The Political Discussion Thread

[Falcon Horus]

Ugh, I see multiquote still doesn't work...

There is no reason on the face of the earth that we should be expected to tend to the needs of citizens of other nations. They are their home country's problem, let them deal with it.

You don't actually but what that doesn't fit the narrative.

Federal Benefit Eligibility for Unauthorized Immigrants
In general, unauthorized immigrants within the United States are not eligible for any federal public benefits (exceptions detailed on the webpage)

Chart of Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs
Legal immigrants are barred for the first 5 years from foodstamps and medicaid, for example.

Lefties seem to forget one thing. Someone has to go to work to earn the money that is confiscated from them in order to support all of these "public charges".

Hello -- social security country here!!

My, how intolerant. But I'm confused. Aren't you always going on about people having to be tolerant and accepting of folks who think differently? Such as trans and other gender benders?

Isn't it interesting that the people who preach tolerance are the least tolerant of all when it comes to ideas they don't like?

You are tolerant when you say: "Okay... so she's/he's/they're different. That's okay... as long as they do their job right."

Discrimination is saying: "Okay... so she's/he's/they're different. That's not okay in my opinion. They may do their jobs right, but I don't want no people like that in my offices."

[Falcon Horus]

In other words, the current iteration of the GOP.

I plead the 5th.

In your opinion. In my opinion, it is the ideas of the left that are destructive and must be shoved aside & replaced with common sense.

Common sense
sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts

----

Looks like someone who denies the facts on a regular basis, could use a little "common sense" himself.

[Falcon Horus]

No, the people gave the win to the right, at the voting booth, under the system in place, which was known to all. Stop whining that it was unfair.

Not the people -- 6 million gave the win to Clinton.
The electoral college gave it to the right.

And from what I saw today in my newsfeed, it's quite alright for an EC-voter to vote however they like without taking into account the votes of the people so it's only a matter of influencing the right people and anyone can become president -- see the orange buffoon.

What are you going to do when Trump wins in 2020, which at this point is almost a foregone conclusion, considering the crap the Democrats are talking about. Start another whinefest?

You can kiss America goodbye, and hope to any god that you have no great attachment to any savings.

[Falcon Horus]

I speak for all Unas and I received my SGC founding member patch today.

Which is useless on Gateworld.

[Annoyed]

OMG!!! Chaka-Z0's getting excited over human poop!!! This is bad, Annoyed...

Chaka-Z0, by the way you are writing this stuff up, it sounds like you'd feel perfectly at home working in either a medical facility's nurses aide jobs or sanitation end, a waste treatment / sewage plant, or anything to do with human poop odors. Annoyed believes you're a lizard, but this takes the icing with the cake..! You're a true-blue democrat... probably don't mind smelling other folks anal odors...?! blech!

Nah, Lizards actually smell with their tongues, so all he's gotta do is keep his mouth closed. That's a completely different challenge for him, though.

Ugh, I see multiquote still doesn't work...

Seems to work for me. Check your browser and advert/script blocking tools.

You don't actually but what that doesn't fit the narrative.

Federal Benefit Eligibility for Unauthorized Immigrants
In general, unauthorized immigrants within the United States are not eligible for any federal public benefits (exceptions detailed on the webpage)

Chart of Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs
Legal immigrants are barred for the first 5 years from foodstamps and medicaid, for example.

Now, look into how many loopholes there are in that policy. Hell, there are law firms that specialize in helping illegals find them!
If they aren't eligible, as you claim, what is the basis for the demands that we provide them with health care, food, lodging, etc. ? If they aren't eligible, why are they receiving these things?

You are tolerant when you say: "Okay... so she's/he's/they're different. That's okay... as long as they do their job right."

Discrimination is saying: "Okay... so she's/he's/they're different. That's not okay in my opinion. They may do their jobs right, but I don't want no people like that in my offices."

Who says tolerance is only in relation to discrimination? You seem to be quite intolerant of ideas that you don't agree with.

Such as:

Allow me to introduce you to neo-fascism:

...“neofascists” advocate militant nationalism and authoritarian values, oppose the liberal individualism of the Enlightenment, attack Marxist and other left-wing ideologies, indulge in racist and xenophobic scapegoating, portray themselves as protectors of traditional national culture and religion, glorify violence and military heroism, and promote populist right-wing economic programs.

So anyone who agrees with the bolded portions is a neofacist? (Or other hate group?) As I said, how intolerant of you.

Not the people -- 6 million gave the win to Clinton.
The electoral college gave it to the right.

And from what I saw today in my newsfeed, it's quite alright for an EC-voter to vote however they like without taking into account the votes of the people so it's only a matter of influencing the right people and anyone can become president -- see the orange buffoon.

And the EC is the system in place, known to all.

And you are correct, electors do not have to vote for the candidate they said they would vote for. This was hashed out in late 2016 as one of the first of many attempts by the Democrats to overturn the perfectly legitimate outcome of the election, which they lost. And they are still trying to overturn it. They simply cannot accept that they lost.

And they're gonna lose again in 2020.

[Chaka-Z0]

Which is useless on Gateworld.

I've got mixed feelings towards that badge, probably going to end up in a dusty drawer somewhere. I helped create this monster, Cthulhu save me.

And the EC is the system in place, known to all.

Soul summarized it well.

in 2002 the people gave the win to Saddam, at the voting booths, under the system in place
in 2005 the people gave the win to Bashar Assad, at the voting booths, under the system in place
in 2008 the people gave the win to Castro, at the voting booths, under the system in place
in 2009 the people gave the win to Kim Jong Il, at the voting booths, under the system in place
and in the USSR till 1984 the people gave the win to the Communist Party, at the voting booths, under the system in place (with 100% of the votes, yo)

Have you heard? Putin was reelected under the system as well! Great news for democracy!

[Annoyed]

I've got mixed feelings towards that badge, probably going to end up in a dusty drawer somewhere. I helped create this monster, Cthulhu save me.



Soul summarized it well.



Have you heard? Putin was reelected under the system as well! Great news for democracy!

As I recall, we weren't talking about any of the nations Soul mentioned. We're talking about the United States.

You can frame it any way you want, but Trump won the election in the US. That is undeniable fact. The Democrats assumed that certain states that that had been hit hard by free trade and other long standing policies would vote Dem., but the Dems had been supportive of the polices that damaged these states. Trump offered a solution for those problems, and the voters in those states chose to try something different, as opposed to the same old same old. The Dems failed to anticipate that.

Put it more simply, Trump ran a more intelligent campaign that Clinton did. Clinton completely overlooked the economic suffering of the working classes, banking on the liberal elites on the coasts to carry the day for her. She was wrong.

Too freaking bad. Bad for Clinton and the Dems, good for the rest of the country.

And I've asked you this before, too. Unless the economy tanks in the next year, Trump is gonna be a winner in 2020 too. Particularly considering what the Democrats are doing, advocating socialism, as well as basically destroying their own with intraparty fighting.

What are they going to claim then? That Trump cheated again?

If they really want to win in 2020, they would be far better served by publicly disavowing the "squad" and it's allies a d coming up with a platform that more working class people find appealing.

[SoulReaver]

As I recall, we weren't talking about any of the nations Soul mentioned. We're talking about the United States.

as I recall I was making a comparison

and you're dodging in the lousiest way possible

You can frame it any way you want, but Trump won the election in the US.

and Saddam Bashar Fidel Vlad & KJ also won in their respective countries

[Annoyed]

as I recall I was making a comparison

and you're dodging in the lousiest way possible

and Saddam Bashar Fidel Vlad & KJ also won in their respective countries

Well, maybe that's something the residents of those countries need to look at. That's up to them.
I'm satisfied with the system we have here. Also, maybe the residents of the nations you mention will have just as hard a time trying to change it as those who dislike the EC here would have getting rid of that. Meaning, damned near impossible.

[SoulReaver]

Also, maybe the residents of the nations you mention will have just as hard a time trying to change it as those who dislike the EC here would have getting rid of that. Meaning, damned near impossible.

the comparison between the US(SR) and those dictatorships is even more relevant then

[aretood2]

israel was merely upholding their law

Nothing in Israeli law prompted Netanyahu to ban them. This was simply a case of Trump telling his lapdog what to do. It's sad, but Israelis have themselves to blame. But that's okay, I know how it feels because...Trump. I'm sure the US and Israel will pull out of this...eventually....hopefully....maybe? I'll take my half empty glass now.

Guns are made to kill people. They are weapons, and that is their function.

That doesn't mean they don't have legitimate uses. A handgun is a very valuable thing when some small person is being assaulted by a larger person. That kind of use is just as valid as the doctor administering Morphine to a patient in pain.

In addition to the other positive aspects of firearm ownership by the population, people should have the right to defend themselves. If some thug tries to rape a woman or rob a victim who has little chance of successfully resisting the attacker, he should have to do so with the full knowledge that his target may be armed and there's a good chance he might end up losing the encounter.

No one here (maybe Soul?) is advocating a ban on firearms....why are you talking crap?

Then maybe it's a good idea for the law-abiding folks to have them too? Or are they just supposed to be target practice?

Once again, no one is contesting that.

So, basically, anyone who doesn't toe the liberal line or disagrees with it.

My, how intolerant. But I'm confused. Aren't you always going on about people having to be tolerant and accepting of folks who think differently? Such as trans and other gender benders?

Isn't it interesting that the people who preach tolerance are the least tolerant of all when it comes to ideas they don't like?

Did you just equate conservatism with fascism? Annoyed, I don't think you're conservative....I don't think the GOP is conservative either. You're reactionary at best.

Don't people bear any responsibility for their choices? Did or did not these people deliberately choose to travel to the US and try to get into the country illegally or under the false flag of "asylum"? They made that choice.

There is no such thing as "False flag of asylum". Everyone has the right to go to a nation of their choosing and claim asylum. It's not illegal to be wrong about your claim...there's nothing illegal about it. No law against being wrong. If you are wrong you are simply told to go back or go elsewhere. It becomes illegal when you stay after having your claim rejected. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Oh, and these people entered Mexico, enroute to the US. Since Mexico so graciously allowed them to enter that country, shouldn't Mexico pay for them? Don't try to hang that on us.

So do you purposefully ignore/forget what I say? Or are you actually senile?

Again, we are not the world's welfare office. Let their own countries pay for them, or fix their economies. They are NOT our responsibility. If you think otherwise, get a bunch of Canadians together and petition your government to provide them all free transportation to Canada, and you folks can pay for them.

You know the saying "If you break it, you buy it"...well the US broke Central America....so what's that stuff about paying for your mistakes that you mentioned earlier? Hypocrite.

No, the people gave the win to the right, at the voting booth, under the system in place, which was known to all. Stop whining that it was unfair.

You can split hairs all you want. But the fact is that the majority of Americans who voted didn't want Trump to be President.

[Annoyed]

There is no such thing as "False flag of asylum". Everyone has the right to go to a nation of their choosing and claim asylum. It's not illegal to be wrong about your claim...there's nothing illegal about it. No law against being wrong. If you are wrong you are simply told to go back or go elsewhere. It becomes illegal when you stay after having your claim rejected. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Or maybe you ignore what I say?

I've said these this a few times.

Asylum is defined as providing a haven for someone fleeing political persecution at the hands of the leadership of their home country. It is NOT defined as your home country's economy is in the toilet and you want out.

In addition, legitimate asylum seekers are to seek refuge in the first nation they land in where they are safe from the aforementioned persecution for political reasons.

The current wave of "asylum seekers" fails both of these tests.

[Gatefan1976]

They are not safe in Mexico.

[SoulReaver]

Asylum is defined as providing a haven for someone fleeing political persecution at the hands of the leadership of their home country. It is NOT defined as your home country's economy is in the toilet and you want out.

cept that country's economy is in the toilet because of your country

In addition, legitimate asylum seekers are to seek refuge in the first nation they land in where they are safe from the aforementioned persecution for political reasons.

it's because of your country they're not safe in their country

o one here (maybe Soul?) is advocating a ban on firearms....why are you talking crap?[/COLOR]g

when did I say that

[Annoyed]

Guns are made to kill people. They are weapons, and that is their function.

That doesn't mean they don't have legitimate uses. A handgun is a very valuable thing when some small person is being assaulted by a larger person. That kind of use is just as valid as the doctor administering Morphine to a patient in pain.

In addition to the other positive aspects of firearm ownership by the population, people should have the right to defend themselves. If some thug tries to rape a woman or rob a victim who has little chance of successfully resisting the attacker, he should have to do so with the full knowledge that his target may be armed and there's a good chance he might end up losing the encounter.

No one here (maybe Soul?) is advocating a ban on firearms....why are you talking crap?



Once again, no one is contesting that.

You folks aren't all that bright, are you? Ever hear the phrase "Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" ?

Perfect example: 40 years ago, it would have been inconceviable that a government entity would be able to ban smoking in your own home (among a great many other places)

https://reason.com/2013/11/25/it-is-...in-your-own-h/

In a unanimous decision, members of the San Rafael City Council have approved the strictest type of smoking ordinance in the country. Effective last week, Assembly Bill 746 bans residents of apartments, condos, duplexes, and multi-family houses from smoking cigarettes and "tobacco products" inside their homes.

Just because these people can't afford to buy their own freestanding home, they lose rights?

If you want an example of similar behavior as it directly applies to guns, take a look at NY state's gun laws.