FSTDT Forums

Rubbish => Preaching and Worship => Topic started by: Jacob Harrison on October 29, 2018, 08:40:40 am

Title: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 29, 2018, 08:40:40 am
In the state of Massachusetts this year, there are the elections for governor, US senator, and 3 ballot questions on issues.

For Governor, I am relunctantly voting for Charlie Baker even though he is a RINO(Republican in Name Only) cuckservative who didn’t endorse Trump, because he is better than Jay Gonzalez, a Democrat becoming Governor.

For Senator I am voting for Geoff Diehl. Hopefully he will win against Senator Warren.

Now here are my positions on the ballot questions.

Question 1:This proposed law would limit how many patients could be assigned to each registered nurse in Massachusetts hospitals and certain other health care facilities.

I am voting no, because it would be a disaster. Most hospitals in Massachusetts are against it, many nurses are against it, and even the liberal Boston Globe is against it.  In emergencies where many patients need medical care, nurses would need to take care of more patients than they normally would, so the law would be bad for the patients.

This proposed law would create a citizens commission to consider and recommend potential amendments to the United States Constitution to establish that corporations do not have the same Constitutional rights as human beings and that campaign contributions and expenditures may be regulated.

I am voting yes, because in order to drain the swamp, we need to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures.

This law prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in a person’s admission to or treatment in any place of public accommodation. The law requires any such place that has separate areas for males and females (such as restrooms) to allow access to and full use of those areas consistent with a person’s gender identity. The law also prohibits the owner or manager of a place of public accommodation from using advertising or signage that discriminates on the basis of gender identity.

A YES VOTE would keep in place the current law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity in places of public accommodation.

A NO VOTE would repeal this provision of the public accommodation law.


I am definetely voting no, because it is creepy for males and females who identify with the opposite gender to be using the restrooms of the opposite gender. I would be creeped out having females using male restrooms and if males could use female restrooms if they identify as female, then there could be perverts who could sexually harass or assault females in those restrooms.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: dpareja on October 29, 2018, 01:03:10 pm
You do realise that Sen. Warren does in fact have Native American ancestry, right?
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 29, 2018, 01:50:38 pm
You do realise that Sen. Warren does in fact have Native American ancestry, right?

Oh. I didn't know about the recent DNA test. I will now edit the post.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 29, 2018, 03:15:35 pm
...cuckservative...
Always fascinated by your lots obsession with cuckoldery, particularly when, in cases like yours they have no experience with relationships or fidelity in relationships.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: ironbite on October 29, 2018, 03:19:37 pm
Hey I be thinking that Jacob is using Preaching and Worshipping as his own personal blog.

Ironbite-might be time to flush.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 29, 2018, 03:24:16 pm
...cuckservative...
Always fascinated by your lots obsession with cuckoldery, particularly when, in cases like yours they have no experience with relationships or fidelity in relationships.

This is the urban dictionary definition of cuckservative.

A cuckservative is a self-styled "conservative" who will cravenly sell out and undermine his home country's people, culture, and national interest in order to win approval with parties hostile or indifferent to them.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 29, 2018, 03:43:46 pm
...cuckservative...
Always fascinated by your lots obsession with cuckoldery, particularly when, in cases like yours they have no experience with relationships or fidelity in relationships.

This is the urban dictionary definition of cuckservative.

A cuckservative is a self-styled "conservative" who will cravenly sell out and undermine his home country's people, culture, and national interest in order to win approval with parties hostile or indifferent to them.

As opposed to a normal conservative, who will cravenly sell out and undermine his home country's people, culture and national interest in order to win approval with corporations and rich people hostile or indifferent to them.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 29, 2018, 05:13:54 pm
...cuckservative...
Always fascinated by your lots obsession with cuckoldery, particularly when, in cases like yours they have no experience with relationships or fidelity in relationships.

This is the urban dictionary definition of cuckservative.

A cuckservative is a self-styled "conservative" who will cravenly sell out and undermine his home country's people, culture, and national interest in order to win approval with parties hostile or indifferent to them.

As opposed to a normal conservative, who will cravenly sell out and undermine his home country's people, culture and national interest in order to win approval with corporations and rich people hostile or indifferent to them.

That is what cuckservatives did. The term cuckservative refers to the normal mainstream establishment conservatives that the right wing populist conservatives are fighting against.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 29, 2018, 05:27:08 pm
That is what cuckservatives did. The term cuckservative refers to the normal mainstream establishment conservatives that the right wing populist conservatives are fighting against.
That is partially correct in only the most technical sense. Trump isn't selling out to the elites because he is one of them in the first place. Still, the end result is exactly the same, so it's not exactly an important difference.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 29, 2018, 05:36:38 pm
That is what cuckservatives did. The term cuckservative refers to the normal mainstream establishment conservatives that the right wing populist conservatives are fighting against.
That is partially correct in only the most technical sense. Trump isn't selling out to the elites because he is one of them in the first place. Still, the end result is exactly the same, so it's not exactly an important difference.

The end result is different. The cuckservatives got the US into the stupid Iraq War that caused mass US casualties and burdened the economy, shipped jobs oversees, and gave amnesty to illegal aliens. Trump has not started a stupid military intervention that is not in US interests, imposed tariffs to punish countries and companies that ship jobs oversees, and deports illegal aliens.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Eiki-mun on October 29, 2018, 05:37:39 pm
Because Obama never deported an illegal alien, right?
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 29, 2018, 05:38:54 pm
Because Obama never deported an illegal alien, right?

He only deported some and gave amnesty to many others.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 29, 2018, 05:50:44 pm
That is what cuckservatives did. The term cuckservative refers to the normal mainstream establishment conservatives that the right wing populist conservatives are fighting against.
That is partially correct in only the most technical sense. Trump isn't selling out to the elites because he is one of them in the first place. Still, the end result is exactly the same, so it's not exactly an important difference.

The end result is different. The cuckservatives got the US into the stupid Iraq War that caused mass US casualties and burdened the economy, shipped jobs oversees, and gave amnesty to illegal aliens. Trump has not started a stupid military intervention that is not in US interests, imposed tariffs to punish countries and companies that ship jobs oversees, and deports illegal aliens.
Yeah, and Trump is not only expanding the military even further, he's also building a drone base in Chad (what's that about stupid military interventions that are not in US interests), increasing arms sales to Saudi Arabia (so they can bomb even more school buses in Yemen, no doubt) and is even in talks with Blackwater (or whatever it's called nowadays) to further privatise the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention, he put a climate change denier in charge of the EPA, outsourcing has if anything sped up under his watch and he's deregulated the financial sector to the point where the economy's on track to crash even harder than it did in 2008.

In any case, I'm rather curious about something. What exactly does regular conservatism look like to you? Furthermore, how is "right wing populism" not an oxymoron when right wing politics is all about putting the interests of the elites first and populism means the exact opposite?
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 29, 2018, 06:11:52 pm
That is what cuckservatives did. The term cuckservative refers to the normal mainstream establishment conservatives that the right wing populist conservatives are fighting against.
That is partially correct in only the most technical sense. Trump isn't selling out to the elites because he is one of them in the first place. Still, the end result is exactly the same, so it's not exactly an important difference.

The end result is different. The cuckservatives got the US into the stupid Iraq War that caused mass US casualties and burdened the economy, shipped jobs oversees, and gave amnesty to illegal aliens. Trump has not started a stupid military intervention that is not in US interests, imposed tariffs to punish countries and companies that ship jobs oversees, and deports illegal aliens.
Yeah, and Trump is not only expanding the military even further, he's also building a drone base in Chad (what's that about stupid military interventions that are not in US interests), increasing arms sales to Saudi Arabia (so they can bomb even more school buses in Yemen, no doubt) and is even in talks with Blackwater (or whatever it's called nowadays) to further privatise the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention, he put a climate change denier in charge of the EPA, outsourcing has if anything sped up under his watch and he's deregulated the financial sector to the point where the economy's on track to crash even harder than it did in 2008.

In any case, I'm rather curious about something. What exactly does regular conservatism look like to you? Furthermore, how is "right wing populism" not an oxymoron when right wing politics is all about putting the interests of the elites first and populism means the exact opposite?

Expanding the military is different from military interventions. We need to have a strong military to keep our enemies at bay. His military interventions are to stop terrorists that our threats to us. Arms sales to Saudi Arabia is not a military invervention since the US is not fighting in the Yemen war, and in fact is a mutually beneficial deal since the US gets money off of the arms sales. Privatizing Wars means that private mercenaries will do the fighting for us.

The tarrifs did lead to a renegotiated trade agreement. http://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/09/24/trump-renegotiated-trade-agreement-south-korea/amp/

A crashing economy is only Bill Maher’s sick fantasy. The fact that he is wishing for it, shows that it is not likely to happen.

This is what right wing populism is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: dpareja on October 29, 2018, 06:12:40 pm
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/21/donald-trump/trump-right-deportation-numbers-wrong-talks-about-/

Just going to remind you, Obama deported a lot of people (something even Donald Trump acknowledges).
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 29, 2018, 06:18:24 pm
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/21/donald-trump/trump-right-deportation-numbers-wrong-talks-about-/

Just going to remind you, Obama deported a lot of people (something even Donald Trump acknowledges).

But he also gave amnesty to many others.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 29, 2018, 06:37:52 pm
Expanding the military is different from military interventions. We need to have a strong military to keep our enemies at bay.
Not in terms of your original complaint. It wastes lives and money. Of course, it does greatly enrich hardware manufacturers, though I'm sure the likes of Raytheon and Lockheed and their lobbyists are totally not the real reason for the state of your massively bloated military or anything.
His military interventions are to stop terrorists that our threats to us.
Hold that thought.
Arms sales to Saudi Arabia is not a military invervention since the US is not fighting in the Yemen war, and in fact is a mutually beneficial deal since the US gets money off of the arms sales.
You know where the vast majority of Islamic terrorists get their funding from? Here's a hint, it starts with an S and ends in audi Arabia. Not just by funding the groups themselves directly. They also establish and fund Wahabi Mosques and private schools all over the world, including the west. Of course, the US runs on Saudi oil, so naturally the best you guys and your "tough on terrorism" president can do is pretend it doesn't exist.
Privatizing Wars means that private mercenaries will do the fighting for us.
Once again, still just as costly in terms of lives and thousands of times more costly in terms of taxpayer funds. It's an excellent money spinner for the mercenary companies and their shareholders, though. Though, again, I'm sure they and their lobbyists are totally not the real reason for this or anything.
The tarrifs did lead to a renegotiated trade agreement. http://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/09/24/trump-renegotiated-trade-agreement-south-korea/amp/
Meanwhile, outsourcing to places like China and India continues unabated.
A crashing economy is only Bill Maher’s sick fantasy. The fact that he is wishing for it, shows that it is not likely to happen.
No, it's basic economics and backed up by history. A deregulation induced boom is followed by a crash. It happened in the 30's, it happened in the oughts and it's all set to happen again in the very near future thanks to Trump. This is why there is (was) regulation in the first place. To keep economic growth steady rather than a sine wave of booms and busts.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Eiki-mun on October 29, 2018, 07:14:35 pm
Funny how conservatives say that the government should only be responsible for war and immigration, and then want to outsource war to private armies that do whatever the fuck they please.

It's almost like they don't have any guiding principles at all except whatever the man with the green tells them to do.

And for the record, show me proof of Obama giving amnesty to immigrants. It shouldn't be hard to provide.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 29, 2018, 08:35:16 pm
Expanding the military is different from military interventions. We need to have a strong military to keep our enemies at bay.
Not in terms of your original complaint. It wastes lives and money. Of course, it does greatly enrich hardware manufacturers, though I'm sure the likes of Raytheon and Lockheed and their lobbyists are totally not the real reason for the state of your massively bloated military or anything.
It does not waste lives if there is not a war. Building a strong military is not a waste of money because it is for the important goal protecting the nation.
Quote
His military interventions are to stop terrorists that our threats to us.
Hold that thought.
Arms sales to Saudi Arabia is not a military invervention since the US is not fighting in the Yemen war, and in fact is a mutually beneficial deal since the US gets money off of the arms sales.
You know where the vast majority of Islamic terrorists get their funding from? Here's a hint, it starts with an S and ends in audi Arabia. Not just by funding the groups themselves directly. They also establish and fund Wahabi Mosques and private schools all over the world, including the west. Of course, the US runs on Saudi oil, so naturally the best you guys and your "tough on terrorism" president can do is pretend it doesn't exist.

True, Saudi Arabia does fund terrorism and mosques and they are also responsible for Khashogi’s death. However the arms deal does not directly contribute to their funding of terrorism and mosques because it is giving arms, not money. The arms deal was to get money and also to counter the threat of Iran, another country that funds terrorism and is a bigger threat to the US.
Quote
Privatizing Wars means that private mercenaries will do the fighting for us.
Once again, still just as costly in terms of lives and thousands of times more costly in terms of taxpayer funds. It's an excellent money spinner for the mercenary companies and their shareholders, though. Though, again, I'm sure they and their lobbyists are totally not the real reason for this or anything.
But it is lives of private mercenaries not American troops. In the long run, it will cause there to be less taxes for wars if private companies are fighting the wars for us.
Quote
The tarrifs did lead to a renegotiated trade agreement. http://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/09/24/trump-renegotiated-trade-agreement-south-korea/amp/
Meanwhile, outsourcing to places like China and India continues unabated.
Well if South Korea renegotiated a trade agreement, China and India will eventually follow.
Quote
A crashing economy is only Bill Maher’s sick fantasy. The fact that he is wishing for it, shows that it is not likely to happen.
No, it's basic economics and backed up by history. A deregulation induced boom is followed by a crash. It happened in the 30's, it happened in the oughts and it's all set to happen again in the very near future thanks to Trump. This is why there is (was) regulation in the first place. To keep economic growth steady rather than a sine wave of booms and busts.
It was the Big Banks that were responsible for the Great Depression and the 2008 recession. The 2018 Bank Deregulation Bill deregulated the small banks. The regulations of the Dodd-Frank Act is still in place for the largest banks.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 29, 2018, 08:37:32 pm
Funny how conservatives say that the government should only be responsible for war and immigration, and then want to outsource war to private armies that do whatever the fuck they please.

It's almost like they don't have any guiding principles at all except whatever the man with the green tells them to do.

And for the record, show me proof of Obama giving amnesty to immigrants. It shouldn't be hard to provide.

Obama is responsible for the DACA policy.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 29, 2018, 09:21:57 pm
It does not waste lives if there is not a war. Building a strong military is not a waste of money because it is for the important goal protecting the nation.
But there are wars. Two of them, in fact, plus you're bombing several more countries on top of that. Not to mention, the straight up bloat that is very clearly not serving any purpose whatsoever other than to waste money. Foreign bases, for example. There are zero threats to the US that are countered by US soldiers sitting around and doing nothing in places like Germany and Japan. The only people who actually benefit from such an arrangement are the private hardware suppliers. The good old military-industrial complex, in other words. Though again, I'm sure they and their lobbyists totally aren't the real reason the US government approves hundreds of billions of dollars expanding the military, all while crying "we can't afford it" whenever the issue of universal heathcare comes up.
True, Saudi Arabia does fund terrorism and mosques and they are also responsible for Khashogi’s death. However the arms deal does not directly contribute to their funding of terrorism and mosques because it is giving arms, not money. And the death of Khashogi has hurt America’s relations with Saudi Arabia.
Are you fucking stupid? Of course selling weapons to the guys who supply terrorists contributes to terrorism. No to mention, you know pretty much all of the Saudi's wealth comes from selling oil to the US, right? Guess where the money they're giving to terrorists ultimately comes from. That's right, America.
But it is lives of private mercenaries not American troops. In the long run, it will cause there to be less taxes for wars if private companies are fighting the wars for us.
It's still Americans dying in a war. I'd love to know how you think mercs will somehow be cheaper. You know the US government is paying them for their services, right? That's how mercs make money. Surely you don't think paying and outfitting soldiers is somehow a profitable activity in and of itself, right?
Well if South Korea renegotiated a trade agreement, China and India will eventually follow.
Yeah, right. I don't know if you realise this, but South Korea is a fellow first world country. South Korean sweatshops aren't really a thing nowadays in the first place.
It was the Big Banks that were responsible for the Great Depression and the 2008 recession. The 2018 Bank Deregulation Bill deregulated the small banks. The regulations of the Dodd-Frank Act is still in place for the largest banks.
Assuming you're not wrong or outright lying, you're still not paying attention. Financial deregulation is bad. Deregulating just small banks is less bad than deregulating all banks, but that doesn't mean it's not bad.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: dpareja on October 29, 2018, 10:05:52 pm
DACA wasn't actual amnesty.

But you know who did give amnesty to undocumented immigrants?

(https://i0.wp.com/www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ronald-reagan-example-2.jpg?fit=788%2C460&ssl=1)
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 29, 2018, 10:19:10 pm
Of course arms sales are military interventions, why do you think the good stuff is restricted to allies?
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 29, 2018, 10:26:09 pm
It does not waste lives if there is not a war. Building a strong military is not a waste of money because it is for the important goal protecting the nation.
But there are wars. Two of them, in fact, plus you're bombing several more countries on top of that. Not to mention, the straight up bloat that is very clearly not serving any purpose whatsoever other than to waste money. Foreign bases, for example. There are zero threats to the US that are countered by US soldiers sitting around and doing nothing in places like Germany and Japan. The only people who actually benefit from such an arrangement are the private hardware suppliers. The good old military-industrial complex, in other words. Though again, I'm sure they and their lobbyists totally aren't the real reason the US government approves hundreds of billions of dollars expanding the military, all while crying "we can't afford it" whenever the issue of universal heathcare comes up.
True, Saudi Arabia does fund terrorism and mosques and they are also responsible for Khashogi’s death. However the arms deal does not directly contribute to their funding of terrorism and mosques because it is giving arms, not money. And the death of Khashogi has hurt America’s relations with Saudi Arabia.
Are you fucking stupid? Of course selling weapons to the guys who supply terrorists contributes to terrorism. No to mention, you know pretty much all of the Saudi's wealth comes from selling oil to the US, right? Guess where the money they're giving to terrorists ultimately comes from. That's right, America.
But it is lives of private mercenaries not American troops. In the long run, it will cause there to be less taxes for wars if private companies are fighting the wars for us.
It's still Americans dying in a war. I'd love to know how you think mercs will somehow be cheaper. You know the US government is paying them for their services, right? That's how mercs make money. Surely you don't think paying and outfitting soldiers is somehow a profitable activity in and of itself, right?
Well if South Korea renegotiated a trade agreement, China and India will eventually follow.
Yeah, right. I don't know if you realise this, but South Korea is a fellow first world country. South Korean sweatshops aren't really a thing nowadays in the first place.
It was the Big Banks that were responsible for the Great Depression and the 2008 recession. The 2018 Bank Deregulation Bill deregulated the small banks. The regulations of the Dodd-Frank Act is still in place for the largest banks.
Assuming you're not wrong or outright lying, you're still not paying attention. Financial deregulation is bad. Deregulating just small banks is less bad than deregulating all banks, but that doesn't mean it's not bad.

It does not waste lives if there is not a war. Building a strong military is not a waste of money because it is for the important goal protecting the nation.
But there are wars. Two of them, in fact, plus you're bombing several more countries on top of that. Not to mention, the straight up bloat that is very clearly not serving any purpose whatsoever other than to waste money. Foreign bases, for example. There are zero threats to the US that are countered by US soldiers sitting around and doing nothing in places like Germany and Japan. The only people who actually benefit from such an arrangement are the private hardware suppliers. The good old military-industrial complex, in other words. Though again, I'm sure they and their lobbyists totally aren't the real reason the US government approves hundreds of billions of dollars expanding the military, all while crying "we can't afford it" whenever the issue of universal heathcare comes up.
True, Saudi Arabia does fund terrorism and mosques and they are also responsible for Khashogi’s death. However the arms deal does not directly contribute to their funding of terrorism and mosques because it is giving arms, not money. And the death of Khashogi has hurt America’s relations with Saudi Arabia.
Are you fucking stupid? Of course selling weapons to the guys who supply terrorists contributes to terrorism. No to mention, you know pretty much all of the Saudi's wealth comes from selling oil to the US, right? Guess where the money they're giving to terrorists ultimately comes from. That's right, America.
But it is lives of private mercenaries not American troops. In the long run, it will cause there to be less taxes for wars if private companies are fighting the wars for us.
It's still Americans dying in a war. I'd love to know how you think mercs will somehow be cheaper. You know the US government is paying them for their services, right? That's how mercs make money. Surely you don't think paying and outfitting soldiers is somehow a profitable activity in and of itself, right?
Well if South Korea renegotiated a trade agreement, China and India will eventually follow.
Yeah, right. I don't know if you realise this, but South Korea is a fellow first world country. South Korean sweatshops aren't really a thing nowadays in the first place.
It was the Big Banks that were responsible for the Great Depression and the 2008 recession. The 2018 Bank Deregulation Bill deregulated the small banks. The regulations of the Dodd-Frank Act is still in place for the largest banks.
Assuming you're not wrong or outright lying, you're still not paying attention. Financial deregulation is bad. Deregulating just small banks is less bad than deregulating all banks, but that doesn't mean it's not bad.

1. The wars the US is currently involved in are to defeat terrorists who are threats to the US. And having foreign bases shows our enemies that we are everywhere and can defeat them anywhere.

2. Well the arms deal was to counter the threat of Iran, another country that finances terrorism, and is a greater threat to the US. And we unfortunetely have to buy oil from Saudi Arabia because when they did an oil embargo on the US in the 1970s over the Arab-Israel conflict, it caused an energy crisis.

3. But it will be the private companies that will be paying the mercenaries, and there will also be non American mercenaries in the private armies as well so it will decrease the number of American deaths.

4. China and India are still major world trading players, so they will also eventually negotiate a better trade deal because they will be tired of being hurt by the trade war.

5. But too much regulation is also bad. The regulations were burdens on the small banks and prevented them from unleashing their full economic potential. Why should small banks be regulated the same way as complex financial institutions? They have far less money that they are managing.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 29, 2018, 10:30:01 pm
DACA wasn't actual amnesty.

But you know who did give amnesty to undocumented immigrants?

(https://i0.wp.com/www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ronald-reagan-example-2.jpg?fit=788%2C460&ssl=1)

DACA was de facto amnesty. And Reagan’s amnesty was meant to be a one time only amnesty to illegals from before 1982, and that same act he signed made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 29, 2018, 10:30:58 pm
Of course arms sales are military interventions, why do you think the good stuff is restricted to allies?

But arms sales do not cause the deaths of US soldiers.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: dpareja on October 29, 2018, 10:35:44 pm
Of course arms sales are military interventions, why do you think the good stuff is restricted to allies?

But arms sales do not cause the deaths of US soldiers.

They do when the customer then turns around and gives the weapons to ISIS (remember, Saudi Arabia and ISIS subscribe to the same form of fundamentalist Sunni Islam), which then uses said weapons to shoot at US soldiers.

https://www.wired.com/story/terror-industrial-complex-isis-munitions-supply-chain/
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 29, 2018, 10:48:05 pm
Of course arms sales are military interventions, why do you think the good stuff is restricted to allies?

But arms sales do not cause the deaths of US soldiers.

They do when the customer then turns around and gives the weapons to ISIS (remember, Saudi Arabia and ISIS subscribe to the same form of fundamentalist Sunni Islam), which then uses said weapons to shoot at US soldiers.

https://www.wired.com/story/terror-industrial-complex-isis-munitions-supply-chain/

After discovering similar weapons over the past six months, he has grown to believe that ISIS may have captured the warheads from anti­government militias in the Syrian civil war that had been secretly armed by Saudi Arabia and the United States.

It was Obama who stupidly funded untrustworthy Syrian militias in that civil war, so it is his fault that ISIS got those weapons. The weapons the US recently told to Saudi Arabia are being used in the Yemen Civil War, not in Syria where ISIS is, so ISIS likely won’t get their hands on them.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 29, 2018, 11:01:03 pm
1. The wars the US is currently involved in are to defeat terrorists who are threats to the US. And having foreign bases shows our enemies that we are everywhere and can defeat them anywhere.
Weren't you against the wars earlier on? in fact, I believe your exact words were "the cuckservatives got the US into the stupid Iraq War that caused mass US casualties and burdened the economy". Funny how you do a complete 180 just so you don't have to admit the entire US military and everything it does is little more than a cash cow for hardware manufacturers.
2. Well the arms deal was to counter the threat of Iran, another country that finances terrorism, and is a greater threat to the US. And we unfortunetely have to buy oil from Saudi Arabia because when they did an oil embargo on the US in the 1970s over the Arab-Israel conflict, it caused an energy crisis.
It's an objective fact that money and weapons given to the Saudis find their way to Sunni terrorists. That's not up for debate. At best, your government is fucking braindead and at worst, knowingly assisting ISIS's sugardaddy.
3. But it will be the private companies that will be paying the mercenaries, and there will also be non American mercenaries in the private armies as well so it will decrease the number of American deaths.
What private companies? In fact, assuming such private companies exist in the first place, why the fuck would they do that? They can either spend hundreds of billions funding mercs directly or hundreds of millions lobbying the US government to pick up the tab. Which do you think they're going to do?
4. China and India are still major world trading players, so they will also eventually negotiate a better trade deal because they will be tired of being hurt by the trade war.
They've got other trade partners and at worst, they only have to wait a few years for the current dumpster fire of a government to be replaced. Shit's not about to change anytime soon.
5. But too much regulation is also bad. The regulations were burdens on the small banks and prevented them from unleashing their full economic potential. Why should small banks be regulated the same way as complex financial institutions? They have far less money that they are managing.
Ah yes, that's always the story, isn't it? "Regulation is bad! Without it, we could totally siphon off all the money unleash our full economic potential!" Once again, how does that usually end?
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 30, 2018, 12:11:55 am
Of course arms sales are military interventions, why do you think the good stuff is restricted to allies?

But arms sales do not cause the deaths of US soldiers.
No dead GI's=/=no military intervention.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 30, 2018, 08:21:23 am
1. The wars the US is currently involved in are to defeat terrorists who are threats to the US. And having foreign bases shows our enemies that we are everywhere and can defeat them anywhere.
Weren't you against the wars earlier on? in fact, I believe your exact words were "the cuckservatives got the US into the stupid Iraq War that caused mass US casualties and burdened the economy". Funny how you do a complete 180 just so you don't have to admit the entire US military and everything it does is little more than a cash cow for hardware manufacturers.
2. Well the arms deal was to counter the threat of Iran, another country that finances terrorism, and is a greater threat to the US. And we unfortunetely have to buy oil from Saudi Arabia because when they did an oil embargo on the US in the 1970s over the Arab-Israel conflict, it caused an energy crisis.
It's an objective fact that money and weapons given to the Saudis find their way to Sunni terrorists. That's not up for debate. At best, your government is fucking braindead and at worst, knowingly assisting ISIS's sugardaddy.
3. But it will be the private companies that will be paying the mercenaries, and there will also be non American mercenaries in the private armies as well so it will decrease the number of American deaths.
What private companies? In fact, assuming such private companies exist in the first place, why the fuck would they do that? They can either spend hundreds of billions funding mercs directly or hundreds of millions lobbying the US government to pick up the tab. Which do you think they're going to do?
4. China and India are still major world trading players, so they will also eventually negotiate a better trade deal because they will be tired of being hurt by the trade war.
They've got other trade partners and at worst, they only have to wait a few years for the current dumpster fire of a government to be replaced. Shit's not about to change anytime soon.
5. But too much regulation is also bad. The regulations were burdens on the small banks and prevented them from unleashing their full economic potential. Why should small banks be regulated the same way as complex financial institutions? They have far less money that they are managing.
Ah yes, that's always the story, isn't it? "Regulation is bad! Without it, we could totally siphon off all the money unleash our full economic potential!" Once again, how does that usually end?

1. The Iraq war was stupid because there were no weapons of mass destruction and Iraq was not a threat to the US. Terrorists are a threat to the US.

2. In the Middle East, there are no good options. Both the Sunni terrorists and Iran and the Shia terrorists they fund are threats to the US, so sometimes you have to take advantage of the Sunni vs Shia conflict and use one to counter the threat of the other, which is what the arms deal was about.

3. Private armies are private companies.

4. They are still being hurt by the trade war because the Us is still a major trading partner they have. And the Republicans can dominate the government for a long time.

5. But it is the big banks that have a larger impact, so they are the ones who obviously need more regulation. The regulations of the big banks will be enough to prevent a crash.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 30, 2018, 03:24:30 pm
Sometimes, to my great disappointment, I forget that you're a troll. I get sucked into these political debates and takes me about a day or two to remember I'm arguing with shit stirrer.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 30, 2018, 03:33:30 pm
Sometimes, to my great disappointment, I forget that you're a troll. I get sucked into these political debates and takes me about a day or two to remember I'm arguing with shit stirrer.

I was actually debating you and was as sucked into the debate as much as you were. I felt it was very important to refute your points.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 30, 2018, 03:39:43 pm
Of course you were.
Title: Re: How I am voting in this year’s elections.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 30, 2018, 04:35:08 pm
Sometimes, to my great disappointment, I forget that you're a troll. I get sucked into these political debates and takes me about a day or two to remember I'm arguing with shit stirrer.

I was actually debating you and was as sucked into the debate as much as you were. I felt it was very important to refute your points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVRCyELQnSw
Very important, in Kazakhstan send only master debaters.