I'm Back From Eternal Exile In the Black Desert of Despair!

[Darwoth]

trump is going to be the best president since george washington, claeyt is just pissy that all of his "rebel without a clue" bernie buddies are starting to understand what socialism means and deciding to be "anti establishment" with ol donald instead. things like muslims continuously blowing themselves up every few weeks around the globe and swarms of the very same undesirables that every american wants to get rid of rioting at his rallies continue to make his support grow.

[Trismegistus]

Sorry if this theme has already been passed over but I couldn't bare to spend my entire afternoon reading page after page to see of it has been brought up. Something that I continuously get frustrated by when hearing discussion of political candidates statements during campaigns is taking their statements at face value. Quoting something and expecting those specific words to be laws enacted in the future by that particular candidate. They are political speeches and statements created to get votes, not to make laws. If a majority of people support those statements, and you do not, and you support a Democracy or a Republic, well, your *****. So don't get all riled up saying, "Holy moly, did you hear what he said?" Discuss whether the electorate is capable of supporting something like that. That would be more interesting. I'm thinking specifically of some of Claeyt's remarks but perhaps others as well. Mentioning things like "Oh, Trump said he wants to do a thing that is unconstitutional. He is unelectable and how dare you support him," and stating them as if it's fact and unarguable. Things like "Trump's father was a member of the KKK."

So ***** what? It's not illegal to be a member of the KKK or any other hate group. Why do you care if someone is a member of the KKK? If a member of the KKK breaks a law, they will be prosecuted. Problem solved. Why do you care if a candidate says something that implies a desire to create a law that, according to your interpretation, is unconstitutional? By your own definition, the thing that you are railing against is impossible to become fact. You live in a country that is ruled by laws and those laws are protected and interpreted by the Judicial branch. Sure, you can discuss that the law could be enacted, then it'll be in place for months or years until the Supreme Court rules on it, and ooooh the current Judges are evil, crony, party members who will help their party break the Constitution. Again, more interesting and more to the point of how things actually work than spewing your opinions and waiting to get in a back and forth with the opposing side.

P.S. This statement is directed more at my inner sanity than any members of this thread. I'm Hermes Trismegistus and I approve this message.

[saltmummy]

AND THE WALL GROWS! Why are we building trumps wall with text instead of bricks and on the internet instead of the Mexican border?
Seriously though, apparently the proposed wall would cost about double Trumps highest cost estimate. Oh and there is no way he can make Mexico pay for it, and such a wall would be about as useful as our current set up. Basically it would be another of Trumps vaguely phalic objects, laying limp across the southern end of the US.

[TotalyMeow]

AND THE WALL GROWS! Why are we building trumps wall with text instead of bricks and on the internet instead of the Mexican border?

Sorry if the text walls are hard to follow. Claeyt like's to post a large number of different points in his posts and then argue them individually so that when he realizes he's gone horribly wrong somewhere, like he did with his attack on my gender, he can drop that section and hope no one notices in the shuffle.

Basically it would be another of Trumps vaguely phallic objects, laying limp across the southern end of the US.

But more effective than if it were to stand up straight.

[saltmummy]

Basically it would be another of Trumps vaguely phallic objects, laying limp across the southern end of the US.

But more effective than if it were to stand up straight.

Ok, that gave me a good laugh.

[Brego]

love to read about this crazy things,ty clay

[Dallane]

Claeyt like's to post a large number of different points in his posts and then argue them individually so that when he realizes he's gone horribly wrong somewhere, like he did with his attack on my gender, he can drop that section and hope no one notices in the shuffle.

He does this so often it's hilarious

[Claeyt]

trump is going to be the best president since george washington, claeyt is just pissy that all of his "rebel without a clue" bernie buddies are starting to understand what socialism means and deciding to be "anti establishment" with ol donald instead. things like muslims continuously blowing themselves up every few weeks around the globe and swarms of the very same undesirables that every american wants to get rid of rioting at his rallies continue to make his support grow.

Bernie was always an outside chance and he still has one. But watch how Bernie and Hillary come together after one of them gets a hard majority of the delegates and how the other one will clearly and meaningfully endorse the other and help them to get the Presidency. This will not happen on the Republican side. Even if (and it's a big Even) Drumpf gets the Republican nomination you will not see ANY of the other candidates supporting him. You've had so many candidates coming out against him that it's comical. The newest head to head polling has him losing by 18 points to Clinton with him only getting 36% of the vote. She'll roll him like fresh Sushi and the Republican convention is going to be a riot... literally a riot.

Sorry if this theme has already been passed over but I couldn't bare to spend my entire afternoon reading page after page to see of it has been brought up. Something that I continuously get frustrated by when hearing discussion of political candidates statements during campaigns is taking their statements at face value. Quoting something and expecting those specific words to be laws enacted in the future by that particular candidate. They are political speeches and statements created to get votes, not to make laws. If a majority of people support those statements, and you do not, and you support a Democracy or a Republic, well, your *****. So don't get all riled up saying, "Holy moly, did you hear what he said?" Discuss whether the electorate is capable of supporting something like that. That would be more interesting. I'm thinking specifically of some of Claeyt's remarks but perhaps others as well. Mentioning things like "Oh, Trump said he wants to do a thing that is unconstitutional. He is unelectable and how dare you support him," and stating them as if it's fact and unarguable. Things like "Trump's father was a member of the KKK."

What political candidates say matters, especially if it's racially/religiously bigoted. I know they won't be laws but they will be the opinion of the President of the U.S. and that matters. The basis of policy is what politicians say. Expelling all Muslim immigrants and denying them access to legal immigration IS against the constitution as determined by the Supreme Court in rejecting the 'Chinese Exclusion Acts' as law. It's against the 'Equal protection' clause. Immigrants have rights within the United States, they don't have to be citizens.

So ***** what? It's not illegal to be a member of the KKK or any other hate group. Why do you care if someone is a member of the KKK? If a member of the KKK breaks a law, they will be prosecuted. Problem solved. Why do you care if a candidate says something that implies a desire to create a law that, according to your interpretation, is unconstitutional? By your own definition, the thing that you are railing against is impossible to become fact. You live in a country that is ruled by laws and those laws are protected and interpreted by the Judicial branch. Sure, you can discuss that the law could be enacted, then it'll be in place for months or years until the Supreme Court rules on it, and ooooh the current Judges are evil, crony, party members who will help their party break the Constitution. Again, more interesting and more to the point of how things actually work than spewing your opinions and waiting to get in a back and forth with the opposing side.

It is illegal to be a member of a Hate group that organizes or funds criminal activity. This has happened many times to various chapters of the KKK.

Why do I care if someone is a member of the KKK? Because the KKK has killed thousands of people throughout the recent history of the United States in the name of white supremacy, that's why.

His statements on banning Muslim immigration are unconstitutional not based on my interpretation but on that of the Supreme Court of the United States of America as stated under the 'Equal Protection' clause and their rejection of the 'Chinese Exclusion Acts'. The law can not be enacted because it would clearly break the constitution. It would first be challenged and stopped by a lower federal court within hours and then it would be thrown out unanimously by the Supreme court as being unconstitutional probably within days. It would probably be the fastest decision by the Supreme court since their judicial coup of 'Bush v Gore'.

[Dallane]

[
It is illegal to be a member of a Hate group that organizes or funds criminal activity. This has happened many times to various chapters of the KKK.

Wrong. You are free to join and assemble with any organization in the US. If you don't participate in any illegal acts then you are free to do as you please. Just look at ANY motorcycle club in the USA. Every club is under a outlaw biker organization and pay them to allow them to operate.

[Claeyt]

There's a difference between the 2. In Walker's case, his advisers intentionally set it up to avoid open government laws. In HRC's case they openly set it up to try and control her email secrecy. We'll see if they broke any laws by intentionally setting it up but they were not hiding it. They thought they were lawful in setting it up whereas Walker's advisers knew they were breaking the law. Again, I don't think HRC has broken the law.

It's unlawful to put classified or top secret information out in the open where someone not qualified can see them, and a private email server is not very secure. Surely anyone in such high levels of public office knows this. You're making no sense saying that on one hand someone knew they were breaking the law but on the other they didn't so they weren't breaking a law. If there is a law against something, and you break it, it doesn't matter if you were ignorant of it's existence. It's YOUR responsibility to know what you are and aren't allowed to do.

Well that's the question isn't it. Was there any actual classified material on it and did they actually break the law by setting it up. Like I said, if you compare it to the Petraeus case she'll end up with nothing against her. Either way it's pointless in arguing about it until the FBI determines anything this summer.

I'm living on the planet where fear and distrust of other peoples doesn't irrationally rule my mind. Have you ever actually talked to anyone from the middle-east. Most of them don't hate us and wish their countries were more like ours'. They're fighting against dictatorship and theocracy

So... you're saying there aren't large groups of people in them Middle East who hate us, would like to hurt us, and would use the opportunity to sneak into our country while the system is overloaded trying to process the much too large numbers of people we are now accepting into the country from that area? You're saying countries like Germany aren't having trouble with the culture clash of various refugees not being able to handle the sight of a woman's ankles and are seeing higher crime rates as a result? You're saying I should be happy and pretend that just because some of the refugees will be peaceful, all of them will surely be, lalala? That I shouldn't instead question these changes and prefer that the numbers accepted stay low enough that backgrounds can be checked and fake passports discovered before it's too late? That numbers stay low enough that those coming here can at least be somewhat integrated, hopefully, and not become violent when they try to hold onto parts of their culture that just won't work here?

People said similar things against the Irish 150 years ago and against the Italians 100 years ago and against the Jewish refugees after WWII and against the Vietnamese and Cambodians 40 years ago. Every single one of these groups is now part of the larger diaspora of America. In fact it's already happening here with the Muslim population. Muslim-Americans now make up less than 1% of the population but make up almost 10% of all doctors in America. There are Muslim-Americans in congress, who are judges at the local, state and federal level. There are Muslims in every facet of this country now and in fact there has been for a long, long time. Thomas Jefferson owned a copy of the first English translation of the Q'aran.

This argument isn't new and it's already been proven that this group will integrate into America.

Yes, there are people that want to kill Americans in the Middle-East. Yes they are theocratic terrorists and should be stopped. We've been fighting them for 50 years now and I don't doubt we'll be fighting them for at least 50 more. This is not ALL Muslims and it's not even a small minority of them. As Juda showed in another thread t's a puny fraction of a percent of Muslims who would kill themselves to kill others.

The IMMIGRATION quotas have definitely NOT gone up and have not been raised. This includes all visas and citizenship immigration. Like I said above, the president and the state dept. may determine the REFUGEE QUOTAS which is what that article is talking about.

So what? They're still here, now.

So what? We accepted 70,000 refugees last year and 85,000 from around the world this year. Why are you so afraid if we accept 10-15,000 Muslim refugees this year? Canada has already taken in 20,000. Europe has taken in millions. WE ARE FACING THE LARGEST REFUGEE CRISIS SINCE WWII. Where is your compassion for other people? How is it not American to help people in need who are fleeing war? We took in 10x as many refugees after the Vietnam war. I personally am embarrassed that my country didn't take in more people to help them.

...but you're willing to vote for and support for president a man who irrationally and falsely claims based on no facts or reason that Mexicans are rapists.

I intend to vote for someone, anyway. It's not going to be a Democrat. Though I don't agree with everything Trump says and does, I still think he'll be a better president than either Hillary or Bernie, or the other remaining Republican candidates, for that matter. Let's not forget that the whole hash of Hillary vs Trump arguments might be moot.

Then you are an uninformed fool and will be supporting the most racist, misogynistic and bigoted candidate we've had since George Wallace tried to roll Jim Crow back into the South.

It is always okay to break an immoral law that favors immigrants from white western European countries. If our forefathers had been denied access to America's freedom they would have been pouring over the Canadian border instead.

“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and imprisonment.”
― Mahatma Gandhi, Non-violence in Peace and War 1942-49

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

Okay... you're insane. There is a difference between breaking a law perceived as unjust and taking the ensuing punishment in an attempt to make people aware of an injustice being committed and therefore change the law, and just breaking a law because you don't agree with it and stand to personally benefit if you get away with it. Disobeying an 'unjust law' is still a crime, and even your quote by Gandhi acknowledges that one will be arrested and imprisoned (or in this case, deported). I have argued that illegal immigrants should be deported and the law changed if it needs to be changed. Allowing them to be here, pretending it's okay so a few politicians can get votes from their legal relatives, is not justice but is itself immoral. It's also not okay to do something just because someone else said so, did you ever question that maybe Gandhi and MLK are simply wrong in this viewpoint?

I also don't see how you even can call it immoral if the US accepts more people who are qualified to work and do well than we do poor people with no skills that will likely need some form of support or another right away. It makes perfect sense. It doesn't matter if a couple hundred years ago we accepted any warm body that could manage to get on a ship bound here. This country has changed since then, the entire world has changed since then, and it is no longer possible to make a living on 40 acres and a mule.

Immigration laws didn't change hundreds of years ago, they changed dramatically during the Cold War so as to favor White, Rich, and European immigrants. Why do our immigration laws make it easier for the rich to jump the line and come to this country? Why do our immigration laws criminalize people who come here to pick fruit? I agree that we need order to our immigration laws but we need to change them and the Republicans refuse to do anything on the subject except talk about a giant wall and mass deportations even if people have been here for 20 years and their kids are grown and citizens.

They've said "hi, I'm with the KKK and I support Donald Trump." That woman had clear white power tattoos on her arms and she still works for Trump's campaign.

That's what they're saying on their calls to people? I think you're lying.

Yes, that's what they are saying. David Duke literally said "Hi, I'm David Duke and I endorse Donald Trump for President" and then encouraged his supporters to help him.

No, I would not accept help from someone who ran a dog fighting ring, or killed animals for snuff films, or had sex with animals if I ran a no-kill shelter. I would tell them they are evil and should stop doing what they are doing and if they said that they were continuing with their violence towards animals I'd call the police. That's in fact almost exactly what I'm doing here on this forum. I'm saying to the dog ***** Trump sycophants that they ARE wrong for following a racist, misogynist, nativist, bigot simply because they believe it's time for a change in the political order of Washington. I'm telling them dog ***** that they are wrong and need to change. The question is when will they wise up and stop ***** those dogs because Trump keeps encouraging them to ***** more and more dogs. Just because Trump says that ***** dogs will make America great again doesn't mean that he's right or for that matter... sane.

You're very disturbing.

Hey you're the one who used a no kill animal shelter as an example.

When are you going to quit ***** dogs Tmeow? You don't have to keep ***** dogs just because Trump says that if you don't keep ***** dogs the country won't become great again.

Of course they're allowed to disallow crazy racists from entering their volunteer center. Of course they're allowed to not have David Duke come and answer phones for Trump... but they didn't.

But it's not David Duke, it's just some random woman who has a right to express her political opinion. You keep talking about fascism and how it's a bad thing, but then you turn around and have these extremely intolerant viewpoints. No one can see this woman's tattoos over the phone. She is presumably not spouting White Supremacist rhetoric over those phones, but is reading whatever script they gave her (I'm sure there is call monitoring to make sure no one is working for the opposition or some such and they would catch that).

This is what I've been referring to when I've asked if political campaigns are allowed to ask questions about whether or not someone belongs to a white supremacist group and whether or not they are allowed to discriminate based on the answers:

http://finduslaw.com/civil-rights-act-1 ... pter-21#17

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, title VII, which deals with equal opportunity employment. All things considered, I'm surprised you don't know about it. It's a heavy read, and other laws like the Age Discrimination Act have been passed as well to supplement it, so it's not all there, but explanatory articles I've read on the subject seem to indicate that it's illegal to ask any questions related to an applicant's beliefs.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has nothing to do with campaign volunteers.

The point is that Trump does not denounce or say he will stop members of the KKK or readers of Stormfront from volunteering for him when they hold recruitment drives for him. This reflects what his message is and who he's talking to. He may not be a member of the KKK (even though his father was) or a reader of Stormfront but he should be rejecting their support over and over again just like all other politicians have done this election cycle and all modern presidential cycles for a very, very long time. By not rejecting them utterly and by not explaining how he does not want HIS message to encourage them he is failing morally and is not fit to be President of the United States.

Why don't the other candidates have brown people shutting down their rallies. What a mystery.

Not a mystery, pandering.

How can you compare NOT spouting racist and bigoted ***** to pandering to brown people?

...and I think you're an idiot for preferring him over Hillary and especially Bernie as "He's categorically not qualified to be President" according to Mitt Romney and the many, many other people within the Republican party.

You really don't need to resort to name-calling. I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree that just about anyone is better than Hillary.

Again, she's the most proven competent candidate we have running even if we do disagree with some of her policies. Hell, even the Republicans who say Trump isn't fit to be president won't say she isn't fit to be president. That says something.

The presidency makes the person bigger in some way. It shows in how fast they age and how fast their hair goes gray. They seem more important once they become president.

Then I'm sure Trump will do fine. If they all grow into the position, we've nothing to worry about.

No, I mean they SEEM presidential before they become president. They SEEM capable and reasonable and fit to be president. I think Hillary, Bernie, Kasich seem like they could do the job. Trump and increasingly Cruz do not seem like they could do the job without embarrassing our country tremendously.

You can disagree with some of her policies (like I do) but she has been effective in many ways. Being able to work in the Senate and being Secretary of State; these aren't small jobs. You can't deny these are jobs where you have to be able to do big things for the country as a civil servant.

She has been effectively bad in many ways. Sure those are big jobs, but just because she has done the jobs, doesn't mean she has done them well.

Again, she was a Senator and the Secretary of State. You don't get those jobs by being an incompetent boob like Trump.