Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The flow across the Canadian border is slower because there are many, many more people south of the US than north of it.  Mexico alone as almost four times Canada's population and a substantial percentage of the people trying to cross into the US come from further down in Central and South America.

True, population is an issue. But as I stated earlier, culture is another major issue. Mexico, and other countries beyond our southern border, are not as developed as the US or Canada (I'm not sure that developed is the word that I'm looking for, but I'll go with it). They have more motivation to leave their homes and try to come to America. Even those of us who oppose illegal immigration acknowledge and understand their desire to leave that life behind. Unfortunately, we can't take everyone in the world who wants to come to America for a better life. We take who we can.


Unaccompanied minors are a red herring.  According to the Chief of the Border Patrol, 0.02% of them are suspected or confirmed to have ties to gangs (meaning 99.8% are not).


I'm lost. When did we start talking about MS-13 in regards to the unaccompanied minors? The comment that I made was was a large number of the under-aged illegal immigrants who are being detained are unaccompanied minors. This means that the facilities for minors have to exist, because we can't just let them go because they're minors. They broke the law. How is that a red herring? I think that bringing MS-13 into this conversation is a red herring, because that is a whole separate issue. Nobody stated that all illegal immigrants were gang members.


MS-13 is also a red herring.  Jeff Sessions says they have 10,000 members in the US, which is supposedly a large increase.  In 2006, when nobody was talking about illegal immigration or this gang, they had....10,000 members in the US

Sessions says 10k is an increase: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4666617/sessions-ms-13

2006 FBI estimates MS-13 at 10,000 US members https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/ … rrus041906


Again, I'm not sure why we're talking about MS-13 here. It's a very violent gang, and it is absolutely a concern. But it's not what we're talking about here.



Crime is a red herring.  Crime rates are lower along the border.

https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/112/c … he-border/


Okay. I don't really have time to research crime statistics, so sure. Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with our conversation. Illegal immigration is a crime. 100% of illegal immigrants are criminals. This is why they're being detained. The question is, what do we do when they bring their children with them? It's against the law to house children with parents who are in jail (obviously), so this isn't exactly specific to illegal immigrants.


And really, nothing we do is going to stop trafficking as long as we allow the cartels to infiltrate the CBP

"what good are more boots on the ground if the men and women wearing them also work for the cartels? What benefit is an 18-foot wall when criminals can bribe their way through the gate?"

https://www.texasobserver.org/homeland- … er-patrol/


This conversation has gotten really random.

I am opposed to US agents working with cartels... even if crime on the border is down. I'm also opposed to the US government helping cartels traffic guns. But again, that's a different topic.

902 (edited by pilight 2018-06-20 17:11:50)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm just saying that the reasons we've been given for policing the southern border differently from the northern one don't hold water.

The illegal immigrants are criminals for crossing the border?  Fine, write them a ticket.  A fine of at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry is the penalty under section 8 of the US code.  Detaining people for non-violent misdemeanors is excessive.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Agreed. We should process them and ship them home ASAP. Which is what usually happens, the first time. It's only after repeated crossings that they get more severely punished. However, when a child is involved, the issue becomes more complicated. Is the adult that they're with really their parent? That's assuming that they are travelling with an adult at all. Most of the minors being detained are not with an adult, which means that we have nobody to place them with. Even if they are the parent, are they abusive in some way? Believe it or not, children are often used as tools for crossing the border.

After all of that's done, they're all still going to need to be held someplace until they can be shipped home, or face whatever punishment they are going to face for repeated crossings, smuggling, etc. So, do we house children with adults in jails? That's not something that we'd ever even consider in a normal prison, so why would we consider it in this case?


There are many reasons why the southern border is patrolled differently than the northern border. We've discussed population numbers, the cultures that they're trying to get away from, criminal interests... The Canadian border simply isn't the same as the Mexican border, and I think it's absurd when celebrities tweet about how racist it is to treat them differently.

I also think that some of those outraged celebrities have been showing their true colors and proving my point recently. Peter Fonda calling for Barron Trump to be kidnapped and raped shows how much BS he is spewing when he talks about caring about children. No sane, rational person has that thought about a child. Ever. And they certainly wouldn't think of it if they really cared about kids. I think that abortion is murder, but you'd never see me talking about doing anything to anyone's child in revenge. It's disgusting.


The press and various people on social media have turned this into another blind-outrage issue, in order to keep people from actually discussing the issues at hand and resolving the problem. Resolving the problem does nothing to help the cause of the people who are generating this story (and they are, because as I've said before, this isn't breaking news. It's repurposed news).
We've all seen hundreds of people talking about how outrageous this is, and how wrong this is. Celebrities are telling their followers to stop following them if they don't agree. "Journalists" are comparing the situation to Nazi concentration camps (which I find disgusting on so many levels).

What isn't happening in all of this is simple conversation. We have issues: Illegal immigration, involving minors. What do we do with these minors? What do we do with the illegal immigrants?

Of course, the solution that the media is pushing people toward is just to let them all go. They're for open borders, which is insane. America cannot have open borders. Yet the politicians and the media will tell you that these people need asylum (for which there are many places in Mexico and other countries where they can go to apply, with their children) and if we don't let 100% of them in, we're monsters.

I don't see that as a viable solution, for many reasons. This is the United States. If we open our borders, we will have literally billions of people pouring in from all over the world. The United States will collapse, without question.


At the same time, I'm not a fan of kids suffering. I don't want them abused or raped, which happens often in the business of bringing kids into the country illegally. I want a good solution to this. So, what is it?


Addressing issues like MS-13 would be entirely different conversations. Let's do what the White Stripes tell us to to, and take all of our problems and break them apart. If we can agree that we have problems on the border and will illegal immigration, maybe we can start to discuss how to approach that problem. Where is that conversation in all of this outrage over the issue that people supposedly care so much about? If people cared, they'd have actual thoughts on the subject.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Of course, the solution that the media is pushing people toward is just to let them all go. They're for open borders, which is insane. America cannot have open borders.

We've had it for most of our history.  There were no restrictions at all until the 1920's, none on Latin American immigration until the 1960's, and none that really meant anything until the 1980's.  Visa-less borders are the norm for nations that are allies, such as the US and Mexico, everywhere else in the world.  The Canadian border is visa-less.

There are many reasons why the southern border is patrolled differently than the northern border. We've discussed population numbers, the cultures that they're trying to get away from, criminal interests

Population numbers don't explain why it's patrolled differently.  We don't detain people coming from Canada.  We could and have catch & release on the Mexican border.  Crime doesn't explain why it's patrolled differently, as I pointed out above.  The culture's they're trying to get away from?  Why would that make a difference?  If they're trying to get away from the MS-13s of the world, we should be encouraging that kind of behavior not locking people up for it.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

America is still a relatively young country, so it's easy to go back not-too-far and point out how things used to be as an example of the way things could be. However, the world has changed a lot sine the 1920's, the 1960's, and even the 1980's. Saying that everyone should be allowed into the country is like saying that Google should have to hire everyone who wants a job there. It would be chaos. It would destroy the economy.

Do you honestly, truly believe that we should just abandon all border policy? We should have absolutely no system for checking who comes into the country? Everyone should just come as they please? I'd say "Come and go", but let's face it... not many people are looking to rush into Mexico.

I'm all for legal immigration. I don't know that any significant number of people are opposed to it. But I absolutely do not believe that we can let everyone in, especially when they've proven that they're more than willing to ignore our laws whenever they don't feel like following them. Especially when they march through my area, waving a Mexican flag and insisting that they have a right to take what isn't theirs. In the old days, that was just called "invasion".



Larger population = more people rushing the border and sneaking over. This requires a different approach to patrolling that border. We've tried catch and release on the Mexican border. It's resulted in illegals not showing up for their court dates and disappearing into the country. Sorry, but I'd rather ship them home and let in the people who respect our nation, our laws, and our citizens enough to enter the country in the proper way. And this goes for anyone who enters our country illegally. Mexican, Canadian, or whatever. I don't care. People work their asses off, spending years and a lot of money to enter this country the right way. Why should other people get to just cut in line and take something that they didn't earn?

And if they're coming to the US to escape MS-13, I'm very sorry, but we have a problem with MS-13 as well, so maybe they should look somewhere else. It's not our responsibility to take in every sad story. It's one of the sad, but true things about life. People want to ignore the hard parts of life because it makes them feel icky, but sometimes there's no fun answer. It's unrealistic to suggest that the United States could, in this day and age, swing our gates wide open without doing incredible amounts of damage, to our healthcare system, to our education system, to our economy, to our national security... There is no area in which this would be beneficial to the American people. And sorry if it sounds cold, but the first priority of the American government should be the American people. Just like the first priority of the Canadian government should be the Canadian people. Just like with every other country in the world.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The entire Trump/Miller/Kelly/Sessions approach is heavy handed and flat out un-American verging on heinous.

1.  The current system has been broken for decades.  Trump administration is now deporting people who have been here for decades.  Some are even DOCTORS.  These are people who are contributing to society, but have no good way to rectify their situation.  Right wing Republicans have refused EVERY attempt at remedies for the immigration system, because solving this problem would take away their dog whistle.

2.  Family separation is 100% the cause of Trump's team's zero tolerance policy, begun only months ago.  Rather than simply deport the families, they have sought to PUNISH them.  Repeat, PUNISH them.  Again, this is draconian and unnecessary.  But you know, gotta keep the base of racist crazies happy.

3.  The incarceration is seemingly undefined, as there is a major lack of immigration attorneys and judges.  Another remedy that Trump could fix, but HIRING more of them.  He has steadfastly refused. 

And so here we are, a President who despises poor immigrants, the ones who come and do work we don't want to do.  The one's who often flee peril, only to find more of it here.   He wants merit based...  Okay, so on the application for visa, should we simply be asking how good you are at cleaning plates, picking apples, mowing lawns, or painting houses?  I live in an area with lots of immigrants.  He's complicit with a Republican party that  has no real interest in fixing the system, because it would take away a major issue they need to scream about to get people to vote for them.  Because beyond that, their platform is decidedly anti-working class.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

"Open Borders" doesn't mean abandoning all border policy.  It means we don't require visas.  Show your Mexican driver's license for an instant background check and you can enter.  The same thing we do for people coming from Canada, or Western Europe, or Japan, or Australia, or any of our other allied nations.

There's no evidence to suggest more people would try to come if we made entry visa-less.  The people who want to come are coming anyway.

People are sneaking over because we've made it too difficult and expensive to come legally.  We created the problem with laws that only apply to one ethnic group of people.

There are plenty of people here now who don't respect our nation or our laws or our citizens.  Look how many we have proudly carrying a flag that represented an outright rebellion against the United States.

It's not our responsibility?  Tell Jeff Sessions to put away the Bible he's never read, because the Parable of the Faithful Servant says just the opposite.  It says to whom much is given, much is required.  President Bush used that quote in his 2007 State of the Union.  It's easy to say screw those poor Hispanic people running away from violence, I got mine.  But it's not a Christian sentiment and until very recently it wasn't an American sentiment.  We didn't turn away the Jews escaping Germany during the depression.  What makes things so different now when we have the "greatest economy in the history of America"?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Before I get into replies, I will say that rather than one big issue, this conversation really breaks down into different issues:

1. What do we do about the flow of illegal immigrants that continue to come into our country?

2. What do we do about those illegal immigrants who are already here?

3. What do we do about the children who had no say in the matter?

4. What do we do about the people who had no choice but to be brought here illegally, but have grown up here and know no other life?

All valid questions. Hopefully we can work on resolving these issues as a nation once the fake outrage over the photogenic children has passed.


Grizzlor:

The entire Trump/Miller/Kelly/Sessions approach is heavy handed and flat out un-American verging on heinous.

In what way?

Was it also heinous when Obama did it?

If so, why didn't you care then?



1.  The current system has been broken for decades.  Trump administration is now deporting people who have been here for decades.  Some are even DOCTORS.  These are people who are contributing to society, but have no good way to rectify their situation.  Right wing Republicans have refused EVERY attempt at remedies for the immigration system, because solving this problem would take away their dog whistle.

Even when the the Dreamer option was on the table, many of these people chose to remain undocumented. So, I don't necessarily buy the idea that they're trapped, with no good way to remedy the situation.

However, this is one of the problems that I listed above, and it needs to be addressed. I was never moved to another country as a child, but I did move from one state/culture to another state/culture and I definitely have no desire to be shipped back to my native state. Fine place to visit, but... no.

We do need a solution to this, but I honestly don't think that the politicians want to "solve" this issue any more than they want to "solve" healthcare or gun violence. These issues are their bread and butter, so it works out better for them if people are mad and fighting with each other.

What solution can there be? I don't know. It probably wouldn't work out 100% for either side. Even if we gave those people who really did grow up here (not those who made the trip on their own as teenagers) a chance to stay and become citizens, there would be a cost to them. The parents/relatives who brought them here illegally would have to face the consequences of their actions, and that would probably mean being shipped back to their native country. We would also have to define a clear cutoff point for this solution, because we'd be inviting more illegal aliens to try the same thing forever if we didn't.

But yeah. It's a discussion that needs to be had, and it needs to be had rationally.


2.  Family separation is 100% the cause of Trump's team's zero tolerance policy, begun only months ago.  Rather than simply deport the families, they have sought to PUNISH them.  Repeat, PUNISH them.  Again, this is draconian and unnecessary.

You're attributing a motive here, and you need to understand that the image that you're paining comes from your own head and not reality. Donald Trump isn't sitting in the Oval Office, laughing maniacally and getting off to the thought of suffering children. Real life is really never that cartoonish... or... it's rarely that cartoonish.

The fact is, if an American citizen committed a federal crime and was arrested, they would be separated from their children. We don't lock children up for the crimes of their parents. However, in the case of illegal immigrants, that situation is made more difficult by the fact that the kids coming over have nowhere to go once their parents are arrested.

Trump signed an executive order, to end the separation of families. He did exactly what was being asked of him. Yet this action is still being waved around as proof of how evil he is. This is an example of how fake the outrage really is. If Obama put an end to abortion when he was President, pro-lifers would have been dancing in the streets. That's normally what happens when you achieve a goal that you really care about. But the little kids were never the goal here, so there is no celebration.


But you know, gotta keep the base of racist crazies happy.


You have the potential to be better than this comment.



3.  The incarceration is seemingly undefined, as there is a major lack of immigration attorneys and judges.  Another remedy that Trump could fix, but HIRING more of them.  He has steadfastly refused.


One of the many problems that have to be addressed in a system that no politician has felt a need to fix for decades.


And so here we are, a President who despises poor immigrants,


(the ones that he doesn't marry)


the ones who come and do work we don't want to do.


Wait. Americans don't want to be doctors?

The fact is, that the "they do the work that we don't want to do" line is a slogan, not a fact. What it really translates into is that the people who hire them want to hire people who will work for less than minimum wage, who won't expect benefits, and who will be less likely to report abusive working environments.

This is relevant to the conversation that we're having about the migrant children, because some of the people doing the work that we don't want to do are actually children, who are brought here and forced into labor by people who pretend to be their loving parents.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 … ckers.html

And the "work that we don't want to do" issue also includes handing our children over to child molesters.



The one's who often flee peril, only to find more of it here.

The world sucks. In Canada or the UK, you can be jailed and fined for saying the wrong thing, all because they don't actually have freedom of speech. In many cases, we do what we can to help the people from places where they face true systemic oppression and violence. However, even in those cases, there is a proper channel to go through.

He wants merit based...  Okay, so on the application for visa, should we simply be asking how good you are at cleaning plates, picking apples, mowing lawns, or painting houses?

It's a valid question, to ask what they will bring to the table and how they will contribute to our nation. We're not a homeless shelter (though we have many of those, and even many in other countries,  because we're a nation that gives back). Other countries do the same thing. Why is this only a problem when it's the US, and when the president has an R next to his name?

I live in an area with lots of immigrants.

I live in an area that used to be Mexico!

He's complicit with a Republican party that  has no real interest in fixing the system, because it would take away a major issue they need to scream about to get people to vote for them.  Because beyond that, their platform is decidedly anti-working class.


First of all, if you can show me the numbers on how the working class is suffering under Trump, I'm all ears.

Second, if you can tell me what the democrat president or congress did to fix the system, I'm all ears. In fact, when Nancy Pelosi toured one of the facilities housing migrant children back in 2014, she urged people not to politicize those kids. (she also raised the good point about many of the kids coming over with health issues that pose a threat to others)

So again I ask the very simple question: if this situation is such an outrage and such a crime against humanity, why didn't any of you give a f--- four years ago?






pilight:

"Open Borders" doesn't mean abandoning all border policy.  It means we don't require visas.  Show your Mexican driver's license for an instant background check and you can enter.  The same thing we do for people coming from Canada, or Western Europe, or Japan, or Australia, or any of our other allied nations.

Not exactly. They don't just show up with their driver's licence and get into the country. In order to enter the US, visitors with a foreign passport need to obtain a visa. There are a lot of different types of visas, so it's pretty specific and the government wants to know what they're doing here.

You are correct that we do have a special arrangement with some countries where citizens can get a visa waiver. However, they do still need to apply for that waiver and get approved. Which I guess is different than getting a visa, but it's not exactly showing up with a driver's license and getting in.

Why isn't Mexico a part of this program? Don't know. Could be because they have a corrupt government, or all of the violence and abuse that people talk about when discussing reasons for people to come to the US illegally.

That said, Mexicans can still obtain a visa and visit the country.



There's no evidence to suggest more people would try to come if we made entry visa-less.  The people who want to come are coming anyway.

The same could be said for most laws and regulations, I suspect. Would more people commit murder if it weren't illegal? Would more people shoplift? Do people not do those things because they respect the law or fear punishment, or because they're just good people?

Food for thought. I'll skip the experimentation process though.



People are sneaking over because we've made it too difficult and expensive to come legally.  We created the problem with laws that only apply to one ethnic group of people.

In what way does it only apply to one ethnic group?


My brother has a friend who is Canadian. Despite living in different countries, they're not too far from each other, so when she was leaving her country to go overseas for a few months, she was going to store some stuff at his house and get a new place to live when she returned.

She was turned away at the border, because it looked like the was planning to move here.

On a more "facts and numbers" level, in July of 2017, the AP released an article all about the panic now felt by Europeans who were in the US illegally. While they'd been skating by for years, the crackdown on illegal immigrants was being felt in their circles.

http://fox2now.com/2017/07/11/us-deport … scal-year/

So rest assured, Trump's evil extends to everyone. The numbers of deported europeans is still lower than those who come over our southern border, naturally. But they do exist.



There are plenty of people here now who don't respect our nation or our laws or our citizens.  Look how many we have proudly carrying a flag that represented an outright rebellion against the United States.

Are you suggesting that Trump deport everyone who doesn't seem American enough, even if they're citizens?!

But seriously, actual citizens are a problem that we have to deal with. There are plenty of bad ones, but at least they're our problem to deal with. We probably don't need to borrow any more from our neighbors.



It's not our responsibility?  Tell Jeff Sessions to put away the Bible he's never read, because the Parable of the Faithful Servant says just the opposite.  It says to whom much is given, much is required.  President Bush used that quote in his 2007 State of the Union.  It's easy to say screw those poor Hispanic people running away from violence, I got mine.  But it's not a Christian sentiment and until very recently it wasn't an American sentiment.

 

I'm not debating religion. I'm debating politics.

There are plenty of situations whereby you would not be so quick to apply that philosophy. It's great to feed the hungry, but do you want the hungry to break into your home and take what they want? I don't think so.

Charity and theft are not the same thing. It's not our duty as Christians to ignore laws.



We didn't turn away the Jews escaping Germany during the depression.  What makes things so different now when we have the "greatest economy in the history of America"?


Are you seriously asking what the difference is between Jews escaping Nazi Germany and Mexicans sneaking into our country? Do you seriously have no concept of "hard life" versus "genocide"?

Anyone is free to apply for asylum. There are a number of places where they can do this in Mexico and other countries, but asylum is granted for very specific reasons. If they go through the process formally and legally, I don't think anyone has a real problem with them. If they come into our country, demanding that they have the right to take what's not theirs to take, people tend to have a problem.


And to answer your question about the economy of America... that economy will collapse if we let in anyone and everyone who wants to come into the country. No nation should do that!

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

This feels like a good time to wheel out my usual disclaimer: I cannot repeat often enough in the name of the Professor's slide-rule, Rembrandt's afro and Sabrina Lloyd's daughter that the views of pilight, ireactions, Grizzlor and Informant do not reflect those of Sliders.TV as a whole and while I do have VIEWS on Informant, he is a very fine writer and any money on his books is well-spent. https://www.amazon.com/default/e/B005CB … leDbs=true

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I don't think we need disclaimers to say that the views expressed by us represent our own views. That's how the brain generally works. smile


Okay, here's a new one for all of you liberal types. What do you do when a Mexican presidential candidate declares it a human right to cross into the US and claim it for their home? This is the case with Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who declared that he will make this a priority once he wins (if he wins). http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/eleccione … -migrantes

So we have a potential leader of a neighboring country openly stating that they will not respect our border (which they never really have) and will not only encourage, but aid those who want to violate our border.


This isn't an illegal immigration question. This is a diplomatic question. How do we address a Mexican government that openly defies our border and our nation? It seems far fetched (and kinda adorable in a way) for this to become an actual issue but we've had issues with Mexico for a long time now, with their helicopters firing our Border Patrol within our border ( http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27 … er-agents/ ), or their military crossing our border and drawing weapons on our Border Patrol ( http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bor … story.html ) so let's say that things escalate to the point where their leader declares that they will openly defy our border as policy.

What is your response to that? Is there a difference between Americans fighting for open borders, and other nations pushing at our borders? Or do you view those as the same thing?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I wonder, what do you recommend as the best material for making cages to hold children? Personally, while I think PVC mesh is the most resilient to any corrosion from children's tears, Informant strikes me as a welded wire mesh man.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Tell you what... I'll give you tips on building the kid cages and you can tell me the best method of ripping an unborn baby's limbs off and sucking it's brain out. Because that's the side you're on. Literally worse than Hitler, by the way. Just sayin'.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

"American Citizens! We appeal to you in all calmness. Is it not time to pause? Already the enemies of our dearest institutions, like foreign spies in the Trojan Horse of old, are within our gates. They are disgorging themselves upon us, at the rate of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS EVERY YEAR! They aim at nothing short of conquest and supremacy over us."

"We are burdened with enormous taxes by foreigners. We are corrupted in the morals of youth. We are interfered with in our government. We are forced into collisions with other nations. We are tampered with in our religion. We are injured in our labor. We are assailed in our freedom of speech."


So said the Know Nothing Party in the 1850's.  It's funny how little the rhetoric has changed.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

On kindness, change, responsibility, and defending our own.

This is going to cover a lot of areas, but it's mostly politics.  And because of that, I think it belongs here.  I want to preface this by saying that I'm not a member of either the Republican party or the Democratic party.  As (I think) I've said on here, I've voted for both parties (with a very similar ratio for each).  I did not vote for Trump, and I did not vote for Hillary.  I consider myself to be in the middle, and I don't like the tone, rhetoric, or actions of either party at the moment.

When I'm not watching comic book movies or too much TV, my other favorite hobby is sports.  I'm guessing this isn't something that a lot of people on here have a lot of passion or, but I do.  One of my favorite sports is college (American) football, and there have been three major scandals that have happened in the last few years revolving around three very popular and successful head coaches.  I say "revolving" because all three are crimes committed by people around them and the coach's inaction.

The most famous is Joe Paterno.  He was a very successful and long-standing coach at Penn State University.  An assistant coach and friend was assaulting young boys.  According to reports, Paterno knew about it and did nothing.  He protected his friend and the success that came along with it.  Paterno was fired.

The second incident revolved around Baylor University coach Art Briles.  During his tenure at Baylor (by far the most successful in that school's modern history), there was an alarming spike in the sexual assaults that happened on campus.  According to reports, Briles knew that some of his players had been involved in reports, and Briles did nothing.  He protected his team and the success that came with them.  He was fired.

The newest one is Ohio State coach Urban Meyer.  He's one of the best coaches in the nation, and he's led Ohio State to at least one recent championship.  He had a former player/coach who was repeatedly and violently beating his wife.  According to reports, Meyer knew about it and did nothing.  He protected his friend and the success that came with him.  He's currently on administrative leave.

I bring these cases up for a couple of reasons.  First, none of these people reportedly did anything wrong themselves.  Paterno and Briles never committed any sexual assaults.  Meyer never beat his wife.  But they all defended their people and all have paid (some level) of price.  The other reason I bring them up is because of the reaction from fans.

If your school is a rival of Penn State, Baylor, or Ohio State, your reaction to these stories is pure disgust.  How could this coach lead young men and allow these crimes to happen?  How could they ever be trusted?  Their names are tainted and their legacies destroyed.

If your school is Penn State, Baylor, or Ohio State, your reaction is different.  "He did what he was supposed to do."  "He reported it to X."  "No one is listening to his side."  "He can't control or know everything."  "There's no proof that he knew."  There were candlelight vigils in support of Paterno and Briles.  There was a protest in support of Meyer yesterday.

And responses to all three can vary individually by the case.  Ohio State fans could've been very hard on Paterno and Briles, while demanding more investigation into what happened with Meyer.  It's the same across the board.

If it's their guy, lock em up and throw away the key.  If it's your guy, we need to take our time and hear all sides of the story.

Their guy is obviously guilty.  Your guy is a good guy, and there has to be an explanation.

I relate this to college football because they are, in my opinion, the most emotional of fanbases.  Whether you spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to the school, were raised into fandom, or just live in the general vicinity, colllege football makes people's blood boil more than most.  The rivalries can go back over 100 years.  People live and die by the success of their team.  It used to be something that I thought was unique to college football.

But I'm now seeing it much more in another area: politics.

I don't know exactly when it started.  There's a decent chance that it's always been this way, and social media just makes it easier to see.  But instead of identifying with one party or another, more and more I'm seeing people's party becoming part of their identity.  Their fandom towards their party matches anyone else's fandom towards their favorite team.  And you're seeing a lot of the same attacks and defenses.

In the past, you criticized the president more if he wasn't in your party.  You defended him more if he wasn't.  But in modern times, everything has gone to extremes.  George W. Bush was considered a tyrant by one party, and he was beloved by his own.  Obama was considered a tyrant by one party, and he was beloved by his own. 

Trump is different because he's universally hated by Democrats, and a lot of people are turned off by him, even in his own party.  But there's the select group of the population that's willing to forgive everything he does.  That only wants to talk about the crimes of the other side (mostly Hillary).  That wants to defend and excuse.

But it's not just Trump.  Trump is an extreme case, but it happened on a smaller one with Al Franken.  Franken's stuff came out at the height of the women's march and the #MeToo movement.  Some people were happy trying to tear down people until one of their own came up on the stand.  Then, they wanted to talk about how long ago things happened.  How innocent it was.  How things had changed.  Did matter for Spacey.  Did matter for Hoffman.  Didn't matter for Cosby.  The defense was specific to Franken.

And the hypocrisy was evident on the other side.  #MeToo was a joke one week to some, and it was serious the next week when they had the chance to take down someone who disagreed with them.

If it's your guy, it's one way.  If it's their guy, it's another.

And so the war started between the two sides to dig up whatever they can on whoever they can on the other side.  Nothing was off limits.  No statute of limitations.

The most recent casualty was James Gunn.  He's been very outspoken against Trump and Trump supporters, and so the Trump supporters decided to strike back.  They found old jokes that Gunn had made and reposted them.  Disney, apart from Marvel, made the decision to fire him.

If these had been jokes made by Donald Trump, the left would've gone crazy.  Because they were made by an outspoken liberal, the left thought it was a ridiculous act.  Gunn apologized and talked about how much he'd grown and evolved since then.  People that liked him rallied to his support.  People that didn't danced on his grave.

What's funny is that I don't think the jokes would've ever resurfaced if Gunn wasn't an outspoken Trump hater.  And I don't have any idea if the story would've been spun differently if he wasn't.  Politics has clouded the issue to the point where I don't know what would've happened to him in a vacuum.

Some people recognize the hypocrisy.  In looking at comments on stories, some people will admit that "if (blank) said/did it, we'd be in an uproar."  But I worry if those people will eventually drop off.

Are we going to be willing to forgive anything if the person agrees with us?  Are we willing to tear down anyone for any reason if they don't?  Are we ever going to get back to a place where a person's beliefs have no relation to a person's crimes?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I appreciate you posting this SliderQuinn.

Just to add to this, I'd encourage people to listen to this:
https://soundcloud.com/youarenotsosmart … ebroadcast

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I don't have much to add to what Slider_Quinn21 said. It's true, of course. And a lot of people don't understand politics enough to know that what you're told isn't always the truth. There is a lot of flashy, razzle-dazzle type stuff going on that different people use to get their followers riled up, and you usually have to sort through the facts and look at the raw data before you can get an idea of what the truth is. But most people don't do that, so they're stuck in this sort of vague area that seems really scary and dramatic because fear and drama get politicans more votes, gets TV networks more viewers, gets articles more clicks, etc.

I think a large number of people are getting tired of the hatred. I don't know if it's a majority, but it's a significant number. Maybe there will be a place for rational conversation someday, even between people who disagree.

917 (edited by Grizzlor 2018-08-09 10:28:47)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

SQ21, perfect example on James Gunn.  Trump DID make similar comments, repeatedly.  He made fun of a handicapped reporter.  He has spoken despicably about the appearance of women.  He questioned McCain's service because he got captured.  Most infamously he has made a slew of racially tinged remarks, and not recently either.  This goes back decades.  He lies continuously, then tells his followers not to believe ANY press that questions those lies.  Refers to them as the "enemy of the people."  This is precisely how dictators have spoken throughout history.  Gunn, Franken, Bill O'Reilly, Matt Lauer, they all paid for their "sins."  Somehow this guy never does.  It's not about "hatred" with Trump.  This is a question of morality now, it's no longer about politics.  It's a question of whether the United States continues as a Democracy, or crumbles into the abyss. 

That's not even getting near the seemingly nonstop corruption indictments that are encircling the President's men as we speak.  Add Christopher Collins to that mix.  Don Jr., Kushner, Wilbur Ross, could be next.  Manafort, Scott Pruitt, Gates, Cohen, Gen. Flynn, and on and on. 

I wouldn't care if Trump sent me a $50,000 tax refund.  My morality, patriotism, ethics, and human decency cannot be bought.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, I agree that Trump shouldn't be president.  But I don't think there's any option that any of us have but to wait for the process to continue.  Did Trump make any mistakes that can result in removal from office, and can those mistakes be proven?

What drives me crazy is the people screaming on the Internet for him to resign.  Or for the GOP to kick him out.  That's just never going to happen until after the investigation comes out.  And even then, I don't think it can or will be a Republican that actually calls for impeachment - it's going to need to be a Democrat.  No matter what Trump's crimes are, there are rules to the game in Washington that are going to be followed.  And would've been followed if the parties were flipped.

What could happen, hypothetically, is that a number of Republicans could cross the aisle and vote for impeachment.  If Mueller's case is convincing enough, I could see something like that happening.  The reason why the GOP hasn't stepped out of line with him is that the investigation is still pending.  Even if they wanted to just get together as Congress and vote him out, Trump could hypothetically tie up the process all he wants - no sitting president has ever been removed from office on impeachment.  If they don't have sufficient evidence, the Supreme Court could rule that they didn't follow the rules.

Unfortunately, no matter what he did, we have to wait.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure this thing is finishing before the 2020 election.  If you want Trump gone, you need to hope that the Democrats get their shit together.  The map still very-much favors them, but they can't botch it like they did in 2016.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yesterday, Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to committed federal crimes, at the direction of Mr. Trump, in order to protect his candidacy in 2016.  Not long ago, Donald Trump's own lawyers wrote to Robert Mueller, explaining that Trump himself directed Cohen to make those payments, and admitted that Trump reimbursed Mr. Cohen.  That sounds like conspiracy right there, which is a felony, aka "high crime" worthy of impeachment.  The Justice Dept. rules prohibit federal prosecution of a sitting President though.  Should Democrats prevail in the House at least, they will do so with the wind at their backs to pursue it.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The only stuff that worries me, re: impeachment, is whether or not any of it really is going to have an impact.  If you're the Democrats, would you spend your time trying to impeach Trump in 2019 or just spend 2019 trying to get the party back in order?  Because there's a decent chance that the impeachment could happen in the election year if it happens at all.  If you win, you still have to find a solid candidate to run against Pence (or someone the Republicans choose if Pence is too close to Trump), but if you lose, you've solidified the Trump base right in time for the election.

I'd absolutely pursue it, but at this point, Trump's about halfway through his term.  You're almost out of the dark, and the first primaries will be here before we know it.

Speaking of that, in my neck of the woods Beto O'Rourke is making a ton of waves against Ted Cruz.  I think it's Info that's a big fan of Cruz, but Beto's campaign is definitely making a lot of noise.  If he can somehow beat Cruz, I think he's a real threat to Trump in 2020.  There was talk of Texas flipping for blue in 2016 (and it wasn't that close), but if the Democratic candidate is from Texas and finds a way to win his home state, then Trump's toast.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

That’s the part I don’t understand - is the idea that Pence is better?  That’s the end game of these cries for impeachment.

Everyone would be better served to find a candidate or party they like better and build it up to win the office; but that’s the problem, isn’t it?  The anti-Trump forces actually don’t agree on much - they have no candidate to unify behind and no plan for the future.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

And what is this that Cohen’s attorney was promoting on the news all day?

https://www.gofundme.com/hqjupj-michael … truth-fund

So I guess the implication is that Cohen can’t tell the truth unless the funding goal is met?  lol  The guy is not poor, but nearly 2000 people have already fallen for this and donated money.

923 (edited by Grizzlor 2018-08-24 10:53:29)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The reports are that there are documents, physical evidence of what Cohen wishes to talk about.  Frankly, the feds don't need him if they have all that.  And now the other shoe drops like the anvil in a Roadrunner cartoon.  When the campaign was winding down, I said several times, the greatest issue I had with Donald Trump was not political.  It was that he ran a 40-year criminal enterprise which laundered money for organized crime, for decades under the tutelage of NYC's attorney for the Mafia, Roy Cohn.  Back then it was Jewish and Italian mobsters, followed by Chinese, Ukranian, Russian, whatever.  I said it was only a matter of time before his past caught up with him.  He's been a criminal for 40 years, protected by other criminals and New York greed.  Not unlike the Kennedy's, who were criminals during Prohibition, and alter associated with criminals, and inevitably were likely murdered by them.

Again, this is not a political statement, this has to do with law & order (not Fred Wolf's show either).  If his money-man is singing to prosecutors, it's the beginning of the end for DJT.  You heard it here first.  Enjoy your weekend, I know I will.   

https://nypost.com/2018/08/24/trumps-fi … hen-probe/

PS: I think Mike Pence's politics are highly distasteful, but he is NOT a criminal.  Couldn't be less of a fan, but again, he has morals, is somewhat intelligent, 100% a Patriotic family, and at the worst, would represent the nation with dignity.  Trump is a shit stain on the history of the United States, and I want him out removed yesterday.  Pence has zero shot of being re-elected anyway.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

PS: I think Mike Pence's politics are highly distasteful, but he is NOT a criminal.  Couldn't be less of a fan, but again, he has morals, is somewhat intelligent, 100% a Patriotic family, and at the worst, would represent the nation with dignity.  Trump is a shit stain on the history of the United States, and I want him out removed yesterday.  Pence has zero shot of being re-elected anyway.

I don't know if you can separate Pence from Trump.  Unless Pence was kept completely in the dark about everything, he has to know something.  Probably couldn't nail him on anything, but he'd have to be tainted by this.

And his reelection would depend almost exclusively on what the Dems throw out.  Most reasonable candidates would win, but if the Democratic Party tries anything stupid, they can lose again.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

And his reelection would depend almost exclusively on what the Dems throw out.  Most reasonable candidates would win, but if the Democratic Party tries anything stupid, they can lose again.

And this is the problem - even now there is no admission that Hillary Clinton was a horrid candidate.  The reason all of this happened is because the Democratic establishment propped up Hillary like some kind of royalty that was owed the throne.  The media propped up Trump to decimate the Republican field because they thought they would be throwing Hillary a softball opponent to help her win - and boy did that backfire.  *All* of this happened because some cant see the forest for the Hillary.

And they’ll do it again.  Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if they put Hillary up again.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The day after the election was over, the popular article was "who is going to run in 2020?"  Outlets easily came up with 20 candidates.  None of whom even tried to run in 2016.

Only two people have made any effort to beat Hillary Clinton in a Democratic primary.  One was a no-name junior senator from Illinois, and one was a no-name senator from Vermont who wasn't even a Democrat.  She lost to one of them, and she made sure there was no way she'd lose the next one.  She'd essentially won the nomination with Superdelegates before a single vote was cast.

I think she completely bungled the Bernie stuff because there was zero reason for that to get nasty.  There was zero chance that Bernie was going to beat her, and her winning his supporters over should've been the easiest thing in the world.  Then she went into the general election so confident in her victory that she didn't even campaign in several "home run" states.  She lost some of those states.

Let's not forget that it was the Clintons that actually helped convince Trump to run.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/08 … l-run-2016

Of all the people to blame for Trump, Hillary Clinton and her lust for power has to be pretty high on the list.

* And before anyone says "Oh my God, Hillary lost and people are still kicking her into the ground." - that actually goes toward my point.  This is a woman who, fair or not, people despise.  There have been articles going back to 1992 that discuss, at length, why people just don't like her.  She rubs people the wrong way.

And that's exactly why she was the wrong candidate in 2016.  There were people that were never going to vote for her, and there were people that were going to vote for the other candidate just so she wouldn't win.  As beloved as she is by her supporters, she's *hated* by so many other people.  If the Democrats had run a legitimate primary (I don't mean anything other than the fact that only one true Democrat even ran), and if they'd picked almost any other candidate, more people would've been energized to go vote against Trump and less people would've held their nose and voted for Trump.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It's easy to blame Hillary being a bad candidate or the media propping up Trump.  The sad truth is...voters are DUMB.  Even intelligent ones.  Good grief it's staggering how ill-informed most of them are.  Trump, I'll give him all the credit in the world, because he finally did what all candidates never had the guts to....feed the boobs exactly what they want to hear.  Very simple.  I've given up caring, because it's clear most Americans do not care.  They want their dumb TV shows, even dumber movies they're hooked to.  They want their weed, booze, sports, video games, porn, fast food, religions, whatever that comforts them.  The planet is headed for massive environmental DEATH.  Sure, we'll all be dead by then, so it's easy to continue to ignore the issues.  The rise of absurd conspiracies just proves that, if you make a phony story interesting enough, dopes will believe it.  But oh well, let's just keep getting less and less healthy foods, products, air and water, and keep giving out more and more doles to corporations, who continue to market and lie and force poison into your blood stream.  Then deny you adequate medical support to treat these illnesses.  I'm sorry but this country DESERVED Trump.  He is the embodiment of it.  Fat, lazy, whiny, dumb, ignorant, arrogant, deceitful.  I'll equally give Bernie credit.  He didn't care, he just plain told it like it is.  Trouble was, again, most Americans are lazy and afraid, afraid of literally everything.  It's led to the breakdown of communities.  They don't want to hear the pain Bernie was pointing to, and they're clearly far too cowardly to stand up to multi-national corporations who run their lives.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Man, I don't know why the GOP is willing to die on the Brett Kavanaugh hill.

Even if he's 100% innocent of all charges, I thought his hearing was awful.  He's unlikable, and his temperament doesn't belong anywhere near the Supreme Court.  I don't know how this guy was chosen.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Brett is Dubya’s kind of frat boy; and it was Dubya who put him on the bench.  This is old school Republican stuff.

Something that’s went largely unreported here is that Brett has been through this before.  Bush nominated him to the DC Circuit in 2003, but the Senate fought on it and didn’t confirm him until 2006.  By comparison, this went well.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

When you nominated political operatives, their history is usually going to be murky.  Alito, Gorsich, Roberts, were not, they were primarily lawyers and judges, so they sailed through.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant, wondering what you think of Beto O'Rourke and the national interest in him, given that's a local race for you?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Same as my view of Wendy Davis and the national interest in her. smile

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Am I the only one who thinks it odd that not a single mail bomb has blown up?  We’re up to ten now?  Either this is the worst bomb maker in history or it’s a stunt.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yeah, I dunno.  It's during an election so I could see it being any number of factions.  My first thought was that it was a lot of people who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie, and that it could just as easily be a Bernie fanatic than a Republican fanatic.

I'm guessing it was a sloppy job, and once they confirmed the first one, it was relatively easy for the secret service to weed out the others.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I have a lot of questions about the whole thing. Whoever did it should be prosecuted, of course. I don't think that should even be a political stance (though we've had other attacks that received far less media attention).

I think it's relevant to question why these people were targeted. Those who have had packages sent to them don't strike me as prime targets of the wacky right. Aside from Soros, they're mostly political has-beens.

Why are the stamps not cancelled/stamped over? Are those even enough stamps to send that package?

Why was the first reaction of someone opening a suspected bomb to grab their phone and take pics?

Are these even bombs? I've seen bomb experts online examining the pictures and saying that they don't look like actual bombs. So, is this a real threat, or a scare tactic? Or is it a means of stirring a political pot.

The motive here isn't clear. Nothing has exploded, and I haven't heard of packages being blown up either. As someone who lives down the street from an ISIS target, where police were  blowing up backpacks just to be safe, this seems weird. We've had no notes or videos from the mastermind. That seems weird for a political terrorist. What is the plan? Who is supposed to be helped by this?

People are jumping to blame one political party or the other, and that part is just BS at this point. Whoever did it needs to be held accountable, and they clearly don't represent the average citizens of either side. We can theorize all we want, but until some of those questions are answered, we can't jump to conclusions.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Robert DeNiro and John Brennan had nothing to do with Hillary v. Bernie.  They just railed on Trump.  I would say it's someone's sick joke, someone who clearly needs psychiatric help.  That being said, two highly predicable things happened.  First, the Limbaugh's and whatnot claimed "false flag," and declared it all to be a fake stunt.  Second, Trump ignored criticism that those targeted are basically who he's been blasting for 2 years, and instead blamed the "fake media."  Disgraceful responses, but again, not surprising.  Of course, if it was a stunt to make Trump look bad, like teasing a retriever with a tennis ball, he just couldn't control himself.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

Robert DeNiro and John Brennan had nothing to do with Hillary v. Bernie.

To be fair, I didn't know about the DeNiro one and had only read that one was sent to CNN.  So at the time I posted, it was Soros, the Clintons, Wasserman-Schultz, Obama, and CNN.  All of who have some ties to Hillary versus Bernie.

But, yes, others have shown up that have nothing to do with it.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

An arrest has been made

https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/26/suspecte … c-8079040/

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Assuming this is the prime guy responsible, I think law enforcement all around was excellent this week.  No bombs went off and the guy was captured quickly.

(I'm assuming this guy was a total whack job who made things really easy on the investigators, but still, I'd like to congratulate them on ending this pretty quickly with no collateral damage)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

First, the Limbaugh's and whatnot claimed "false flag," and declared it all to be a fake stunt.

I don't follow Limbaugh, so I don't know what he actually said. But I will agree that anyone who jumped to any conclusion about guilt or motive was foolish. It's fine to ask questions and seek answers, but to outright conclude that someone is to blame without proof if stupid.



Second, Trump ignored criticism that those targeted are basically who he's been blasting for 2 years, and instead blamed the "fake media."


You're using the word "targeted" to put some of this blame on Trump. If you're going to do this, I'd like to see direct quotes and sources. Simply blasting your political opponents is not a call for violence. If we want to play this game, it will be a very long, dark rabbit hole that I'm not sure you're prepared for. Most politicians blast their opponents. Many of the people who received these packages are even guilty of calling for violence or physical intimidation of others.

The person who is guilty here is the man who sent the packages. That's it. Crazy people do crazy shit, and while I know that CNN is telling you to blame Trump for this, they're simply proving his "fake news" point by doing so. They blamed Palin when Giffords was shot. They do it whenever they can, while conveniently overlooking attacks on right-leaning targets, and failing to put blame on politicians for that (which they shouldn't, because those attacks are the fault of those actually committing them).

It's stupid. This is exactly what Trump talks about when referring to "fake news". The talking heads who stir up fear and paranoia, carefully controlling the information that their followers are given, all for the sake of manipulating the public. It's dangerous, and we see that very clearly right now, with CNN putting the blame for this squarely on Trump's shoulders, before they had an ounce of evidence to work with. They're more to blame for the current atmosphere than he is.






Assuming this is the prime guy responsible, I think law enforcement all around was excellent this week.  No bombs went off and the guy was captured quickly.

From what I can gather (and I haven't read every article, so I may be missing something), none of them were actually bombs. I don't think that any of them were designed to go off, and if that's the case, they shouldn't be referred to as bombs. I think it was a fear tactic more than anything else... which is not to say that the man responsible is any less guilty of acts of terror. These were clearly meant to intimidate and threaten people for the sake of some sort of wacky political goal. I don't know enough about the man to judge how sane he is, or what his motives may have been, but he was clearly attempting to make people fear for their lives, and that is obviously something that he will have to pay for.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Christopher Wray called them IEDs.  Most of the media I've seen have followed that lead and called them "explosive devices".

Jeff Sessions called the suspect a partisan.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Unless they were capable of exploding (and not in some theoretical way), they're not bombs. They are said to contain some element that could explode if exposed to the right stimuli, but there's no indication that any trigger was present... That I've read about.

The guy clearly had some sort of political beliefs. I don't think that those beliefs are in any way mainstream, and there is no way that Trump is to blame for this, unless he sent this man private messages. This seems unlikely.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Also, the president called them "bombs" on Twitter

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Again, I don't care who calls what whatever they want. Unless there is some sort of fuse or trigger, it's not a bomb.

I'm not saying that it's not there. They may very well have had detonators of some sort, but I haven't seen any listed. When Austin was being bombed, we had language like "trip wire" and "defused" in reports. So far, all I've seen in reports of these packages are some vaguely bombish materials. PVC pipe, a clock, some batteries, some wire and some unspecified material that could potentially react to some sort of outside force and cause harm... But none of the bombs exploded, which says a lot. A mass bomber with zero actual victims is kinda rare. Were they intended to go off? Were they designed to?

Again, thank God nobody was harmed. If these were truly bombs that miraculously didn't go off, that is amazing. The nut job behind this should pay for his actions either way. But, I don't even see attempted murder listed as one of the charges against him. There is a charge of mailing explosives, but fireworks would count as explosives, even without a triggering device.

I am not attempting to lessen the severity of the situation, but I think it's also dangerous for people to be misleading the public by claiming that these devices were similar to the Austin bombs, which caused very real fear and panic because they actually killed people. Right now, based on the information provided by the authorities, I don't feel comfortable concluding that these were actually bombs or that this man intended to murder people. A whole lot of blanks are being filled in by the press.

I was wrong before though. I did find a report saying that the Soros package was destroyed by authorities, so that did happen. It just doesn't answer all of my questions, and I'm a questions guy. I like details and information. It probably annoys people, but it's how my mind works.

I think he's guilty. I think he counts as a terrorist. I think he should be locked up (and probably medicated). I don't think this should be a political issue. We don't need to be divided about everything. There is clearly only one man responsible for this man's actions, and that is him. Thank God he was caught before anyone was hurt.

That said... I want more information. Because I do. smile

945 (edited by Grizzlor 2018-10-28 18:26:06)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Donald Trump has created an environment where unfounded and often anti-Semitic conspiracies, hate speech, and threats of violence (he HIMSELF has made them) are allowed if not encouraged.  The bombing suspect admitted he had little political interest until Trump came along, and acted as a lightening rod to people like him.  Again, as I continue to say, this has NOTHING to do with policies or even politics of DJT.  It's 100% tied to his constant lying, lack of morality, lack of decency, lack of humility, and organized crime background.  He lies, he quotes absurd conspiracies that are easily debunked. 

His first reaction to neo-Nazi's in VA, well there's good people on both sides.  His first reaction to the Saudi's killing a journalist, well it was probably rogue killers.  His first reaction to today's synagogue massacre, well somebody should have had a gun inside to shoot the shooter.  Blame, blame, blame.  NEVER admits he made a mistake.  Sorry, but this is on him.  Everyone in Washington continues to beg, demand, or plea for him to tone down the incendiary rhetoric, and he has not.

PS: Let's not forget this President has already warned of VIOLENCE if Democrats win midterms.  Not Fake News, he said it.  Well, I guess they've gotten a head start on that.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'd just like to remind anyone reading that the views of Grizzlor are not the views of Sliders.tv. All things being equal, Grizzlor once insisted that Allison Mack could not be a sex trafficking, harem-managing cultist for a psychopath. Boy, did Grizzlor ever look silly after that. (Grizzlor, I'm sorry, but I gotta be fair.)

Admittedly, the (political) views of Grizzlor are the views of ireactions, but ireactions is widely regarded as the village lunatic of the SLIDERS community. Grizzlor and ireactions have often been flat out wrong. ireactions, for example, once bought stock in Blackberry (what a backfire!).

While Grizzlor and I are of the same mind (on this subject), we do not represent the consensus of Sliders.tv and as far as I can tell, there is no consensus in this community which cannot even agree on an episode order for Season 2 of SLIDERS.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I have a question for Informant.

You saw the truth about Bryan Singer when I was still unable to wrap my head around it. You see the hypocrisy in Hollywood as people rally around Rose McGowan and condemn Harvey Weinstein but applaud and sign petitions for Roman Polansky. (There's also McGowan's disgusting transphobia.)

Why do you defend Donald Trump's self-confessed sexual assaults?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Are you talking specifically about the Access Hollywood recording?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Just to make it clear, I didn't mean for that question to come across as snide in any way. I just want to make sure that I know what you're referring to before I respond. If there's some other example that I should be commenting on, I'd have to look into it before I could form an opinion either way.