That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
El Guapo wrote:That's why you have to shorten it - "Make Panem Great Again."Daveman wrote:"Make the hemisphere great again" just doesn't roll off the tongue as easily.
That's a lot better than what I came up with.New Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte campaigned hard on a no-nonsense approach to crime -- and now the full impact of what exactly this means for those on the streets is emerging.
Shocking photographs published in local and international media show suspected drug dealers -- the front line on his war against drugs -- often bound hand and foot, shirts soaked in blood, their faces sometimes covered in duct tape, wearing crude signs proclaiming their alleged crimes. Murdered in the streets or in ramshackle, crowded rooms.
And no one can say they weren't warned.
Part of Duterte's appeal to the electorate has always been his toughness, and willingness to tackle crime -- although this approach goes alongside what critics see as a complete disregard of due process.
He's repeatedly boasted that his presidency would see the end of crime, and on several occasions has hinted openly that he doesn't oppose his police force or even citizens taking the lives of suspected criminals.
In a nationally televised speech in June, Duterte told citizens, "If (a criminal) fights, and he fights to the death, you can kill him." He went on to say, "Please feel free to call us, the police, or do it yourself if you have the gun ... you have my support."
Several major Latino surrogates for Donald Trump are reconsidering their support for him following the Republican nominee’s hardline speech on immigration Wednesday night.
Jacob Monty, a member of Trump’s National Hispanic Advisory Council, quickly resigned after the speech. Another member, Ramiro Pena, a Texas pastor, said Trump's speech likely cost him the election and said he'd have to reconsider being part of a "scam." And Alfonso Aguilar, the president of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, said in an interview that he is “inclined” to pull his support.
Trump held a meeting with his "National Hispanic Advisory Council" about a week ago during the softening phase of his current flipflopalooza. No doubt he promised them what they hoped to hear, and they spread out into Spanish-language media to push a more reasonable-sounding line.GreenGoo wrote:Right, because Drumpf was completely reasonable on his immigration policy prior to *that* particular speech.
Wtf.
I guess they were in the "he doesn't really mean what he's saying" camp up until this speech because he has changed very little. I've heard this line from prominent local Republicans as their justification to vote for him and it makes me sick.Moliere wrote:Several Hispanic Drumpf surrogates reconsider support
Several major Latino surrogates for Donald Drumpf are reconsidering their support for him following the Republican nominee’s hardline speech on immigration Wednesday night.
Jacob Monty, a member of Drumpf’s National Hispanic Advisory Council, quickly resigned after the speech. Another member, Ramiro Pena, a Texas pastor, said Drumpf's speech likely cost him the election and said he'd have to reconsider being part of a "scam." And Alfonso Aguilar, the president of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, said in an interview that he is “inclined” to pull his support.
Because his "softening" lost him hard-liners like Coulter and her bunch, but he didn't pick up any mainstream support to replace themHolman wrote:
I wonder why he boomeranged back so hard last night--the shift was pretty dramatic between his posturing with Nieto and his hate-rally in Phoenix.
My wife is giddy over what he's been doing. However, it's much, much different there than here. It might be an amusing experiment in the shooty 'hoods of Chicago, where the police chief recently stated 85% of the shooters are repeat offenders who are livin' the gangster lifestyle. In the Philippines, corruption and oppression by politicians and organized crime is far more pervasive. Still, Duterte is inviting anarchy, and his "Wild West" approach has me wary of returning there.Ralph-Wiggum wrote:It more and more sounds like Trump is modeling his campaign after Philippine's president Rodrigo Duerte...
New Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte campaigned hard on a no-nonsense approach to crime -- and now the full impact of what exactly this means for those on the streets is emerging.
Shocking photographs published in local and international media show suspected drug dealers -- the front line on his war against drugs -- often bound hand and foot, shirts soaked in blood, their faces sometimes covered in duct tape, wearing crude signs proclaiming their alleged crimes. Murdered in the streets or in ramshackle, crowded rooms.
And no one can say they weren't warned.
Part of Duterte's appeal to the electorate has always been his toughness, and willingness to tackle crime -- although this approach goes alongside what critics see as a complete disregard of due process.
He's repeatedly boasted that his presidency would see the end of crime, and on several occasions has hinted openly that he doesn't oppose his police force or even citizens taking the lives of suspected criminals.
In a nationally televised speech in June, Duterte told citizens, "If (a criminal) fights, and he fights to the death, you can kill him." He went on to say, "Please feel free to call us, the police, or do it yourself if you have the gun ... you have my support."
My take-away is that Trump is set on outsourcing a $35B-plus project to a foreign country. He's all about exporting American jobs, as his own companies have done.tgb wrote:Because his "softening" lost him hard-liners like Coulter and her bunch, but he didn't pick up any mainstream support to replace themHolman wrote:
I wonder why he boomeranged back so hard last night--the shift was pretty dramatic between his posturing with Nieto and his hate-rally in Phoenix.
I'm just...speechless. How deafening must that echo chamber really be?Based on what happened Wednesday, when GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump traveled to Mexico and held a joint news briefing with the nation’s president, Enrique Peña Nieto, one could argue that the billionaire candidate has won.
So despite President Barack Obama, Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton and the liberal media claiming nonstop how Trump’s candid rhetoric about illegal immigration would irrevocably harm our relationship with Mexico, it appeared that the relationship was just fine and dandy.
Moreover, the fact that Nieto conceded nearly every one of Trump’s points demonstrated that his tough-talking method of international diplomacy possessed more merit and future potential than Obama’s deliriously pitiful “do with me as you like” strategy of appeasement.
The Mexican president also reportedly took direct shots at Obama by complaining about the guns that were smuggled into his country during Operation Fast and Furious — and also scolding him for having ostensibly erected a “welcome” sign over the border that, incidentally enough, has spurred problems in Mexico as well as the U.S.
Through completely inhumane and economy-wrecking means that won't achieve anything close to those ends?Rip wrote:So you don't think something that would drastically reduce the flow of drugs, guns, and the money from such things across the border would be a good thing? For both countries?
What ends? Reducing the flow of illegal stuff across the border? So you are saying it wouldn't reduce it at all? Not any? Really?Holman wrote:Through completely inhumane and economy-wrecking means that won't achieve anything close to those ends?Rip wrote:So you don't think something that would drastically reduce the flow of drugs, guns, and the money from such things across the border would be a good thing? For both countries?
Are you referring to The Wall? Have you seen the problems with building a complete wall across the entire border? It's not going to be built. It will cost too much, a shit load of land would need to be confiscated, er I mean eminent domained, and a lot of the border doesn't have the infrastructure to support that kind of construction project. This is a political gambit to win the election.Rip wrote:So you don't think something that would drastically reduce the flow of drugs, guns, and the money from such things across the border would be a good thing? For both countries?
Didn't gun walking begin with Bush? Obama continued his failed policies. (I wanted to say "just continued" but that seems to take to much onus of responsibility for the continuation off of him)Skinypupy wrote:The message that's been circulating among my more conservative relatives this morning is that Trump's visit was a rousing success, and Mexico has essentially conceded to him.
I'm just...speechless. How deafening must that echo chamber really be?Based on what happened Wednesday, when GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump traveled to Mexico and held a joint news briefing with the nation’s president, Enrique Peña Nieto, one could argue that the billionaire candidate has won.
So despite President Barack Obama, Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton and the liberal media claiming nonstop how Trump’s candid rhetoric about illegal immigration would irrevocably harm our relationship with Mexico, it appeared that the relationship was just fine and dandy.
Moreover, the fact that Nieto conceded nearly every one of Trump’s points demonstrated that his tough-talking method of international diplomacy possessed more merit and future potential than Obama’s deliriously pitiful “do with me as you like” strategy of appeasement.
The Mexican president also reportedly took direct shots at Obama by complaining about the guns that were smuggled into his country during Operation Fast and Furious — and also scolding him for having ostensibly erected a “welcome” sign over the border that, incidentally enough, has spurred problems in Mexico as well as the U.S.
Meh, I'm pretty sure the nation that built the Panama Canal can handle it.Moliere wrote:Rip wrote:So you don't think something that would drastically reduce the flow of drugs, guns, and the money from such things across the border would be a good thing? For both countries?
Are you referring to The Wall? Have you seen the problems with building a complete wall across the entire border? It's not going to be built. It will cost too much, a shit load of land would need to be confiscated, er I mean eminent domained, and a lot of the border doesn't have the infrastructure to support that kind of construction project. This is a political gambit to win the election.
Citation NeededRip wrote:Couldn't possibly cost any more and do any less than healthcare reform has done. The price-tag on that one is already passing up $1T.
Oh, so you don't want to stop the flow of drugs, guns, and dirty money across the border.Moliere wrote:Are you referring to The Wall? Have you seen the problems with building a complete wall across the entire border? It's not going to be built. It will cost too much, a shit load of land would need to be confiscated, er I mean eminent domained, and a lot of the border doesn't have the infrastructure to support that kind of construction project. This is a political gambit to win the election.Rip wrote:So you don't think something that would drastically reduce the flow of drugs, guns, and the money from such things across the border would be a good thing? For both countries?
I think none of that had anything to do with the meeting between Drumpf and Nieto, or with the article. More noteworthy however is that there is no relation between the meeting and the article's "facts" of that meeting.Rip wrote:So you don't think something that would drastically reduce the flow of drugs, guns, and the money from such things across the border would be a good thing? For both countries?
Is the cost something will cost not the pricetag? Is $100B a year not enough? Even the highest estimates of the costs of the wall are a drop in the bucket compared to that.LordMortis wrote:Citation NeededRip wrote:Couldn't possibly cost any more and do any less than healthcare reform has done. The price-tag on that one is already passing up $1T.
Even slanted sources say it will cost over a trillion of the next decade.
http://time.com/money/4271224/obamacare ... yers-2016/
If you take your slant from the other side, it's under 300 billion over the next decade.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/27/obamacar ... -270b.html
Which is not to excuse the fact that I think this is a major failing of the ACA, but when you make outrageous claims from questionable (or no) you do finding solutions no help.
Does stopping crime and saving people from the illegal gun and drug trades not help economically. Are you not interested in saving these people from being killed by our evil guns or for the evil money we send across to feed our drug habits? Do you hate the Mexicans?hepcat wrote:The Panama Canal generated billions upon billions in economic activity simply by existing. A border fence does not. Unless Trump intends to build hotels on top of it, it's a giant friggin' albatross around our economy's neck.
You seem to believe that building a wall will stop crime and the drug and arms trades. I guess people who believe that will believe anything Trump is selling.Rip wrote:Does stopping crime and saving people from the illegal gun and drug trades not help economically. Are you not interested in saving these people from being killed by our evil guns or for the evil money we send across to feed our drug habits? Do you hate the Mexicans?hepcat wrote:The Panama Canal generated billions upon billions in economic activity simply by existing. A border fence does not. Unless Trump intends to build hotels on top of it, it's a giant friggin' albatross around our economy's neck.
Why not compare it to landing on the moon or the hoover dam while you're at it. The canal is less than 50 miles long. The wall would be closer to 2000 miles.Rip wrote:Meh, I'm pretty sure the nation that built the Panama Canal can handle it.Moliere wrote:Rip wrote:So you don't think something that would drastically reduce the flow of drugs, guns, and the money from such things across the border would be a good thing? For both countries?
Are you referring to The Wall? Have you seen the problems with building a complete wall across the entire border? It's not going to be built. It will cost too much, a shit load of land would need to be confiscated, er I mean eminent domained, and a lot of the border doesn't have the infrastructure to support that kind of construction project. This is a political gambit to win the election.
Couldn't possibly cost any more and do any less than healthcare reform has done. The price-tag on that one is already passing up $1T.
hepcat wrote: Unless Trump intends to build hotels on top of it....
I'd like to point out that I didn't fall for it. At first.tjg_marantz wrote:Christ you guys. You're arguing one thing, something else is brought up as a counterpoint and you start debating that instead if the original point. Stop falling for it.
