Comet Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 i'm sure mexico will appreciate the taxes. actually, why don't we just throw away this "foreign relations" thing altogether? that way, trump doesn't have to hide behind sweet nothings to be obnoxious to other countries that will eventually become relevant to the world market and what not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moblin Major General Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 i'm sure mexico will appreciate the taxes. actually, why don't we just throw away this "foreign relations" thing altogether? that way, trump doesn't have to hide behind sweet nothings to be obnoxious to other countries that will eventually become relevant to the world market and what not. Don't be an ass. Unless you literally mean this. Otherwise... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 i'm sure mexico will appreciate the taxes. actually, why don't we just throw away this "foreign relations" thing altogether? that way, trump doesn't have to hide behind sweet nothings to be obnoxious to other countries that will eventually become relevant to the world market and what not.I'm going to field this one seriously.Mexico doesn't just rely on the USA for trade. The USA keeps it afloat. 80% of Mexico's exports go to the USA with Canada next on the list at under 3%. Imports? 48% from the USA with China next at 16.5%. Conversely, the USA imports and exports less than 20% of their goods from Mexico. Mexico has no choice but to accept tarriffs because the result will sink their economy to a point that may be beyond salvage. The USA holds all the power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuvarkz Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/1/clinton-us-will-treat-cyberattacks-just-any-other-/ Oh, boy, this could get crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yojinbo Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 NAFTA is actually ruining big parts of Mexico's economy. As usual with these so-called free trade associations it's only the upper one percent that reaps any benefits from it. Meanwhile there's been thousands of mexican farmers facing bankrupcy over the last years because of it ... with Mexico not being able to offer them a future, where do you think they are headed next? China? Free trade looks nice on paper, in practice it only works out between countries that are on the same level economically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/1/clinton-us-will-treat-cyberattacks-just-any-other-/ Oh, boy, this could get crazy. Am I the only one who finds that ironic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HF Makalov Fanboy Kai Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 (edited) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/1/clinton-us-will-treat-cyberattacks-just-any-other-/ Oh, boy, this could get crazy. http://redpanels.com/210/ so that means that the internet will become even bigger and stronger? (idk what this war on women is in the comic tho) but yeah this can only be a train wreck waiting to happen Edited September 2, 2016 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Am I the only one who finds that ironic? I find it terrifying, partially because people on the Internet may not being doing it in the name of their government, and partially because the vectors of attack rely on people being sloppy (phishing, not securing things LIKE AN E-MAIL SERVER properly, etc.). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alertcircuit Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Yeah, there better be a shit-ton of discretion with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Cynthia- Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Cybersecurity is becoming a major issue for the U.S. recently- and no it's not just the private email servers that are the issue. There have been attacks across multiple agencies http://blog.securityscorecard.com/2016/04/14/big-us-government-cybersecurity-problem/ I know that there are more attacks than even mentioned here, such as the customer information from the Postal Service. I'm glad the issue in general is finally being brought up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuvarkz Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Cybersecurity is becoming a major issue for the U.S. recently- and no it's not just the private email servers that are the issue. There have been attacks across multiple agencies http://blog.securityscorecard.com/2016/04/14/big-us-government-cybersecurity-problem/ I know that there are more attacks than even mentioned here, such as the customer information from the Postal Service. I'm glad the issue in general is finally being brought up. The issue isn't answering against cyber attacks, the issue is responding with military threats against attacks that may or may not be confirmedly caused by Russia or another country, particularly regarding those with a significant nuclear stockpile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 The issue isn't answering against cyber attacks, the issue is responding with military threats against attacks that may or may not be confirmedly caused by Russia or another country, particularly regarding those with a significant nuclear stockpile. What's to stop Ivan Ne'er-Do-Well in Russia from carrying out these attacks WITHOUT his government approval? Not every bump in the US government's systems has to be caused by a state actor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HF Makalov Fanboy Kai Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 What's to stop Ivan Ne'er-Do-Well in Russia from carrying out these attacks WITHOUT his government approval? Not every bump in the US government's systems has to be caused by a state actor. Most likely a Trump presidency considering how he seems to be friends with Putin. not that that's an entirely bad thing mind you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 Gotta say, I kinda hope Dinesh D'Souza's movie gets around a lot before the election. Listening to him speak about the Democratic Party is fascinating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 I should actually watch it but out of interest I read up on it. Apparently he spends an hour saying that Jackson founded the Democratic Party and that the Democrats were highly in favor of slavery, ignoring the fact that in the 60s all of the pro-segregation people switched to the Republican Party and basically the alignments shifted. Effectively Jackson would be a Republican because of the alignment shift in 1964. I then heard he photoshopped one of Clinton's images to put a confederate flag behind her. And finally, he said that he spent 8 months in jail because of his movie that slandered Obama in 2012, which was demonstrably false because he spent 8 months in jail for illegal campaign finance in 2014. Basically, I've heard the movie that you're referring to is an absolute trainwreck and I highly advise you to fact-check and context-check literally everything in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alertcircuit Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 It's not that valid of an argument to bring up that the Democrats were for slavery like 200 years ago, when 50 years ago LBJ fought for civil rights, to "out-Lincoln Lincoln", and fractured/reformed the party in the process. I've been seeing this brought up on social media a lot recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 (edited) I should actually watch it but out of interest I read up on it. Apparently he spends an hour saying that Jackson founded the Democratic Party and that the Democrats were highly in favor of slavery, ignoring the fact that in the 60s all of the pro-segregation people switched to the Republican Party and basically the alignments shifted. Effectively Jackson would be a Republican because of the alignment shift in 1964. I then heard he photoshopped one of Clinton's images to put a confederate flag behind her. And finally, he said that he spent 8 months in jail because of his movie that slandered Obama in 2012, which was demonstrably false because he spent 8 months in jail for illegal campaign finance in 2014. Basically, I've heard the movie that you're referring to is an absolute trainwreck and I highly advise you to fact-check and context-check literally everything in it. Actually, Dinesh debunks "The Switch" rather effectively. I'll sum it up quickly.The Republican party never became the racist party at any point. Blacks started voting for the Democrats in the 1930's due to the New Deal, despite Democrats only allowing it to pass on two conditions: 1) That FDR block all anti-lynching bills that maade it through Congress. 2) That the New Deal exclude the two main workplaces that blacks worked in. I believe they were agriculture and domestic service but I could be wrong. As for white Southerners, they switched over in the 70's and 80's. As the country got less racist, more whites moved over to the Republican Party. The other "proof" is Strom Thurmond. Thurmond was a Dixicrat that moved to the Republican Party but he was the only one. Every other Dixicrat stayed Democrat including Robert Byrd who basically had KKK dental and a company car. I find it funny that the guy who made the 4th highest grossing political documentary in history apparently made a pile of crap this time. 4% rating on Rotten Tomatoes smells funny in my opinion but 2016: Obama's America is rated 25% on RT anyway. I've been fact checking stuff and I have my own questions (like how he accounts for Jimmy Carter) but I suggest you watch Dinesh's explaination for why he believes that the Democratic Party is still racist. It's pretty interesting and you can find it on YouTube. Edited September 4, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moblin Major General Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 Mother Teresa has just been canonized by Pope Francis. It was bound to happen at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyborgZeta Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 Say what you will about Trump, but if I'm supposed to believe Hillary represents working-class people, then I'm not seeing it. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraising.html? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 (edited) Actually, Dinesh debunks "The Switch" rather effectively. I'll sum it up quickly. The Republican party never became the racist party at any point. Blacks started voting for the Democrats in the 1930's due to the New Deal, despite Democrats only allowing it to pass on two conditions: 1) That FDR block all anti-lynching bills that maade it through Congress. 2) That the New Deal exclude the two main workplaces that blacks worked in. I believe they were agriculture and domestic service but I could be wrong. As for white Southerners, they switched over in the 70's and 80's. As the country got less racist, more whites moved over to the Republican Party. I don't see how that's debunking it; the switch didn't happen purely in the 60s, but it was basically finalized in the 60s. Andrew Jackson's democratic party is significantly different to Clinton, FDR, and Obama's Democratic Party. It was all about small government and social conservatism, whereas the latter two were the opposite. Lincoln's Republican Party was all about bigger government and social liberalism. This is completely different to the late 20th century democrats. Basically, all you said was The New Deal was actually relatively liberal, but because FDR was part of the conservative party who wanted to keep conservative values, they basically forced him to compromise by instituting some of the racist things. FDR himself said this: "I did not choose the tools with which I must work," FDR explained. "Had I been permitted to choose them, I would have selected quite different ones. But I've got to get legislation passed by Congress to save America. The Southerners [...] occupy strategic places on most of the Senate and House committees. If I come out for the anti-lynching bill now, they will block every bill I ask Congress to pass to keep America from collapsing. I just can't take that risk." Hence, singling out a party for its history as opposed to its viewpoint is fruitless, especially when said party has completely changed in the span of two centuries. From my understanding, this "documentary" was basically just a slander piece. Tying Jackson's Democratic Party to the modern democratic party is absolutely absurd and from my understanding the dude spends a whole hour on doing exactly that. Edited September 4, 2016 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 (edited) I don't see how that's debunking it; the switch didn't happen purely in the 60s, but it was basically finalized in the 60s. Andrew Jackson's democratic party is significantly different to Clinton, FDR, and Obama's Democratic Party. It was all about small government and social conservatism, whereas the latter two were the opposite. Lincoln's Republican Party was all about bigger government and social liberalism. This is completely different to the late 20th century democrats. Basically, all you said was The New Deal was actually relatively liberal, but because FDR was part of the conservative party who wanted to keep conservative values, they basically forced him to compromise by instituting some of the racist things. FDR himself said this: Hence, singling out a party for its history as opposed to its viewpoint is fruitless, especially when said party has completely changed in the span of two centuries. From my understanding, this was basically just a slander piece. Tying Jackson's Democratic Party to the modern democratic party is absolutely absurd and from my understanding the dude spends a whole hour on doing exactly that. I disagree solely on the fact that you're mistaken for thinking that Lincoln was for bigger government.http://dailysignal.com/2012/10/04/nice-try-but-lincoln-wasnt-the-father-of-big-government/ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/229486/father-big-government-allen-c-guelzo But here's another question. If there was a switch that was cemented in the 60's, why did Wallace win the Deep South rather than Nixon? Edited September 4, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 George Wallace wasn't a democrat in 1968, he was an independent, and he was pro-segregation. He lost to Johnson in 1964 in the Democratic primaries, but ran as independent in 1968. Lincoln utilized a larger government than Jackson for war funds. Also keep in mind that Roosevelt was in favor of bigger government and he was a Republican. This is again opposite to the modern state of the parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alertcircuit Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 The "switch" wasn't the Republicans becoming a racist party, it was the Democrats becoming a civil rights party. The racists then moved away from them and supported independents like Wallace or Republicans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HF Makalov Fanboy Kai Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 guess its a good thing that trump isn't a racist and goes to an all black church and behaves nothing but respectful http://archive.is/47G2s where's hillary with the lip service to the black community? i'm sure if the democrats aren't the evil racist party anymore then that should be no sweat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 racism isn't just against black people bro lip service to a church doesn't absolve anyone from racism anyway nothing on the campaign trail is really anything but lip service bro, but i think you're missing the point of the whole "racist party" thing. the point of the documentary is that the roots of the democratic party are in racism with Andrew Jackson, and somehow that made the party racist today - despite being the party in the forefront of the Civil Rights act. besides, hillary has definitely given speeches and visited black communities during her campaign, so i don't know what you're getting at Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.