Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted November 24, 2016 Report Posted November 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Mark F said: Obama has deported more illegals than any other President. The great Liberal. To be fair- that seems to be a skewed stat. From my understanding: During the bush I -clinton years they caught people illegally crossing the border and bused them back to Mexico. These "Voluntary Returns" were never counted in any official capacity for Immigration and Customs Enforcement's deportation statistics. Bush II to Obama years, they actually began finger printing and formerly deporting people caught illegally crossing the border thus counting toward the official deportation statistics, thereby inflating them. In the end, it is accurate to say that fewer illegal immigrants living in the U.S. are deported.
Mark F Posted November 25, 2016 Report Posted November 25, 2016 On 2016-11-24 at 1:46 PM, wanna-b-fanboy said: To be fair- that seems to be a skewed stat....... In the end, it is accurate to say that fewer illegal immigrants living in the U.S. are deported. After seeing your comment, I went and read a breakdown of this.... now I am confused.
Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 6 hours ago, Mark F said: After seeing your comment, I went and read a breakdown of this.... now I am confused. it is confusing. It's basically this: 1) if you are entering the country illegally, you get sent back if you are caught. 2) If you are an illegal immigrant living in the USA and abides the law - you won't get deported. I think this started under GWB in his second term- they included the "catch and release" at the southern boarder to beef up the deportation numbers to look tough on illegal immigrants. This continued under Obama and looks to be biting him in the ass... Obama has a lot of failing polices (drone strikes being my fav), but his stance on illegal immigrants living in the USA is not one of them.
Jacquie Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 I think some people considering it racist has to do with the fact that people seem to refer only to illegals from Mexico and not all countries. For example, would a white illegal from Canada or Europe be treated differently from an illegal from Mexico. IC Khari 1
tacklewasher Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 11 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said: Obama has a lot of failing polices (drone strikes being my fav), but his stance on illegal immigrants living in the USA is not one of them. Not closing Gitmo has to be his biggest.
Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 5 hours ago, tacklewasher said: Not closing Gitmo has to be his biggest. Tough call: Indiscriminate targeted assassinations with "acceptable" collateral damage (read: civilian). VS Indefinite imprisonment with no trial or semblance of justice
sweep the leg Posted November 27, 2016 Report Posted November 27, 2016 19 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said: Tough call: Indiscriminate targeted assassinations with "acceptable" collateral damage (read: civilian). VS Indefinite imprisonment with no trial or semblance of justice Drone attacks aren't indiscriminate if they're targeted. Wanna-B-Fanboy 1
Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted November 27, 2016 Report Posted November 27, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, sweep the leg said: Drone attacks aren't indiscriminate if they're targeted. I meant in the judgement department: "lacking in care, judgement, selectivity, etc" Edited November 27, 2016 by wanna-b-fanboy
Mark F Posted November 27, 2016 Report Posted November 27, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, sweep the leg said: Drone attacks aren't indiscriminate if they're targeted. targetted is PR excuse phrase, allowing continued murder of innocent people. There are laws of war. Breach of them is supposed to be a serious crime. Tell me what the legal justification is for this ? Probably comitting war crimes. Edited November 27, 2016 by Mark F edited Wanna-B-Fanboy 1
Goalie Posted November 28, 2016 Report Posted November 28, 2016 (edited) I actually think that if you are at war.... it's stupid as crap to warn the people ahead of time. It's war. You go there .. blow **** up. . Kill people. That's War. There is no pleasantry or hugs and kisses needed before hand. Is it unfortunate if innocent people get killed? For sure. But that is WAR. You know what? Hitler? Awful person but his blitzkrieg style? Very very effective for some time. Don't warn your enemy ahead of time ... is that how politically correct the world has become? We have to warn ppl ahead of time... Hey... ISIS we are gonna be dropping bombs on you at 2 4 6 and 8 pm. ??? Edited November 28, 2016 by Goalie
The Unknown Poster Posted November 28, 2016 Report Posted November 28, 2016 Hmmm, in one thread paying Hitler a compliment, in another downplaying praise of Castro. War has changed. The US cannot carpet bomb an entire city anymore. Trump thinking that General's are stupid for warning of an attack sort of plays out like a video game. But these arent video game people. And the enemy hides among civilians. You're fighting an enemy with no honour. Only one side is expected to play by the rules. And ofcourse, if you capture one of these vile people, you have to be nice, kind and fair to them.
Rich Posted November 29, 2016 Author Report Posted November 29, 2016 This guy has been banned from Delta Airlines for life. Apparently they also refunded the airfare for these passengers as he wasn't kicked off the plane when the event occurred. http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/delta-bans-rude-pro-trump-passenger-for-life-gives-refunds-1.3180399?campaign_id=A100
The Unknown Poster Posted November 29, 2016 Report Posted November 29, 2016 Im surprised another passenger didnt belt him. If that was my plane I would have at least told him to pipe down and not because of his topic.
The Unknown Poster Posted November 30, 2016 Report Posted November 30, 2016 I dont think there is anything wrong with recounts. Why not make sure? I dont see anyone from Hilary's camp not accepting the results. I doubt Trump would be as gracious had she won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote by so much. I mean, the guy is claiming the election was rigged and he won it, so what does that tell you. His ego cant handle losing the popular vote.
kelownabomberfan Posted November 30, 2016 Report Posted November 30, 2016 1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said: I dont think there is anything wrong with recounts. Why not make sure? I dont see anyone from Hilary's camp not accepting the results. I doubt Trump would be as gracious had she won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote by so much. I mean, the guy is claiming the election was rigged and he won it, so what does that tell you. His ego cant handle losing the popular vote. Yes, I agree. I think Joe was just pointing out how the media jumped all over Trump and yet are silent when Hillary does the same thing. And he's right, this is why the mainstream media is going bankrupt in the USA.
Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted November 30, 2016 Report Posted November 30, 2016 (edited) http://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2016/11/10/vp-elect-mike-pence-does-not-accept-evolution-heres-why-that-matters/#7169720c1977 Quote P-Elect Mike Pence Does Not Accept Evolution: Here's Why That Matters Shaena Montanari , CONTRIBUTOR I write about paleontology, dinosaurs, and comparative biology. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. Republican vice presidential nominee, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, speaks at a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2016. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya) In a 2002, Mike Pence delivered a speech in the House of Representatives, a passionate repudiation of evolution aimed at continuing the common rhetorical device of evolution deniers: that evolution is just a theory and should be presented as such. Pence begins by discussing Charles Darwin talking about how he “offered a theory of the origin of species which we’ve come to know as evolution. Charles Darwin never thought of evolution as anything other than a theory. He hoped that someday it would be proven by the fossil record but did not live to see that, nor have we.” I have previously written about Darwin never seeing the fossils that would later support his theory, so I and most other paleontologists completely disagree that support for Darwin’s idea has never been found. He goes on to bemoan the Scopes Monkey Trial saying we have have “seen the consequences” in the following years, lamenting the fact the biblical story of creation is not taught in every biology class around the country alongside Darwin. It is unclear if Pence is either willfully or unknowingly misrepresenting the scientific definition of the word “theory”. In scientific terms, a theory is the highest designation of knowledge and represents something that has been rigorously tested using the scientific method. 98% of scientists surveyed believe humans evolved over time, so among experts, this is not a debate anyone is having. Pence finds good company in the American public though. A 2014 survey by the Pew Research Center indicates while 62% of adults say humans have evolved over time, 33% say this change is solely due to natural processes, with 25% saying evolution is guided by a supreme being. This response is strongly influenced by religious affiliation, with 91% of atheists accepting evolution through natural processes compared with 21% of Christians. This is roughly in line with the 2006 study by Jon Miller and colleagues that shows the USA on the bottom of the pile when ranking the percentage of people who responded “true” to the statement “Human Beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.” The figure from Miller et al. 2006 about the public acceptance of evolution (Image credit: Public Domain via author John D. Croft) Recommended by Forbes A 49,000-Year-Old Human Settlement Has Been Discovered In Australia Top Five Sloth Facts For International Sloth Day 66-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Skin Impression Discovered In Spain Four Real-Life Ghouls And Goblins Of The Animal Kingdom MOST POPULAR Photos: The Richest Person In Every State +1,143,015 VIEWS Thanks To 'Fight For $15' Minimum Wage, McDonald's Unveils Job-Replacing Self-Service... MOST POPULAR Photos: The World's Highest-Paid Actors 2016 MOST POPULAR Apple's New iPhone 7: No Headphone Jack, But Awesome Camera In this 2009 clip, Pence continued to be cagey about his personal beliefs and acceptance of evolution to MSNBC host Chris Matthews but his thoughts were made clear back in 2002—and now with him as VP, how will this matter to the American public? Many court battles have been fought over the fact personal religious beliefs are just that—personal—and have no business making an appearance inside a science classroom. The fact that Pence felt strongly enough to make this speech inside a house of government reveals he does not see religion and science as two separate entities. The symbolism of anti-evolution rhetoric those like Pence use undermines scientific progress, as evolution is a common thread in many National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health research programs from biology to psychology to medicine. As so many things in the country, science has become a partisan issue unnecessarily and for this, we will suffer in the future. Scientists are already concerned about budget cuts, especially to certain areas related to evolutionary biology and environment—and rightfully so. GOP officials have had the National Science Foundation (NSF) in their crosshairs for a while, picking on certain grants that to most scientists have obvious applicability. They have been drawing up lists of “absurd spending items” for years, lists that include a $331,000 grant to study aggression, which had previously been marked as beneficial research that could allow for greater understanding of violence that leads to mass homicides. The NSF has a $7.7 billion budget that is made to feel ephemeral and the specter of uncertainty will not bode well for feelings of stability in laboratories across the country. Republican presidential elect Donald Trump (R) reaches to his Vice President elect Mike Pence during election night at the New York Hilton Midtown in New York on November 9, 2016. Trump stunned America and the world Wednesday, riding a wave of populist resentment to defeat Hillary Clinton in the race to become the 45th president of the United States. / AFP / MANDEL NGAN (Photo credit should read MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images) The issue is we as a society might not see or know how we suffer in the future—the biotech start up that a grad student would have founded or the lifesaving drug treatment may never exist if the basic funding never comes through. The greatest damage caused will be the absence of a better future, one that we will never realize. Even if scientific funding does not decrease for evolution related research, as public perception of the theory and the scientific method suffers, so does progress. To scientists, evolution is not a debate. In a society that has perplexingly moved away from caring about what experts have to say, it is both unsurprising and disheartening that individuals who have dedicated their lives to basic scientific research are not being taken seriously and are being portrayed as part of a larger conspiracy. Voters and the American public did not care enough to press for answers on scientific questions—either policy or funding related— instead focusing more on personality cults and emails. Many will say the economy is important and should be put above all else, as it likely will be in this administration, but those who do that at the expense of research are missing that science and innovation is a vital part of that economy. We do not know what is going to happen with the new government and funding for science but we need to be vigilant. We cannot let progress stop, and as scientist and climate journalist Eric Holthaus points out, it is possible that an oppositional government could invigorate the environmental movement. An easy way to make America even greater would be to support our scientists and fund their research without pointlessly scrutinizing it. With job security, funding, and public support of innovation, the US economy and society at large would only reap the rewards. Edited November 30, 2016 by wanna-b-fanboy
The Unknown Poster Posted November 30, 2016 Report Posted November 30, 2016 39 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said: Yes, I agree. I think Joe was just pointing out how the media jumped all over Trump and yet are silent when Hillary does the same thing. And he's right, this is why the mainstream media is going bankrupt in the USA. Regarding accepting the results? I think its completely different. Hilary has accepted the results. She conceded on election night, made the phone call, offered to help the new President-Elect. Where there are close counts or potential impropriety, I think there is a duty to recount. In fact election officials should do it, non-partisan. Not to change the result, but to confirm the system. Trump does no one any favours when he says 'well I won but it was still rigged'. That doesnt make people vote. Trump flat out said he would not accept the results unless he won. That is different than accepting the results and allowing concerned parties to lobby for reasonable recounts.
kelownabomberfan Posted November 30, 2016 Report Posted November 30, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said: Trump flat out said he would not accept the results unless he won. That is different than accepting the results and allowing concerned parties to lobby for reasonable recounts. He was pretty coy about what he would do, and was leaving his options open. That was my take. Joe Scarborough's take too. Do you honestly think that he would demand recounts (and be able to raise $9 million from the public) to get those recounts done, if Hillary had kicked his ass as hard as he kicked Hillary's ass? I doubt it. Trump's a business guy, and he understands cost/benefit, unlike the Green Party. Everyone knows that these recounts are a waste of time and money, and the most likely result is that the Green Party is going to bank most of this dough after the Wisconsin recounts turn up nothing. Edited November 30, 2016 by kelownabomberfan
johnzo Posted November 30, 2016 Report Posted November 30, 2016 (edited) Re: immigration laws being racist... There was a brief time when I was "illegally" in the US. I overstayed my work visa for a few months to get married and apply for a green card. Not a big deal, the INS people reviewing my application didn't care about it and my attorney wasn't overly concerned. But if I'd run afoul of a cop or anything, my life could get complicated. A lot of immigation enforcement, like any law enforcement, is at the discretion of the enforcing officer. My attorney told me to keep a low profile. During that stretch, I took a car trip down to San Diego. The INS had a checkpoint on I-5. They shut down the whole damn freeway -- all five northbound lanes, parking hundreds or thousands of cars -- and had agents prowling around with big flashlights, peering into the stopped cars. They flashed the lights on my face and my wife's face and then moved on. As a white guy driving a shitty beat-up Taurus full of luggage, I was not the illegal immigrant they were looking for. White privilege is real, don't let anyone tell you it isn't. Think about people in the opposite situation to mine -- a brown person who's a legit resident of America. In border communities that person is under constant suspicion of being an illegal immigrant. Arizona passed a law recently that allowed state and local police to challenge the legal residency of anyone for any reason and to detain people until those facts are settled. That really, really sucks for the ~25% of legit Arizonans who are Hispanic, or who look like they are. This is why immigration laws can be regarded as racist: people who have done nothing wrong are being hassled because of the color of their skin. Edited November 30, 2016 by johnzo
Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted November 30, 2016 Report Posted November 30, 2016 15 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said: He was pretty coy about what he would do, and was leaving his options open. That was my take. Joe Scarborough's take too. Do you honestly think that he would demand recounts (and be able to raise $9 million from the public) to get those recounts done, if Hillary had kicked his ass as hard as he kicked Hillary's ass? I doubt it. Trump's a business guy, and he understands cost/benefit, unlike the Green Party. Everyone knows that these recounts are a waste of time and money, and the most likely result is that the Green Party is going to bank most of this dough after the Wisconsin recounts turn up nothing. You mean to tell everyone that if Trump had won the popular vote by +2mil and lost because of the electoral college count... that he would not have a huge tantrum about it and scream "CROOKED, CROOKED, CROOKED!" all the while mashing his phone trying to post on twitter demanding that all the illegal votes be taken out? If you believe that he wouldn't have demanded a recount in the rudest most childish manner? Then you have not been paying attention these past 18 months. The Unknown Poster 1
The Unknown Poster Posted November 30, 2016 Report Posted November 30, 2016 38 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said: He was pretty coy about what he would do, and was leaving his options open. That was my take. Joe Scarborough's take too. Do you honestly think that he would demand recounts (and be able to raise $9 million from the public) to get those recounts done, if Hillary had kicked his ass as hard as he kicked Hillary's ass? I doubt it. Trump's a business guy, and he understands cost/benefit, unlike the Green Party. Everyone knows that these recounts are a waste of time and money, and the most likely result is that the Green Party is going to bank most of this dough after the Wisconsin recounts turn up nothing. I think Trump didnt expect to win nor did he want to win. He wanted to get close enough to use the election as a platform for his own means. I think his refusal to say he'd accept the results was because his plan was to lose and then publicly contest and use it to become the alt-right spokesman, probably start his own news network etc. It was all about business for him. He wasnt coy at all. He said he would not accept the results. He clarified by saying he would only accept the results if he had won. His team attempted to portray it was leaving open the potential of a Bush/Gore scenario but he clearly didnt care about that and he never answered the question like that. I have little doubt his people could and would raise money for recounts if the roles were reversed. But I actually doubt whether he'd want recounts. He'd point to the evidence of potential issues and declare Hilary a fake President and assume his role as the real voice of the people. His plan was screwed by his winning. He himself never disputed suggestions he'd quit if he won and during his own victory speech he referred to the "next two years" before correcting himself and saying "or four or maybe eight". It shouldnt be up to the candidates or their teams to raise money for recounts. I think if there is even a semblance of issue, the government should want to clarify. Hilary is way up in popular vote. I think that adds credence to the idea, if there was a hint of issue with the voting, that they make sure. Not to over-turn the results, but to get a clear result and to allow for better systems next time, if in fact there were issues this time. I'd feel that way regardless of who won.
The Unknown Poster Posted November 30, 2016 Report Posted November 30, 2016 21 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said: You mean to tell everyone that if Trump had won the popular vote by +2mil and lost because of the electoral college count... that he would not have a huge tantrum about it and scream "CROOKED, CROOKED, CROOKED!" all the while mashing his phone trying to post on twitter demanding that all the illegal votes be taken out? If you believe that he wouldn't have demanded a recount in the rudest most childish manner? Then you have not been paying attention these past 18 months. You're absolutely correct. Before the FBI helped him win, Trump was already screaming about how Hilary rigged the election. He's STILL whining about it and he won. So the relatively quiet efforts to clarify some votes from the democratic side is pretty low key compared to what Trump WOULD do and is, in fact, doing.
Recommended Posts