New Pornstar Galleries -
All smartbuydisc.rus > World News Nonsense > Immigration > Immigration (page 3)
Page 3 of 7 First < 2 3 4 5 6 > Last
AuthorPost
 
All-Star Member

Your other left
28339 Posts
3/02
Posted - Jun 21 2018 : 12:47AM
The amusing thing about Donald Trump voicing compassion is that the way to tell when President Trump is lying is that his lips are moving.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jun 21 2018 : 10:33AM
The even more amusing(?) thing is that someone has to explain to him what is and is not compassionate, and then when he doesn't care, people have to convince him that uncompassionate is somehow not to his advantage.
Once someone gets through to him, and he is convinced that he has no practical choice but to do the compassionate thing, he has to trumpet how compassionate he is (along with his more important message that he is 'strong'), and his minions have to take up that refrain.
Never seen anything like that before. Here.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jun 21 2018 : 2:32PM

Please watch. We need to see 2,000+ more of these.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jun 21 2018 : 2:43PM
MSNBC is airing another interview of a woman who got her very young son back after 85 days. She said that it seems that in the 85 days they had him, he was never offered a shower, and he had lice. He was afraid of her touching him, and crying and afraid to go to sleep, but also cried "Ma ma ma," every time she left the room because he was afraid she would be gone again.
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Lord of Lust

az-mo-day-us
14086 Posts
10/01
Posted - Jun 21 2018 : 4:28PM

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jun 21 2018 : 6:27PM
I was returning Season 3 of The Doctor Blake Mysteries to the library today, and picking up Season 4.
By the time I got home, I had emails from the library, one showing that Season 3 had been returned, and one letting me know that Season 4 had been checked out on my card.
I also deleted an older email reminding me that Season 3 was due soon.
And I thought, wow. My library is keeping better track of where each book and dvd is, than the federal government is for these confiscated children.
How is that possible, really? How is it that my local library can have a better system to track a decrepit copy of Dr. Phil's Self Matters than the government has for locating a child that they have seized custody of? It can't be a matter of resources. We know who has better resources. It truly has to be that my local library cares more about an old book that the federal agencies do about a child.
Only public pressure is going to get those kids back to their parents.

Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Jun 21 2018 : 11:30PM
It never ends. The exploitation and emotional manipulation in the media has never been more transparent or more shameless. Just remember the next time you see anything, and I mean ANYTHING, coming out of the mainstream news media which provokes your emotional response, the odds are now higher that it is pure propaganda rather than lower.

Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Jun 21 2018 : 11:44PM
Rachel Maddow getting "choked up" was the phoniest and most calculated fake crying I've ever seen. Desperate times call for desperate measures I suppose. But I would sooner retire with at least a shred of dignity before fake-crying before a single witness, let alone broadcast for millions to see.
Even Glenn Beck's fake crying wasn't that patently bogus, and his was horrific. The left is turning into everything it hates in real-time, before our very eyes. These people are shameless partisan puppets.

Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Jun 22 2018 : 12:15AM
Speaking of bogus:

Fake:

Does anyone else hear playing when the picture shows that kid out and about, no more crying, just wandering by without a care in the world? We should give him credit for putting on a more convincing show than Rachel did. That kid has Pacino chops compared to her.

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Jun 22 2018 : 12:57AM
^^It may be true that the emblematic photo isn't of a child who was separated from her parent. Who knows? In the bigger picture, that doesn't really matter. What matters is that children, sometimes very young children were being separated from their parents for the "crime" (a misdemeanor) of trying to cross the border - it actually happened. A policy that was put in place by the President, for which he blamed on Democrats. And since then, many of the parents have been deported without knowing where their kids are. This seems to me like something everyone should be fucking pissed about, but I guess there are some people who really don't give a fuck. I've come to realize that some people only give a shit about their own empty lives, because to them, no one else matters. Sad...
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Jun 22 2018 : 1:56AM
: Well thanks. Always good to have clarity.
Of course, this leads to the question of why we, the taxpayers ARE NOT BEING ALLOWED TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE DETENTION CENTERS. Especially where are the youngest and female toddlers.
Maybe if we had some real photos, people wouldn't start circulating misleading ones.
Just a thought!

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jun 22 2018 : 2:03AM
Every time I saw the iconic picture on msnbc, it was reported as a child who was crying while police searched her mom <------- approximate wording. I never heard nor concluded that that child had been separated, and I DID hear on the news about 4 or 5 days ago(?) that that particular child had not been taken from her mother. So I never heard it said that she had been taken, and I specifically heard that she had not. I can see why a casual viewer might have thought that it was a separated child and passed it on as such on facebook. But the news did not report it that way.
I had not seen any of the other photos. Did some reputable source print them, or are they just on gossip sites like twitter and facebook?
I don't produce, post, or approve of fake photos. I think most of the people who spread them are themselves hoodwinked (on both the left and the right) rather than intentionally spreading fakes.
Lately I have been mildly annoyed by fake crap floating around on pinterest. Well, not just lately. Anyway, two of the kooky fake things that show up in a steady sort of drip on my pinterest feed are old Victorian photos that are captioned as photos of dead people, and the continual annoying thing of a Victorian era photo of a pitbull or boxer or something that might be a pitbull with a caption saying that they used to be called 'nanny dogs' because they were great companions for kids. People re-post them because they are gullible mostly, not because they are malicious. The original poster is at fault, and the general public should fact-check before re-posting, but people are not that dedicated about these things.
For the record, just because a kid has a vacant stare and his arm is resting rather limply on the arm of the chair doesn't mean he was propped up dead when the photo was taken. If only they'd known that their family photos were going to be all over the internet with the caption that they appear to be dead. There ARE photos of posed dead people, often looking dead, and often mounted on black photo folders that indicated mourning photos. But not every odd photo is dead people.
And people have seriously tried to research whether there were any contemporary references to pitbull dogs as 'nanny dogs' in the late 1800's and early 1900's. There are libraries full of books and heaps of old letters, and nobody has found anything of the kind. But once somebody makes a little story and posts it, people believe it.
I'm specifically giving non-political examples, although the pitbull thing is quasi-political, to show that even without the sort of motivation that people have to push political narratives, once some fakey thing gets put out there, it spreads.
And of course, there are people who are using this to intentionally generate fake news and fake memes, and they aren't all named Ivan or Sergei. But a lot of them are named Sergei.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jun 22 2018 : 2:12AM
And of course, not to be distracted, it is not contested by our current administration that 2,300+ kids have been separated from their parents at the border.
It's one reason why I wasn't distracted by Melania's stupid jacket.
The real problem is a couple of thousand kids taken from their parents.

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Jun 22 2018 : 3:43PM
First, the "mainstream news media" is a term that can't be defined. All consumers of news retain a certain level of skepticism in anything they read, watch or hear, but some news outlets deserve more skepticism than others. It's lazy to paint all of them with a broad brush. People misinterpreted the circumstances emblematic photo, and now you want us to be extremely skeptical about ANYTHING that paints this horrible policy as exactly what it is. I'm not falling for it. Trump wants us to be numb to this. Kudos to him - he got you.
Propublica has had a good record of accurate reporting, and their bias doesn't seem to be too left of center. Until I hear a reliable source tell me this isn't real, I'll believe it:
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jun 22 2018 : 4:54PM
Melvyn wrote:
What I just saw on the mainstream media was Trump presenting a bunch of bereaved moms telling how their kids were killed by drunk drivers and stuff.
Nobody said, "Womp, womp."
Those are real tragedies. Period. But they are a collection of unrelated stories about 'illegal aliens'.
If I rented a stage and trotted out people whose kids had been harmed or killed, "My son was also killed by a white American citizen," people would think it was a stunt. Because it's a stunt.
The crime rate is lower among 'illegals' than it is among the general population.
I'm a law abiding person, but when I lived in Canada, I was even more careful not to run afoul of the law. If I'm not sure whether a U turn is legal, or whatever, I'm not doing it. I didn't know whether our work permits could be cancelled for whichever sort of offenses, and I was conscious of that. If I was there illegally, I'd be making sure my tail lights were working.
Trotting out bereaved moms to try to provoke an emotional response is indeed pure propaganda, being as how it's not related to anything.
Edited by - Pieps on 6/22/2018 5:12:47 PM

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jun 22 2018 : 4:55PM
And meanwhile, one thing we know for sure:
None of those seven-year old kids got drunk and did meth and killed anybody's son or daughter.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jun 22 2018 : 4:58PM
One more thing we know for sure:
We can't fully control other people's individual impulses to drink too much and then drive. It's a worthy goal addressing issues like drunk driving, or even effective sentencing for these things.
But we are responsible, all of us, collectively, for the vile actions of our government. And we are responsible to address this egregious issue.
Edited by - Pieps on 6/22/2018 5:18:19 PM

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jun 22 2018 : 5:17PM
If you want something more upbeat, and you can only spare 25 seconds today for youtube vids, Stephen Colbert's take on the Time magazine cover.

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Jun 22 2018 : 6:34PM

 
All-Star Member

Literotica.com - grover10
28999 Posts
11/04
Posted - Jun 22 2018 : 7:53PM
^ I agree with Ted!
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Jun 25 2018 : 8:57AM
Trump Camps].jpg
 
All-Star Member

Literotica.com - grover10
28999 Posts
11/04
Posted - Jun 25 2018 : 9:38AM
^ Couldn't agree more!

Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Jun 26 2018 : 12:59AM
This is as low as it gets. Playing the sounds of kids crying for no reason other than political expedience. It could not be more obvious. I guess it's a shame nobody cared to broadcast the sounds of kids crying during Obama's administration. "Kids in cages" goes back to Obama. 99% of the people erupting in lamentations and histrionics over this issue said nothing about it during the previous admin. What does this tell us? It tells us they only care depending on who's in office.
Obama deported over a million people, more than any president on record. Some fringe critics dubbed him "Deporter-in-chief" but where was the mainstream wall-to-wall wailing and condemnation then? But because less than 1% of that number have recently been detained and temporarily separated (the vast majority of whom already separated before attempting to cross the border) while asylum requests of illegal immigrants who avoided all the recognized ports of entry must be vetted, suddenly it's a travesty of the ages.
Obama and Hillary killed and displaced millions of people worldwide. In 2016 alone, Obama's admin authorized the dropping over more than 25,000 bombs on Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and more. But suddenly these partisans care about kids crying... sure. Spare me the "won't someone think of the children" insincerity.
And Shaun King is a notorious smear merchant. One would be hard-pressed to name a more biased and dishonest propaganda peddler, and if you did name one, I'd expect Shaun to still lose the debate with them. He's a cowardly shit-posting waste of oxygen. Now mind you, I'm not calling bullshit on kids crying (I believe it, and even if I didn't, I'd readily accept it for the sake of argument), but if that clip did turn out to be manufactured or edited to mislead, nobody has any good reason to act shocked at this point. At least half of what Shaun traffics in proves to be a fraud.
Some questions I've been putting to the partisans who've been emotionally exploited by this issue which remain unanswered:
1) If these are genuine asylum seekers from Central America with credible plight, why is Mexico allowing them to travel over 1,000 miles through their country, en masse and widely publicized as caravans in the media, without helping them? Do they not care? Or do they not believe these are genuine asylum seekers? Why is Mexico turning their back to these poor displaced victims? Is it Mexico saying their plight is not good enough, or is it the migrants saying Mexico is not good enough for them?
2) The GOP is the party that prioritizes greed over humanity. So how does that square with separating families at the border, which we know costs significantly more than keeping them together? Why would they be willing to spend more to separate these presumed families? What is the logic? I'm afraid "They're evil! They're racist!" simply doesn't hold up. Someone has to benefit. Could it have anything to do with the previous administration's debacle in which over a thousands kids were detained alongside human traffickers? We can always think of bad and stupid reasons for bad and stupid decisions - reasons like "Cuz racism" and "Cuz evil" - but what about, ya know, logical reasons? As with all things there's risk vs reward. We know the risk of such a policy of splitting up presumed families is that if the press seizes on some crying kids this would be politically ruinous, but what the hell is the reward? How do they benefit? Jeff Sessions is a man who should be protested, but he's not a fool. Or at least he is not fool enough to just sit around thinking of all new and unnecessary ways to be evil for no reason whatsoever and to the benefit of no one. For once - JUST ONCE - I would appreciate someone in the mainstream media trying to be objective and asking the most basic question one asks when investigating an injustice: who benefits? This is journalism 101, and yet it appears 99% of journalists are utterly oblivious to this concept.
Nobody elected Trump because he said "I'm gonna split up families of illegal immigrants at the border." He campaigned on building "the wall" - or more precisely, continuing and expanding the walls that already existed - a proposal I've never gotten behind. But interestingly enough, if such a wall existed, we couldn't even have this issue at the border. Every time you sob about those children in detention cells, understand this: your ass-backwards overtures of misguided mercy are exactly what put them there to fucking begin with.
"NOGALES — They are fed and clothed, kept clean and cool, far better off than if they were walking through the desert in June temperatures.
They are undocumented. They entered the country illegally. And when they were apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, they were shipped to Nogales from overwhelmed processing facilities in Texas.
But they are still children in cages, not gangsters, not delinquents. Just children, 900 of them, in a makeshift border-town processing center that is larger than a football field. They pass the day sitting on benches or lying side by side on tiny blue mattresses pressed up against each other on nearly every square inch of the floor in the fenced areas."
I don't recall national outcry dubbing these "Concentration Camps" or the myriad reductio ad Hitlerum attacks on Obama which we hear broadcast 24/7 against the current commander in chief.

Edited by - melvyn on 6/26/2018 1:05:08 AM

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jun 26 2018 : 1:25AM
Some of the things under Obama are lamentable, and might have gotten more opposition is they had gotten more coverage. But the kids in cages were either old enough that they traveled to the border alone, or they were younger, and remained with their parents.
Certainly, no one with a conscience would look at it and say, "Hey, I know--let's separate tens of thousands of those kids from their parents every year, and put them in tents in the desert on military bases."
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jun 26 2018 : 1:52AM
This would require me to research Mexico. But I don't vote in Mexico, so my responsibility is to act to make my own country more responsible.
Without researching it, though, I'd guess that Mexico DOES help refugees in some way, and also, like most countries, they don't openly welcome refugees, may turn them away, and may not treat them well. This happens all over the world, to refugees from anywhere. The fact that the MS St. Louis was turned away by the U.S., for instance, doesn't prove that the passengers had no credible claim that they needed to flee their home countries.
Trump clearly thinks it's a winner with his base. He doesn't care what the cost is--it's not his money. Someone else's money going to his benefit is his raison d'etre.
A lot of his policies follow those of previous administrations of both parties in shifting money to certain cronies (but "on steroids"), with the cost borne by the taxpayers. It's been totally shocking how cheap it can be to buy legislation. A campaign donation of $50,000 can get you a congressional bill that saves you tens of millions in taxes. As mentioned by me above, babies have been sent to adoption agencies which benefit from placing babies. It's where their money comes from. With all the secrecy, we really don't have any idea how the older kids are being trafficked.
The GOP as it has been historically is dead. Any of them that previously claimed to care about fiscal conservatism or whatever--it's all gone out the window.

Edited by - Pieps on 6/26/2018 1:53:44 AM


Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jun 26 2018 : 2:11AM
$1 a day labor is essentially slave labor, and prisons are a legal way to get slaves for less than the cost of driving them to work. Super profitable.
Gotta feed the beast.

Lord of Lust

az-mo-day-us
14086 Posts
10/01
Posted - Jun 27 2018 : 1:18AM
Given the recent SCOTUS decision regarding immigration, it's great to see President Trump and all his supporters, wipe their asses with the US Constitution.
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Edited by - Asmodeus on 6/27/2018 1:21:36 AM

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jun 29 2018 : 11:29AM
Melvyn asked:
Thanks for reminding us to follow the money. Journalists have actually, for years, tirelessly reported on the prison complex and it's huge campaign donations, as well as the much higher rate of incarceration in the U.S. versus other countries.
So the major financial outcome here is your tax dollars become a transfer of wealth from the middle class to big corporate campaign donors.
The usual.
Edited by - Pieps on 6/29/2018 11:33:41 AM

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jun 29 2018 : 11:33AM
So I'm going to quote you, Melvyn:

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jun 29 2018 : 11:49AM

The U.S. incarcerates 737 people per 100,000 population, versus 148 in Britain, 91 in Turkey, 125 in Australia, 196 in Mexico. Are we so much more criminal than the rest of the world? The most criminal country in the world. More than 5x as criminal as Australia. Almost 4x as many criminals as Mexico.* That's us. Criminals everywhere. The only place that comes close is Russia, with 615.
*Which explains why the crime rate is lower among immigrant populations, both legal and illegal immigrants, than it is among people who were born here.
 
All-Star Member

Your other left
28339 Posts
3/02
Posted - Jul 1 2018 : 12:52PM
Here ya go, Neech. Another example of immigrants
Not!

Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Jul 12 2018 : 4:30AM
Mexico's murder rate is off the charts compared to us. They're definitely not over-policing. They lack resources to curb violent crime there. Relative poverty will do that. But if they had the resources, they would be arresting orders of magnitude more people.
Compared to the UK, yeah, we are much more criminal, in terms of severe violence, the likes of which deserves long sentences which raises the incarceration rate. It's actually nuanced enough in comparing the US and UK, however. They actually have a higher rate of violent crime, but it is less severe instances of violence. The US has aggravated assault levels which are probably 3-5 times higher, depending on which city you go to.
That explains a significant share of the incarceration issue, but the main reason that the US incarceration rate is so inordinately high is because of the draconian and futile drug war, fueled by prison industrial complex. That's the real reason to protest Jeff Sessions which I previously alluded to - his opposition to weed legalization, which just perpetuates said war. This border business is trivial in comparison, although symptomatic. Mostly all of this is a failure of bureaucracy which cannot support the greed of the established parties' top government officials.
The world would experience an evolutionary enlightenment once we legalize weed and take a harder stance on alcohol, but the latter is a pipe dream many decades away, if ever to be realized. Legalizing weed will likely put the matter into perspective and we would see a major paradigm shift in how we deal with not just drugs but mental health, and health broadly. 50% of murders are fueled by alcohol. Substitute weed for alcohol, or hell even mandate marijuana use for alcoholics with violent records, and I won't be so bold as to claim murders would be cut in half, but they would go down by 30% or more, which is enormous.
The question still remains, why is Mexico turning their back on these widely publicized asylum seekers?

Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Jul 12 2018 : 5:48AM
So they're spending more money to separate families because they intend to recoup losses later? It doesn't add up. Why not just keep them together as was precedent under Obama, which even kept traffickers lumped in with children they had either kidnapped or were otherwise unrelated to, save billions of dollars and ramp up prosecution to fill these prisons anyway? In what way does spending more money and complicating matters by splitting up these families and using more than twice as many resources make them more money, especially if most of these turn out to be biological families with legitimate claims? We can plainly see this has not helped gain them any political capital. So this is just compounding costs, robbing Peter to pay Paul, on top of losing political capital, and threatening their seats in Congress in the mid-terms.
None of this makes sense. The argument ends up being the same. "Cuz racist cuz evil."
In other words, they went out of their way to spend more money on this to make a huge stink of the matter which will cost them. It's like concocting a scam and then investing even more money to go out of your way to expose and undermine said scam. Look how quickly Trump overrode the order to separate families. What was the point? Or
Or is the lesson, after all, that Obama's record-setting deportation tally ends up being the most humane and productive practice? What if that was the GOP's mission this whole time? They certainly made a talking point of this red meat for their base.
It just reminds us how both parties end up betraying their ostensible agendas. The supposedly humanitarian and charitable party's leader deports the most illegal immigrants, and the fascistic and selfish party wavers almost immediately on simply processing the influx. It's almost as if everything either party purports is contradicted by their own actions. Obama and henchwoman Hillary, the champions for POC and women, just kill or displace more POC and women in more regions of the world than any president and secretary of state in history, outside of world war circumstances. It's diabolical.
So naturally I honestly have little faith either party is interested in solving this, since they both are in the pockets of major corporations which stand to benefit the most from exploitation of cut-rate illegal immigrant labor. At least Bernie Sanders claims as much.
It's just a slightly different mix of how either party benefits from it, but they both certainly do. Dems gain some through corporate exploitation, and more through political. Reps gain some through political, but more through corporate exploitation.
Even if Bernie was wrong about everything else (which I doubt), he'd be right about this. And why would he be one of the most outspoken on this issue? Cuz his ties are in Vermont on the opposite end, practically the furthest point away from the issue of illegal immigration. He's competing with any and everyone who might benefit the most from it. He's an outspoken proponent of socialism and redistribution, which means he would never see the gains of a region so far away from him as anything other than a zero sum game taking away from his region. It's pragmatic as it is obvious.
Again, Obama started out with 56 senators and 255 representatives in the House to back him.
Trump started with 51 senators and 235, overall 10% less support in Congress. Yet even with more support of Congress, Obama did not resolve this matter. Both parties are just exploiting this. I visualize these issues as one typically might, like a tug of war, when it becomes increasingly clear there is no need for a rope in the first place.
As I said before, I'm not in support of the wall. But that's because I don't think this old game needs to be played. We're in the midst of a paradigm change where left/right is less and less useful. It's a matter of how much people trust EITHER party to truly represent them. Authoritarian vs libertarian is the real crux. It makes more sense to debate whether we need borders at all. Hillary evinced as much, declaring the ideal of a world with no borders. This is of course romanticized lip-service she knows full well means she and her constituents would consequently dematerialize. But it is worth considering nonetheless, or rather, all the more. When thought all the way through, what could be more ideal than such a world where no state is needed to support anyone? For the Dems this is ruinous. For Republicans, they just ooze back into the private sector. The Dems dematerialize. All their potential designs and legacies scatter like dust in the wind.
Remember back in 2008 when transparency was a major talking point? Remember how quickly that disappeared once both parties realized the implications of meaningful transparency? Real transparency means government disappears. In the end, nothing is accomplished in public. It's always behind closed doors or buried in volumes of legalese.
Anyway, if I ever come across as too critical of the left, and not as much of the right, it's because improvement comes from critical analysis. We need the left to improve, or like I've been getting at, they will end up the half which disintegrates. They've been their own worst enemy for too long, and I don't think they realize it. They've got the youth (still unreliable at ballot time), but the appeals to the minorities and women. These are aces in their sleeve, but obviously demographics mean nothing without a message. Dehumanizing the opposition doesn't work. That should have been the #1 lesson from 2016. I think people sadly took the opposite moral from that story. They saw Trump succeed and attributed it to hate which inexplicably arose only AFTER 2 terms of Obama, just as inexplicably as it was absent leading into either of his two elections. Trump didn't win because of hate. He won despite it. It was a handicap. If he played it with any more antipathy he would have lost. He was hanging by a thread. Instead Hillary took the hatred dial to 11 and one-upped Romney's apathetic 47% line. She likened half her opposition to veritable Nazis. The Deplorables rant galvanized Trump's base and likely generated an extra million voters, many times more than what was necessary to sway the electoral college. Prior to that dehumanizing invective, Trump likely had 2-3% fewer decided votes going his way at a minimum, and perhaps 5% fewer. She created a viral movement against her for crying out loud.
Calling the opposition Nazis is getting us no where. Not enough people even believe racism and sexism are significant enough to issues anymore to go out and vote. There's no way you can convince the undecided that one side is suddenly comparable to Nazis. That just makes one look like the deranged fanatic.
Think about it. If racism and sexism were significant enough issues to play to the Dems advantage, how is it that the Dems could still never get much more than 50% of the vote, when 70% of voters are women and minorities? That tells is millions and millions, tens of millions in fact, of voters are women and minorities who don't even believe these issues amount to the litmus test for politics in current times. For the overwhelming majority, people just care about economics. They don't believe in identity defining them. The Dems played the identitarian hand as resoundingly as they could. It just looks hollow. If you have substantive positions you don't need to rely on this. I think Hillary would have won if not for the Deplorables rant. That revealed a contempt never before seen in living memory for an unprecedented share of the electorate. She was right to apologize. Had she doubled down, she would have lost both the electoral and the popular vote.
Edited by - melvyn on 7/12/2018 5:49:52 AM

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jul 12 2018 : 11:00AM
Third rate reporter. Sleepy eyes. Little Marco. Rapists. Dishonest. Deep state. Hoax. Low ratings. Rigged. Embarrassed himself. Scam. Disaster. Witch hunt. Failing. Loser. Cryin' Chuck. Fake news. Phony. Crooked. Bad. Sad. Terrible. Evil.
Well, first, I think that Hillary was not the candidate who was hurling insults right and left.
Somehow, while it wasn't acceptable for her to utter that statement, Trump was busy calling Mexicans rapists, his primary opponents all sorts of names, etc.

Somehow, Trump's normal daily routine is to insult many, many people, the press, our allies, etc. For some reason, Hillary must not utter a single insult. That's laughable.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jul 12 2018 : 11:20AM
1) The Republican party does not care whether we spend big money. They only want to disallow Dems from doing it. They do not want Dems getting credit for anything. They themselves want to spend a lot, particularly on defense. The deficits expand under Republicans. They say words as if they want to contain spending, but when they are in charge, they don't.
2) Trump does not care if we spend big money. At all. It's not his money. If his base will applaud it, he stands to benefit. And he is not paying for it. He also doesn't care at all if his cronies use public money to fly private jets, buy $31,000 dining tables, or hire huge 'security details' to act as personal servants running personal errands buying hand lotion and used mattresses. That's normal to him. He chose corrupt people in the first place. He DOES care if public reaction starts to wear him down.
3) Neither party cares if they accept relatively small donations like $400,000, and in return give multi-millions in tax dollars to the donors. They do that.
4) Trump's administration is either evil in not returning the children to their parents per court order, or they are incompetent. It appears to be both. It appears that the children were purposely moved as far from the parents as possible without the most basic of record keeping. There appears to be no intention to return them, as they didn't even keep track of which kid went to which parent. If they weren't trying to make it virtually impossible to return them, they did a mighty good job of unintentionally making it virtually impossible to return them. I lean to the former explanation, as they are still engaged in making it as difficult as possible. [And that is disregarding the fact that many of the parents entered the country legally with their children, and one parent and child appear to be U.S. citizens].



Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jul 12 2018 : 11:31AM
We have to fill the prisons--there are actual written contracts with private contractors to keep them x% full.
As marijuana becomes legal, and incarcerating people for simple drug usage becomes less popular, why not ramp up vitriol against 'furriners' and lock them up. Lock them up! Lock them up!
As long as you can convince people that foreigners are all rapists, thugs, gang members, and drug smugglers, why not? Problem solved.
Prisons full, contracts fulfilled, tax dollars transferred to large private prison corporations, additional campaign contributions assured.
[By the way, there were always regulations under Obama that required separation of children who were being trafficked or abused. The instructions were, of course, to separate them under those circumstances].
Oh, and it's the law and court rulings that prevent keeping children in actual incarceration for over twenty or so days. So if the parent remains incarcerated, the child must be removed.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jul 15 2018 : 11:14AM
 
All-Star Member

4648 Posts
8/11
Posted - Jul 16 2018 : 1:05AM
^
We can be confident the migrants will keep coming. Whatever the hardships,they see it as better than what they left behind. The goal is to get their bodies on American soil. Separating the kids from their parents was the boneheaded move of the year. In truth though, it's a secondary issue. What to do with the flow of illegals to our southern border is a matter for which no administration has had an answer.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jul 16 2018 : 1:24AM
So far, we use them for near-slave labor at wretched jobs like chicken packing plants.
And we can avoid a demographic disaster with social security, etc. by welcoming immigrant workers. China and Japan are facing big problems.
 
All-Star Member

Literotica.com - grover10
28999 Posts
11/04
Posted - Aug 10 2018 : 3:25PM
 
All-Star Member

4648 Posts
8/11
Posted - Aug 22 2018 : 12:23AM

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 22 2018 : 12:37AM
What a toad. Toady. Sycophant. Tool.
Anybody want to list the murders committed by U.S. citizens?

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Aug 22 2018 : 8:09PM
Scratch previous post. Turns out, the suspect may have been "verified", but he was using a fake ID.
Anyway, enough computer for today. I got a hurricane headed towards me.
Edited by - Macko69 on 8/22/2018 9:00:57 PM

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 22 2018 : 8:25PM
Yeah, but if everybody knew that he is not an 'illegal alien' they wouldn't have bothered tweeting about being all heartbroken and stuff.
[But I guess they can keep saying 'illegal alien.' They don't seem to have any reluctance to make up alternative facts].
 
Impresario of the Inane

"I'll never drink semen from a fucking cup. Sorry." - Brett Rossi
32109 Posts
8/03
Posted - Aug 22 2018 : 11:47PM
Irrelevant.
U.S. citizens who commit crimes are for the U.S. to deal with. Crimes by foreigners--legal or otherwise--are more serious in that they could have been prevented.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 23 2018 : 2:17AM

I guess you could prevent crimes by foreigners by not having any foreigners here, the same way you could prevent crimes by citizens by exiling them all.
There's a higher crime rate among citizens, though, so it would prevent more crimes if you exiled American citizens than if you deported foreigners.
As a person who has lived in countries of which I am not a citizen, I am increasingly grateful that I was treated well and not viewed as some sort of dangerous bloodthirsty tiger creature foreigner.
Wow. I've actually traveled in almost 4 dozen other countries, and was never exposed to crazy suspicion and vitriol. I'm embarrassed for my country.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 23 2018 : 2:21AM
While you're here, any tips on how we might prevent citizen crimes, like bank fraud, tax fraud, and various types of corruption?
 
Impresario of the Inane

"I'll never drink semen from a fucking cup. Sorry." - Brett Rossi
32109 Posts
8/03
Posted - Aug 23 2018 : 9:26AM
Pieps wrote:
Pieps:
I guess you could prevent crimes by foreigners by not having any foreigners here, the same way you could prevent crimes by citizens by exiling them all.
Me:
straw man
Pieps:
There's a higher crime rate among citizens..
Me: lol. Among a certain segment of the population, perhaps. If it's true that citizens have a higher crime rate, it is because this segment raises the average.
Pieps:
... so it would prevent more crimes if you exiled American citizens than if you deported foreigners.
Me: straw man
Pieps:
As a person who has lived in countries of which I am not a citizen, I am increasingly grateful that I was treated well and not viewed as some sort of dangerous bloodthirsty tiger creature foreigner.
Me:
Did you go to those countries illegally? Did you drive drunk? Did you commit crimes? It's not a matter of being bloodthirsty. Most Americans killed by immigrants--legal or otherwise--are killed by drunk drivers. I live in a fairly Latino part of my town, and in the newspaper they showed a list or people arrested in the previous week (in this part of town). There were 60 people arrested and 32 of them were Latino, probably all of whom were not born here (yes, you can get a pretty good idea by looking at them). In principal, few to none of those arrests would have happened if we had better control over immigration.
Pieps:
Wow. I've actually traveled in almost 4 dozen other countries, and was never exposed to crazy suspicion and vitriol. I'm embarrassed for my country.
Me:
You were travelling, you weren't part of a wave of millions of poverty stricken immigrants who come here to work cheaply, drive drunk, commit violent crims and suck up services paid for by American citizens.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 23 2018 : 10:45AM
I entered Canada legally, for sure. I lived there on a valid work permit.
I was a child when my dad and stepmother took me to live in England, so I never saw any paperwork (other than my passport). Like nearly all children, it did not occur to me that perhaps my parents illegally took me someplace. It never crossed my mind. I assume we had the right documents, but I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that I was staying there legally.
Of course, (then overstayed when their visas expired) -- which is one of the many reasons that a border wall would not be effective.
Edited by - Pieps on 8/23/2018 10:46:58 AM

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 23 2018 : 11:01AM
charty.jpg

Page 3 of 7 First < 2 3 4 5 6 > Last



Jump To:

Online porn video at mobile phone