US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Rockin Robbins]

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.

What a fractured thought process! Europe has no resemblance to the Roman Empire at all. There is no new Rome to end.

Rome was an economic system built on a bedrock of slavery, slaves acquired through wars of conquest on surrounding areas. When Rome had nowhere to expand, and thus, no affordable (the barbarians left were mighty tough cookies) source of slaves, the economy could do nothing but collapse and take its empire with it. Good Caesar or bad Caesar, their options were nil. Looking steadfastly back toward past glories, they were condemned to accept that their primary strength, the bulwark of their greatness, slaves, was also their fatal weakness. Rome was nothing but a gigantic Ponzi scheme which ran out of victims.

Where are the European Union slaves? Where were those great conquests which produced them? Show me the mighty EU Legions. Your argument is pure poppycock. Ridiculous poppycock. You wouldn't know Rome if it bit you in the patootie.

Actually the only one in recent times who tried to recreate Rome was Adolf Hitler. But he foolishly killed his own slaves because he didn't understand how Rome worked. And in Rome, since they realized that slaves were the center of their economic well-being, treating your slaves well was the mark of a good Roman citizen. Hitler misunderstood that Roman value as well. Stupid man.

[yubba]

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.

Oh, you mean like how the left calls people racist if they don't agree with the lefts point of view,,, they have learned nothing.. I do not like being called fascist or alt right,,, because those are far left from my point of view,, which brings up the question just how far left of Stalin are you.???

[Aktungbby]

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!

Originally Posted by August

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.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Question for all snowflakes:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid;2462045[B

]"Snowflakes."[/B] 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.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

No it doesnt

NOPE it sure doesn't: it's just not Minnesota Nice (The Jessie Ventura Effect: or how Trump got elected in the first place) Trump came to Minnesota to raise money for the Reform Party’s highest elected official, Gov. Ventura, who made it clear that he and the New York developer were on the same wavelength. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/before-trump-there-was-jesse-ventura-and-an-improbable-victory/

But Ventura’s typical voter was younger, largely male and “for the most part regarded the election as a giant kegger

Having, in my youth, secured 280+ half-barrels of a certain brew for rugby and fraternity social events myself ...:

[AVGWarhawk]

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.

Talking about labels....Xenophobic, homophobic, Islamaphobic.

[Rockin Robbins]

"Snowflakes" is a term of endearment. It's like Memaw, or Granny, they might not know how to take care of themselves or others, fall victim to fraudsters, can't be trusted to defend themselves against those who seek their harm, can't say no to a solicitor on the phone, but we love them and defend them.

However, the derogatory terms of the left: homophobe, islamophobe, xenophobe, neo-con, racist, etc, are first of all false, but also terms for those who are hated, who have no right to be heard, who probably should be gassed and burned, whose businesses need to be burned, who need to be deprived of any means of earning a living through boycotts, bans, legal and illegal action. They are terms for those who are unilaterally deemed no longer to have human rights: those to be destroyed by any means necessary.

The right seeks to persuade. The left seeks to compel. That alone automatically makes my decision. In a system of persuasion, I can change things for the better, even in an overall atmosphere I disagree with. In a system of coercion and compulsion the wiggy wigs rule all with no checks or balances. Leftist thinking cannot succeed anyway. There is no way to compel the heart of man. It can only be persuaded. All excellence is entirely voluntary. We love them anyway.

Note that no leftist has responded to my questions: Can you provide evidence of unrestricted "immigration" of German or other Axis citizens into the US during World War II? Why was it not allowed? Was that wrong, or just good common sense in executing the first duty of any legitimate government: to protect the lives and property of its citizens? Pay attention to the term of endearment. Ignore the substance of the position. It is the way of life for a snowflake.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

"Snowflakes" is a term of endearment.

Actually, the politicised use of the term originates from those opposed to the ending of slavery.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Actually the only one in recent times who tried to recreate Rome was Adolf Hitler. But he foolishly killed his own slaves because he didn't understand how Rome worked. And in Rome, since they realized that slaves were the center of their economic well-being, treating your slaves well was the mark of a good Roman citizen. Hitler misunderstood that Roman value as well. Stupid man.

There were psychological reasons to own slaves too ... to lord it over someone, to make someone lower than yourself, to feel better because you are higher than they are and don't have to work anymore.

But Hitler didn't kill the Jews ... God did so that he could bring them home to Israel. The state of Israel had ceased to exist in 70 ad and therefore for the prophesies of the Bible to come true there has to be an Israel, which by the miracle of the UN and President Truman there was awarded land for the Jews to settle on established as the statehood of Israel May 1948. I won't continue in this vain, but just plant a seed.

Yes society needs slaves that make $15 an hour in fast food places I'll leave it at that

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

What a fractured thought process! Europe has no resemblance to the Roman Empire at all. There is no new Rome to end.

Rome was an economic system built on a bedrock of slavery, slaves acquired through wars of conquest on surrounding areas. When Rome had nowhere to expand, and thus, no affordable (the barbarians left were mighty tough cookies) source of slaves, the economy could do nothing but collapse and take its empire with it. Good Caesar or bad Caesar, their options were nil. Looking steadfastly back toward past glories, they were condemned to accept that their primary strength, the bulwark of their greatness, slaves, was also their fatal weakness. Rome was nothing but a gigantic Ponzi scheme which ran out of victims.

Where are the European Union slaves? Where were those great conquests which produced them? Show me the mighty EU Legions. Your argument is pure poppycock. Ridiculous poppycock. You wouldn't know Rome if it bit you in the patootie.

Actually the only one in recent times who tried to recreate Rome was Adolf Hitler. But he foolishly killed his own slaves because he didn't understand how Rome worked. And in Rome, since they realized that slaves were the center of their economic well-being, treating your slaves well was the mark of a good Roman citizen. Hitler misunderstood that Roman value as well. Stupid man.

You like to take things literally, don't you? Of course Europe doesn't have slaves, well...except for the Greeks. But it has an economy based on free movement, and it has expanded constantly since its creation. You want EU Legions? Try an army of bureaucrats. You can draw similarities,and it wasn't just the economy that collapsed in Rome, it was a multitude of factors.
It was a theory, a ponderance, an exercise in thought that I was undertaking with ikalugin. If it triggers you that much, feel free to ignore it.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Yes society needs slaves that make $15 an hour in fast food places I'll leave it at that

Payable in new 'coin of the realm'! (this ad just appeared in my 'suspect mail'??!!)

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

"Snowflakes" is a term of endearment. It's like Memaw, or Granny, they might not know how to take care of themselves or others, fall victim to fraudsters, can't be trusted to defend themselves against those who seek their harm, can't say no to a solicitor on the phone, but we love them and defend them.

That's not endearment, that's patronizing and it is pure hypocrisy, that's exactly what I always read the "left" being accused of in this very forum, that they think they know what's best for everybody. So how is this any different? Not to say that some on the left don't behave like they've got the monopoly on truth. Still, you're doing the same thing here.

However, the derogatory terms of the left: homophobe, islamophobe, xenophobe, neo-con, racist, etc, are first of all false, but also terms for those who are hated, who have no right to be heard, who probably should be gassed and burned, whose businesses need to be burned, who need to be deprived of any means of earning a living through boycotts, bans, legal and illegal action. They are terms for those who are unilaterally deemed no longer to have human rights: those to be destroyed by any means necessary.

Where did you get that nugget from? Mein Kampf?

The right seeks to persuade. The left seeks to compel. That alone automatically makes my decision. In a system of persuasion, I can change things for the better, even in an overall atmosphere I disagree with. In a system of coercion and compulsion the wiggy wigs rule all with no checks or balances. Leftist thinking cannot succeed anyway. There is no way to compel the heart of man. It can only be persuaded. All excellence is entirely voluntary.

I'm not seeing any persuasion happening on either side of the aisle to be fair.

[Onkel Neal]

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.

Good point.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by u crank

Closer to the truth.

Since the for profit news entertainment industry makes it money by cultivating interest, you are correct.

[Platapus]

There is a long standing tradition of former presidents not criticizing their successor.

Few people are as critical about Bush than I am, but I have to acknowledge that Bush refrained from breaking this tradition.

Obama on the other hand.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politi...ent/index.html

Former President Barack Obama criticized President Donald Trump's executive order curbing immigration in a statement on Monday, backing protesters who have taken to the nation's airports to express their displeasure with Trump's action on Friday."The President fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion," said Kevin Lewis, spokesman for the former president, in a statement.

...

This is first time Obama, who ceded power to Trump 10 days ago, has criticized the current president, breaking with an unwritten rule that former presidents refrain from criticizing the current White House occupant.

I fear this may not be the last.

Yes technically he is just an ordinary citizen with the right of expression, but there is a reason why this tradition is in place.

I don't think what he is doing is right, even if I agree with him on this issue.

[Bilge_Rat]

so, was not necessarily going to get into this, but considering the current media meltdown, it seems appropriate.

From Rasmussen reports:

Most Support Temporary Ban on Newcomers from Terrorist Havens

Most voters approve of President Trump’s temporary halt to refugees and visitors from several Middle Eastern and African countries until the government can do a better job of keeping out individuals who are terrorist threats.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here. Thirty-three percent (33%) are opposed, while 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Similarly, 56% favor a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the government approves its ability to screen for likely terrorists. Thirty-two percent (32%) oppose this temporary ban, and 11% are undecided.

This survey was taken late last week prior to the weekend protests against Trump’s executive orders imposing a four-month ban on all refugees and a temporary visa ban on visitors from these seven countries.

These findings have changed little from August when 59% of voters agreed with Trump’s call for a temporary ban on immigration into the United States from "the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism” until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists.

(...)

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 25-26, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Only 16% of Americans think this country can ever be made completely safe from terrorist attacks in general, although 52% of voters say the federal government does not focus enough on the threat of domestic Islamic terrorism.

The refugee ban is supported by 82% of Republicans and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Democrats are opposed by a 53% to 34% margin. The numbers are nearly identical for the temporary ban on visas from these seven terrorist-plagued nations.

Men and women are in general agreement on both measures. Younger voters are slightly less supportive than their elders are.

Blacks oppose both bans more than whites and other majority voters do.

Among voters who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing, over 70% support both bans. Similar numbers of those who Strongly Disapprove of his job performance are opposed.

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public...rrorist_havens

so a majority of voters, including a majority of Republicans and Independents approve of Trump's temporary ban while a majority of Democrats oppose it.

I am not arguing whether the ban is correct or not, but as usual, Democrats are mis-reading the mood of the country.

Going into a full all-out war with the Trump administration over this issue is really playing Trump's (and Bannon's) game. It is much more likely to solidify Republican/independent support for Trump than the opposite.

There is a difference between effective opposition and all-out hysteria.

[yubba]

Well first off the role of our government is to protect the interest of this country and, the American Citizen,, not the people of other countries,,, no person from another has the right to just come here, and the constitution does not extend to people of other countries .. It is not American nor is it constitutional to import people into this country unscreened ,, to change the the culture so one party benefits in votes.., We have a right to expect our government to secure our borders and up hold the law. Democrats are worse than a 4 year old wanting a puppy and will throw tantrums till they get what they want..
The left has cried it is unconstitutional and unamerican to keep people out that might be a threat,,, how so ???