Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

Manic Moran · 25-01-2017 07:20AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/824080766288228352

228 shootings in 25 days if accurate is insane, but there is no easy solution. Any real change will occur over decades, not years.

Seems about right.... and according to chicago media, is true. 40 dead. (Actually, 44 since this story was printed), http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-weekend-shootings-violence-chicago-2016-20170123-story.html ;
The table on that page indicates that the last two Januaries have been twice as dangerous as the previous few years. This urban violence has been something of a sticking point on the right, observing that if the BLM movement actually cared about black lives in general, they'd be paying more attention to those figures (35 of the 44 are black) than causing issues for the police, who have scaled back their operations in those neighbourhoods as a result of the hassle. (example: http://www.npr.org/2016/03/11/469974819/chicago-murder-rate-spikes-less-aggressive-policing-blamed ) . On a more political level, Republican voters see the "utopia" which the solidly Democratic urban areas are with those figures, and it reinforces to them the daftness of anything from liberal policing attitudes to restrictive firearms laws. Yes, I know the reality is far more complex, but the bottom line is that there are a crapload of murders in Chicago.

25-01-2017 07:20AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So when Trump promised that this stops right here, right now, he was lying again.

If you expected an inauguration speech to get rid of crime on Day 1, you're mentally lacking.

Trent Houseboat · 25-01-2017 07:24AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/824080766288228352

228 shootings in 25 days if accurate is insane, but there is no easy solution. Any real change will occur over decades, not years.

Jesus he's dim.
Is this his plan to stop isis too, tell them to cut it out.

A Little Pony · 25-01-2017 07:46AM

Guy not messing around. Six Muslim country bans which are dangerous. Good.

Igotadose · 25-01-2017 07:48AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I don't agree with it like I said. Not sure what you want me to say.

I believe Hank's referring to whether Trump's actions are temporary or permanent, and I agree, there's not a lot of info out there about what Trump's plans are. We know his actions is all.

I don't think Hank's taking issue with Global Warming here, fine by me, I'd rather we stick to Trump's actions and statements.

listermint · 25-01-2017 08:54AM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Guy not messing around. Six Muslim country bans which are dangerous. Good.

What is dangerous about Iran.? Specifically

HellSquirrel · 25-01-2017 08:56AM

Should Pony be told that exceptions are being signed for minority religions from those countries? He still might run into an Iranian at some point in his life and he's not going to be expecting it at all.

25-01-2017 09:03AM

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Should Pony be told that exceptions are being signed for minority religions from those countries? He still might run into an Iranian at some point in his life and he's not going to be expecting it at all.

I didn't know Trump made laws for Ireland.. Or is Pony in America?

HellSquirrel · 25-01-2017 09:05AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't know Trump made laws for Ireland.. Or is Pony in America?

God knows, from listening to him, you'd think so. Actually, I have a vague impression of NI.

It was, however, a joke and didn't quite need to be taken absolutely literally :P I don't actually believe he'd run off screaming at the sight of a Christian Iranian either.

25-01-2017 09:17AM

HellSquirrel wrote: »

God knows, from listening to him, you'd think so. Actually, I have a vague impression of NI.

It was, however, a joke and didn't quite need to be taken absolutely literally :P I don't actually believe he'd run off screaming at the sight of a Christian Iranian either.

To be fair, most of us sound like we're in America in this thread.

Been looking at flights to Iran for the last year or so.. A friend of mine went and loved it. Just need to get around to actually going.

Butters1979 · 25-01-2017 09:17AM

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Oh well if you say they would do that then case closed.

Next press conference will be simple then. "We know there was voter fraud and they all voted for Clinton because some guy on an Irish website said so."

Thanks for working the case Sherlock.

They most likely would. You think an illegal immigrant would vote for Trump. Anyway, it doesn't matter. He won. And you're not going to make the election void or whatever point you're trying to make.

Butters1979 · 25-01-2017 09:21AM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Yeah, yeah I know 'Fake News' channel here, but anyone thinking this imaginary 'Wall' is going to be built should watch this.

It has nothing to do with money or Mexico paying for anything; just simply that the terrain is impossible in areas to build anything, let alone a 10ft wall, and even then, some Trump-voting residents even think this 'Wall' won't do anything to stop immigration.

Just some perspective on what was Trump's pillar in his campaign.

According to skynews that executive order is been signed today.

HellSquirrel · 25-01-2017 09:28AM

Deleted User wrote: »

To be fair, most of us sound like we're in America in this thread.

Been looking at flights to Iran for the last year or so.. A friend of mine went and loved it. Just need to get around to actually going.

True on that. I can't pick out who is actually American and who isn't in here.

Would like to go to Iran too. I have an interest in ancient history and there are some amazing sites there. The desert city of Bam would be on the list.

Mind you, and all partisan shouting aside, you'd probably either want to go -now- or leave it a few years. The signs even outside America suggest instability is going to get worse. Iran's been relatively safe so far, but it's a bit unpredictable what it'll be like in a year or even six months.

HellSquirrel · 25-01-2017 09:33AM

Butters1979 wrote: »

According to skynews that executive order is been signed today.

Executive order does not automatically make it plausibly buildable (although I believe it is to be signed today, being as what it's about 4AM on the coast of the US. I don't put it past him to try sign it at 3AM on twitter, but fortunately, Twitter is not yet legally binding). I hope Mexico doesn't fold under the pressure though. The US can bully Mexico financially and it will. They already may have to come to the table on NAFTA (assuming Trump doesn't just kill the deal as I seem to recall he suggested he would). But being forced to take on the debt for this ridiculous ego-building folly would do them a lot of damage. Trump may not realise that financially destabilising a country his own borders is a bad idea, but...actually, that's an alarming enough statement alone.

This goddam wall is absolute folly. It will have very negligible effects and it would cost a fortune.

25-01-2017 09:35AM

I had to stop watching that CNN video where it says "Hard to imagine someone trying to cross here. Far too treacherous." It's called hiking and mountaineering. It's a hobby people have.

Anyways, the video just makes me think that America needs a wall. There really is nothing stopping all of Central and South America entering the country. For places like in the video where it's impossible to build one, then heat seeking drones and squads to catch people crossing illegally. Or something.

There's no way anyone here would be happy with an unsecured Irish border next to the African continent.

HellSquirrel · 25-01-2017 09:40AM

Butters1979 wrote: »

That's not what I said. I think you're mixing up perceived injustices with actual rights.

Er, just saw that. I gave a list of liberal and non-partisan ideals under threat and you said "good" and how bad liberalism is.

I mean, how did you want that to be taken?

A wall wouldn't stop them either if it is such a major problem though, Ads. So far, even without a wall, the "all of Central and South America" fails to be in North America (and only some of that is down to the border already being guarded). People desperate enough to try make the crossing already (unless white, I've read a few cases of it being pretty easy to cross if you're Caucasian) aren't going to be put off any more by a wall being there. On top of that, it is going to be prohibitively expensive, probably the most expensive inefficient measure he could put in place bar actually mobilising the army to go stand on the border. What he's trying is the equivalent of building a wall along the Mediterranean Sea to stop migrant boats. It just would not work and it's ruinous to try.

Whatever one's stance on immigration, the wall is a daft plan.

ECO_Mental · 25-01-2017 09:47AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/824078417213747200

Sean Spicer is going to have his work cut out for him

"Public is Smart" Trumpski sure has the best words.....man child

Jelle1880 · 25-01-2017 09:52AM

Sean Spicer:

I believe that we have to be honest with the American people. I think sometimes we can disagree with the facts.

What the actual ****.

25-01-2017 09:54AM

HellSquirrel wrote:

On top of that, it is going to be prohibitively expensive, probably the most expensive inefficient measure he could put in place bar actually mobilising the army to go stand on the border.

I don't think it's that expensive.. $25bn to build and $700m / year to maintain.

Under Obama, the national debt rose by $3bn every day and I guess it will continue like that.. So the wall is like 8 days of debt and will increase the national debt by 0.0125%. Maintaining the wall will be under 6 hours worth of debt per year.

With figures so big in America and with no intention of ever lowering the national debt, talking about cost is irrelevant imo.

Zubeneschamali · 25-01-2017 09:58AM

listermint wrote: »

What is dangerous about Iran.?

Something something Islamism something Israel something Weapons of Mass Destruction something.

Butters1979 · 25-01-2017 09:59AM

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Er, just saw that. I gave a list of liberal and non-partisan ideals under threat and you said "good" and how bad liberalism is.

I mean, how did you want that to be taken?

A wall wouldn't stop them either if it is such a major problem though, Ads. So far, even without a wall, the "all of Central and South America" fails to be in North America (and only some of that is down to the border already being guarded). People desperate enough to try make the crossing already (unless white, I've read a few cases of it being pretty easy to cross if you're Caucasian) aren't going to be put off any more by a wall being there. On top of that, it is going to be prohibitively expensive, probably the most expensive inefficient measure he could put in place bar actually mobilising the army to go stand on the border. What he's trying is the equivalent of building a wall along the Mediterranean Sea to stop migrant boats. It just would not work and it's ruinous to try.

Whatever one's stance on immigration, the wall is a daft plan.

You were talking about women's rights and minority rights. They have the same rights as white men. If there are social injustices, it's nothing to do with their 'rights'. What I'm against is all these laws to give them an advantage. It's discrimination and pandering to identity politics, and Trump won't have any of it.

The point about the wall is a good one. It's going to be really expensive. I don't think it's impossible to build on some terrain, that's just bull. The ancient Chinese could do then America can do it now. There's plenty of flat easy to cross terrain that a wall will make it much harder to cross. Of course it won't stop everyone (tunnels, ladders and boats etc.), but t will at least reduce it. Making Mexico pay for it is stupid, it's Americas wall it should be paid for by America.

Besides, it was an election promise, that's what the country voted for and so he has to give it to them. Otherwise people will be wailing about all the promises he broke. We've already had that in here after a few days.

Zubeneschamali · 25-01-2017 10:02AM

Butters1979 wrote: »

They have the same rights as white men.

Yep, old rich white guys can't have abortions either.

Butters1979 · 25-01-2017 10:03AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Something something Islamism something Israel something Weapons of Mass Destruction something.

Their president is a holocaust denier and wants to wipe out Isreal, and are currently developing nuclear weapons. Their people support this. Weather you agree with the ban or not, Iran is one of the more dangerous countries in the region.

Quote:

"For 60 years they allowed no one to question and cast doubt on the logic of the Holocaust and its very essence – because if the truth were to be exposed, nothing would remain of their logic of liberal democracy. It is the very advocates of liberal democracy who defend the Holocaust, who have sanctified it to the point where none may enter. Breaking the padlock of the Holocaust and reexamining it will be tantamount to cutting the vital arteries of the Zionist regime. It will destroy the philosophical foundation and raison d'être of this regime...I invite the dear researchers, intellectuals, young people and students, who are the trailblazers, to reexamine not only the Holocaust, but also its consequences and aftermath and inform others of their studies and research. Let us not forget that more than ever before, the Zionist network, which came up with the issue of the Holocaust, must be exposed, and be presented to the peoples as it really is."

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yep, old rich white guys can't have abortions either.

Can young black guys? So same rights for everyone.
And do you think if men could get pregnant there would be different laws for abortion for them?

namloc1980 · 25-01-2017 10:08AM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Sean Spicer:

I believe that we have to be honest with the American people. I think sometimes we can disagree with the facts.

What the actual ****.

What I think he meant to say was: facts tend to highlight our lies and ridiculous policies, so we'll just suppress them by gagging scientific research and replace that with our alternative facts.

seamus · 25-01-2017 10:09AM

Butters1979 wrote: »

And do you think if men could get pregnant there would be different laws for abortion for them?

Abortion pills would be available to buy off the shelf in SuperValu.

Zubeneschamali · 25-01-2017 10:12AM

Butters1979 wrote: »

Their president is a holocaust denier and wants to wipe out Isreal, and are currently developing nuclear weapons.

Nobody is falling for that mushroom cloud bullsh!t a second time.

dudara · 25-01-2017 10:12AM

Butters1979 wrote: »

And do you think if men could get pregnant there would be different laws for abortion for them?

Not that there would be different laws for men (vs women), but the laws overall would be different. Oh, if only men could get pregnant....

Zubeneschamali · 25-01-2017 10:13AM

Butters1979 wrote: »

And do you think if men could get pregnant there would be different laws for abortion for them?

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

dav3 · 25-01-2017 10:16AM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Guy not messing around. Six Muslim country bans which are dangerous. Good.

Seven. Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

Forget Saudi Arabia though. So what if 75% the terrorists of 9/11 came from there, causing the largest terrorist attack on their soil in history. Not much has changed in the country since then.

Drain the swamp, fill it with oil.

Jelle1880 · 25-01-2017 10:24AM

dav3 wrote: »

Seven. Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

Forget Saudi Arabia though. So what if 75% the terrorists of 9/11 came from there, causing the largest terrorist attack on their soil in history. Not much has changed in the country since then.

Drain the swamp, fill it with oil.

Or the fact that people might flee Yemen because of what the Saudis are doing there. Backed by US weapons of course.

Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

Comments