Trump - I can shoot anyone.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2016, 07:10 PM
RE: Trump - I can shoot anyone.
(30-01-2016 06:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-01-2016 06:30 PM)Vosur Wrote:  My answer to this question comes straight from the heart. I care because there is an incredible amount of untapped potential in your country and I want to see that potential realized in my lifetime. Many US patriots say that America is the greatest country in the world, but we both know that that is currently not true by any significant measure. However, I genuinely believe that with the right people in charge, the US actually could be one of the greatest, if not the greatest nation on the planet. Just think about where your country would be right now if they hadn't elected Bush twice, if they hadn't elected politicians who both started and refuse to end the disastrous War on Drugs and so on and so forth.

It makes me angry, Chas. It makes me angry that your country is being run by incompetent politicians who aren't being held accountable for their failures, people who refuse let their decisions be guided by scientific knowledge. You have a popular presidential candidate (Ben Carson) who denies the validity of the theory of evolution, for Christ's sake! Anyone spouting such nonsense would be laughed out of the room in Germany or anywhere else in Europe, yet Ben Carson was at 24% in the polls just a few months ago.

You have such a disgusting amount of lobbyism and corporate greed in your country. Did you know that people here in Prague, for instance, can get 300Mbit/s Internet for $40 a month? Do you know how much half of that, 150Mbit/s, costs in the US? Comcast, for instance, charges $250 a month. And it's not because of any technical reasons, it's because a few ISPs each have a virtual monopoly in their area of operations. Did you know that people in the Czech Republic get a minimum of 20 vacation days every year, as mandated by law? Some employers even voluntarily give their employees more than that. My employer, for instance, gives us 25 vacation days a year and up to five days carry over to the next year if you leave them unused. Did you know that the minimum number of vacation days in the US, as mandated by law, is zero? There are only eight other countries in the entire world with no mandatory number of vacation days! Did you know that even employees who worked for a company for 20 years are only eligible, on average, to 19 days of vacation and regular employees only to 10 days?

This is a topic I could go on about for hours because it's something I'm both passionate and knowledgeable about. Your country is backwards in so many different and unique ways and trails behind numerous third-world countries in various measures. Aren't you incredibly upset about the catastrophic state of affairs in your country? I don't even live in the US and I'm mad as hell. I want to see your country be great and that is where one of Trump's major appeals comes into play. He promises to make America great again. Whether or not he can actually accomplish that remains to be seen, but you have to admit that it's a very compelling message. I would love nothing more than to see either him or Sanders take a shot at it. They are the only people who aren't poisoned by the lobbyism and corruption that are so prevalent in your country; that alone is the reason enough not to vote for anyone but these two candidates.

Who are you planning to vote for this election anyway? Who do you trust to clean up this mess of a country? I bet if you read up on Trump's policies, you'd find that you agree with him on at least some issues. I can't imagine that you don't support his views on the 2nd amendment, for instance.

While I don't truly understand your emotional investment, I can appreciate it and agree with your reasons. The idea of the U.S.A. is remarkable; the actuality - not so much.
So I apologize for appearing dismissive as I really agree with you. But not about Trump. No





I agree with many of his stated positions on issues, I simply don't think he is personally suitable as a president. I don't care for bombastic demagogues who shoot from the hip and lie about it later.

Is he less unacceptable than Carson or Cruz or Rubio? Sure - they're loony.

I am a firm Sanders supporter, and I don't like Clinton at all.
It's all good. I accept your apology and I'm sorry for being so snarky and sarcastic earlier. It's just that this is something I care about a lot and it irks me to have people dismiss my opinion just because I don't live in your country. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree about Trump since I consider Sanders a good choice as well. To be honest, I'm not sure which one of the two I would vote for if I was an American and it came down to Trump vs Sanders. I don't think Bernie is going to win the nomination, though, which makes the choice that much easier. Wink

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2016, 01:40 AM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2016 01:47 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Trump - I can shoot anyone.
(30-01-2016 05:47 PM)Vosur Wrote:  You're wrong. Trump does say how he intends to make Mexico pay for the wall on his website. You'll find a lot of information about his policies in general there.

Actually, that's exactly where I went to make sure I got my reply right. Here's what he says there:

Trump Wrote:Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.

None of those methods will assure that Mexico pays for any wall. He wants to "impound" illegal remittances? How, exactly, will he have the government determine their legality? He doesn't say how much he expects that measure to net. How much money comes from fees for border-crossing cards? Taking Trump's figures of 1 million issued to Mexico multiplied by $160 per card we get $160 million. Temporary visas, for Mexican CEOs and NAFTA workers $190 each, can't be bringing in very much money -- maximum $190 million assuming every border-crossing card issued per above goes to one of these catgories; and diplomats are not charged that fee at all [see previous link]. Tariffs against Mexico are illegal per the NAFTA agreement, which has the force of law under the US Constitution, meaning that if he wishes to impose them he will have to denounce that treay, with the foreign-policy ramifications such a measure entails (this includes Canada). And cutting foreign aid to Mexico, which goes to help fight narcotraficantes, will only increase the instability of our southern neighbor, which will almost certainly drive up the numbers attempting to flee here.

CNN estimates that the wall he proposes would cost between $15 and $25 billion. Trump doesn't say how much he would boost these fees, nor does he say how he'd get Congress to denounce NAFTA, nor how he would ascertain the legality of outgoing remittances.

So as you can see, he put together a list of actions that he'd take to finance his wall, but we see upon further inspection that this is horseshit. It takes a little digging to look past the smoke-and-mirrors, and I certainly don't expect you to take the time to do it given that you're not a citizen or resident of the US, but if you're going to go around plumping for this guy, it's best to do a little research. Talking points do not a sound policy make.

(30-01-2016 05:47 PM)Vosur Wrote:  There's a third option: He intends to resolve this contradiction by significantly cutting down on wasteful spending in the military. I don't know how familiar you are with the history of various US government agencies, but they are notorious for being incredibly wasteful with taxpayer money on account of a severe lack of accountability and responsibility by the people in charge. To give you an example, the US army spent over ten million dollars of taxpayer money on trying to find military applications for psychic phenomena (e.g. remote viewing) and ended up - you guessed it - with no results. It's an interesting topic to study up on because there are dozens, if not hundreds of instances like this strewn throughout history.

Without a doubt there's wasteful military spending. But in an era when the F-35 is projected to cost between $150 and $340 million each to replace the F-16s in the Air Force inventory and the F/A-18s in the Navy's inventory, when the Navy will have to address the growing concern about Chinese area defense and denial weapons, when they will be able to attack the satellites which are so important to our communications and intelligence systems, when the Navy will need to have plenty of ships to both heighten its patrols in the East and South China seas while at the same time maintaining its responsibilities for open sea lanes elsewhere, I'm skeptical that those costs can be offset by wringing out wasteful projects like the one you listed. You would have to find a minimum of fifteen such wasteful projects to finance one of those F-35s -- and there are 2,400 planned for purchase.

Very unconvincing.


(30-01-2016 05:47 PM)Vosur Wrote:  You'd know that this is wrong if you had watched even a single one of his rallies or watched any of his interviews. He constantly harps on the fact that even though the US almost spends the most money per student in the world, they're only 28th place when it comes to education. In his own words, "We’re going to end Common Core, we’re going to have education an absolute priority."

So he wants to eliminate Common Core. What, exactly, will he do to increase the number of science, mathematics, and engineering degrees awarded by American Universities? That is the education that matters if you want to be a world leader.

Sorry, his positions are ill-founded, long on rhetoric and short on detail, and at times (as shown in the example above about the Wall) deceitful.

You have the luxury of lapping up his rhetoric; he won't be running your country. We Americans, on the other hand, have to live with the consequences of his assuming the Presidency, and I would rather spend my vote on someone more thoughtful. He's an empty vessel.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
31-01-2016, 01:56 AM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2016 02:34 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Trump - I can shoot anyone.
(31-01-2016 01:40 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Sorry, his positions are ill-founded, long on rhetoric and short on detail, and at times (as shown in the example above about the Wall) deceitful.


If you want to see something that's all empty platitudes, watch Sarah Palin endorse him. She does nothing but spew forth an empty series of Americanism with zero substance behind them; it's all catch phrases and rabble rousing, but no actual meat or substance. She's a vapid mouthpiece throwing her weight behind another vapid mouthpiece, so that's to be expected.





Makes you want to do something less painful, like shove pencils into your ears.


Or listen to Tom and Cecil over at Cognitive Dissonance rip her a new asshole.

http://dissonancepod.com/?powerpress_pinw=1315-podcast

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
31-01-2016, 02:23 AM
RE: Trump - I can shoot anyone.
Well, yeah, but it took about three seconds to get over Sarah Palin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2016, 03:42 AM
RE: Trump - I can shoot anyone.
(31-01-2016 01:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(31-01-2016 01:40 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Sorry, his positions are ill-founded, long on rhetoric and short on detail, and at times (as shown in the example above about the Wall) deceitful.


If you want to see something that's all empty platitudes, watch Sarah Palin endorse him. She does nothing but spew forth an empty series of Americanism with zero substance behind them; it's all catch phrases and rabble rousing, but no actual meat or substance. She's a vapid mouthpiece throwing her weight behind another vapid mouthpiece, so that's to be expected.





Makes you want to do something less painful, like shove pencils into your ears.


Or listen to Tom and Cecil over at Cognitive Dissonance rip her a new asshole.

http://dissonancepod.com/?powerpress_pinw=1315-podcast

"I like totally just now like wanna say a few like words about like a totally awesome chick, like you have no idea. I have like known this bitch for like ages, she's like totally the best bitch ever you have like no idea how awesome she is. Like totally."


You listen to him for 5 seconds and he sounds like a teenage girl. I guarantee he hasn't known or respected Palin for like totally the longest time ever OMG you have no idea!


He's just playing the Palin card to get more female voters because by now his campaign people are pointing out to him that females hate him and wont vote for him (especially if Hilary wins for the demo's) because he's a sleazy piece of shit.
So of course he pulls out the Palin card so all the stupid hoes will vote for him.
And of course she said yes because there's a camera in the room. Plus I'm sure she got a fat cheque from Trump.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
31-01-2016, 03:45 AM
RE: Trump - I can shoot anyone.
(31-01-2016 03:42 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(31-01-2016 01:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If you want to see something that's all empty platitudes, watch Sarah Palin endorse him. She does nothing but spew forth an empty series of Americanism with zero substance behind them; it's all catch phrases and rabble rousing, but no actual meat or substance. She's a vapid mouthpiece throwing her weight behind another vapid mouthpiece, so that's to be expected.





Makes you want to do something less painful, like shove pencils into your ears.


Or listen to Tom and Cecil over at Cognitive Dissonance rip her a new asshole.

http://dissonancepod.com/?powerpress_pinw=1315-podcast

"I like totally just now like wanna say a few like words about like a totally awesome chick, like you have no idea. I have like known this bitch for like ages, she's like totally the best bitch ever you have like no idea how awesome she is. Like totally."


You listen to him for 5 seconds and he sounds like a teenage girl. I guarantee he hasn't known or respected Palin for like totally the longest time ever OMG you have no idea!


He's just playing the Palin card to get more female voters because by now his campaign people are pointing out to him that females hate him and wont vote for him (especially if Hilary wins for the demo's) because he's a sleazy piece of shit.
So of course he pulls out the Palin card so all the stupid hoes will vote for him.
And of course she said yes because there's a camera in the room. Plus I'm sure she got a fat cheque from Trump.

.....

Dude -- She's Trump's DUFF.......

heh

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2016, 04:42 AM
RE: Trump - I can shoot anyone.
(31-01-2016 01:40 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(30-01-2016 05:47 PM)Vosur Wrote:  You're wrong. Trump does say how he intends to make Mexico pay for the wall on his website. You'll find a lot of information about his policies in general there.

Actually, that's exactly where I went to make sure I got my reply right. Here's what he says there:

Trump Wrote:Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.

None of those methods will assure that Mexico pays for any wall. He wants to "impound" illegal remittances? How, exactly, will he have the government determine their legality? He doesn't say how much he expects that measure to net. How much money comes from fees for border-crossing cards? Taking Trump's figures of 1 million issued to Mexico multiplied by $160 per card we get $160 million. Temporary visas, for Mexican CEOs and NAFTA workers $190 each, can't be bringing in very much money -- maximum $190 million assuming every border-crossing card issued per above goes to one of these catgories; and diplomats are not charged that fee at all [see previous link]. Tariffs against Mexico are illegal per the NAFTA agreement, which has the force of law under the US Constitution, meaning that if he wishes to impose them he will have to denounce that treay, with the foreign-policy ramifications such a measure entails (this includes Canada). And cutting foreign aid to Mexico, which goes to help fight narcotraficantes, will only increase the instability of our southern neighbor, which will almost certainly drive up the numbers attempting to flee here.

CNN estimates that the wall he proposes would cost between $15 and $25 billion. Trump doesn't say how much he would boost these fees, nor does he say how he'd get Congress to denounce NAFTA, nor how he would ascertain the legality of outgoing remittances.

So as you can see, he put together a list of actions that he'd take to finance his wall, but we see upon further inspection that this is horseshit. It takes a little digging to look past the smoke-and-mirrors, and I certainly don't expect you to take the time to do it given that you're not a citizen or resident of the US, but if you're going to go around plumping for this guy, it's best to do a little research. Talking points do not a sound policy make.

(30-01-2016 05:47 PM)Vosur Wrote:  There's a third option: He intends to resolve this contradiction by significantly cutting down on wasteful spending in the military. I don't know how familiar you are with the history of various US government agencies, but they are notorious for being incredibly wasteful with taxpayer money on account of a severe lack of accountability and responsibility by the people in charge. To give you an example, the US army spent over ten million dollars of taxpayer money on trying to find military applications for psychic phenomena (e.g. remote viewing) and ended up - you guessed it - with no results. It's an interesting topic to study up on because there are dozens, if not hundreds of instances like this strewn throughout history.

Without a doubt there's wasteful military spending. But in an era when the F-35 is projected to cost between $150 and $340 million each to replace the F-16s in the Air Force inventory and the F/A-18s in the Navy's inventory, when the Navy will have to address the growing concern about Chinese area defense and denial weapons, when they will be able to attack the satellites which are so important to our communications and intelligence systems, when the Navy will need to have plenty of ships to both heighten its patrols in the East and South China seas while at the same time maintaining its responsibilities for open sea lanes elsewhere, I'm skeptical that those costs can be offset by wringing out wasteful projects like the one you listed. You would have to find a minimum of fifteen such wasteful projects to finance one of those F-35s -- and there are 2,400 planned for purchase.

Very unconvincing.


(30-01-2016 05:47 PM)Vosur Wrote:  You'd know that this is wrong if you had watched even a single one of his rallies or watched any of his interviews. He constantly harps on the fact that even though the US almost spends the most money per student in the world, they're only 28th place when it comes to education. In his own words, "We’re going to end Common Core, we’re going to have education an absolute priority."

So he wants to eliminate Common Core. What, exactly, will he do to increase the number of science, mathematics, and engineering degrees awarded by American Universities? That is the education that matters if you want to be a world leader.

Sorry, his positions are ill-founded, long on rhetoric and short on detail, and at times (as shown in the example above about the Wall) deceitful.

You have the luxury of lapping up his rhetoric; he won't be running your country. We Americans, on the other hand, have to live with the consequences of his assuming the Presidency, and I would rather spend my vote on someone more thoughtful. He's an empty vessel.
Your point of criticism can be applied to virtually all of the major candidates running for president right now. Every single one of them is mostly talking points and little specifics at the moment. Why do you think that is? Is it perhaps because the election is still almost 10 months away and they're all focused on campaigning until then? Is it because most voters simply aren't interested in knowing more than an outline and some details of each candidate's plan? All you really did is describe the problem with every major candidate running for president in the US or anywhere else in the world, maybe even with politicians as a whole.

And by the way, your attempt to claim that I haven't done "a little research" because I happen to disagree with you is just laughable given that you're the one who claimed that he doesn't say how he intends to make Mexico pay for the wall. You said "Actually, that's exactly where I went to make sure I got my reply right", yet nothing of the sort happened. Your disagreement with his plan and your criticism about its lack of details does not change the fact that you were factually wrong because he does, as a matter of fact, say what he intends to do to make that happen. I have done more than my fair share to demonstrate that I've spent countless hours on following the election cycle (more so than many American posters here who have every reason to care about it more than I do), so you can take that condescending accusation and shove it.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2016, 08:36 AM
RE: Trump - I can shoot anyone.
(31-01-2016 01:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(31-01-2016 01:40 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Sorry, his positions are ill-founded, long on rhetoric and short on detail, and at times (as shown in the example above about the Wall) deceitful.


If you want to see something that's all empty platitudes, watch Sarah Palin endorse him. She does nothing but spew forth an empty series of Americanism with zero substance behind them; it's all catch phrases and rabble rousing, but no actual meat or substance. She's a vapid mouthpiece throwing her weight behind another vapid mouthpiece, so that's to be expected.





Makes you want to do something less painful, like shove pencils into your ears.


Or listen to Tom and Cecil over at Cognitive Dissonance rip her a new asshole.

http://dissonancepod.com/?powerpress_pinw=1315-podcast

They played this a bit at a time on a recent episode of Cognitive Dissonance...it was actually painful to listen to...so much stupid. Facepalm

I suppose a drinking game where you take a shot every time Palin says 'make America great again' would make it easier to take...but, you would be unconscious before her speech was over.

Alternate game - take a drink every time she mispronounces a word...similar results.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat

Are my Chakras on straight?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2016, 10:06 AM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2016 10:14 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Trump - I can shoot anyone.
(31-01-2016 04:42 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Your point of criticism can be applied to virtually all of the major candidates running for president right now. Every single one of them is mostly talking points and little specifics at the moment.

You missed my point, which is that his positions are so poorly thought-out that it's easy to get suckered into believing his hype unless you look into what is actually on the table. It's not that the positions of the others are more detailed; it's that they not promising stupid shit that would damage the country nearly so badly as Trump's proposals.

(31-01-2016 04:42 AM)Vosur Wrote:  And by the way, your attempt to claim that I haven't done "a little research" because I happen to disagree with you is just laughable given that you're the one who claimed that he doesn't say how he intends to make Mexico pay for the wall.

Firstly, that isn't why I said what I said. I said you hadn't done the research based on the fact -- fact -- that clearly you had no idea that diplomats aren't charged for visa, clearly you had no idea that the specific funding mentioned was less than 0.015% that which would be needed, and clearly you were simply hoping to say "he's got some ideas on his website, you're wrong" -- without you having checked to see that those ideas are actually meaningful. He dangles a worm on a hook, and you bite.


(31-01-2016 04:42 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You said "Actually, that's exactly where I went to make sure I got my reply right", yet nothing of the sort happened. Your disagreement with his plan and your criticism about its lack of details does not change the fact that you were factually wrong because he does, as a matter of fact, say what he intends to do to make that happen.

We'll ignore the fact that those ideas are insufficient, and in at least one case, clearly deceptive, right? You realize that just because someone has written something that they call an answer, that doesn't mean that it is actually an answer, right? Smoke-and-mirrors.

I expect you'll search my grammar next for a fatal flaw that will "invalidate" my whole point.

(31-01-2016 04:42 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I have done more than my fair share to demonstrate that I've spent countless hours on following the election cycle (more so than many American posters here who have every reason to care about it more than I do), so you can take that condescending accusation and shove it.

I'm unimpressed by your "countless hours". If you don't like my pointing out the shallowness of your research, that's not my problem. If you'd rather get butthurt than, you know, do what I did and dig through the information, hey, that's your business. I'm glad you're not voting here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2016, 12:23 PM
RE: Trump - I can shoot anyone.
(31-01-2016 10:06 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(31-01-2016 04:42 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Your point of criticism can be applied to virtually all of the major candidates running for president right now. Every single one of them is mostly talking points and little specifics at the moment.

You missed my point, which is that his positions are so poorly thought-out that it's easy to get suckered into believing his hype unless you look into what is actually on the table. It's not that the positions of the others are more detailed; it's that they not promising stupid shit that would damage the country nearly so badly as Trump's proposals.

(31-01-2016 04:42 AM)Vosur Wrote:  And by the way, your attempt to claim that I haven't done "a little research" because I happen to disagree with you is just laughable given that you're the one who claimed that he doesn't say how he intends to make Mexico pay for the wall.

Firstly, that isn't why I said what I said. I said you hadn't done the research based on the fact -- fact -- that clearly you had no idea that diplomats aren't charged for visa, clearly you had no idea that the specific funding mentioned was less than 0.015% that which would be needed, and clearly you were simply hoping to say "he's got some ideas on his website, you're wrong" -- without you having checked to see that those ideas are actually meaningful. He dangles a worm on a hook, and you bite.


(31-01-2016 04:42 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You said "Actually, that's exactly where I went to make sure I got my reply right", yet nothing of the sort happened. Your disagreement with his plan and your criticism about its lack of details does not change the fact that you were factually wrong because he does, as a matter of fact, say what he intends to do to make that happen.

We'll ignore the fact that those ideas are insufficient, and in at least one case, clearly deceptive, right? You realize that just because someone has written something that they call an answer, that doesn't mean that it is actually an answer, right? Smoke-and-mirrors.

I expect you'll search my grammar next for a fatal flaw that will "invalidate" my whole point.

If you'd rather get butthurt than, you know, do what I did and dig through the information, hey, that's your business. I'm glad you're not voting here.
Who do you think you are to talk down to me like a child? You can take your condescending attitude and go fuck yourself with it; I'm done wasting my time on you.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: