Politics

[craig440]

Apr 10, 2016 0:04:38 GMT -5 101mitch said:

Apr 9, 2016 23:32:21 GMT -5 craig440 said:

The thing you super liberals don't understand is actually the liberal  verbiage of what people say. You take it so literal. Like the Bible, you take it so literal that you can not understand the point. I know you will call me names again, but I am not a hateful old man who hates anything liberal.

So to shorten my response I will just say, Trump does not care if the leaders of the world don't like him. He is for America first. That is his appeal. Is he dangerous? Ya I say probably. Is he part of the establishment that John Kennedy warned us about and died for? absolutely not.  Bernie is not a part of that either. But Hillary is. There is only two choices here. Either go for the status quo or make a change. There are two movements in the offering. Pick one. Or go for the same old con.
Its up to you.



Oh I didn't explain "the Wall"  It means he will secure the border. He's not going to build the wall of China. Come on wake up to the message


The wall is just a border. It will involve lots more than bricks and cement. But you don't understand the message.

"1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border."

From Trumps own website. Call me crazy, but I think he is planning on building a wall.

Second try for me at responding to this. I hate my lap top. I had a long response and it went away. Any way I will try and recreate some. He has said many times that only a third of the boarder needs a wall. And by wall I think he means a fence. It also needs other things. The moral to the story is boarder security is his big objective. Which I totally agree with, and so does most of us in the southern states. It's not just about people, its about drugs also. It's amazing how much comes across the open boarder now. Not to mention that anyone (terrorists) can just walk across. The boarder must be secured. Period.

And Trump uses language that some people hear as racist and crazy. But some people hear it as the truth. For instance, the "wall" to me is no different than the fire wall on your computer. It does not mean the wall of China. It means a boarder. Unlike Obama who drew a line in the sand for chemical weapons and then ran like a chicken.

[craig440]

Apr 10, 2016 5:31:18 GMT -5 saskabronco said:

Apr 10, 2016 1:14:53 GMT -5 craig440 said:

Maybe so in some area's. But the message is he will stop the thousands of people coming across the boarder illegally. He will help to insure our safety. He will put up fences and towers to protect the boarder. He will make you go thru the legal method to be a citizen. What the hell is wrong with that? We have a huge problem here in the southern states. And anyone can just walk across the boarder.  I agree with Trump that without a boarder, who are you?


So your post that there will be a WALL. Don't you have a fire WALL on your computer? Is it a real wall? or is it just a protection? You all need to expand your concept of reality.

A "Wall" does not mean block and brick. The illegals dig and come by boat. It means securing the boarder. Wake up.

Watch this video please. It breaks down Trump's promises about building an actual wall and what that entails. They talk about the costs that he's projected vs reality, and it talks about why building a wall does nothing positive for boarder security. Please watch it. You refuse to watch or acknowledge anything that doesn't go along with what you want to believe. People walking across the border is not the issue and the wall won't fix that. At the same time, it will be extremely expensive and damaging in many, many ways.



Trump doesn't care what other world leaders think. You are right about that. You should be worried about that. Foreign relations is extremely important. Being diplomatic and respectful is extremely important. An asshole like Trump would rather call Angela Merkel (German leader) an ugly bitch than make sure the countries are on good terms with a strong relationship. Diplomacy matters very much. Obama is good at being diplomatic. If another nation's leader criticized America for something under Trump's watch, he would lash out and insult them because he is insecure and insanely defensive about the most minor things. You can't run a country like that.

You are right that both Trump and Bernie are not part of the "establishment" but that is about the only similarity between them. There are massive, very important differences. Mainly, Bernie is anti-establishment and has been for forty years now. He has been actively fighting the establishment for decades using political means. He has a strong record of challenging the biggest issues in politics and is actively campaigning on those same issues that he's been fighting for for so long. Trump, on the other small hand, doesn't care about getting money out of politics. He's not running a campaign funded by other wealthy donors, but he's in this to make money. That's why he's only donated a small amount of his own money, and loaned nearly $20 million to his campaign. Loaning money, instead of donating money, means he can get that money back, with interest, from the campaign. He's not against the establishment and money in politics, he just figured out a way to turn a profit from it. 

Please just just do a couple things:

1) Go back and answer the questions I asked before.
What would staying a little longer in Iraq have accomplished?

What would another president (McCain, Romney, Trump) have done better than Obama for this war, given that an exit strategy was already set in motion before taking office?

Why is diplomacy, and an unwillingness to recklessly endanger more lives, considered weakness?
2) Watch the video I posted above about the wall and then either admit that you are wrong, or explain why John Olver is wrong and the border wall would actually be a good idea.

3) Explain how Obama made racism worse now than it has been in your lifetime. That is an absurd statement. Just because you notice it more now does not mean it's worse, being blissfully ignorant of the horrible segregation that was going on for the first decades of your life doesn't mean it wasn't happening.

To clarify, I didn't say you were a hateful old man. I don't think you are a hateful old man. I actually like you quite a lot. Outside of discussing political issues, I think you're an awesome, fun person. I said you are starting to sound like a hateful old man. I hope you can find a way to stop that before you turn into a classic Fox News praising, Obama hating grandpa.

Dang it. lost half a response again.

I'll take your questions one at a time. Then send them. Because I'm tired and don't want to lose them again.

1) If we stayed longer the region could have got stronger. All the military people told Obama they were not ready. And what happened? The Iraqi army ran and left Isis 2400 armared humvees. and all kinds of amunitions and such. That is why people like me blame Obama for arming ISIS. Obama was so excited about announcing he ended the war, he made a huge mistake. Is the war over? Would there be peace if we stayed and had a small presence? Like we did before Obama "ended the war?" 

I think so. I think Obama totally fucked up Bushes fuck up. So  I blame that on him

[craig440]

What would another president (McCain, Romney, Trump) have done better than Obama for this war, given that an exit strategy was already set in motion before taking office?


I don't know! I'm not a leader. I just know that what was done did lots of damage. The exit strategy already set in place, I'm assuming you are blaming Bush, needed to be reevaluated. Come on! He took over, not working for Bush.

He was the boss. Admit it Saska, Obama fucked up by leaving to early.

[craig440]

Why is diplomacy, and an unwillingness to recklessly endanger more lives, considered weakness?
2) Watch the video I posted above about the wall and then either admit that you are wrong, or explain why John Olver is wrong and the border wall would actually be a good idea.


Recklessly endanger more lives? I'm assuming you mean our troops. There was not any fighting going on anymore. We were helping build them back up. The recklessness happened after we left. There are now MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of refugees who are just as human as our troops. Obama screwed up! Face it.

I will watch your John Oliver video soon. But he is comic. I don't read the National Enquire except for fun. Not to form my opinion.

[craig440]

Dang it Once again my lap top takes away my response to the last question.

[craig440]

I'm so upset my long racist post went away. I will say before I go to bed. That my "blissfully ignorant of the horrible segregation" is such a crock of shit.

I grew up sitting on the Charger bench, going to practice, riding on the bus. My mom sold them houses. Were people racist? yes. Was there horrible segregation in my life time? NO.

Women could not vote until the year I was born. Is that sexist? or is that progress?


Obama came out on national TV and said stuff like "If I had a son he would look like Travon" That was before the trial. He also sent lots of representatives to Michael Browns funeral. He does not send anyone to cops killed by black people. The "Hands up don't shoot" lie is well documented. But it has become a "Black lives matter" slogan. Obama is in a perfect position to squash it all. But he does not. He has not helped the black race, and he does not care to. Just ask them.

[saskabronco]

Apr 11, 2016 3:01:33 GMT -5 craig440 said:

What would another president (McCain, Romney, Trump) have done better than Obama for this war, given that an exit strategy was already set in motion before taking office?


I don't know! I'm not a leader. I just know that what was done did lots of damage. The exit strategy already set in place, I'm assuming you are blaming Bush, needed to be reevaluated. Come on! He took over, not working for Bush.

He was the boss. Admit it Saska, Obama fucked up by leaving to early.

1) I've already said this in a previous post, but the exit timeline was already agreed upon by the Bush administration. Staying would have been breaking a deal that was already made, and the Iraqi government was unwilling to sign a new deal to keep American troops there with diplomatic immunity. If they stayed, it would have been illegal and of great danger to the troops. Could Obama have made troops stay? Yes. Would it have recklessly endangered the lives of soldiers? Yes. Would it have caused greater international issues? Yes.

2) As for racism now versus when you were younger, your post confirms your blissful ignorance. Maybe because your city didn't have the same sort of segregation issues that existed elsewhere, but that doesn't mean things were better in your time. www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmtimeline.html

Check out that timeline above. Notice it wasn't until the end of the 50's that they started challenging segregation in the law. That means it was the law the coloured people couldn't sit at the front of the bus, use the same water fountains or public restrooms, attend the same schools, etc. Again, maybe your city was more progressive than others, but that does not mean the problem did not exist. It's a fact that it existed and you saying it didn't is exactly why I say blissfully ignorant. 

Obama has stood behind the black community on several occasions like you said, but those are issues that happen all the time. Yes racism still exists and black people being unfairly singled out and violently abused by the police is an ongoing issue. Bad things happen to white people sometimes too, and that's tragic, but it's not at the scale or frequency that it happens to black people. He can't attend every funeral for a person murdered, but Travon Martin and Michael Brown were high profile cases representative of a greater issue that persists, which is why the garnered so much attention. 

3) Dismissing John Oliver because he is a comedian is a cop out. His show is extremely well done. They do loads of research and provide tons of sources as to where they get their information. Yes, they like to crack some jokes in the process, but that in no way takes away from the fact that their show is the best news source I have seen in a long time. He spends 15-20 minutes on an issue and breaks it down many different ways. Comparing that show to the national inquirer is just silly. That's a tabloid newspaper that writes brief, unsubstantiated fluff pieces. Of course the show has a left wing slant to it, because every show is going to lean one way or another to some extent, but they provide fact-based arguments with sources backing their facts. You may not like what they are saying, and you're welcome to challenge it, but unlike a channel like Fox News that consistently provides false information, this show has been providing very solid reports of major issues for two years without any issues of false reporting. Just because someone is funny that doesn't mean they aren't also providing a proper news report. Just watch the clips and try to hold off judgement until you've actually seen it.

[Morkim]

Apr 11, 2016 2:34:27 GMT -5 craig440 said:

Apr 10, 2016 0:04:38 GMT -5 101mitch said:

"1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border."

From Trumps own website. Call me crazy, but I think he is planning on building a wall.

Second try for me at responding to this. I hate my lap top. I had a long response and it went away. Any way I will try and recreate some. He has said many times that only a third of the boarder needs a wall. And by wall I think he means a fence. It also needs other things. The moral to the story is boarder security is his big objective. Which I totally agree with, and so does most of us in the southern states. It's not just about people, its about drugs also. It's amazing how much comes across the open boarder now. Not to mention that anyone (terrorists) can just walk across. The boarder must be secured. Period.

And Trump uses language that some people hear as racist and crazy. But some people hear it as the truth. For instance, the "wall" to me is no different than the fire wall on your computer. It does not mean the wall of China. It means a boarder. Unlike Obama who drew a line in the sand for chemical weapons and then ran like a chicken.

If it's going to be a fence, (which there is already a fence over a lot of it...) why did he say it would be made of concrete and steel rebar?

[saskabronco]

Apr 11, 2016 2:34:27 GMT -5 craig440 said:

Apr 10, 2016 0:04:38 GMT -5 101mitch said:

"1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border."

From Trumps own website. Call me crazy, but I think he is planning on building a wall.

Second try for me at responding to this. I hate my lap top. I had a long response and it went away. Any way I will try and recreate some. He has said many times that only a third of the boarder needs a wall. And by wall I think he means a fence. It also needs other things. The moral to the story is boarder security is his big objective. Which I totally agree with, and so does most of us in the southern states. It's not just about people, its about drugs also. It's amazing how much comes across the open boarder now. Not to mention that anyone (terrorists) can just walk across. The boarder must be secured. Period.

And Trump uses language that some people hear as racist and crazy. But some people hear it as the truth. For instance, the "wall" to me is no different than the fire wall on your computer. It does not mean the wall of China. It means a boarder. Unlike Obama who drew a line in the sand for chemical weapons and then ran like a chicken.

By wall he means wall. That's why he says wall and not fence. That's why he has talked about it being huge, with his name on it. That's why he's talked about it being made of concrete and rebar. That's why he's projected that it will be between 30 and 90 feet tall. That's not made up... Watch the John Oliver clip... It shows Donald Trump saying all of those things very openly. You are trying to interpret his words, but he has been very obvious about what he wants. As Mitch said, his own campaign site says that there MUST be a wall along the southern border. 

The problem with this is that people walking across the border is not the issue and building a wall won't even prevent that from happening. Most illegals are getting with false papers, through border crossings, which will still exist along the wall. The wall would be insanely expensive (and Mexico isn't going to pay for it), it will be horribly disruptive to the environment, and it will be completely ineffective for its intended purpose. 

"Trump uses language that some people hear as racist and crazy. But some people hear it as truth." Those people are racist and crazy. Trump is an idiot and so is anyone who thinks he's spreading good ideas.

[Jindred]

Apr 11, 2016 8:31:53 GMT -5 Morkim said:

Apr 11, 2016 2:34:27 GMT -5 craig440 said:

Second try for me at responding to this. I hate my lap top. I had a long response and it went away. Any way I will try and recreate some. He has said many times that only a third of the boarder needs a wall. And by wall I think he means a fence. It also needs other things. The moral to the story is boarder security is his big objective. Which I totally agree with, and so does most of us in the southern states. It's not just about people, its about drugs also. It's amazing how much comes across the open boarder now. Not to mention that anyone (terrorists) can just walk across. The boarder must be secured. Period.

And Trump uses language that some people hear as racist and crazy. But some people hear it as the truth. For instance, the "wall" to me is no different than the fire wall on your computer. It does not mean the wall of China. It means a boarder. Unlike Obama who drew a line in the sand for chemical weapons and then ran like a chicken.

If it's going to be a fence, (which there is already a fence over a lot of it...) why did he say it would be made of concrete and steel rebar?

And why would it cost 4 billion.. wait 6 billion.. wait 7 billion.. wait 8 billion.. wait 10 billion!.. wait 12 billion dollars! And be at the very least 30 feet high?