US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by u crank

How many other Americans and Brits have business ties with those countries?

But how many other Americans and Brits are the President of the US?

[August]

Originally Posted by eddie

You're the Alt-Right lapdog who believes everything coming out of Trumps and Bannons mouth, so I wouldn't talk to darn loud!

I am? So what does that make you? An alt-left lapdog whining in impotent rage at the actions of your betters because your evil queen lost? Get used to failure because your side has learned nothing and will continue to loose power.

[Oberon]

[Rockstar]

This just in!

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Oberon

So, if the model plays out, if we are looking at the end of the new Rome, then what follows is not necessarily going to work out inferior to what exists now, but different.

(this is a humorous discussion, not to be taken tooooo seriously)
After the dark ages pass, sure there would be a new renaissance we would see a different civilisation develop on the ashes of the old. The problem is that even with the acceleration of the historic processes and the increases in the life expectancy I doubt that we would live past the dark ages to see it.

If we extend that analogy I live in the Byzantium btw. I hope no 4th crusade happens any time soon.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by eddie

You're the Alt-Right lapdog who believes everything coming out of Trumps and Bannons mouth, so I wouldn't talk to darn loud!

It is not a matter of believing what comes from Trump. The President(any) is permitted to ban immigration. Past Presidents have done so with less fanfare.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by STEED

That sort of thing happens here Neal, so I take it like the UK the Saudi's are buying military goods.

And the US is buying oil. My guess is the spigots turning off if the USA does not play nice. Then again, the US has opened the reserve spigots when needed.

Certainly a game of chess.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by August

47 muslim majority nations in the world. Trump temporarily freezes immigration from just 7 of these countries that are either torn apart by jihadist violence or under the control of hostile, jihadist governments.

Yet to the Democrats and their media lapdogs its: "OMG he's banning Muslims"! "He's a racist"!!!

Not only that but he chose those 7 countries because they have been recognized by Congress and Homeland Security as state sponsors of terrorism. In other words, he used the judgment of his opponents as the criteria on which to base the reasonable and prudent policy. It may be that most of the 911 terrorists were residents of Saudi Arabia, but it is a far stretch from saying they lived there and saying that the Saudi government sent them here and trained them for the purpose of flying airliners into the World Trade Center.

However, the alt-left doesn't care about that. They are only concerned with turning a prudent move into an outrageous religious litmus test. And of course they choose to completely ignore the fact that this is only a 90 day action in order to tighten up screening of refugees. And they expect reasonable and normal citizens not to laugh at them. They really are that out of touch.

We know that Muslim extremist organizations have pledged to insert their operatives within the legitimate refugees. We know they have succeeded in Europe, leading to hundreds of deaths. We know they will succeed this side of the pond if we do nothing to defend ourselves. We know the first duty of every nation is to protect the lives of its citizens. We know the alt-left cares nothing for any of this. There's a reason they are powerless. They DESERVE to be powerless. We will protect them anyway.

Question for all snowflakes: was there unrestricted "immigration" from Germany and other Axis countries during World War II? Why not? We are in World War III whether we choose to defend ourselves or not. What did the 911 commission say 13 years ago or so? "They were at war with us while we were not at war with them." Nothing has changed. Refusing to defend yourself against evil is not the definition of enlightenment. It is the definition of foolishness.

It is perfectly legal to be foolish. And we will protect the lives of our foolish citizens. We know they will not appreciate that we saved their miserable lives, but that is not why we act. We act because all Americans deserve protection regardless of belief, race, party affiliation, creed, religion or foolishness.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Oberon

One could definitely make that argument about Europe, though let's not forget that out of these barbarians the new Europe was made which would eventually become the Europe of today. So, if the model plays out, if we are looking at the end of the new Rome, then what follows is not necessarily going to work out inferior to what exists now, but different.

Let's try to skip the petty wars and 1500 years of religious persecution this time, though.

[Buddahaid]

"Snowflakes." If you want to have debates over issues that people are worried about across the board, don't use inflammatory labels. It renders your arguments less potent.

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, to what end anyway? A terrorist simply needs to fly to Mexico and cross the border.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Well, to what end anyway? A terrorist simply needs to fly to Mexico and cross the border.

Hence the reason for a border wall, try to keep up.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by MaDef

Hence the reason for a border wall, try to keep up.

That's point.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

"Snowflakes." If you want to have debates over issues that people are worried about across the board, don't use inflammatory labels. It renders your arguments less potent.

No it doesnt

[Buddahaid]

Sure it does. It implies the argument doesn't stand on it's own just like qualifying a statement with to be honest implies your not otherwise.