For The "Bernie or Busters"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2016, 12:12 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(14-06-2016 11:51 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Is she doing their bidding?
I don't know if you've seen this article before, but it's definitely an interesting read: http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundatio...nt-1934187

Heatheness is no doubt going to assure us that this is all a big coincidence, a vast right-wing conspiracy or proven lies ("Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Clinton Foundation did not respond to questions from the IBTimes").

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 12:16 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(12-06-2016 11:51 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(12-06-2016 10:40 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Oxford Dictionaries
1. a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something
2. an intention or decision about what one is going to do

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

I took it apart, crunching the numbers, and demonstrated the "plan" to be terribly undetailed.

(12-06-2016 10:40 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I can only imagine what kind of mental gymnastics you have to go through to arrive at the conclusion that the following cannot be considered a plan:


"Introduction: The provision of the Patriot Act, Section 326 - the "know your customer" provision, compelling financial institutions to demand identity documents before opening accounts or conducting financial transactions is a fundamental element of the outline below. That section authorized the executive branch to issue detailed regulations on the subject, found at 31 CFR 130.120-121. It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year. There are several ways to compel Mexico to pay for the wall including the following:
  • On day 1 promulgate a 'proposed rule' (regulation) amending 31 CFR 130.121 to redefine applicable financial institutions to include money transfer companies like Western Union, and redefine "account" to include wire transfers. Also include in the proposed rule a requirement that no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States.
  • On day 2 Mexico will immediately protest. They receive approximately $24 billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States. The majority of that amount comes from illegal aliens. It serves as de facto welfare for poor families in Mexico. There is no significant social safety net provided by the state in Mexico.
  • On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump Administration will not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect.
  • Trade tariffs, or enforcement of existing trade rules: There is no doubt that Mexico is engaging in unfair subsidy behavior that has eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs, and which we are obligated to respond to; the impact of any tariffs on the price imports will be more than offset by the economic and income gains of increased production in the United States, in addition to revenue from any tariffs themselves. Mexico needs access to our markets much more than the reverse, so we have all the leverage and will win the negotiation. By definition, if you have a large trade deficit with a nation, it means they are selling far more to you than the reverse - thus they, not you, stand to lose from enforcing trade rules through tariffs (as has been done to save many U.S. industries in the past).
  • Cancelling visas: Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Mexico is totally dependent on the United States as a release valve for its own poverty - our approvals of hundreds of thousands of visas to their nationals every year is one of our greatest leverage points. We also have leverage through business and tourist visas for important people in the Mexican economy. Keep in mind, the United States has already taken in 4X more migrants than any other country on planet earth, producing lower wages and higher unemployment for our own citizens and recent migrants.
  • Visa fees: Even a small increase in visa fees would pay for the wall. This includes fees on border crossing cards, of which more than 1 million are issued a year. The border-crossing card is also one of the greatest sources of illegal immigration into the United States, via overstays. Mexico is also the single largest recipient of U.S. green cards, which confer a path to U.S. citizenship. Again, we have the leverage so Mexico will back down.
Conclusion: Mexico has taken advantage of us in another way as well: gangs, drug traffickers and cartels have freely exploited our open borders and committed vast numbers of crimes inside the United States. The United States has borne the extraordinary daily cost of this criminal activity, including the cost of trials and incarcerations. Not to mention the even greater human cost. We have the moral high ground here, and all the leverage. It is time we use it in order to Make America Great Again."
You can argue that the proposals are unrealistic until your head is blue, that doesn't change the fact that they exist. Meanwhile, you said that they didn't. You said that Trump doesn't say how he intends to make Mexico pay for the wall. You can call it "pedantry" or whatever else you like, but the facts of the matter are that you were wrong.

Probably because those methods wouldn't provide for 5% of the costs estimated. Yet you, in your blind fealty, consider that an acceptable plan.

Some of us have intellectual standards, and demand more than just vapid words to consider what is touted as a plan. This is my plan to fix the American economy:

1) Stoke xenophobia
2) Run up the national debt
3) ???
4) Profit!

By your pedantry, that is a plan. The fact that Trump gussied his nonplan up in fancier language only fooled people too happy to believe what they wish and not look any deeper behind empty words, because "he has a Plan".

(Anyone interested in reading my detailed deconstruction of Trump's "plan" can read it here. Be forewarned, I'm a huge meanie to ole Vosur there, filled as it is with insult and condescension!)

(12-06-2016 10:40 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I can't help it that your massive ego prevents you from admitting to it. I can't rightly say that I've ever seen you admit to being wrong on this forum. The last time I did it was in a discussion with earmuffs today. Goes to show the difference between you and me.

As for admitting error, I do it often enough, both online and in real life. I may or may not have done it here, I don't know, because generally speaking I don't get into arguments here at TTA. I get into discussions which almost always remain civil, if not cordial. It happens with you sometimes that they turn ugly -- I notice I'm hardly the only one who has these unpleasant exchanges with you -- but per Dom's warning above, I won't go into the reasons. I'm sure a man of your towering insight can figure it out on your own.
All right, having had some time to cool off, I want to apologize to you for being condescending towards you in our previous encounters. I'm very passionate about politics and it's easy for discussions about that topic to get heated, to say things you don't really mean in the heat of the moment. Your criticisms about the viability of Trump's payment plan are valid, but I still would have liked to see you express that more clearly at the beginning instead of saying he didn't comment on it. You're a smart guy, I just wish we were on the same side of the issues more often. Wink

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
15-06-2016, 12:55 AM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2016 01:11 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(15-06-2016 12:12 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(14-06-2016 11:51 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Is she doing their bidding?
I don't know if you've seen this article before, but it's definitely an interesting read: http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundatio...nt-1934187

Heatheness is no doubt going to assure us that this is all a big coincidence, a vast right-wing conspiracy or proven lies ("Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Clinton Foundation did not respond to questions from the IBTimes").


Well, I can't and won't speak for her, but that is disturbing; note that my only justification for considering a vote for Hilary is to prevent a Trump presidency. If the polling shows wide margins either way, I will continue my two decades+ of voting third-party.

I can say that I think the sales to the Gulf states were almost certainly a result of the Administration's desire to contain Iran, and that that policy was almost certainly driven by Obama himself -- so that including those sales in the article without mentioning the Administration's policies seems a little disingenuous. But the other sales/donations intersections aren't so susceptible to that analysis, although I can think of other geopolitival reason which might -- might explain them.

(15-06-2016 12:16 AM)Vosur Wrote:  All right, having had some time to cool off, I want to apologize to you for being condescending towards you in our previous encounters. I'm very passionate about politics and it's easy for discussions about that topic to get heated, to say things you don't really mean in the heat of the moment. Your criticisms about the viability of Trump's payment plan are valid, but I still would have liked to see you express that more clearly at the beginning instead of saying he didn't comment on it. You're a smart guy, I just wish we were on the same side of the issues more often. Wink

I appreciate the sentiment, and do regret having shitted up this thread with what in hindsight seems such a pointless argument; I'm sorry I brought it up.

I much prefer disagreeing without being disagreeable, and will strive to be more mindful going forward.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
15-06-2016, 04:34 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(14-06-2016 09:21 PM)Vosur Wrote:  It's like watching a religious person desperately clinging to their comfortable delusions in spite of all the available evidence. I'm legitimately starting to feel sad for you. No

Oooh, pitying condescension, just a bit further now, you're almost there. Yes

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 08:36 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
Is a Monarchy a dictatorship... idk about that one

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 09:06 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(15-06-2016 08:36 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Is a Monarchy a dictatorship... idk about that one
Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both generous donors to the Clinton Foundation, are absolute monarchies. The only noteworthy difference between a dictatorship and an absolute monarchy is that the power in the latter governmental system is hereditary.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
15-06-2016, 10:31 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(15-06-2016 09:06 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(15-06-2016 08:36 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Is a Monarchy a dictatorship... idk about that one
Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both generous donors to the Clinton Foundation, are absolute monarchies. The only noteworthy difference between a dictatorship and an absolute monarchy is that the power in the latter governmental system is hereditary.

That is rather troubling since both counties have abysmal human rights. Qatar is under sharia law and the Saudi's won't even allow women to drive -- amongst other things. Don't get me on the human trafficking thing the government turns a blind eye to.

I get that the foundation's purpose is to do good work and in order to achieve that they need lots of money.

But why would they take that money?

Also...

This is an article from 2015...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015...arms-deals


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
15-06-2016, 10:48 AM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
<edited>
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: