Trump talk

[Dynasty]

I suppose. 

 

However, if over the past 40 years had conditions not been so great we wouldn't be in the scenario we are in. 

[Stosh]

6 hours ago, Dynasty said:

I suppose. 

 

However, if over the past 40 years had conditions not been so great we wouldn't be in the scenario we are in. 

Yeah, I feel that way too sometimes. 

 

I guess I am trying to look at things from a more humanitarian angle. 

I get fed up with the lack of justice though.

 

Did you see the image of the guy who drowned with the little kid? Geesh! Not good.

 

Imo

An unsecured border just entices more people to make the attempt , and with more attempts ,more will fail. We do not really know how many people are dying out there, and we don't even really know if the guy rented that kid to scam our detention process. 

 

I watched the whole ..' Dem presentation last night, and though they seen fine as people , my impressions are that they are largely wrong and want to do things 

that are wrong. 

 

Why did they appear to call on Warren three times as often as the others? And give more air time to those who spoke over the other candidates? ....

If I ran it, the mic gets cut off when their time runs out ,and they all get equal time .. 

Mid sentence ,Bink ,,,times up. Perhaps have Hannity choose the questions and Bream ask them.

 

But no, they even want to skew the presentations of their own Dem candidates , and prompt them to argue. 

 

And I don't see how that could be spun otherwise, If the candidates had been Rep. 

If I was Inslee or,, Tulsi I would be mad as hell, at being  disadvantaged to favor Pocahontas. 

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by Stosh

[joeblast]

13 hours ago, C T said:

 

Is this an example of the kind of dignified position of the Republicans that you touted above in explaining how liberals are welcomed to air their views here freely and without reservation? Republican ethics are somewhat of a new subject that Im trying to understand, and this feels like a good place to explore and learn. 

I dont see the problem with people stating their thoughts & beliefs, and I also dont see the problem with others telling them in no uncertain terms that's crazy.  I mean hey, you think the central banks of the world having perverted most governments and used the strings to sway the destinies of the nations, and taking all sorts of measures to protect their counterfeiting operations...you think that's crazy.  Which is totally fine.  And totally naive, but its totally fine

 

 

3 hours ago, Stosh said:

Yeah, I feel that way too sometimes. 

 

I guess I am trying to look at things from a more humanitarian angle. 

I get fed up with the lack of justice though.

 

Did you see the image of the guy who drowned with the little kid? Geesh! Not good.

 

Imo

An unsecured border just entices more people to make the attempt , and with more attempts ,more will fail. We do not really know how many people are dying out there, and we don't even really know if the guy rented that kid to scam our detention process. 

 

I watched the whole ..' Dem presentation last night, and though they seen fine as people , my impressions are that they are largely wrong and want to do things 

that are wrong. 

 

Why did they appear to call on Warren three times as often as the others? And give more air time to those who spoke over the other candidates? ....

If I ran it, the mic gets cut off when their time runs out ,and they all get equal time .. 

Mid sentence ,Bink ,,,times up. Perhaps have Hannity choose the questions and Bream ask them.

 

But no, they even want to skew the presentations of their own Dem candidates , and prompt them to argue. 

 

And I don't see how that could be spun otherwise, If the candidates had been Rep. 

If I was Inslee or,, Tulsi I would be mad as hell, at being  disadvantaged to favor Pocahontas. 

 

But did you see more than just one picture of that "dead guy w kid, drowned."  Sorry for gross details, but a dead body turns whiteish rather quickly when sitting in the water there like that, you could tell their skin showed no such stage of alarm.  Hoax image.

 

"Appeared to call on Warren at least 3x"....look at Google's pre-debate analytics for your answer on who is "chosen" as of right now for them.

[windwalker]

"I dont see the problem with people stating their thoughts & beliefs, and I also dont see the problem with others telling them in no uncertain terms that's crazy."

 

kudos to this site and those participating in the discussion for allowing it to be so.

 

Find the thoughts expressed very interesting even the ones I don't agree with.

 

Appreciate  the civility shown for the most part, backed with spirited, lively and thoughtful discussion.

 

Always always mindful, insightful outlooks back by spiritual perception.

 

very interesting

Edited June 27, 2019 by windwalker

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, joeblast said:

I dont see the problem with people stating their thoughts & beliefs, and I also dont see the problem with others telling them in no uncertain terms that's crazy.  I mean hey, you think the central banks of the world having perverted most governments and used the strings to sway the destinies of the nations, and taking all sorts of measures to protect their counterfeiting operations...you think that's crazy.  Which is totally fine.  And totally naive, but its totally fine

 

 

But did you see more than just one picture of that "dead guy w kid, drowned."  Sorry for gross details, but a dead body turns whiteish rather quickly when sitting in the water there like that, you could tell their skin showed no such stage of alarm.  Hoax image.

 

"Appeared to call on Warren at least 3x"....look at Google's pre-debate analytics for your answer on who is "chosen" as of right now for them.

I don't know what thing to look at, Who are the pre-debate golden children?  If I was them, which I am not , I would pick Harris. 

[dawei]

12 hours ago, Stosh said:

If convicts and enemy prisoners can have beds, that is a bit too harsh a means, (to the end which I actually agree with,) ,dealing with these people , some desperate, and some innocent, and some guilty, but still fellow humans.

 

I agree but it goes further than this.   

 

The number one blame goes to congress who for MORE Than a year claimed the border crisis was fabricated.  I think they should of marched congress down to the border and made them tell those in detention this is all a fabricated problem and they will not have any future issues come their way... no deaths, no over crowding, etc... it is all a fabrication.

 

A year later, Congress proved their uselessness over the issue.. now flip-flopping and blaming ICE and everyone they can for this 'crisis'. 

 

Second, As I understand the concept of a 'budget', you get so much funds and work within that... so if Congress refused to provide funds, you do what is feasible with what you have.  Congress should be required to go down and tell all those in detention why they refused to help for more than a year... this is their job.

 

Now, ICE should have been more proactive on some level; if they can transport folks to another location now, why didn't they do it earlier.   

[dawei]

5 hours ago, Stosh said:

I watched the whole ..' Dem presentation last night, and though they seen fine as people , my impressions are that they are largely wrong and want to do things 

that are wrong. 

 

Why did they appear to call on Warren three times as often as the others? And give more air time to those who spoke over the other candidates? ....

If I ran it, the mic gets cut off when their time runs out ,and they all get equal time .. 

Mid sentence ,Bink ,,,times up. Perhaps have Hannity choose the questions and Bream ask them.

 

But no, they even want to skew the presentations of their own Dem candidates , and prompt them to argue. 

 

And I don't see how that could be spun otherwise, If the candidates had been Rep. 

If I was Inslee or,, Tulsi I would be mad as hell, at being  disadvantaged to favor Pocahontas. 

 

 

I agree they pandered a bit to certain folks, particularly Warren.   Warren honestly looked like a deer in headlight at times... then thumped her fist on her talking points.   I saw when asked who would support Government run health care for all, only Warren and De Blasio.  

 

One CNN opinion piece ranked them as follows:

1.) Amy Klobuchar  - While seemed to be prepared, I don't see her as the winner... top 3 for sure.   Nothing memorable to me but a bit feisty at times.

2.) Elizabeth Warren - She obviously was NBCs choice candidate.. the bias was baffling as was her delays.  USAToday had her as a 'loser' ... CNN puts her #2  

3.) Cory Booker - He talked the most but that is part of his problem... Felt he played the race card a bit and his "it is personal" comment seemed emotionally over the top.  

4.) Tulsi Gabbard - Only hit one time when pushed back against staying in Afghanistan and correcting Ryan on 9/11. Tried to play her service time a few times but not sure that resonated.

5.) Beto O'Rourke - Failed.

6.) Julián Castro - The most impressive to me.  I think he may of won the night. 

7.) John Delaney - He was generally forgettable but not sure if that was because he came across as too moderate?  And lacked details?

8.) Jay Inslee - Not sure why he was there. 

9.) Bill de Blasio - He liked to talk over people and cut them off... seems like he puts people off easily. 

10.) Tim Ryan - I think harping about the left 'elite' and need to focus on the middle of the country makes sense but to repeat it twice... then Tulsi had to school him on 9/11... I think he sunk his own battle ship.

 

The items overall that stuck:

1. They railed against the strongest economy of the last 50 years.   So they are still trying to create the impression of economic victimization.  That's why they want universal healthcare, free college, etc.  Seemed capitalistic argument to me.

2. They railed against stuff that was pre-Trump as if he created it... Mostly about Healthcare... they came short of saying O-Care is BS for many americans...  but at times some were honest enough to say it (some issues) have been around a long time and will for a lot longer [till something is done].

3. Empty, impossible promises. This was a primary debate after all.

4. Lies... Look at #3

 

I laughed at this one:  Farmers are suffering due to climate change... fields are underwater.   Their markets have been removed by tariffs  

 

If the fields are underwater... there is NO MARKET to consider.   Deceptive message. 

[Dynasty]

5 hours ago, Stosh said:

Did you see the image of the guy who drowned with the little kid? Geesh! Not good.

 

I saw it. I don't care. People die everyday for millions of reasons.

 

If a guy and his kid are attempting to break into a bank vault and they die who is at fault? The bank for not allowing anyone and everyone into the vault?

 

 

 

 

[Stosh]

28 minutes ago, Dynasty said:

 

I saw it. I don't care. People die everyday for millions of reasons.

 

If a guy and his kid are attempting to break into a bank vault and they die who is at fault? The bank for not allowing anyone and everyone into the vault?

 

 

 

 

No , They are at fault, thats true.. at least the parent is , the kid I hold innocent but their fate has to be with the parent as far as borders go.  But if you lure people into a mine field, aren't you at fault? 

[joeblast]

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

I don't know what thing to look at, Who are the pre-debate golden children?  If I was them, which I am not , I would pick Harris. 

image was already long gone, but going into the debate, g00g analytics was all about warren

 

 

oh look, they've arm barred Roberts again into more traitorous acts

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-27/supreme-court-blocks-2020-citizenship-question-leaves-gerrymandering-decisions

translation: too many illegals wont fill out the census if there's a question about citizenship

 

 

F Vimeo for bending over to the overlords

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-27/project-veritas-banned-vimeo-after-uploading-undercover-google-expose

 

 

NYT admitting they vet stories with .gov  (aka their cia handlers)

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-27/free-press-ny-times-admits-it-sends-stories-us-government-approval-publication

 

 

is Merkel scared or are they setting her up to be removed from the public eye?

 

 

4th nypd suicide in june

Spoiler

 

 

 

pedo arrests worldwide continue...

[Stosh]

"I agree they pandered a bit to certain folks, particularly Warren.   Warren honestly looked like a deer in headlight at times... then thumped her fist on her talking points.   I saw when asked who would support Government run health care for all, only Warren and De Blasio....."

 

Agree,  Warren looks like that 

 

Agree , Castro performed well , he seemed composed , and seemed to recognize that he had to distinguish himself , by eating Beto. 

But he ticked me off speaking Spanish ,(same for Booker) ,  If you don't speak English , you couldn't follow the candidates anyway, and if you do speak English ,I don't see why you should have to be listening to Spanish , in a political context. 

 

To me it looked like an open appeal to un-assimilated and fraudulent voters. 

 

The one thing I would counter, (for the great majority I think youre on point), I liked Delaney for saying he didn't want to screw with what was actually working. I give him big points for that. 

Edited June 27, 2019 by Stosh

[dawei]

2 minutes ago, Stosh said:

"I agree they pandered a bit to certain folks, particularly Warren.   Warren honestly looked like a deer in headlight at times... then thumped her fist on her talking points.   I saw when asked who would support Government run health care for all, only Warren and De Blasio....."

 

Agree,  Warren looks like that 

 

Agree , Castro performed well , he seemed composed , and seemed to recognize that he had to distinguish himself , by eating Beto. 

But he ticked me off speaking Spanish ,(same for Booker) ,  If you don't speak English , you couldn't follow the candidates anyway, and if you do speak English ,I don't see why you should have to be listening to Spanish , in a political context. 

 

To me it looked like an open appeal to un-assimilated and fraudulent voters. 

 

The one think I would counter, (for the great majority I think youre on point), I liked Delaney for saying he didn't want to screw with what was actually working. I give him big points for that. 

 

Castro was the only Latino there... I don't think Booker nor Beto are 

 

It is essentially playing a race card on some level.... look at me.. I can talk like you minorities do 

 

Delaney seemed at the edge of sensibility at times but like he didn't know how to put a finishing touch on what he was talking about.     

[Stosh]

9 minutes ago, dawei said:

 

Castro was the only Latino there... I don't think Booker nor Beto are 

 

It is essentially playing a race card on some level.... look at me.. I can talk like you minorities do 

 

Delaney seemed at the edge of sensibility at times but like he didn't know how to put a finishing touch on what he was talking about.     

Well said.

... I want to see Castro take out Booker next go round , otherwise he was just picking on the weakest speaker. 

[dawei]

25 minutes ago, joeblast said:

oh look, they've arm barred Roberts again into more traitorous acts

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-27/supreme-court-blocks-2020-citizenship-question-leaves-gerrymandering-decisions

translation: too many illegals wont fill out the census if there's a question about citizenship

 

This is puzzling at best... my best guess is that the government lawyers don't know how to argue a case such as this.

 

You have SCOTUS rule on this one other issue here:

Quote

 

The court rejected challenges to Republican-drawn congressional districts in North Carolina and a Democratic district in Maryland.  The decision was a major blow to critics of the partisan manipulation of electoral maps that can result when one party controls redistricting. The districting plans “are highly partisan by any measure,” Roberts said. But he said courts are the wrong place to settle these disputes.

 

 

Yet, on the citizen question:

 

Quote

 

 

A lower court found the administration violated federal law in the way it tried to add a question broadly asking about citizenship for the first time since 1950.

The Census Bureau’s own experts have predicted that millions of Hispanics and immigrants would go uncounted if the census asked everyone if he or she is an American citizen.

Immigrant advocacy organizations and Democratic-led states, cities and counties argue the citizenship question is intended to discourage the participation of minorities, primarily Hispanics, who tend to support Democrats, from filling out census forms.

The challengers say they would get less federal money and fewer seats in Congress if the census asks about citizenship because people with noncitizens in their households would be less likely to fill out their census forms.

Evidence uncovered since the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in late April supports claims that the citizenship question is part of a broader Republican effort to accrue political power at the expense of minorities, the challengers say.

 

 

 

The problems I see:

1. SCOTUS says the court should not decide redistricting issues... yet, the oppposition to the census question is to accuse it of affecting future redistricting      SCOTUS just played a crystal ball argument on re-shake.

2. Lest we forget, It was on past census but NOW it violates federal law ? 

2. And I guess most everyone forgot this... 

 

Question eight, on page eight, inquired: “Is this person a citizen of the United States,” and offered the same options as did the 2000 Census.

All eight of Obama’s ACS’s posed this question in Spanish: ¿Es esta persona ciudadana de los Estados Unidos?

 

 

 

So the argument goes like this... I think:  The very people we are afraid to ask the question, had the question under Obama in their native language version 

[MooNiNite]

Merkel's health is deteriorating for working against humanity. We saw the same thing with Hillary Clinton.

[Dynasty]

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

But if you lure people into a mine field, aren't you at fault? 

 

Yes. Those who are luring, and those who benefit from it are at at fault.

 

But to keep with the bank vault analogy the people who are attempting to break in know that they are taking a risk even though there are some employees at the bank who want them to get in.

 

 

[Patrick Brown]

Related because the left are pressuring silicon valley to ban many, many voices:

 

 

Yes I'm up to speed on the Google biased search story as well. 

[joeblast]

4 hours ago, dawei said:

 

This is puzzling at best... my best guess is that the government lawyers don't know how to argue a case such as this.

 

You have SCOTUS rule on this one other issue here:

 

Yet, on the citizen question:

 

 

 

The problems I see:

1. SCOTUS says the court should not decide redistricting issues... yet, the oppposition to the census question is to accuse it of affecting future redistricting      SCOTUS just played a crystal ball argument on re-shake.

2. Lest we forget, It was on past census but NOW it violates federal law ? 

2. And I guess most everyone forgot this... 

 

Question eight, on page eight, inquired: “Is this person a citizen of the United States,” and offered the same options as did the 2000 Census.

All eight of Obama’s ACS’s posed this question in Spanish: ¿Es esta persona ciudadana de los Estados Unidos?

 

 

 

So the argument goes like this... I think:  The very people we are afraid to ask the question, had the question under Obama in their native language version 

a good outlining of yet again why Roberts is contemptuous traitor who must be amongst the especially dirty if he's still sitting in that chair right now

 

 

writing absolute garbage opinions like that, which cant even be justified whatsoever - you know this man is compromised.  that is outright judicial abuse, although not quite on par with his Obamacare treason.

 

 

it may seem counterintutive that the most filthy and guilty are the ones that are still "free" right now - if it was only money, he'd have already left like Justice Kennedy or Paul Ryan.

 

but the most filthy dirty pigs are having a pig trap sprung upon them 

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by joeblast

[Stosh]

Actually the ciudadana question may pose a problem for some Immigrants who are residing here , perhaps with temporary papers , because they may lose their Mexican Nationality by Naturalisation ,by signing the census,  without having actually become American citizens. 

Not to mention they may rightly expect deportation. 

 

For instance, you are born in Guatemala , grow up in Mexico , live in the states five years and get a drivers license, but you haven't been actually granted Citizenship HERE . I'm not sure , but you might then be royally screwed ,because you moved to a sanctuary city. 

 

However there is nothing new for US about asking the question, whether some choose not to participate, is up to them. 

 

 

 

Mexico - Nationality and citizenship

In Article 30, the Constitution establishes that Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalisation. Mexican legislation applies the principles of ius soli and ius sanguini for acquiring nationality by birth.

Mexicans by birth are:

those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of their parents;

those born abroad, who are children of a Mexican father or mother born in the national territory, or Mexicans by naturalization;

those born on board Mexican vessels or aircraft, whether warships or merchant.

Mexicans by naturalisation are:

Foreigners that obtain from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs a letter of naturalisation, under one of the following events, and who satisfy the other requirements established by the nationality act and its regulation:

Have resided in the MexicanRepublic for five years or more with a migration document that authorises their residency;

Have resided in the Mexican Republic for two years or more with a migration document that authorises their residency, provided that they are: a direct line descendant of a Mexican by birth, have Mexican children by birth, or are natives of a Latin American or Iberian Peninsula country;

Have provided distinguished services to the nation;

Have contracted marriage with a Mexican man or woman, and possess marital domicile within the national territory for two years or more, prior to the application.

Likewise, Article 37 of the Constitution defines that no Mexican by birth may be deprived of his/her nationality, and that Mexican nationality by naturalisation will be lost due to voluntary acquisition of a foreign nationality, by pretending to be a foreigner on any public instrument, by using a foreign passport, or by using nobility titles that imply submission to a foreign state, and for residing during five continuous years abroad. On the other hand, the Nationality Act (1998) recognises non-loss of Mexican nationality just by mere acquisition of any other nationality.

Articles 34 to 38 of the Constitution establishes that men and women are citizens of the Republic that, having the status of Mexicans (by birth or by naturaliSation), have reached 18 years of age.

Article 37 defines that Mexican citizenship is lost upon acceptance or use of nobility titles of foreign governments; by providing voluntarily official services to a foreign government without the permission of the Federal Congress or its Permanent Commission; by acceptance or use of foreign decorations without the permission of the Federal Congress or its Permanent Commission; for admitting from the government of another country titles or functions without prior consent of the Federal Congress or its Permanent Commission, exempting literary, scientific, or humanitarian titles that can be accepted freely; for assisting, against the Nation, a foreigner or foreign government, in any diplomatic claim or before an international court, and in  other cases set forth by law.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Stosh

[Stosh]

4 hours ago, Dynasty said:

 

Yes. Those who are luring, and those who benefit from it are at at fault.

 

But to keep with the bank vault analogy the people who are attempting to break in know that they are taking a risk even though there are some employees at the bank who want them to get in.

 

 

If you lure my enemy into a mine field , I benefited but you are guilty. 

If you break into the bank , knowing you are taking a risk , how the heck is the fault of the employee? 

[windwalker]

"Japan] LINE Launches Proprietary Scoring Service LINE Score to “Enrich Daily Life”

 

Like WeChat, lite.  Expect other social media platforms in the US to follow  directly instead of indirectly as now.  They all start out as opt-in .  

[windwalker]

Quote

Twitter Will Quarantine Politicians' Tweets If They Violate Rules—Finally. The next time a public official, politician, or certain president violates Twitter's rules, the company says users will notice. ... 

  https://www.cnet.com/news/trump-tweets-may-get-slapped-with-twitters-new-warning-label/

 

yep just a matter of time

 

of course it seems only to effect one side,  until it doesn't

Once this is realized expect some action to be taken. 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2019 by windwalker

[Lost in Translation]

30 minutes ago, windwalker said:

Quote

Twitter Will Quarantine Politicians' Tweets If They Violate Rules—Finally. The next time a public official, politician, or certain president violates Twitter's rules, the company says users will notice. ... 

  https://www.cnet.com/news/trump-tweets-may-get-slapped-with-twitters-new-warning-label/

 

 

Sooo stupid. Can you imagine what would happen if Obama tweeted something and Twitter put a "warning label" on it? Holy Frickin' Hell would break loose. It would create a $%*&storm the likes of the modern world has never seen.

 

Such absolutely pitiful behavior on the part of technology companies. The US absolutely needs to strip them of their slander and libel immunity, since they are obviously acting more as "publishers" than as "neutral platforms."

 

[Lost in Translation]

Twitter, Google, Youtube, Facebook and their pals better wake the %*$# up. If the US Government takes away their immunity then their content creators will instantly dry up, since they will be liable for countless lawsuits. Just think of all the dumb@$$ things posted by dumb@$$ people. If the tech companies became liable for libel or even copyright infringement for what their users post, it would be the end of social media.

 

[Lost in Translation]

As a fellow techie, it pisses me off to see my peers be so stupid. They have a golden deal! Just let people post what they want, calculate where the advertisements should go based upon content, and leave it be! If a court orders you to remove content then take it down, otherwise let it stand. So lame. So very lame.