Manic Moran wrote: » Rjd2 wrote: » Have you studied the Cruz proposals? They seem to be favoured by many Republicans online. David French of the NR seems very receptive.https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1008835703931842560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Fguybenson%2F2018%2F06%2F19%2Fsensible-ted-cruzs-good-plan-to-alleviate-child-separation-crisis-n2492229 Can't say I have. Doesn't seem that problematic, note how it increases the budget to allow the continuation of the zero tolerance policy. Previous administrations have had concerns that there simply was no support infrastructure to do it. So the border is more rigidly policed, families aren't separated, Trump still wins.
Rjd2 wrote: » Have you studied the Cruz proposals? They seem to be favoured by many Republicans online. David French of the NR seems very receptive.https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1008835703931842560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Fguybenson%2F2018%2F06%2F19%2Fsensible-ted-cruzs-good-plan-to-alleviate-child-separation-crisis-n2492229
Water John wrote: » Trump and Haughey, both corrupt. Lack of respect for the democratic process, populists.
RIGOLO wrote: » The hypocrisy is in full flow today . All this whatabout the children, yet very few would support Trumps fight against the MS-13 gangs that some of these families are fleeing, all because well he wasnt 'our gal' HRC.
RIGOLO wrote: » The hypocrisy is in full flow today . All this whatabout the children, yet very few would support Trumps fight against the MS-13 gangs that some of these families are fleeing, all because well he wasnt 'our gal' HRC. And the hypocrisy is summed up in Simon Coveneys attack on the US Administration border policy, the same Simon Coveney who supports taking tax payers money to fund banks so they can sell mortgage loans to hedge funds that can then evict families from a stable home environment and put them onto the streets forcing more tax payer money be spent to house these people in hotels owned by party benefactors, hedge funds and wealthy elites rock stars. Lets party on with our dentention centres in Butlins and the nouveau millionaires and rising rents and homeless crisis in Irl., whilst taking the high moral ground condeming another nations attempts to deal with their immigration issue HYPOCRISY ... another result of the law of unintended consequences.. Trumps presidency and its policies (right or wrong) have exposed the hypocrisy must people, who would see themselves as the antithises of POTUS , are knee deep in .
RIGOLO wrote: » Ahh so you see yourself anti-populist. I find that an interesting stance. Does your knowledge of the history of American populism only start in 2016 and you think it all began with DT, or does it go further back.I trust you know the roots of 'populism' , and know American populism history goes back to post civil war late 19th century fight for agrarian revolt, poor farmers, equality for black farmers and even stretched to moving off the gold standard to break the hegemony of the bankers. So being anti-populism does this mean you are in favour of the 2-party stranglehold the DNC/GOP have on US politics considering that the Populist/Peoples Party (circa 19th century) represented a real chance a 3rd party could gain traction in the US 2 party system , they ran a Presidential candidate , and took 5 states and 22 electoral college votes.And being anti-populism does this mean you align yourself with the 'Democratic party white elite supremacy that set out in the 19th century, to violently destroy the original Populist Party and increase segregation and prevent black farmers from gaining a foothold in the emerging economy post civil war. Populism in American was born (circa 19thC) out of improvements for poor farmers, less segregation, equality for black farmers , breaking the ‘gold’ standard financial hold the elites had among other things. Black populist party was also one of the earliest civil rights movements fighting for equality.The Populist Party was extremely progressive, pro-immigrant, looking for direct elections, called for the end of the electoral college (remember this is late 1800s) . Isnt it ironic if the Populist party had evolved and done away with the electoral college then Hilary would be president based on popular vote. People should keep all this in mind the next time they trash ‘populism’, and accuse Trump of being a populist. If your knowledge of history extends back further than 2016 then perhaps being aligned with the founding fathers of American Populism would in fact be a badge of honour. And if your too busy to read a history book , you could watch The Wizard of Oz, there is a theory that it’s a populist allegory promoting workers and farmers rights against the gold standard and bankers.
listermint wrote: » No one in here wants to read your bold enlarged text. Why cant you keep it to normal font, or is this part of an aggressive stance you've taken ?
RIGOLO wrote: » Water John wrote: » Trump and Haughey, both corrupt. Lack of respect for the democratic process, populists. Ahh so you see yourself anti-populist. I find that an interesting stance. Does your knowledge of the history of American populism only start in 2016 and you think it all began with DT, or does it go further back.I trust you know the roots of 'populism' , and know American populism history goes back to post civil war late 19th century fight for agrarian revolt, poor farmers, equality for black farmers and even stretched to moving off the gold standard to break the hegemony of the bankers. So being anti-populism does this mean you are in favour of the 2-party stranglehold the DNC/GOP have on US politics considering that the Populist/Peoples Party (circa 19th century) represented a real chance a 3rd party could gain traction in the US 2 party system , they ran a Presidential candidate , and took 5 states and 22 electoral college votes.And being anti-populism does this mean you align yourself with the 'Democratic party white elite supremacy that set out in the 19th century, to violently destroy the original Populist Party and increase segregation and prevent black farmers from gaining a foothold in the emerging economy post civil war. Populism in American was born (circa 19thC) out of improvements for poor farmers, less segregation, equality for black farmers , breaking the ‘gold’ standard financial hold the elites had among other things. Black populist party was also one of the earliest civil rights movements fighting for equality.The Populist Party was extremely progressive, pro-immigrant, looking for direct elections, called for the end of the electoral college (remember this is late 1800s) . Isnt it ironic if the Populist party had evolved and done away with the electoral college then Hilary would be president based on popular vote. People should keep all this in mind the next time they trash ‘populism’, and accuse Trump of being a populist. If your knowledge of history extends back further than 2016 then perhaps being aligned with the founding fathers of American Populism would in fact be a badge of honour. And if your too busy to read a history book , you could watch The Wizard of Oz, there is a theory that it’s a populist allegory promoting workers and farmers rights against the gold standard and bankers.
Greaney wrote: » I have a feeling Godwins Law doesn't apply here.
Greaney wrote: » I have a feeling Godwins Law doesn't apply here. I've honestly studied Hitler and his rise, and at every step, good people didn't speak up, or honestly thought the checks and balances would kick in and keep the tyrant in his place. Well, once again, that hasn't happened here.:( Just looked up Mike Godwin and he 'suspended' his law with regard to Trump in August 2017 according to his twitter accounthttps://twitter.com/sfmnemonic
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Mike Godwin, originator of Godwin's law, has personally stated on Twitter that it is OK to compare this crowd to the Nazis:https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/896884949634232320
Danzy wrote: » It denigrates what the Nazis did to pretend that though. For some that is the goal, for others it is just a way to be dramatic, hyperbole.
kilns wrote: » The funny thing is that if this was any other country the US would be plotting a way of overthrowing the current President and putting in a Govt. of their liking by creating a war
kilns wrote: » Who cares, no one is calling him out, he throws out facts and not one public representative calls him out on them on a regular basis.
Blowfish wrote: » kilns wrote: » Who cares, no one is calling him out, he throws out facts and not one public representative calls him out on them on a regular basis. Pretty much all of the Dems are calling him out and some of the Repubs too. The Dems have already created legislation aimed at keeping immigrant families together and every Dem senator has signed on to it. In addition, they are using public feeling on it and the upcoming midterms to force Republicans hand. A perfect example of this is Beto O'Rourke who is challenging Ted Cruz's seat in Nov. On Fathers day, he led a march on the tent housing for separated children in Texas. Two days before that, Ted Cruz had been defending Trumps policy of separating children, but because of public backlash and Beto challenging him on it, he's now one of the Republicans drafting their own legislation to stop it.
kilns wrote: » Where is the opposition politicians, they need to be held accountable, how vocal are Pelosi and Schumer. How many are getting in front of cameras and calling Trump out on a daily basis on his abuse of human rights and his lies. Their silence is deafening and is a disgrace. The fact that it takes late night show comedians to pull Trump on all his lies etc says it all about American Politics. The greatest democracy in the world my arse
kilns wrote: » I am talking about appealing to the nation as a whole, how many are prominent on national TV cameras on a daily basis. Who could you name as the democrat who is standing up to Trump in public challenging him, I dont see any.
Leroy42 wrote: » Nobody is going to listen to Pelosi, certainly not those in the GOP. So her standing up would only result in Trump lashing out with insults on Twitter, which would do nothing but deflect the story.
kilns wrote: » Blowfish wrote: » kilns wrote: » Who cares, no one is calling him out, he throws out facts and not one public representative calls him out on them on a regular basis. Pretty much all of the Dems are calling him out and some of the Repubs too. The Dems have already created legislation aimed at keeping immigrant families together and every Dem senator has signed on to it. In addition, they are using public feeling on it and the upcoming midterms to force Republicans hand. A perfect example of this is Beto O'Rourke who is challenging Ted Cruz's seat in Nov. On Fathers day, he led a march on the tent housing for separated children in Texas. Two days before that, Ted Cruz had been defending Trumps policy of separating children, but because of public backlash and Beto challenging him on it, he's now one of the Republicans drafting their own legislation to stop it. I am talking about appealing to the nation as a whole, how many are prominent on national TV cameras on a daily basis. Who could you name as the democrat who is standing up to Trump in public challenging him, I dont see any. Jesus even Stormy Daniels lawyer was better at it
Christy42 wrote: » Trump seems scared of Stormy. Everyone else, no matter how insignificant who has stood up to him has received a twitter tirade at one time or other. If memory serves he has left Stormy alone and settled for official statements. It is all a bit weird. I think the issue is is that it is very hard to get a sensible message across against the craziness. It is like having an important accounting meeting with clowns running around the place. No matter how important the clowns are getting the attention there. I remember people saying the same about Hillary but she had plenty of detail about her stated aims and policies up online for everyone to see. Soundbites and simple statements win the day unfortunately.
