Trump

1184185187189190415

Comments

  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    edited September 2016
    Maybe if we would end the failed war on drugs the Cartels wouldn't be an issue.
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,357
    unsung said:

    Maybe if we would end the failed war on drugs the Cartels wouldn't be an issue.

    You know that's not gonna happen under Trump. His war on drugs is gonna be uuuuuuggggeeee!
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 38,134
    unsung said:

    Maybe if we would end the failed war on drugs the Cartels wouldn't be an issue.

    I must have missed the part of Trump's campaign policy that states he will end the war on drugs.

    "Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk"
    -EV  8/14/93




  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    I offered a solution to lessen the power of cartels. Maybe you missed it.
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 33,952
    unsung said:

    Maybe if we would end the failed war on drugs the Cartels wouldn't be an issue.

    Interesting article in Esquire about how the cartels have pumped significantly more heroin and more recently fentynal into the US ever since their profits sunk due to the legalization of pot.

    I agree that the war on drugs is a massive problem, but I don't think the heroin business is going anywhere regardless.

  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Maybe we should stop guarding the poppy fields in Afghanistan.
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562

    unsung said:

    Free said:

    Free said:

    I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.

    This is the huge problem. Because people are so in fear of a clown taking full advantage of his publicity stunts, people will BLINDLY follow the other contender and ask NO questions. And that is so dangerous for the country!! (not you personally).
    it's not blind. most people have openly admitted she is not ideal and she creates trust issues are asking questions. but what trump will do is potentially FAR WORSE than what she will do. it's unfortunately the lesser of two evils here.
    I'm talking about those who have not "openly admitted she is not ideal and she creates trust issues". Those who have been only acted as apologists.
    She beat Sanders....
    Corrected.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

    yep....by 4 million votes
    How shallow.

    I get it now. Apologists exist to be on the "winning" team. That's all that matters to you guys isnt it.

    image
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Mar-A-Lago Posts: 21,313
    Free said:

    unsung said:

    Free said:

    Free said:

    I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.

    This is the huge problem. Because people are so in fear of a clown taking full advantage of his publicity stunts, people will BLINDLY follow the other contender and ask NO questions. And that is so dangerous for the country!! (not you personally).
    it's not blind. most people have openly admitted she is not ideal and she creates trust issues are asking questions. but what trump will do is potentially FAR WORSE than what she will do. it's unfortunately the lesser of two evils here.
    I'm talking about those who have not "openly admitted she is not ideal and she creates trust issues". Those who have been only acted as apologists.
    She beat Sanders....
    Corrected.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

    yep....by 4 million votes
    How shallow.

    I get it now. Apologists exist to be on the "winning" team. That's all that matters to you guys isnt it.

    image
    I would rather be voting for Sanders in this election. He lost to Clinton. Clinton is the better candidate between Clinton/Trump.

    I don't care who you vote for. Get a hold of yourself.
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
    The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    There are not only two candidates Here, there are third-party candidates. You're the one who won't even question her and ensure she's going to be the right kind of leader of our country, a decent, fair an upstanding world leader. It's not American. It's friggin weird. The loyalty and blind faith is Orwellian. We are all citizens and we all demand the best a leader can be... But There's so many people voting only with their fear. Great.
  • Free said:

    You guys can take it as it ever you want to. But I am not the enemy, I am the messenger. By not questioning the other candidate and making sure that she's got the right ideas for this country you are blindly following. Wake up.

    Who sent you?
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 38,134
    Free said:

    There are not only two candidates Here, there are third-party candidates. You're the one who won't even question her and ensure she's going to be the right kind of leader of our country, a decent, fair an upstanding world leader. It's not American. It's friggin weird. The loyalty and blind faith is Orwellian. We are all citizens and we all demand the best a leader can be... But There's so many people voting only with their fear. Great.

    vote splitting gives trump the win. you think the left is that stupid?
    "Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk"
    -EV  8/14/93




  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,192


    Free said:

    You guys can take it as it ever you want to. But I am not the enemy, I am the messenger. By not questioning the other candidate and making sure that she's got the right ideas for this country you are blindly following. Wake up.

    Who sent you?
    Ha! Funny.
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524


    Free said:

    You guys can take it as it ever you want to. But I am not the enemy, I am the messenger. By not questioning the other candidate and making sure that she's got the right ideas for this country you are blindly following. Wake up.

    Who sent you?
    :whistle:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z54-QHEZN6E
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,192
    ^^This obviously left an unhealthy impression on you during your youth.
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    mrussel1 said:

    ^^This obviously left an unhealthy impression on you during your youth.

    Among many other unhealthy impressions =)
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 41,902
    Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.

    "We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.

    We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.

    Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.

    To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.

    We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,121
    unsung said:
    Haha. Well where is all the profit from those seized assets going to now? The wall will cost $35+ billion (I think even that is a low ball estimate, which is about $20 Billion more than Trump claims it will be). So the money being redirected to this great, amazing, beautiful, yuge wall is being taken away from what? You think that funding a mega-project with money coming out of the miserable failure that is the "war on drugs" is a good idea? Doesn't seem like too stable a funding plan to me, lol.
    I thought Mexico was going to pay for it. What happened?? :lol:
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,192
    mickeyrat said:

    Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.

    "We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.

    We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.

    Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.

    To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.

    We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."

    He is clearly contrasting assimilation with multi-culturalism.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 41,902
    mrussel1 said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.

    "We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.

    We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.

    Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.

    To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.

    We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."

    He is clearly contrasting assimilation with multi-culturalism.
    OK, Fair enough. My concern =centered on the next to last lines. Specificaly " within historical norms" . Initially my gut reaction was keep america white. But slowly I am learning to really look at the words chosen without running through my emotional filter first. Becasue I really think he plays off peoples emotions about topics rather than rational thought and critical thinking about a subject.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,192
    mickeyrat said:

    mrussel1 said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.

    "We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.

    We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.

    Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.

    To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.

    We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."

    He is clearly contrasting assimilation with multi-culturalism.
    OK, Fair enough. My concern =centered on the next to last lines. Specificaly " within historical norms" . Initially my gut reaction was keep america white. But slowly I am learning to really look at the words chosen without running through my emotional filter first. Becasue I really think he plays off peoples emotions about topics rather than rational thought and critical thinking about a subject.
    That's interesting. That's a very articulate statement and not one that Trump would ever normally say. I think it is too nuanced for his fans to be honest.
  • Do you think your initial gut reaction was incorrect?
  • Yes my gut for sure fuck Trump !
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,092
    edited September 2016
    mickeyrat said:

    mrussel1 said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.

    "We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.

    We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.

    Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.

    To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.

    We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."

    He is clearly contrasting assimilation with multi-culturalism.
    OK, Fair enough. My concern =centered on the next to last lines. Specificaly " within historical norms" . Initially my gut reaction was keep america white. But slowly I am learning to really look at the words chosen without running through my emotional filter first. Becasue I really think he plays off peoples emotions about topics rather than rational thought and critical thinking about a subject.
    I took it when he said "within historical norms" to reference numbers of immigrants and not where they came from. The sentences immediately before he references immigration as a share of national population breaking records.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 41,902

    mickeyrat said:

    mrussel1 said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.

    "We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.

    We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.

    Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.

    To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.

    We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."

    He is clearly contrasting assimilation with multi-culturalism.
    OK, Fair enough. My concern =centered on the next to last lines. Specificaly " within historical norms" . Initially my gut reaction was keep america white. But slowly I am learning to really look at the words chosen without running through my emotional filter first. Becasue I really think he plays off peoples emotions about topics rather than rational thought and critical thinking about a subject.
    I took it when he said "within historical norms" to reference numbers of immigrants and not where they came from. The sentences immediately before he references immigration as a share of national population breaking records.
    measured by population share.....
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,192
    edited September 2016

    mickeyrat said:

    mrussel1 said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.

    "We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.

    We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.

    Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.

    To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.

    We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."

    He is clearly contrasting assimilation with multi-culturalism.
    OK, Fair enough. My concern =centered on the next to last lines. Specificaly " within historical norms" . Initially my gut reaction was keep america white. But slowly I am learning to really look at the words chosen without running through my emotional filter first. Becasue I really think he plays off peoples emotions about topics rather than rational thought and critical thinking about a subject.
    I took it when he said "within historical norms" to reference numbers of immigrants and not where they came from. The sentences immediately before he references immigration as a share of national population breaking records.
    My read as well. I doubt it was a% of the population as that number would be higher.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,306
    The leader of the gop is in a Twitter pissing match with the leader of a foreign country and our ally. Diplomacy at work my friends, believe me.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Yes my gut for sure fuck Trump !

    Lol!
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 38,134
    Even if trump gets the white house, there is no way in fucking hell any wall is getting built. I would seriously bet my house on that.
    "Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk"
    -EV  8/14/93




This discussion has been closed.