Donald Trump

"

Disrupted wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBlwxqqAprQ
W
T
F

It's in the holy book, if you want to take it seriously then you must bring homosexuals to justice. Now, you're still not allowed to just shoot them, they have to be sentenced to death by an islamic court.

We really need a way to neuter that kind of shit. I don't really like religion (in this case Islam, it's currently the worse, although I have a lot of crap to give to the rest) because of that.

This is currently in NYtimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/13/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting.html

Not that I like Trump...

Well, it's well known US immigration laws are stupid, expensive red taping (if I had to think about it, the current setup is great for cheap labor if I was a bussiness owner, I'll assume stuff like this or this is true, someone can correct me later). Going after bussiness would make a lot of more sense than a wall (at least a part of the people entering overstay their visas, or so I've read).

Also, a lot of those mexicans (well, Center America to be fair) have been displaced by reasons directly or indirectly related to poor US decisions (War on Drugs, farm subsidies that fucked some places when entering free trade deals like NAFTA, and overthrowing governments to install corrupt conservative replacements). The whole are has been traditionally full of hispanics (I think part of the Spanish Empire extended to the south of US) so it can be thought as an arbitrary line draw for no good reason.

Removing 11 million without any detailed plan for the aftermath is going to start a recession, and it will be the beginning of a lot of violence from both sides. Also, even if illegal, some people have actually adapted and integrated, so you have to consider the ethics of moving them for a law that was probably stupid to begin with.

And it seems Eisenhower tried it and it didn't work for too long. It would have to be mantained for like forever. DalaiLama will surely want to say something about this, I know shit.

Curiously, a lot of the same people that ask to control the movement of labor used to scream about the free market but now they are protectionists. If you say "immigrants are reducing our wages" or something like that, remember that automatization does that too, and more effectively (see the conversation about UBI). I wonder if there is not a more humane solution to the whole mess, but that's from economists to decide, not me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against border controls up to some point (because the consequences of completely opening up are extremely complicated), but it's a hard problem to solve and people like Trump just don't live in the real world. The thing is more gray that he thinks. Maybe if the whole world develops we'll have less problems letting people move freely, for now it's just complicated.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/742034549232766976

Are you agreeing with Trump, or disagreeing with his tweet?


.............

What happened in Orlando was a tragedy.

Do we let it happen again? Why did we let it happen in the first place?

Why do we have extra security and armed guards for public officials and airports, but not for night clubs and shopping malls and schools?

Why aren't we using the patterns of recent history and terrorism to guide our efforts to try and prevent it?

Because it isn't politically freaking correct.

Now, think about this for a second - do you think they will have heightened security during the Olympics? Is there a history of violent attacks during certain holy days? Is there a particular month of the year where some major attack always happens?

If the FBI had been rousting people up and digging in through all their surveillance records, there's a chance they could have prevented this, or spooked the terrorist into holding off out of fear of being shut down.

If one out of five of the patrons that night had been armed they could have tried to fire back against the shooter. (if someone can't be bothered to google some real life occasions where that happens on a regular basis, then I'm going to summarily dismiss their opinion as emotionally based and not rooted in logic or facts). While they wouldn't have prevented all the deaths, they would probably have saved quite a few of them.

So, yeah, everyone feel free to jump on the "how we are allowed to think and talk about things" bandwagon, while completely ignoring trying to deal with the problem itself.

Imagine calling for an ambulance because you saw a car crash where the driver was heavily bleeding and unconscious. The ambulance shows up, start to head over and see the blood.
"We don't like dealing with blood, so we can't help you." Then they drive away.

This is the Obama, Clinton, liberal mindset. We don't like dealing with blood, pus, anger, hate, poop, or anything that will make us unclean. So, instead of making tough decisions and actually doing the meticulous ground work, investigations, interviews and patrols, we just ignore the problem and let it keep happening.

Do you think surgeon's enjoy amputating someone's leg to save their life? Do they say, "I'm sorry, we believe that taking someone's leg away is wrong and we can't do it?"

Do firefighters run away from burning buildings with victims inside because they might get burned, or do they wear protective gear and try to help people despite the risks?

Why do people have fire extinguishers, sprinklers, smoke detectors, fire codes and fire inspections?

What if those preventative measures were politically incorrect? (just imagine for a second, that somehow they were)

In a nutshell, if someone doesn't want to be part of the solution, they should get the heck out of the way of the people trying to solve the problem.

The NYPD had a good handle on part of the solution, before they were backed down by the PC crowd.

Fortunately, we have a very astute and informed president, who somehow knows this was an act of terror, but isn't quite sure if the shooter has ties to terrorist groups. Fortunately Islamic Terrorism doesn't exist. We know this because the term isn't ever used by our illustrious and well informed (well almost as well informed as the local Florida Sheriff anyhow) president has told us this over and over.

People can continue to stick their heads in the sand, but that won't protect them from those who actively seek to harm them.

So what is this solution? One word -

Profiliing.

Nasty? Yes. Uncivilized? Yes. A shame that we have to consider it? Yes. Necessary? Only if you want to stop the problem. If you're OK with a dozen or more mass killings in the next few years, and a possible nuke in a western city, then, no, it probably isn't necessary.

War is hell. This isn't one off violent jerks just randomly deciding to attack people. It is a calculated, organized, funded campaign by Islamic Terrorism with dedicated agents, and an active network of people fomenting and recruiting lone wolf attackers.

Oh, and just as a pre-emptive measure - How many abortion clinics were bombed the past few weeks by "radical Christians"?

Radical Buddhists shot up how many people in Tel Aviv, or anywhere else last week?

Oh, yeah and those radical Wiccans and the radical non-believers running around and drowning people in cages, cutting their heads off, and burning them alive last few weeks?

It isn't that Islam is inherently violent. It is that there are violent radical people within that group who are using it as a shield to hide themselves while they attack others.

How much better it would be if these terrorist jerks could be ferreted out so they can't continue to kill others and let the overwhelming vast majority of peaceful people actually live in peace?

What's worse, is that our federal government has the congressional authority to begin the process, they just need to sit down with the relevant select senate committee members, the designated judges and define their plan of action, and get all the warrants approved and all the information properly sealed and documented.

We'd have thousands of complaints, several hundred arrests, and we'd save a few busloads of lives.

Or we can continue to bash Trump and anything that offends us.

TL/DR - Islam isn't the problem, but those that are the terrorist problem are almost exclusively from within their ranks, so authorities should take whatever legal measures they can to identify those terrorists before hand.

Yeah, let's have a mass surveillance system, it's not going to be abused at all. We'll call it Arsenal Gear Sybil system PRISM.

...

Sorry, but shooters in US come in all flavors, I cannot take that seriously. They are black/latino gang members, white gun nuts, school boys, lone wolf islamic terrorists and so on.

If you want to stop muslim terrorists, a better understanding of their recruiting methods will be more useful. Also, it's likely that a lot of recruited people are mentally fucked, so that can take some work too. Guns may help or can make things worse, you are rolling a dice at that, and it would be a patchwork at best (protection rather than prevention, and probably not deterrence). You can't even treat this like a common crime problem. I do not like guns, but I understand well they cannot realistically be outlawed (well, at least up to some point) and sympathize with the self defense argument generally.

Here is my hypothesis: guns and shootings are uncorrelated, you can have one without the other, or both simultaneously. Bringing guns as solution is as silly as blaming them for shootings.

And don't come with PC, that's just poisoning the well. Honestly, I think that that Trump message was poorly written (being a grammar nazi here), I was almost tempted to laugh, that's the only reason I shared it. It reads like some ten year old humble bragging.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Well, it's well known US immigration laws are stupid

The "plan" certainly isn't working well for any purposes. That's the reason Rubio and Cruz never stood a chance at getting elected. No one has wanted to touch immigration reform with anything but a "How do we get the most votes out of this" approach.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

(if I had to think about it, the current setup is great for cheap labor

It is. That's why many conservative leaders are afraid to touch anything. Their election year campaign funds would get drained quite a bit if they pushed for serious reform. This is true for a lot of small businesses, not just large ones.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

if I was a bussiness owner, I'll assume stuff like

Spoiler

The bottom left of the image "Virtually no process" is BS. I've personally worked with people who have gone from unskilled illegal status to US Citizen, and have a friend whose legal specialty is just that. If you haven't committed a violent crime and are patient, there is a way to become legal.

The middle right section (wait 6-10 years for green card) and (after green card wait 5-6 years for citizenship) has the times reversed from my experience. From what I have seen in three businesses I have run in two states, it is usually 3-5 years to get the green card (without a criminal record) and 7-10 years to get citizenship after that.

To the left of that (Employer willing to file paperwork, $10,000 cost) is semi-BS. Employer sponsorship of most jobs don't require paperwork that is that extensive or expensive. If you don't mind it taking 6 months to a year longer, you can do it yourself cheaply enough. As an employer, if you want to get it through very quickly, it's a couple grand extra in legal fees.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18552_so-you-want-to-be-american-5-circles-immigration-hell.html

There are some exaggerations in here, but the basic process is correct. If you are paying a thousand dollars for a complete physical with blood work, then you are getting ripped off. Even if you needed a full set of vaccinations and the exams, you should be able to get it done for about 500-600 - throw in a federal background criminal check for 50-100 more.

I've had to do that for a few jobs, as well. Security clearances are another matter, but you don't need one of those to immigrate.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Going after bussiness would make a lot of more sense than a wall

It would. Even if elected, Trump would not likely successfully push for a complete wall. Sure, he'd add to the fence in a few places, and secure funding and plans to slowly add a bit more, but that's about it. The military commitment to enforce the wall properly would take far more political clout than Trump has. Reagan or FDR or a steamroller like Lincoln could have pushed such a movement through, but I doubt they would even try.

Going after businesses that flout the laws is the simplest, most cost effective way. Trump mentioned that aspect several times. The program for it is already set up and it works well. No profiling necessary, no discrimination necessary. It is called E-Verify, and it doesn't cost that much.

How much exactly is "not that much" How about FREE?

https://www.uscis.gov/e-verify

Many problems could be solved without ANY new legislation. We could just enforce the laws we already have.

But that idea is WAY TOO BIZARRE!!!!

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Also, a lot of those mexicans (well, Center America to be fair) have been displaced by reasons directly or indirectly related to poor US decisions (War on Drugs, farm subsidies that fucked some places when entering free trade deals like NAFTA, and overthrowing governments to install corrupt conservative replacements). The whole are has been traditionally full of hispanics (I think part of the Spanish Empire extended to the south of US) so it can be thought as an arbitrary line draw for no good reason.

Yup, south of the US. I'm not sure why they didn't take Antarctica why they were on their way...



The flood of immigration isn't because of US policy in Central America, and it isn't because of the US drug war. A portion of it does have to do with US drug law that pushed Meth production south and doubled the money involved, but I've already mentioned the relevant guilty Oregonian political leaders several times before. No need to rehash that.

That "arbitrary line" is called a border. Wars have been fought over those silly things. For people who think we should just have no government or one world government borders probably don't make much sense.

If the United States marshalls showed up at your house and said you are violating US laws, and you responded "But I don't live in the US." and they responded "Those borders are just arbitrary lines" you might look at those lines a little differently.

Sovereignty - it's not just for breakfast.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Removing 11 million without any detailed plan for the aftermath is going to start a recession, and it will be the beginning of a lot of violence from both sides. Also, even if illegal, some people have actually adapted and integrated, so you have to consider the ethics of moving them for a law that was probably stupid to begin with.

The US wouldn't deport 11 million. If *all* were deported, the number would be greater than that, at least double, most likely triple. Google knows.

A few hundred thousand criminals would be deported or jailed. A few million would be threatened with deportation if they didn't get their act in order and Congress didn't pass and fund enforcement of existing laws and some immigration reform that would make sense and secure the border.

The law isn't silly or stupid. The law is based on the idea that there are a limited amount of resources. Take out a coffee cup, Now pour five liters of coffee into it. **That's the problem** the law exists to solve. It isn't a problem of ethnicity or origin, but a problem of capacity.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Curiously, a lot of the same people that ask to control the movement of labor used to scream about the free market but now they are protectionists.

Many thought there were loopholes they could exploit, and figured they would get richer. Most expected the federal government to have more backbone when it came to illegal foreign government sponsorship activities that undercut competition. Airbus, China steel dumping, China currency manipulation, etc. Without a semi-level playing field, free trade is just a duck sitting on a BBQ grill.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

If you say "immigrants are reducing our wages" or something like that, remember that automatization does that too, and more effectively (see the conversation about UBI). I wonder if there is not a more humane solution to the whole mess, but that's from economists to decide, not me.

Agreed on all counts. There's a solution, but it will take all sides to sit down together and work it out. That means the left, the right, and foreign government leaders as well as US leaders. A comprehensive cohesive policy that North America and South America could all support.

Big investment in Central America and South America businesses would need to be a part of it. Government stabilization and a progressive continuous reduction in corruption would need to be a part. It doesn't have to be fast, but it does need to be phased out. If their economies improve, everybody wins.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against border controls up to some point (because the consequences of completely opening up are extremely complicated), but it's a hard problem to solve and people like Trump just don't live in the real world. The thing is more gray that he thinks. Maybe if the whole world develops we'll have less problems letting people move freely, for now it's just complicated.

The problem most people have with Trump is that he does live in the real world and is calling it like he sees it without any filter.

e.g. "Yes, that dress does make you look fat. I'm sorry, but you asked. No, I don't think this is the best pie I've ever had, the crust is burnt. Yes, we do have an immigration problem." etc

Listen to Trump's conversations. Listen for one key word. That word equals success for BOTH sides on policy and problem solving.

The word is:

Compromise.

Now listen to Hillary's speeches - Obama *might* use it when referring to his opponents, but of the top of my head I don't recall him using it self referntially.

Trump uses Compromise. Why? Because he knows that in order to get things done in an efficient manner you usually need to compromise?

Do you want a wall around your garden? OK. Do you want a wall that is made of solid gold and has laser cannons on it? Nope.

Are you willing to compromise, and have a wall that is spray painted gold color and has a couple security cameras? OK.

Compromise seems like a dirty word to those who are unfamiliar with how legislative bodies and businesses work. But it works.

Exhibit A: Ice cream cone.

We live in a world today where the waffle makers are violently against the ice cream makers.

It's way past time for that mindset to stop. People need to sit down, agree to disagree and then start working with their "enemies" to find solutions. No, we won't agree on 1,000 out of 1,000 things. But if we agree on 12 out of a thousand, at least we are that much closer to solving the others. If we can compromise on 400 of the thousand, then we can celebrate and let the next round of legislators keep working on the solution.

Polio wasn't cured in a day. GGG didn't fix Desync in a few months. Real solutions take time, effort and sometimes compromise.

deleted Duplicate post

90% probability browser error (says it wasn't sent and duplicate warning)
10% probability PEBKAC error.

Sorry.