Political Roundtable Part XX

[Zonkerbl]

Alright, Nate, I have a truly imaginary, hypothetical question for you. Answer it honestly (it's just a yes/no question), and then I promise I'll leave you alone forever.

The floodgates are open, fine. There's no way to stop the army of brown people entering the country and stealing our jerbs, fine. We must do ANYTHING to stop this. Apparently that includes kidnapping children to terrorize their parents. Does that also include gathering immigrants into concentration camps and exterminating them in gas chambers?

Is that the point where you would finally realize you are on the wrong side of this question? Are you just rooting for evil because it's fun to be on the winning team? Or are you truly evil and are just waiting for Trump's depravity to catch up to you?

[Zonkerbl]

Here's an example where it's totally acceptable to boo a speaker off the stage:

Read on Twitter

[Zonkerbl]

My son posted this interesting, although ridiculously long, article from the Atlantic:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/

[stilldropin20]

Alright, Nate, I have a truly imaginary, hypothetical question for you. Answer it honestly (it's just a yes/no question), and then I promise I'll leave you alone forever.

The floodgates are open, fine. There's no way to stop the army of brown people entering the country and stealing our jerbs, fine. We must do ANYTHING to stop this. Apparently that includes kidnapping children to terrorize their parents. Does that also include gathering immigrants into concentration camps and exterminating them in gas chambers?

Is that the point where you would finally realize you are on the wrong side of this question? Are you just rooting for evil because it's fun to be on the winning team? Or are you truly evil and are just waiting for Trump's depravity to catch up to you?

oh God. pull your panties out of your ass for just a second.

It's called a deterrent at the border. For starters, Good parents would not put their children in harms way by entering a country illegally. What kind of parent treks across a treacherous desert with a child? Desperation causing the poor decision making? perhaps, I'll grant you that. Still...why do they get to "jump the line?"

When our economy is cooking and jobs are available, There are plenty of desperate families, that are standing in phucking line.!! to enter our country. Why are we rewarding line jumpers!!??

We need to be able to control migration into our country. Natural recources and shade and shelter has always mitigated animal migration since the beginning of time. If there is no water or if life is too perilous, animals dont migrate into an area or surivive long.
Why does this not apply here????? Every single business. Every singel household. Every single school. Everything has a capacity.

You can not overwhelm any given institution with too many people. bad things occur when resources run low. Maybe you haven't heard but In the modern world, money is the only resource that really matters. money can buy everything. Jobs = money.

Right now, poor black and brown people that may have already been in this country for 7,8,9,10 generations or more are being the most negatively affected by the uncontrolled overflow of illegal immigration.

And that is pure evil for any democrat to stand up and lie to their constituency in favor of illegal immigration. And to NOT do anything about it!!!! Because they are taking food off of the table of those american kids. Robbing them of jobs. putting them on welfare. Where poor black and brown men are losing the respect from their wives and girlfriends. Forced to go out and do desperate things and make bad decisions for money. and in the meantime the rest of us are feeding those kids via entitlements. Its wrong. its wrong. its wrong. It so wrong, that its evil. Pure phucking evil. And this is basically what has happened in this country for the last 40 years. Its evil. Its racists because it mostly occurs to harm black families. This policy has pushed black Fathers out of their own households and made black women desperate to put food on the table to feed their children.

So i just have to laugh at white people that continue to push this racists and almost purely evil form of allowing illegal immigrants to come take jobs away from our existing black and brown Americans. Because thats who deserves to be locked up at our border...democrats! liberals that to lie about the evil perpetuated by these evil policies that keep black people down. They have LIED to their own constituency for decades!!! Its disgusting.

And all because democrats serve to masters. The wealthy elite donor class and the poorest of the poor. It makes no sense!!!!!! Except for democrats who have run the biggest kansas city shuffle in congress for 6 decades!!!!! Ever since LBJ said, " I'll have those (blank) voting for us for generations." The elites own the corporations that these illegals go to work for...the hotels, the restaurant chains, the contruciton companies, etc. everybody wins!!! Except poor black folks. Poor brown and white folks dont suffer as much. but they both still suffer. It's a disgusting joke.

Further more, the illegal pool of immigration has played a MAJOR role in keeping wages low and stagnant due to oversaturation of low end labor supply.

And TRUMP is finally standing up to this corruption web of pure evil!!!!! Someone musrt stand up for poor black americans that dont know better. Poor brown americans that dont know better. poor white americans that dont know better.

In short, Zonker is liar!!! He promulgates evil!!! Pure effing evil policy!!! Either he doesn't understand the nuance in this evil policy he promotes. Or he does understand it. I've been writing about it i these pages for a year. You decide!

[dckingsfan]

My son posted this interesting, although ridiculously long, article from the Atlantic:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/

Good read - good facts even though it could have been edited down. But like many books - the ending not so much. Depending on your political leaning - you just point to the other party and say - "their fault". I thought he hit on many of the key problems in our society today - and he didn't hit on a solution for any of them. Maybe the point of the article is to make the reader guilty?

Yes, the kind of change that really matters is going to require action from the federal government. That which creates monopoly power can also destroy it; that which allows money into politics can also take it out; that which has transferred power from labor to capital can transfer it back. Change also needs to happen at the state and local levels. How else are we going to open up our neighborhoods and restore the public character of education?
- that is the proposed solution?

It’s going to take something from each of us, too, and perhaps especially from those who happen to be the momentary winners of this cycle in the game. We need to peel our eyes away from the mirror of our own success and think about what we can do in our everyday lives for the people who aren’t our neighbors. We should be fighting for opportunities for other people’s children as if the future of our own children depended on it. It probably does.
- that is the proposed solution?

[dckingsfan]

Outstanding reason to heckle him offstage...

This one not so much: https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/22364/

Here's an example where it's totally acceptable to boo a speaker off the stage:

Read on Twitter

[Pointgod]

Outstanding reason to heckle him offstage...

This one not so much: https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/22364/

Here's an example where it's totally acceptable to boo a speaker off the stage:

Read on Twitter

Holy **** that is the mildest form of protest and you have a problem with that? The facts don't back up some type of conspiracy theory to shut down free speech on college campuses. This is simply another case of hysteria baked up by the right wing media. If you do your research there is actually right wing groups that have gotten speakers they disagree with disinvited from campus. That's the same complaint that you are lobbing at student protesters. There's a right to protest in your country and this right isn't exclusive to the left. If the college Republican club wants to heckle Rachel Maddow go right ahead it's their right. This would never happen because they don't have the numbers on their side and their argument is weak.

[nate33]

What crime was committed by Clinton? You're assuming leaking Clinton is totally fine because you assume she's guilty, regardless of the actual real world evidence. You're wrong. Neither of the two investigations should have been revealed, and it was dishonest and evil for the Republicans to pressure Comey into leaking the Hillary investigation. Western civilization is worse off today because of it. By the way, Trump operatives were drunkenly bragging about how foreign spies were helping them win the election. If true, that would be *actually* illegal. At *no point* in the Clinton investigation was there any hint that what she did was actually illegal (which is why they had to keep digging and digging and digging), except imaginary BS dreamed up by professional Republican liars.

Clinton's crime was disseminating classified documents. They chose not to prosecute her for political reasons. Members of the military have been imprisoned for less. Comey made up out of thin air an "intent standard" that doesn't exist and used it to exonerate Clinton.

And Popadopolous bragging that Russians had dirt on Clinton is not a crime. Candidates get opposition research from anywhere they can get it, including foreign sources.

Oh boy here we go.

Nate, the IG report doesn't support any of the claims you're making. In fact, the opposite of what you're claiming is the problem at hand here. The mistakes Comey made were in breaking protocol by making the Clinton investigation public, and this breach in protocol is what harmed Clinton during the election.

Again, to clarify: Comey is being chastised in the IG report for actions that hurt Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

And to go even further:

Horowitz concluded that the prosecutorial decisions in the Clinton case were "consistent" with precedent and not affected by bias or other improper actions.

So your completely madeup and factually wrong narrative that Comey "made up out of thin air an "intent standard" that doesn't exist and used it to exonerate Clinton." is entirely unsupported by the same IG report you're touting.

But none of this actually matters in the context of this conversation because the original argument at hand, which you've completely abandoned, is whether or not Comey [and the entire FBI] are corrupt anti-Trump Clinton supporters.

They are not and their actions indicate if anything the exact opposite. Comey went public with the Clinton email investigation in a breach of DOJ/FBI protocol while simultaneously staying silent on Russia's efforts to help elect Trump, and this is why your narrative is totally laughable and dishonest.

It has nothing to do with laws that were broken by Trump or Hillary - it's about the actions Comey and the FBI took that impacted the 2016 election and how those things inform the public's view of the FBI.

Stop moving the goal posts and stop saying things that are outright lies.

Oh here we go with YOUR lies and moving the goal posts. I note how you omitted the more interesting revelations in the IG report.

First of all, it was a major violation of protocol for Comey to unilaterally declare that Clinton was "extremely careless" but did not rise to a criminal standard. That's not his call to make. It's DOJ's.

You also casually ignore that the only reason Comey was in position to announce the reopening of the Clinton investigation so late in the campaign was because the FBI and McCabe sat on the information for a month. They had those Weiner emails for over a month and tried to cover it up.

And finally, the report said that there is no documentation that political bias affected their decisions. That is absolutely not the same thing as saying their bias didn't affect their decisions. Just because nobody actually wrote down: "I'm exonerating Clinton because I hate Trump and want Clinton to win" doesn't mean that's not what happened. The problem is that intentions are very difficult to prove. My guess is that when the indictments start getting handed out, they won't try to prove this type of corruption and will instead prosecute people for more tangible things like leaking classified information to reporters.

[nate33]

Alright, Nate, I have a truly imaginary, hypothetical question for you. Answer it honestly (it's just a yes/no question), and then I promise I'll leave you alone forever.

The floodgates are open, fine. There's no way to stop the army of brown people entering the country and stealing our jerbs, fine. We must do ANYTHING to stop this. Apparently that includes kidnapping children to terrorize their parents. Does that also include gathering immigrants into concentration camps and exterminating them in gas chambers?

Is that the point where you would finally realize you are on the wrong side of this question? Are you just rooting for evil because it's fun to be on the winning team? Or are you truly evil and are just waiting for Trump's depravity to catch up to you?

It's a stupid hypothetical because there's no reason to exterminate anyone. You just gather them up and drop them in their home country. Then build a wall and don't let anyone back. I suppose the only scenario where deadly force might come into play is if there was a literal wave of immigrants rushing the gates after refusing to stop when told by the border guards. That would be equivalent to a foreign invasion and nations throughout history have used deadly force to stop foreign invaders without being compared to Hitler.

[dckingsfan]

Outstanding reason to heckle him offstage...

This one not so much: https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/22364/

Here's an example where it's totally acceptable to boo a speaker off the stage:

Read on Twitter

Holy **** that is the mildest form of protest and you have a problem with that? The facts don't back up some type of conspiracy theory to shut down free speech on college campuses. This is simply another case of hysteria baked up by the right wing media. If you do your research there is actually right wing groups that have gotten speakers they disagree with disinvited from campus. That's the same complaint that you are lobbing at student protesters. There's a right to protest in your country and this right isn't exclusive to the left. If the college Republican club wants to heckle Rachel Maddow go right ahead it's their right. This would never happen because they don't have the numbers on their side and their argument is weak.

You are right - and it is a weak argument - and anecdotal as well. That was my point that you just made. I have no problem booing/heckling speakers. None. But is it beneficial when protesters from ANY group shut down reasonable dialog especially when protest has nothing to do with the speaking material?

At some point you realize that there is a limited exchange of ideas at college campuses now. You think that the students wouldn't have benefitted from understanding the subject matter? You could have a protest at every speaking engagement protesting issues unrelated to the speaking engagement itself. Ask yourself the question: Is that productive to the free flow of information?

BTW, this is a middle of the road media conspiracy - thinking the extremes of both sides are shutting down the dialog.

But why stop with chants at a speaking engagement - why not track down their family members?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/opinion/sunday/moustached-kingfisher-internet-harassment.html

And then you have the neo-Nazi's as you, gtn and Zonk point out - you can't have a real dialog with them.

I guess I don't have the answer - but there is a problem there...

[closg00]

Oh here we go with YOUR lies and moving the goal posts. I note how you omitted the more interesting revelations in the IG report.

First of all, it was a major violation of protocol for Comey to unilaterally declare that Clinton was "extremely careless" but did not rise to a criminal standard. That's not his call to make. It's DOJ's.

You also casually ignore that the only reason Comey was in position to announce the reopening of the Clinton investigation so late in the campaign was because the FBI and McCabe sat on the information for a month. They had those Weiner emails for over a month and tried to cover it up.

And finally, the report said that there is no documentation that political bias affected their decisions. That is absolutely not the same thing as saying their bias didn't affect their decisions. Just because nobody actually wrote down: "I'm exonerating Clinton because I hate Trump and want Clinton to win" doesn't mean that's not what happened. The problem is that intentions are very difficult to prove. My guess is that when the indictments start getting handed out, they won't try to prove this type of corruption and will instead prosecute people for more tangible things like leaking classified information to reporters.

Your assertion that the FBI/McCabe tried to cover-up the email discovery is your own, and not the conclusion of the IG.
The only "political bias" that had any actual impact to the 2016 Presidential campaign, was Comey speaking-out about the Clinton problem while being silent on the Trump probe..a little inconvenient fact that blows the Republican narrative up.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[closg00]

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

...

[verbal8]

Prime example of freedom of speech not being a freedom from consequences.

Something that vile deserves being booed off the stage.

Here's an example where it's totally acceptable to boo a speaker off the stage:

Read on Twitter

[verbal8]

You ignorant fools want to blame Trump for everything but you aren't smart enough to realize that Obama is the one to blame
His 8 years in the WH has caused damage that may take decades to repair.But that's ok just keep your heads up your ***es cause more than likely you have always had them there

Don't you have a comet pizza to stake out or something?

I was going to post about an SD20 burner account, but this is even better.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Pointgod]

Alright, Nate, I have a truly imaginary, hypothetical question for you. Answer it honestly (it's just a yes/no question), and then I promise I'll leave you alone forever.

The floodgates are open, fine. There's no way to stop the army of brown people entering the country and stealing our jerbs, fine. We must do ANYTHING to stop this. Apparently that includes kidnapping children to terrorize their parents. Does that also include gathering immigrants into concentration camps and exterminating them in gas chambers?

Is that the point where you would finally realize you are on the wrong side of this question? Are you just rooting for evil because it's fun to be on the winning team? Or are you truly evil and are just waiting for Trump's depravity to catch up to you?

It's a stupid hypothetical because there's no reason to exterminate anyone. You just gather them up and drop them in their home country. Then build a wall and don't let anyone back. I suppose the only scenario where deadly force might come into play is if there was a literal wave of immigrants rushing the gates after refusing to stop when told by the border guards. That would be equivalent to a foreign invasion and nations throughout history have used deadly force to stop foreign invaders without being compared to Hitler.

Good job baby Hitler. So you're advocating for a war crime.