Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 President Trump
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author  Topic Next Topic
Page: of 19

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25714 Posts

Posted - 12/16/2016 :  14:00:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

I don't see any way this country can get less divided. People really don't want to have real talks about subjects. For example conservatives need to try to understand that liberals want to end tragic killings and that is why they are for more gun restrictions. Instead they say things like "they want gun confiscation". Or Liberals need to understand there are real issues with unrestricted immigration that conservatives think are important and not just call them racists. I don't see this happening. The election really emphasized this.
I think the media emphasized the most vocal of the left and right who were divided. The media failed, mostly, to do what they should have done: ignored the non-scandals and focused on actual policy positions. That would have made a big difference. Will the mid-term coverage be better in two years, with all the criticism "big media" is getting these days? Have to wait and see, but I doubt it. There's too much money in sensationalism.

By the way, where is there unrestricted immigration? Even the immigrants Trump hires instead of U.S. citizens have to be granted work visas from a limited pool. And most of the illegal immigrants we have in this country are people came here legally and then over-stayed their visas.

Further by the way: I'm in favor of repealing the Second Amendment and mandating that people get licensed for each particular firearm they want to own. It'll never happen, but countries with "draconian" gun laws have far fewer homicides in general (not just gun homicides, so not having a right to own a gun means it's less likely for one to need to defend oneself with a gun), and way, way lower suicide rates.
I really meant to say Convention of the States (Article V) to propose amendments to deal with issues that lawmakers in Washington have not and probably will not address. Such as:

Term Limits: I am not for term limits of congressman but many people are from both the left and right.
Yes, people are in favor of a lot of things that will hurt them in the long run. Term limits for congresspeople are one of those things. Such limits would empower the Executive Branch and the lobbyists even more than they are already.
Federal Spending: It is clear no party in Washington really cares about our spending problem. An amendment to stop of regulate somehow deficit spending is a good idea in my opinion.
What spending problem, precisely? Today, with interest rates still at historic lows, the government should be borrowing like crazy and throwing the money at infrastructure projects. Nobody would complain about there being no jobs (but plenty would still complain about there being no jobs that they want).

The important metric is how much of our taxes go into making payments on our debt, and not the level of the debt itself or the amount of our budget deficit. Both those numbers have been much higher in the past, and the country has gotten through just fine. Right now, debt maintenance is about 6% of Federal revenue (a third of our ridiculously high defense spending), and the economists I've been reading say that it could easily be double that before we start having real problems (like ruining the country's credit).
Nullify the 17th amendment: More power will be placed back in the hands of the states. State elections will be more meaningful and reduce the power of the federal government over the states and citizens.
You think so? You don't think most states would just pass laws making their senators elected by their citizens? Ten states were already doing so when the 17th Amendment was ratified. Id' be surprised if the other 40 didn't follow suit after the hypothetical repeal.
Abortion/Capital Punishment: An amendment to ban abortion and capital punishment.
The former would be a national nightmare, dragging us backwards 60+ years. The latter should never have been needed, but is.
I think the first two are not that out of step with a majority of Americans.
Of course, popularity doesn't mean they're good ideas.
I think the liberals and media don't want to talk about why the really lost.
Why do you think they lost?
About 1-2 weeks went by after the election and they seemed more introspective. But now they seem to be back on the name calling again.
If by "name calling," you mean pointing out how the media, Wikileaks, the Russians and Mr. Comey came together into a perfect storm of misdirection and laziness, then you're right.
So I guess the democrats will be the party of "no" now, but it will be called patriotic.
Well, the Republicans have been doing that for the last eight years, so why not give the Democrats a turn?

That's what really gets to me about this latest election: eight years ago, Trump would have been called unpatriotic for suggesting that there are any problems with the U.S. government or its military, and run out of the RNC on a rail. So all the Republicans who wrapped themselves in the flag back then and who failed to call Trump out now clearly are just partisan hacks, and don't really give a damn about the soldiers or the Union. But few people remember that far back, and fewer still are willing to hold their representatives responsible for their hypocrisies.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

83 Posts

Posted - 12/16/2016 :  15:41:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

I think the media emphasized the most vocal of the left and right who were divided. The media failed, mostly, to do what they should have done: ignored the non-scandals and focused on actual policy positions. That would have made a big difference. Will the mid-term coverage be better in two years, with all the criticism "big media" is getting these days? Have to wait and see, but I doubt it. There's too much money in sensationalism.
I generally agree. But on the media, they should be more unbiased. It is hard to believe that if Clinton was a republican she would have had the same “non” coverage.

By the way, where is there unrestricted immigration? Even the immigrants Trump hires instead of U.S. citizens have to be granted work visas from a limited pool. And most of the illegal immigrants we have in this country are people came here legally and then over-stayed their visas.
So you agree that we have people coming into this country that we have no idea who they are. Do you think this is a good idea?

Further by the way: I'm in favor of repealing the Second Amendment and mandating that people get licensed for each particular firearm they want to own. It'll never happen, but countries with "draconian" gun laws have far fewer homicides in general (not just gun homicides, so not having a right to own a gun means it's less likely for one to need to defend oneself with a gun), and way, way lower suicide rates.
I do not own a gun but I am for the second amendment. I am for restrictions that make sense which we can keep debating. What would stop a government from taking away peoples freedoms if the citizenry was not armed but the government was?
What spending problem, precisely? Today, with interest rates still at historic lows, the government should be borrowing like crazy and throwing the money at infrastructure projects. Nobody would complain about there being no jobs (but plenty would still complain about there being no jobs that they want).

The important metric is how much of our taxes go into making payments on our debt, and not the level of the debt itself or the amount of our budget deficit. Both those numbers have been much higher in the past, and the country has gotten through just fine. Right now, debt maintenance is about 6% of Federal revenue (a third of our ridiculously high defense spending), and the economists I've been reading say that it could easily be double that before we start having real problems (like ruining the country's credit).
Our debt is greater than 90% of GDP. Countries with less than 90% of GDP have a 31% increase in economic growth and 48% if their percent is less than 30%. I think these are Brookings Institute numbers. Do you think that as interest rates go up we will curb our deficit?


You don't think most states would just pass laws making their senators elected by their citizens? Ten states were already doing so when the 17th Amendment was ratified. Id' be surprised if the other 40 didn't follow suit after the hypothetical repeal.
Maybe but it would be their choice.
Why do you think they lost?
The media was obviously in Clintons corner, the democrats took for granted the working middle class even though they have been ignored for the last eight years. She was not trustworthy or personable, feeling that the DNC process unfairly favored Clinton, The President continually telling people how great the economy is when their experience is different.

Well, the Republicans have been doing that for the last eight years, so why not give the Democrats a turn?
I agree, why would it be different. I would expect the dems to block republican ideas because they don’t agree with them, just like the republicans did.

That's what really gets to me about this latest election: eight years ago, Trump would have been called unpatriotic for suggesting that there are any problems with the U.S. government or its military, and run out of the RNC on a rail. So all the Republicans who wrapped themselves in the flag back then and who failed to call Trump out now clearly are just partisan hacks, and don't really give a damn about the soldiers or the Union. But few people remember that far back, and fewer still are willing to hold their representatives responsible for their hypocrisies.
This is the same for all politicians. Democrats put up with things the President did that if Bush did them they would have cried foul. For many people it is about the party and not the positions. This is why I have little faith that our country will get any better.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13287 Posts

Posted - 12/16/2016 :  20:04:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Christian Hedonist:So you agree that we have people coming into this country that we have no idea who they are. Do you think this is a good idea?

I think I'll weigh in a bit. There is a lot of our economy here in California that pretty much depends in people willing to work as laborers in areas like construction and farming. While I agree that a system should be set up so that those people could enter the country legally, and be employed legally, what I don't see is other people competing for those jobs. A laborer gets about 12 dollars an hour in construction, which is currently higher than minimum wage in California. Perhaps if I saw other people trying to get those jobs, many of them day jobs, I'd feel differently. But as it is, we would take a serious economic hit that would reverberate through the whole economy without those workers. And I'll tell you... The crimes are not being committed by them, aside from the obvious fact that they are not legal. Plus they are spending money and paying at the very least sales tax to be here.

I don't know what a system would look like for lower wage aliens, but gathering illegals up and sending them home will hurt us economically. And again, if you really look at it, the people committing the crimes are pretty much citizens. illegals tend to avoid that sort of thing because they don't want to be sent back.
...She was not trustworthy or personable
She told a few lies, but nothing more than most politicians do. And if you look at the fact checkers, she told fewer lies than every other politician running in both parties. Now as it happens, I voted for Bernie in the primaries, because ideology. But I saw no reason to not trust Hillary as much as I'd trust any politician. As for her personality, she said herself that she isn't a great campaigner, and she was aware of that flaw. But right down to the person, everyone who worked with her said she was great, and not at all as stiff as the person we saw running. It's kinda too bad that it's not issues (where she made some mistakes by not emphasizing those things) but personality that means the most to people. That whole "Crooked Hillary" thing is just bullshit. Say it enough times as was done by the Republicans for 30 years now, and add to that a lot of Bernie supporters who adopted that meme, and people start to believe it.


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25714 Posts

Posted - 12/16/2016 :  20:19:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

But on the media, they should be more unbiased. It is hard to believe that if Clinton was a republican she would have had the same “non” coverage.
Are you kidding? It was the email manufactroversy 24/7 every time Comey opened his yap. Among all the major networks, Clinton's emails received three times as much coverage as all of Trump's policy positions put together.
So you agree that we have people coming into this country that we have no idea who they are. Do you think this is a good idea?
No, we know exactly who the people are who've over-stayed their visas. The much smaller fraction of people who enter the country illegally aren't going to be stopped without a massive influx of money for border security, and if you're already worried about the debt and the deficit, you won't allow ICE a 1000% increase in its budget. But most of those illegal immigrants come here to work at jobs that Americans don't want, anyway. They're not a danger.

No, the most dangerous border hole we have is with Europe, where anyone with a British, French, Belgian (etc.) passport can waltz in here as a tourist with no more vetting than a check of the no-fly list.
I do not own a gun but I am for the second amendment. I am for restrictions that make sense which we can keep debating. What would stop a government from taking away peoples freedoms if the citizenry was not armed but the government was?
The Second Amendment was written at a time when the government had the same armament as the citizens. Nowadays, a bunch of citizens armed with long rifles and handguns aren't going to do squat to defend against a tyrant's military with tanks and bombs. Red Dawn was a silly fantasy.

Besides, people get wrongfully imprisoned here every damn day, but I don't see anyone trying to storm their local prison with their legally bought AR-15s because "freedom." No, instead they take over wildlife sanctuaries and deprive the workers there of their freedom, all while desperately trying to goad the government into making them martyrs. Go figure.
Our debt is greater than 90% of GDP. Countries with less than 90% of GDP have a 31% increase in economic growth and 48% if their percent is less than 30%. I think these are Brookings Institute numbers. Do you think that as interest rates go up we will curb our deficit?
Ah, debt ratios. According to the World Bank and IMF, what leads to instability (not necessarily a nose-dive) is high external debt. It looks like the U.S.'s external debt (money owed to other countries) is a little more than 30% of GDP. The rest of the national debt (a little more than 70% GDP) is owed to U.S. citizens and corporations.

To actually reduce the debt significantly, we can't have a deficit. We need to pull in more revenue than we spend and put the surplus into paying down the debt. No conservative economic plan from the last 40 years will do that, because they all have had massive tax cuts as a cornerstone, without larger cuts to spending to create a surplus. Nope, you get surplus revenue by making sensible spending cuts ("10% across the board" is not sensible, for example) with progressive tax increases to put the majority of the pain on the people (and companies) that can best withstand the (temporary) measures.

Want to see conservative economics in action? Look at what Brownback did to Kansas. Massive tax cuts based on the promise of a huge economic rush for companies and jobs (which never materialized) led to a revenue collapse, which eventually led to a necessary tax increase. But of course, they bumped up the sales tax to get the needed revenue, which is regressive and means that the rich people's income tax reduction is now being paid for mostly by poor people just trying to buy food. Meanwhile, because Kansas law mandates that some of the revenue be spent in ways the Republicans don't like especially in times of strife (on public schools, for example), the legislature has wasted even more taxpayer money by suing their own judicial branch and even threatening impeachment of judges who try to uphold the law.
Maybe but it would be their choice.
Perhaps you forget that amendments need 75% of the states to ratify them. So it was their choice. After all, we live under a government where except for certain protections, the majority gets to make the law.
Why do you think they lost?
The media was obviously in Clintons corner...
If that were true, then the fact that the emails contained nothing would have meant that the media would have ignored them. But's that's clearly not the case. Every time Wikileaks dumped more emails, the media reported on it, even if it was nothing more than a "there's gotta be a fire around here somewhere, look at all this smoke!" story.

Of course, it may have been just a perception issue. The media couldn't report on Clinton's pending trial for rape, or on the lawsuit accusing her of fraud, or on her boasting about sexual assault, or on her stiffing her contractors, because she didn't do any of those things. If you were expecting "balance" in terms of the raw number of scandals getting airtime, you were bound to be disappointed. Mathematically, she isn't anywhere close to being as much of an asshat as her opponent.

And even Trump had to go rooting around in her husband's closet to drag out the skeletons we've already seen, and try to pin them on Hillary to get her to look even a little dirty.
...the democrats took for granted the working middle class even though they have been ignored for the last eight years. She was not trustworthy or personable, feeling that the DNC process unfairly favored Clinton, The President continually telling people how great the economy is when their experience is different.
Most of these issues I blame on the media, actually. They could have explained (for example) how "the economy" can do well while individual people can fall on hard times. No matter how much Trump bloviates about bringing jobs back, there's not a chance in hell that a factory is going to disassemble a robot in order to give two or three Regular Joes their jobs back.

The trust issue was almost entirely about the emails, which was why every time Comey opened his yap about them, Clinton's approval rating went down, even when Comey said "there's nothing there." Again, the media is largely to blame for fixating on the emails and presenting the story to the public as if it were a major scandal. Especially when the most "scandalous" of the emails were neither to nor from Clinton herself.

And the DNC chair should never have another full-time job. The media also allowed the poop there to splash on (and stick to) Clinton, despite the fact that Sanders knew up-front he had no chance of winning the nomination but he kept going because for him, the nomination wasn't the point. At the convention, he managed to use the clout he'd built up to edge the Democratic platform leftward, but the media mostly failed to report on his success in that regard, leaving Sanders proponents with nothing to do but be bitter at Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
I agree, why would it be different. I would expect the dems to block republican ideas because they don’t agree with them, just like the republicans did.
Problem is, some of Obama's ideas were simply restatements of earlier Republican goals, but the Republicans blocked them anyway, because Obama.
This is the same for all politicians. Democrats put up with things the President did that if Bush did them they would have cried foul. For many people it is about the party and not the positions. This is why I have little faith that our country will get any better.
Depends on what you mean by "better." All current evidence suggests that the country is going to get a lot "better" in the near future if you're white, male and already own a company or two. 'Cause Trump has promised to lower your taxes and get rid of a lot of that profit-eating regulation, and he's not going to look too hard at you if you get rid of your uppity brown employees and those women who're always expecting to get paid to have other guys' kids.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25714 Posts

Posted - 12/16/2016 :  20:42:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

And if you look at the fact checkers, she told fewer lies than every other politician running in both parties.
To be fair, Politifact has her more than doubling Sanders' "Mostly False" and "False" statements, and his big fat goose-egg in the "Pants on Fire" category should be a point of pride for him (Clinton had seven).

Of course, to compare them fairly, one would need to run the percentages, because the raw number of ratings don't tell the whole story. Otherwise, one would have to conclude that Kasich was more honest than Sanders, but it seems to be an artifact of having so few statements rated.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

United Kingdom
1215 Posts

Posted - 12/16/2016 :  22:29:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The reason she lost is because Americans don't like a Cuck, even a female one. There I said it.

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25714 Posts

Posted - 12/17/2016 :  18:21:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

The reason she lost is because Americans don't like a Cuck, even a female one.
Try telling that to the porn industry.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

83 Posts

Posted - 12/19/2016 :  17:10:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil


I think I'll weigh in a bit. There is a lot of our economy here in California that pretty much depends in people willing to work as laborers in areas like construction and farming. While I agree that a system should be set up so that those people could enter the country legally, and be employed legally, what I don't see is other people competing for those jobs. A laborer gets about 12 dollars an hour in construction, which is currently higher than minimum wage in California. Perhaps if I saw other people trying to get those jobs, many of them day jobs, I'd feel differently. But as it is, we would take a serious economic hit that would reverberate through the whole economy without those workers. And I'll tell you... The crimes are not being committed by them, aside from the obvious fact that they are not legal. Plus they are spending money and paying at the very least sales tax to be here.
So can you answer the question "Do you think it is a good idea to let people into this country that we do not know who they are"?

I don't know what a system would look like for lower wage aliens, but gathering illegals up and sending them home will hurt us economically. And again, if you really look at it, the people committing the crimes are pretty much citizens. illegals tend to avoid that sort of thing because they don't want to be sent back.
Do you have any data to back this up? The fact is we have illegal immigrants in our jails convicted of felonies. Many could not be here if we had a better immigration policy. It makes common sense to increase the rate of immigrants in this country by vetting them as best as we can and reducing the time it takes to become a US citizen.


Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

83 Posts

Posted - 12/19/2016 :  17:32:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Are you kidding? It was the email manufactroversy 24/7 every time Comey opened his yap. Among all the major networks, Clinton's emails received three times as much coverage as all of Trump's policy positions put together.
Ok, but did you read the coverage? It was mostly saying how the republicans were making a big deal out of nothing. Can you find CNN or MSNBC or NBC etc. that had any coverage that said anything worse than she made mistakes? or she didn't know better.


No, we know exactly who the people are who've over-stayed their visas. The much smaller fraction of people who enter the country illegally aren't going to be stopped without a massive influx of money for border security, and if you're already worried about the debt and the deficit, you won't allow ICE a 1000% increase in its budget. But most of those illegal immigrants come here to work at jobs that Americans don't want, anyway. They're not a danger.
So where do you get the 1000% increase from? And your facts about how many criminals we have in the US that are here illegally.

No, the most dangerous border hole we have is with Europe, where anyone with a British, French, Belgian (etc.) passport can waltz in here as a tourist with no more vetting than a check of the no-fly list.
I agree with this.

The Second Amendment was written at a time when the government had the same armament as the citizens. Nowadays, a bunch of citizens armed with long rifles and handguns aren't going to do squat to defend against a tyrant's military with tanks and bombs. Red Dawn was a silly fantasy.
So your response is to take away the defenses they have? People with concealed gun licenses are the least likely group in America to commit a crime.

Ah, debt ratios. According to the World Bank and IMF, what leads to instability (not necessarily a nose-dive) is high external debt. It looks like the U.S.'s external debt (money owed to other countries) is a little more than 30% of GDP. The rest of the national debt (a little more than 70% GDP) is owed to U.S. citizens and corporations.
Do you have a source for this?

To actually reduce the debt significantly, we can't have a deficit. We need to pull in more revenue than we spend and put the surplus into paying down the debt. No conservative economic plan from the last 40 years will do that, because they all have had massive tax cuts as a cornerstone, without larger cuts to spending to create a surplus. Nope, you get surplus revenue by making sensible spending cuts ("10% across the board" is not sensible, for example) with progressive tax increases to put the majority of the pain on the people (and companies) that can best withstand the (temporary) measures.
I don't have much of a quibble with this. I don't like progressive taxes however it can be discussed as a plan to reduce the debt.

Mathematically, she isn't anywhere close to being as much of an asshat as her opponent.
Well she has that going for her.


The trust issue was almost entirely about the emails, which was why every time Comey opened his yap about them, Clinton's approval rating went down, even when Comey said "there's nothing there." Again, the media is largely to blame for fixating on the emails and presenting the story to the public as if it were a major scandal. Especially when the most "scandalous" of the emails were neither to nor from Clinton herself.
Comey never said there was nothing there. He lined out all the laws she violated and then said he would not prosecute for most likely political reasons.

Depends on what you mean by "better." All current evidence suggests that the country is going to get a lot "better" in the near future if you're white, male and already own a company or two. 'Cause Trump has promised to lower your taxes and get rid of a lot of that profit-eating regulation, and he's not going to look too hard at you if you get rid of your uppity brown employees and those women who're always expecting to get paid to have other guys' kids.
Provide the quotes in context where Trump indicates he is a racist.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13287 Posts

Posted - 12/19/2016 :  22:47:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Christian Hedonist:
So can you answer the question "Do you think it is a good idea to let people into this country that we do not know who they are"?

I answered that question. I said, " While I agree that a system should be set up so that those people could enter the country legally, and be employed legally, what I don't see is other people competing for those jobs." Clearly any legal system would involve some amount of vetting.
Do you have any data to back this up? The fact is we have illegal immigrants in our jails convicted of felonies.

This from Politifact: Libertarian candidate says Mexican immigrants more law-abiding than U.S. citizens
Our ruling

Johnson said Mexican immigrants are not "murderers and rapists" but are actually "more law-abiding than U.S. citizens and that is a statistic."

Numerous studies by scholars and partisan groups show that the foreign-born population is less likely to commit crimes than the native-born, and experts say this includes Mexican immigrants.

Researchers agree more data is needed to get a better understanding of immigration and crime, but the information available does not disprove Johnson’s point. We rate Johnson’s statement Mostly True.


And this from Business Insider: Donald Trump's deportation plan would be an economic nightmare

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25714 Posts

Posted - 12/21/2016 :  11:02:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

Originally posted by Dave W.

Are you kidding? It was the email manufactroversy 24/7 every time Comey opened his yap. Among all the major networks, Clinton's emails received three times as much coverage as all of Trump's policy positions put together.
Ok, but did you read the coverage? It was mostly saying how the republicans were making a big deal out of nothing. Can you find CNN or MSNBC or NBC etc. that had any coverage that said anything worse than she made mistakes? or she didn't know better.
"She made mistakes" is a negative story. "She didn't know better" means she's ignorant, which is negative. The media should have ignored the emails until something pertinent actually showed up (and it never did). Instead, they covered them all the damn time.
So where do you get the 1000% increase from?
It's a guess on the bare minimum for how much it'd cost to secure the borders.
And your facts about how many criminals we have in the US that are here illegally.
Simple logic: people who want to avoid deportation tend not to commit crimes that will get themselves noticed.

I already noticed your switcheroo when Kil said "tends to" and you countered with the fact that there is at least one illegal immigrant in prison for a felony. Some percentage of illegal immigrants commit felonies. Some percentage of U.S. citizens commit felonies. The evidence demonstrates that the percentage of illegal immigrants committing felonies is less than the percentage of U.S. citizens committing felonies. "Less than" does not imply "zero," so the fact that the rate at which illegal immigrants commit felonies is not zero does not imply that their rate is equal to or greater than that of U.S. citizens.

The only way to drop the rate of felonies committed by illegal immigrants to zero is to prevent all immigration, which is impossible.
No, the most dangerous border hole we have is with Europe, where anyone with a British, French, Belgian (etc.) passport can waltz in here as a tourist with no more vetting than a check of the no-fly list.
I agree with this.
Great. How dangerous are the tourists? Is there even a single example of someone here on a tourist visa killing four or more people?
The Second Amendment was written at a time when the government had the same armament as the citizens. Nowadays, a bunch of citizens armed with long rifles and handguns aren't going to do squat to defend against a tyrant's military with tanks and bombs. Red Dawn was a silly fantasy.
So your response is to take away the defenses they have?
I'm saying that the firearms that citizens are allowed to use are no defense at all against a modern military cooperating with a tyrannical government. So, because they confer no benefit at all, but have measurable non-zero risks (more people have been killed by toddlers with guns since 2001 than died on 9/11), the cost/benefit ratio is the worst possible.
People with concealed gun licenses are the least likely group in America to commit a crime.
Where are your data to support that claim?

Note that "law-abiding gun owners" can become murdering criminals in the blink of an eye.
Ah, debt ratios. According to the World Bank and IMF, what leads to instability (not necessarily a nose-dive) is high external debt. It looks like the U.S.'s external debt (money owed to other countries) is a little more than 30% of GDP. The rest of the national debt (a little more than 70% GDP) is owed to U.S. citizens and corporations.
Do you have a source for this?
I told you: the World Bank and the IMF.
I don't like progressive taxes...
Why not? The U.S. has had progressive taxes since 1913 (some years more progressive than others). Flat taxes with any sort of deductions or credits will be, in practice, regressive taxes.
Comey never said there was nothing there. He lined out all the laws she violated and then said he would not prosecute for most likely political reasons.
Name one law she violated. State department rules are not laws. No, Comey's first statements were that if it were anyone else in a similar position, no prosecutor would be able to secure a conviction.
"In looking back into investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of 1. clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information or 2. vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct or 3. indications of disloyalty to the United States or 4. efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
So no, there wasn't anything there.

Comey's later statements (just before the election) were that the "new emails" included no new information. Nothing there, either.

But it didn't matter that there wasn't anything there. After making these statements - no matter how lenient - Clinton's popularity went down each time.

He's no idiot. He must have known the effect his statements would have. He may have violated the Hatch Act - and he definitely defied long-standing DoJ rules - in order to make the statements he made.

So yes, his statements were made for political reasons: to hurt Clinton's attempt to become president. He certainly wasn't saying the things he said because Democrats wanted him to.
Provide the quotes in context where Trump indicates he is a racist.
All of them? I'd be busy for months.

How about "C" is for "colored"?

Or how about Trump calling a Venezuelan beauty-pageant winner "Miss Housekeeping?"

Or how about his statements that the majority of Mexican illegal immigrants are "rapists"?

Or how about his statement that Judge Curiel couldn't possibly be unbiased against him because Trump is anti-immigrant? Even Paul Ryan responded, "Claiming a person can't do the job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It's absolutely unacceptable."

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25714 Posts

Posted - 12/21/2016 :  18:22:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
By the way:
The following is from a former federal prosecutor with deep experience in public corruption investigations and prosecutions.
I've reviewed the redacted search warrant that the Court unsealed today.

It confirms what we assumed all along: (1) prior to seeking the warrant and to Comey issuing his letter, the FBI had no idea whether these were new emails, or duplicates of emails they previously reviewed--all they could see was non-content header information (to and from); (2) the FBI had no information to suggest that the emails were improperly withheld from them previously; and (3) the FBI had no facts to justify the urgency in seeking a review of the emails prior to the election. This latter point is key. Generally, DOJ policy commands that prosecutors and agents refrain from taking investigative steps (even non-public steps like seeking search warrants) within 60 days of an election in a politically sensitive matter.

Bottom line: nothing new, no urgency, no obstruction, no reason to defy longstanding DOJ policy and risk affecting the election. And there was simply no basis for Comey's decision to make matters worse by issuing a public letter to Congress.
No basis except for politics. And using one's Federal authority for political ends is a violation of the Hatch Act (heck, his promise, back in the summer, to keep Congress informed was just politics, too).

And then we get things like this, a mere week after the election:
As a matter of policy, the FBI does not comment on ongoing investigations, agency spokesman Garrett Croon said.
Sure. Unless they're investigating a Democrat running for president, it seems.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

United Kingdom
1215 Posts

Posted - 12/22/2016 :  00:37:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
sure Dave, it was all an FBI/Russian/media conspiracy. *rolls eyes* Who else was involved? Reptilians?
I really thought Trump would lose and all his supporters would complain about it being rigged and we would laugh at them. But the exact opposite has happened and no one is laughing.

Instead of trying to find problems with the result, rational people should be asking why so many people wanted to vote for Trump and how they were so driven away from Liberal politics.

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25714 Posts

Posted - 12/22/2016 :  09:48:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

sure Dave, it was all an FBI/Russian/media conspiracy. *rolls eyes* Who else was involved? Reptilians?
So you didn't pay attention when I specifically disclaimed the idea of the vast conspiracy. No, the only part that was a specific conspiracy was Russia dropping emails on WikiLeaks for dissemination.
I really thought Trump would lose and all his supporters would complain about it being rigged and we would laugh at them. But the exact opposite has happened and no one is laughing.
No, Trump is still claiming the election was rigged. And then ten seconds later he claims to have won in one of the largest "landslide" victories in history (which is partially true: it wasn't a landslide, but it wasn't the smallest margin, either).
Instead of trying to find problems with the result, rational people should be asking why so many people wanted to vote for Trump and how they were so driven away from Liberal politics.
What do you think I'm doing? I'm not disputing the results at all. I'm talking about why people voted for Trump, and who helped them make that choice.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

United Kingdom
1215 Posts

Posted - 12/22/2016 :  20:22:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
You're blaming the wrong people.
People voted for Trump because Liberals have so completely lost touch with ordinary people that the word "Liberal" has actually become a pejorative and people who identified as liberal 10 or 20 years ago are now not liberal enough and are being labeled as racists and bigots. Because of the bad-name the liberal extremists have created, people are now ashamed to even admit they are liberal.
They have either been exiled by an extremist, shrieking, hysterical, caricature of Liberalism, or are so sick of it they would rather vote for a braindead demagogue. Today when people hear the word 'liberal' people don't think about equal rights, or women getting the vote. They think about safe spaces, speakers on campus being shouted down, insane gender politics, refusing to admit that we have a problem with islamic terrorists. No one wants to be in that group anymore.

Instead of conducting a rational and honest presidential campaign, Hilary doubled down on the nonsense and hand waving that people had become sick of.

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 19  Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.33 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000