of policymakers. It stands there, regardless of what the pols want.

If you doubt my argument, ask yourself this: Why haven't we blocked the border already using technology and other suggested means?

[jelgate]

I doubt your argument because facts contradict it. Something you have yet to produce

[Chaka-Z0]

A wall is a totally useless thing, even a useless gesture. But Dear Leader is digging his bonespurs in and won't budge.

Literally his whole campaign rested on the fact that MEXICO WILL PAY FOR IT!!! (With tacos and burritos muchachos!)

Trump knows that if this doesn't happen it will hurt him bad for the 2020's. Dems know that too, and understandably won't give him that candy. Apart from the political side, this is a terrible idea overall but that's been said over and over already.

If you doubt my argument, ask yourself this: Why haven't we blocked the border already using technology and other suggested means?

Movement sensors, infrared cameras, teams going in at night to catch the fugitives, radio stations on top of hills that ''scans'' the desert for movement, choppers doing patrols, Mexican sniffing dogs and probably a couple other devices which the general population isn't aware of. There are literally a hundred technological devices in use right now which works 100 times better than a simple wall. You can't even approach Area 51 without triggering an underground sensor that sends alerts to Security. Let's be clear, you need a barrier of some kind, but you guys already have it. All that's missing really is optimizing the current tech and having more manpower.

The only advantage to this project, and I had to think long and hard to find it, is that perhaps building the Wall will increase the sales of Pink Floyd albums.

[Annoyed]

Movement sensors, infrared cameras, teams going in at night to catch the fugitives, radio stations on top of hills that ''scans'' the desert for movement, choppers doing patrols, Mexican sniffing dogs and probably a couple other devices which the general population isn't aware of. There are literally a hundred technological devices in use right now which works 100 times better than a simple wall. You can't even approach Area 51 without triggering an underground sensor that sends alerts to Security. Let's be clear, you need a barrier of some kind, but you guys already have it. All that's missing really is optimizing the current tech and having more manpower.

The only advantage to this project, and I had to think long and hard to find it, is that perhaps building the Wall will increase the sales of Pink Floyd albums.

That's my point, and why we need the wall. We certainly do have the ability to secure the border, no question about that. What we do not have is the political will to do so, as I explained earlier. The wall would not care about what the politicians do, it would block entry regardless.

[jelgate]

It would not block entry

[Chaka-Z0]

That's my point, and why we need the wall. We certainly do have the ability to secure the border, no question about that. What we do not have is the political will to do so, as I explained earlier. The wall would not care about what the politicians do, it would block entry regardless.

It always seems like 1 +1 = 23 with you. You need the wall, but you say you have the ability to secure the border (no question about that). Which is it? I think we've exhausted all facts, science and logic therefore here's my argument.

Have you given thought that the superb Wall of Westoros did not even hold the Whitewalkers at bay, so why would you expect yours to hold the Mexicans?