(02-28-2018 07:49 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 06:58 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Hope Hicks has resigned after refusing to answer most questions at a Congressional hearing but, oddly, admitting to telling lies for Trump. Only white ones, though.

Possible responses include:
(1) She didn't want to tell any black lies because she heard black lies matter.
(2) Further proof of the Trump administration's racism, that they won't even tell black lies.

Holy ****. #1 got a noseful of coffee blown out onto my keyboard..... {clap}

And, I have to say 'thanks' for the pre-cold front nasal clearing treatment you instigated for free....

(03-01-2018 02:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 07:49 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 06:58 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Hope Hicks has resigned after refusing to answer most questions at a Congressional hearing but, oddly, admitting to telling lies for Trump. Only white ones, though.

Possible responses include:
(1) She didn't want to tell any black lies because she heard black lies matter.
(2) Further proof of the Trump administration's racism, that they won't even tell black lies.

Holy ****. #1 got a noseful of coffee blown out onto my keyboard..... {clap}

And, I have to say 'thanks' for the pre-cold front nasal clearing treatment you instigated for free....

Yeah, I think (1) tops most of the late night tv jokes I've heard on it...

The free trade/protectionism debate has always been one that doesn't split along traditional party and ideological lines, but I still find this a surprising headline:

Trump defends tariffs, says 'trade wars are good'

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/politics/...index.html

(03-02-2018 08:25 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  The free trade/protectionism debate has always been one that doesn't split along traditional party and ideological lines, but I still find this a surprising headline:
Trump defends tariffs, says 'trade wars are good'
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/politics/...index.html

As Trump gets into trade wars and immigration, he starts to get away from things he has done that I have generally liked (Gorsuch, tax cuts) and into areas where I do not agree with him.

(03-02-2018 10:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 08:25 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  The free trade/protectionism debate has always been one that doesn't split along traditional party and ideological lines, but I still find this a surprising headline:
Trump defends tariffs, says 'trade wars are good'
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/politics/...index.html

As Trump gets into trade wars and immigration, he starts to get away from things he has done that I have generally liked (Gorsuch, tax cuts) and into areas where I do not agree with him.

No kidding! Two of the pillars of civilization over the last 60+ years have been free trade and the Atlantic Alliance. Trump is ignorant of and hostile to both -- and of course, so are most Democrats. It is indeed a specter that crosses party lines.

(03-02-2018 04:22 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  No kidding! Two of the pillars of civilization over the last 60+ years have been free trade and the Atlantic Alliance. Trump is ignorant of and hostile to both -- and of course, so are most Democrats. It is indeed a specter that crosses party lines.

Is it really necessary to call tens-of-millions of people either ignorant or hostile to just because you happen to disagree with them on these issues? I know it is easy to use this kind of language, but I think it is more important to do what is right and speak/write of each other with respect. This is particularly true where you are speaking in broad generalities (I am much less insulted if you want to say that Donald Trump or Nancy Pelosi is ignorant or hostile to an issue). I encourage people of all stripes to stop feeding their own echo chambers!

(03-02-2018 04:56 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 04:22 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  No kidding! Two of the pillars of civilization over the last 60+ years have been free trade and the Atlantic Alliance. Trump is ignorant of and hostile to both -- and of course, so are most Democrats. It is indeed a specter that crosses party lines.

Is it really necessary to call tens-of-millions of people either ignorant or hostile to just because you happen to disagree with them on these issues? I know it is easy to use this kind of language, but I think it is more important to do what is right and speak/write of each other with respect. This is particularly true where you are speaking in broad generalities (I am much less insulted if you want to say that Donald Trump or Nancy Pelosi is ignorant or hostile to an issue). I encourage people of all stripes to stop feeding their own echo chambers!

On second thought: fair point.

(03-02-2018 05:07 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 04:56 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 04:22 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  No kidding! Two of the pillars of civilization over the last 60+ years have been free trade and the Atlantic Alliance. Trump is ignorant of and hostile to both -- and of course, so are most Democrats. It is indeed a specter that crosses party lines.

Is it really necessary to call tens-of-millions of people either ignorant or hostile to just because you happen to disagree with them on these issues? I know it is easy to use this kind of language, but I think it is more important to do what is right and speak/write of each other with respect. This is particularly true where you are speaking in broad generalities (I am much less insulted if you want to say that Donald Trump or Nancy Pelosi is ignorant or hostile to an issue). I encourage people of all stripes to stop feeding their own echo chambers!

On second thought: fair point.

So it wasn't a good thing to insult 25% of Americans by calling them deplorables?

And people told me I should not feel insulted by that if I wasn't, in fact, deplorable.

(03-02-2018 06:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 05:07 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 04:56 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 04:22 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  No kidding! Two of the pillars of civilization over the last 60+ years have been free trade and the Atlantic Alliance. Trump is ignorant of and hostile to both -- and of course, so are most Democrats. It is indeed a specter that crosses party lines.

Is it really necessary to call tens-of-millions of people either ignorant or hostile to just because you happen to disagree with them on these issues? I know it is easy to use this kind of language, but I think it is more important to do what is right and speak/write of each other with respect. This is particularly true where you are speaking in broad generalities (I am much less insulted if you want to say that Donald Trump or Nancy Pelosi is ignorant or hostile to an issue). I encourage people of all stripes to stop feeding their own echo chambers!

On second thought: fair point.

So it wasn't a good thing to insult 25% of Americans by calling them deplorables?

And people told me I should not feel insulted by that if I wasn't, in fact, deplorable.

More whataboutism? It was absolutely wrong that she said that. We should all try to raise the civility of our political discourse. It would help if the people at the top on both sides would do it to show leadership. But even us worthless peons can help.

(03-03-2018 10:11 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 05:07 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 04:56 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 04:22 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  No kidding! Two of the pillars of civilization over the last 60+ years have been free trade and the Atlantic Alliance. Trump is ignorant of and hostile to both -- and of course, so are most Democrats. It is indeed a specter that crosses party lines.

Is it really necessary to call tens-of-millions of people either ignorant or hostile to just because you happen to disagree with them on these issues? I know it is easy to use this kind of language, but I think it is more important to do what is right and speak/write of each other with respect. This is particularly true where you are speaking in broad generalities (I am much less insulted if you want to say that Donald Trump or Nancy Pelosi is ignorant or hostile to an issue). I encourage people of all stripes to stop feeding their own echo chambers!

On second thought: fair point.

So it wasn't a good thing to insult 25% of Americans by calling them deplorables?

And people told me I should not feel insulted by that if I wasn't, in fact, deplorable.

More whataboutism? It was absolutely wrong that she said that. We should all try to raise the civility of our political discourse. It would help if the people at the top on both sides would do it to show leadership. But even us worthless peons can help.

It seems to a characteristic of our political divide that our leaders on both sides despise the lower levels of the other. But it seems to infect a lot of the lower level people, too. just yesterday, o; another board, I got a response that started with “Tell ya wut, podner, , you ‘uns Cain’t...”.

But as much as you would like it for me to ignore the contempt that Democrat leaders and some followers have for me on the basis of stereotypes, I will not ignore it it. Ignoring it makes it seem like nobody has any objections, therefore it must be right. Silence is assent and agreement. So when somembody calls me a yahoo, a gun toting redneck, a hillbilly, a deplorable, a bitter clinger, etc., I will note and respond. I suggest you do the same when somebody calls you a worthless peon or a white wine swilling liberal.

I think that one comment did ten times the damage to Hillary’s campaign than the entire email fiasco.

(03-02-2018 10:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 08:25 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  The free trade/protectionism debate has always been one that doesn't split along traditional party and ideological lines, but I still find this a surprising headline:
Trump defends tariffs, says 'trade wars are good'
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/politics/...index.html

As Trump gets into trade wars and immigration, he starts to get away from things he has done that I have generally liked (Gorsuch, tax cuts) and into areas where I do not agree with him.

Just to be clear, Trump started on immigration. He's not moving from one area to another there.

That was the deal -- after seeing the popularity of his anti-immigrant rhetoric, conservatives such as yourself lined up with the anti-immigrant folks in order to get those tax cuts and Supreme Court pick.

---
edit: By "such as yourself", I mean conservatives who share your preference set with regard to fiscal issues, etc. If I remember correctly, you personally were voting for Johnson.

(03-03-2018 11:08 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 10:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 08:25 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  The free trade/protectionism debate has always been one that doesn't split along traditional party and ideological lines, but I still find this a surprising headline:
Trump defends tariffs, says 'trade wars are good'
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/politics/...index.html

As Trump gets into trade wars and immigration, he starts to get away from things he has done that I have generally liked (Gorsuch, tax cuts) and into areas where I do not agree with him.

Just to be clear, Trump started on immigration. He's not moving from one area to another there.

That was the deal -- after seeing the popularity of his anti-immigrant rhetoric, conservatives such as yourself lined up with the anti-immigrant folks in order to get those tax cuts and Supreme Court pick.

Your language betrays how well the media has shaped you.

It is anti ILLEGAL immigration, not anti immigrant.

And yes, if you cannot find everything you want in one package, you must pick the one that gives you what you want on the things that matter the most to you.

I have a strong presence for good beer over white wine. Please refer to me as a craft-beer swilling progressive, henceforth.

The 1/4 Native American part of me laughs at the idea that any white man (including the other 3/4 of myself) complains of “illegal” immigration.

(03-03-2018 11:28 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I have a strong presence for good beer over white wine. Please refer to me as a craft-beer swilling progressive, henceforth.

The 1/4 Native American part of me laughs at the idea that any white man (including the other 3/4 of myself) complains of “illegal” immigration.

And the 95% of me that hails from beyond these shores finds the idea that all those people are anti- immigrant rather than anti illegal immigration to be a laughable over simplication based on a stereotype.

I used to prefer beer, but late in life develop,met have turned me into a water guzzling conservative.

(03-03-2018 11:08 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 10:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 08:25 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  The free trade/protectionism debate has always been one that doesn't split along traditional party and ideological lines, but I still find this a surprising headline:
Trump defends tariffs, says 'trade wars are good'
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/politics/...index.html

As Trump gets into trade wars and immigration, he starts to get away from things he has done that I have generally liked (Gorsuch, tax cuts) and into areas where I do not agree with him.

Just to be clear, Trump started on immigration. He's not moving from one area to another there.
That was the deal -- after seeing the popularity of his anti-immigrant rhetoric, conservatives such as yourself lined up with the anti-immigrant folks in order to get those tax cuts and Supreme Court pick.
---
edit: By "such as yourself", I mean conservatives who share your preference set with regard to fiscal issues, etc. If I remember correctly, you personally were voting for Johnson.

Conservatives such as I did not line up with Trump. I voted for Hillary more times (once, in the primary, as an anti-Bernie vote) than I did for Trump. You recognized that in your edit, so don't smear me with that brush.

That being said, I can still appreciate the things he did that I like, before he starts doing things that I won't like.

The media has done a great job of removing the word "illegal" from the discussion. It's as if there is no difference between the Ph. D. from Pakistan who comes in legally and lives here legally, and the grade school dropout who wades across the river.

Apparently, it is now the new normal that anybody who believes in controlling illegal immigration hates all immigrants, usually on racist grounds. Thus the continual language about appealing to the base. The narrative goes, they are all racist, so when Trump said racist things, they rallied to him. Weren't racism and xenophobia part of being in the basket of deplorables?

why, yes they were.

"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it."

Laughter and applause?

Since I didn't vote for him, I guess I am not part of his base. Some of the things he said appalled me. But nothing he said changed my feeling that we need to control our borders and the people coming into this country. I didn't use to feel that way. I do now.

(03-03-2018 11:28 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I have a strong presence for good beer over white wine. Please refer to me as a craft-beer swilling progressive, henceforth.

The 1/4 Native American part of me laughs at the idea that any white man (including the other 3/4 of myself) complains of “illegal” immigration.

I take it you do not believe that one of the fundamental aspects, rights, and duties of any sovereign is the control and determination of issues relating to its own borders and passage thereof?

And, sorry that your 1/4 is mad about the issue of 'illegal' immigration. Do you share the same sympathy for Scots, or Northern Irish? Sorry but I do not. Using your logic one should be pissed off that modern Scotland engages in the practices of the United Kingdom in immigration policy, especially when Britain engaged in that union through force of arms.

Nor am I pissed that modern Nicaragua has their own inedependt immigration policy aside from the deposed Sandinistas, or the preceding Somoza regime that was toppled by the Sandinistas.

Tanqtonic - I was joking with my personal immigration anecdote.

“Illegal” immigration - the current administration has specifically said they want to drastically reduce legal immigration as well as the number of refugees. Plus Trump expressed a clear preference for immigrants from white-majority countries over immigrants from black/Hispanic countries. Plus ending DACA and deporting DACA recipients. I think that is enough to say he is pretty anti-immigrant, though I do not paint conservatives generally with such a broad brush.

(03-03-2018 03:16 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Tanqtonic - I was joking with my personal immigration anecdote.

“Illegal” immigration - the current administration has specifically said they want to drastically reduce legal immigration as well as the number of refugees. Plus Trump expressed a clear preference for immigrants from white-majority countries over immigrants from black/Hispanic countries. Plus ending DACA and deporting DACA recipients. I think that is enough to say he is pretty anti-immigrant, though I do not paint conservatives generally with such a broad brush.

Of course, he has also proposed amnesty with a path to citizenship for more Dreamers that DACA would cover. How to you reconcile that with your prejudged conclusions?

For the record, I don’t agree with anybody else on this. I would propose increasing the number of legal immigrants while cutting the number of illegals. I think a full physical wall is a waste of money, but I favor selective tailored improvements to border security. I would make it a merit based system without regard for country of origin, except nobody from countries where it is impossible to vet their history. I would allow legitimate refugees. No lottery, and severely restrict family chain immigration. With respect to those already here, deportation is not really a realistic option. Make them guest workers with no path to citizenship (what has been proposed as a “red card” system). That way we at least get a handle on how many and where they are, and they have access to courts to address frauds and other mistreatment.

(03-03-2018 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  For the record, I don’t agree with anybody else on this. I would propose increasing the number of legal immigrants while cutting the number of illegals. I think a full physical wall is a waste of money, but I favor selective tailored improvements to border security. I would make it a merit based system without regard for country of origin, except nobody from countries where it is impossible to vet their history. I would allow legitimate refugees. No lottery, and severely restrict family chain immigration. With respect to those already here, deportation is not really a realistic option. Make them guest workers with no path to citizenship (what has been proposed as a “red card” system). That way we at least get a handle on how many and where they are, and they have access to courts to address frauds and other mistreatment.

Agree 100%.

Plus, we can start getting taxes from the "guest workers".

But there has to be a cut off on the amnesty for the ones already here, else, we just have a bunch of future guest workers wading the rio.

I would give the illegals currently here who can prove they have been here for at least a year 3 months to register as guest workers, then start the zero tolerance.