The Political Discussion Thread

[aretood2]

What would you call the 12+ million illegals that are already living here? Surely, you've read about the caravans periodically making their way northward through Mexico? Surely, you don't intend to tell me that they're all fleeing political persecution?

And yes, from time to time, you read about groups trying to rush the border.

It may not be a military action in the conventional sense, but it is an invasion nevertheless.

Not even up to 15,000 most of which never even made it into the US. I call that a small trickle of people going to a port of entry to ask for asylum plus a handful who have attempted to illegally enter the US. A far cry from an "invasion".

A military invasion is the only definition of invasion, to the point that using the word "military" is redundant. An invasion is a displacement of an original entity by an outside entity or being overrun. You use this artificially contrived imagery in order to create a situation of urgency where there is none. And that is the fact, there is no urgent situation. There's no imminent danger of anything.

[Coco Pops]

Our own CBC journalists went there, and you could almost see the hay ball rolling in the background, like in the old westerns.

OMG it's an invasion where are the tanks?

Wow someone likes quoting republican talking points and not thinking

[Womble]

Ok, lets leave the troops in Europe and Korea, but screw the Middle East, they can take care of their own.
You can take care of your own wolves, right?

It's always a delight to take a peek into the psyche of obsessives. I suppose political equivalent of sadistic fantasies provides an escapism of sorts for someone who struggles to cope with reality.

Real world-wise, though, I'm curious to whom your "lets" is addressed. Surely not to the formidable presence of 600 Australians. Whose name precisely are you presuming to speak in?

[Gatefan1976]

It's always a delight to take a peek into the psyche of obsessives. I suppose political equivalent of sadistic fantasies provides an escapism of sorts for someone who struggles to cope with reality.

LOL
If there was a Korean saying get all the troops out, I would have said leave them everywhere but Korea. All I am doing is tailoring the point to the listener.

Real world-wise, though, I'm curious to whom your "lets" is addressed. Surely not to the formidable presence of 600 Australians. Whose name precisely are you presuming to speak in?

The people who want the troops out of everywhere.
Again Womble, I am agreeing with your point.

[Womble]

LOL
If there was a Korean saying get all the troops out, I would have said leave them everywhere but Korea. All I am doing is tailoring the point to the listener.

Except I'm just about the last person to say get all the troops out. In fact, I am lamenting the diminishing Western footprint because it leaves voids quickly filled by Russia et al.

The people who want the troops out of everywhere.
Again Womble, I am agreeing with your point.

Osama Bin Laden wanted the US troops out of everywhere...

[Chaka-Z0]

Bernie is back for the 2020s!!!!!!!!!

18fbf29fb9b9bdf87c9b68b1ad05e243.jpg

Anybody want to take bets on how long it takes for him to shoot himself in the foot again? Maybe he'll say he's a Marxist or something.

[Annoyed]

Bernie is back for the 2020s!!!!!!!!!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42865[/ATTACH]

Anybody want to take bets on how long it takes for him to shoot himself in the foot again? Maybe he'll say he's a Marxist or something.

Well, I guess he won't be buying any combs in his lifetime.

And yes, with the Kindergartner in the news as well, he had best downplay his socialist ideas.

[Chaka-Z0]

Now's your chance to get the wizards out of Wall street Annoyed. Just vote Bernie, it's a good vote.

[Gatefan1976]

Except I'm just about the last person to say get all the troops out. In fact, I am lamenting the diminishing Western footprint because it leaves voids quickly filled by Russia et al.


Osama Bin Laden wanted the US troops out of everywhere...

…..And for the third time, I am agreeing with you. You understand not just Geopolitics, but macro-economics.
When I suggest pulling US troops out of the M-E, it's not some kind of dig at you, it's to show how damaging unilaterally pulling US troops out of an area can be, not just for the nation(s) being aided, but for the US itself. YOU just happened to be the one bringing it up, so I used the M-E.
Israel is a stabilizing force in the M-E, it also happens to be an influence MANY religiously minded republicans pay attention to, so while they may be willing to pull troops out of SoKo, or Europe, they are far less enthused with the idea of pulling them out of the M-E., or specifically anywhere that would immediately damage Israel.
Once more, Israel is getting used, this time for political leverage.

[Annoyed]

Now's your chance to get the wizards out of Wall street Annoyed. Just vote Bernie, it's a good vote.

Never gonna happen. Regardless of the type of govt., there will always be people at the top and the bottom.

[Gatefan1976]

Never gonna happen. Regardless of the type of govt., there will always be people at the top and the bottom.

The idea is to get more in the middle, and having less extremes at either end.

[Annoyed]

The idea is to get more in the middle, and having less extremes at either end.

I agree. And capitalism is the best way to do that.

In a socialist / communist system, the "top" is defined by how close your connections to the party are, as opposed to your earning power in a capitalist system.

The only difference is what defines the top from the middle and lower classes.

But have you ever notices that under socialist regimes, the only "top" is the party bosses and well-connected, everyone else is in the peon or poverty class; there is rarely a middle class of any size.

Whereas with capitalism, there is a fairly large middle class, and then the bottom class.
And importantly, it is possible for one to improve one's lot in capitalism by working hard, and yes, having some luck plays a part as well.

I don't care what system you're under, if you don't have at least some good luck, you might as well not even play, just accept that your circumstances suck.

[Chaka-Z0]

I agree. And capitalism is the best way to do that.

In a socialist / communist system, the "top" is defined by how close your connections to the party are, as opposed to your earning power in a capitalist system.

The only difference is what defines the top from the middle and lower classes.

But have you ever notices that under socialist regimes, the only "top" is the party bosses and well-connected, everyone else is in the peon or poverty class; there is rarely a middle class of any size.

Whereas with capitalism, there is a fairly large middle class, and then the bottom class.
And importantly, it is possible for one to improve one's lot in capitalism by working hard, and yes, having some luck plays a part as well.

I don't care what system you're under, if you don't have at least some good luck, you might as well not even play, just accept that your circumstances suck.

Re-read GF's post. He's not suggesting either.

Extreme capitalism = USA, and as I posted a few weeks back the middle class is getting scarce every year that goes by.
Extreme communism = China

The best way to go is a capitalism system with the basic needs covered by social conventions, such as healthcare. You still have room to get rich if you work hard, but you won't die if you're poor.

Surely giving Corp giants tax credits isn't a good step in the right direction, from any point of view.

[SoulReaver]

In a socialist / communist system, the "top" is defined by how close your connections to the party are, as opposed to your earning power in a capitalist system.

did you just call Trump a commie?

[Annoyed]

Re-read GF's post. He's not suggesting either.

Extreme capitalism = USA, and as I posted a few weeks back the middle class is getting scarce every year that goes by.
Extreme communism = China

The best way to go is a capitalism system with the basic needs covered by social conventions, such as healthcare. You still have room to get rich if you work hard, but you won't die if you're poor.

Surely giving Corp giants tax credits isn't a good step in the right direction, from any point of view.

I don't support tax credits for big corporations. I've said that in my posts before, most recently in discussions about Amazon cancelling its plans to build HQ2 in NYC.
But the same basic problem exists for all of these socialist pipe dreams as faces NY. You have to pay for these dreams. The current howl is "tax the rich".

But if you try to do that at an excessive level, which will surely be required to enact the dreams of Sanders or worse, the Kindergartner, the rich leave. As demonstrated by Amazon's decision, as well as the recent uptick in wealthy folks leaving NY state because the federal tax code no longer covers NY's excessive spending and taxation.

These are but two very recent examples of why you can't simply tax the rich to pay for goodies for everyone. They simply leave. But of course, the pipe dreams don't die, the bill just gets passed down the chain to the working stiff.