- Family Resources
- Family Resource Forum
- OUTER RIM
- Open Discussions
- Can't be a Jedi if you support Trump...?
Can't be a Jedi if you support Trump...?
Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: I know I’m no fun but When I vote and if my candidate wins I do a little dance and song and continue to live my day to day. I normally don’t gripe or complain till the next election
People are dying, Carlos.
As far as Trump being racist, I think you might be looking at a more limited set of evidence then what I'm looking at and I don't want to use this thread to try and convince you otherwise on that, so for now I will simply agree to disagree. If you want to have that argument I'm sure I already have a thread on the subject. But let's just say you have to go deeper into Trump's history to get a full picture. And yes, even Omarosa said it.
VixensVengeance wrote: The policy of immigrants and children goes back much further than Trump. As far back as the Bush era and all through Obamas era as well.
False, Obama did not have a ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY. Obama deported a LOT of people. Why? Because Obama was the POTUS. He had to defend the law and the constitution. But you don't have to violate people's human rights in that process. What you're doing is giving me thte general Republican red herring argument as if I'm talking about some generic immigration policy in the stead of the ZERO TOLERANCE policy that was mandated by Trump to Jeff Sessions.
Watch Jeff Sessions explain to you what the NEW policy is and what THEY (Trump Administration) will do to you. What Trump and his allies do is political spin. They will claim Obama did the same thing in order to escape criticism. But they lie and use "alternative facts" all the time. If Obama had the same policy how do you explain Sessions selling the policy as a deterrent to illegal border crossing? Meanwhile, Republicans say "Obama did it" and talk about how Democrats are for "Open Borders". Both these things CANNOT be true at the same time!
VixensVengeance wrote: What do you think would happen if we pulled funds and troops and support from those areas? One word…. BOOM!
And no... no boom. Because here's what you do instead (and please note I said I was for a strong STRATEGIC military). You keep your bases. You quietly reduce staff. You invest in automated and remote controlled defenses. You increase the budget for developing drones. You deploy your drones in patrol groups of 3. What you do is illustrate your technological superiority but with low-cost equipment. You bring in bullet proof robots that act as shields and can be remote operated. This means when you have an "active situation" one of several teams simply jumps into the remote piloting role from one of 3 bases in the US. If a drone or robot is taken down another one replaces it and can be operated by the same pilot. But outside of this you send humanitarian aid to the people. Instead of paying soldiers to die you pay fewer people to provide aid. Most people fight out of desperation. Their leaders use their desperation to make them fight for whatever cause that keeps those leaders in power. If the leader is religious then he chooses a religious cause. But the people still need that sense of "if we don't fight we die or our way of life dies". Along with the aid I would provide internet access and videos interviewing people of all faiths, sharing how they are free to practice their religions in other countries and talking about what their religions were meant to be. Instead of attacking people like Ilhan Omar I would let her speak to the world passionately about her faith so that they know that even high ranking politicians in the US represent the same religion that their leaders say is under attack. In other words... there are other ways to fight that don't require killing people or scaring them into submission. The idea that might makes right is something that you have to continuously maintain because eventually people will lose their fear of you. And by renewing that fear you become the monster they think you are. And some people are willing to die in order to fight that monster. And as long as we are the bigger monster they will never be able to fully see the monsters in their own midst, hyping them up, and causing them to fight. We have to stop assuming that everyone in the world wants to kill us and that everyone "hates democracy" and all these other ridiculous propagandist lies that keep us in perpetual war. But if you show a different side then maybe every country will aspire to be like the US instead of demonizing the US. And then the threats will decrease dramatically. We've done that with Japan already. And that was after Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now we're friends and allies. So you can't tell me its not possible.
Let me just tell you the latest because you probably haven't heard. NOW... The US government is sending letters to parents of sick children. When I say sick I'm talking about cancer and other life threatening illnesses. There was a policy for legal deferment of deportation based on medical condition. Trump quietly ended this policy so that parents have 33 days to take their children off whatever life saving treatment they were getting and leave the country to face the possible death of their child.
VixensVengeance wrote: And once again, Trump is NOT against asylum. He is for the full enforcement of Assylum Laws! There is a huge difference here and I get so sick and tired of people twisting the truth to suit their own narrative! Fuck! All I have to say…
If that were true... then why is it that after "Orange is the New Black" showed scenes where deportees could contact a certain phone number to get legal representation the REAL LIFE counterpart that it was based on... their immigration hotline was BLOCKED by ICE.
This real life thing... COMPLETELY LEGAL. So please tell me how in blue blazes this fits into your defense of what Trump is for or against? And is this reality... ICE blocking immigrants from obtaining LEGAL representation... somehow in favor of the legal asylum system? If you need time to consider this before you respond, please take it. I can't make up these things in order to fit some narrative. This is simply what's happening and the narrative is that it's not. The narrative is that what's really happening is "fake news".
Here is Trump talking about going after birthright citizenship (you can skip to 3:35). So it's not about upholding the law or the constitution. It's about getting people out that he doesn't want in. Period. I'm showing you Trump's own words where HE is making the argument against you, not me. He's telling you that he doesn't care what the law says. Birthright citizenship is part of the constitution of the United States. He's not for it. Period. So then you have to ask yourself, "Well if he isn't for the law or the constitution then what IS he for?" I'm waiting for you to ask yourself this question. I hope that you will. I hope that you can see through these people. This isn't about winning an argument for me. It's about the truth. At this point we both think we have it, but only time and careful consideration of the facts will tell. Fair enough?
VixensVengeance wrote: All this bullshit… draft dodging, tax cheating, illegal visas. You are just making assertions without any evidence.
I'm seriously confused. Have you never heard of any of this before? Did you not know how Trump got out of the draft? Bone spurs is what TRUMP said. The problem is that truth is a pesky thing and tends to come out LATER.
The podiatrist, Larry Braunstein, died in 2007, but his daughters recently told The New York Times that their father frequently recalled coming to the aid of the Trump family during the Vietnam War in the late 1960s.
"I know it was a favor," said Elysa Braunstein, along with her sister, Sharon Kessel, in a report published on Wednesday. The two said that their father's account implied that Trump did not have the foot ailment that kept him out of the war.
So yes, the evidence is testimony from the daughter of the podiatrist. Was there any paper evidence that backed her testimony? No. Why would there be? Both doctors reported to have been involved in the bone spur diagnosis operated or lived in real estate owned by Fred Trump.
I can get into what we know about the tax cheating too, just to show you that these are not baseless claims. It's based on real reporting by competent news organizations like the NY Times. Trump wants you to think he cares about the law. By doing so he can use the law as a shield to make it so he doesn't look like a bigot. But that's why he said he could shoot someone (a crime) on 5th avenue and not lose any support. Because he believes people are stupid and easily shepherded into whatever position he wants. It bothers me that he said this openly.
Each one of these organizations knows very well that if they were lying and Trump could prove it he would be able to sue them into the ground. Trump is one of the most litigious people in US history. If you believe he's not suing them when he thinks he could win you do not know Donald Trump.
And maybe this is the point of all of this information. Everyone thinks, good or bad, that they know Donald Trump. And this is why I call it a cult of personality because WHY do they believe what they believe? Certainly, what I say about Trump isn't based on Trump's rhetoric. So what do people believe, if not Trump's own rhetoric, who think everyone is lying on Trump? What is that belief based on? I truly want to know. Why do you believe you KNOW Donald Trump in order to know what he would and wouldn't do? Or what his intentions are? Where does that confidence come from? Because the rest of us can easily see that he's a liar. He claimed to be a self-made billionaire and people think he's smart because of that. He lied to Forbes, claiming his dad's money was his and so they put him on the Forbes list and he used that to get bank loans. You can call that smart Sith deception but it also means he's a liar and lies in order to get power. So believing him, believing a sith who you know lies for their own advantage, why? I can understand if you said, no I know he's a liar, tax dodger, con man, racist, etc. but I don't care because we have common interests. That, I can understand. But defending him... that I don't get. Why not just own the fact that he is a horrible person and an excellent sith? Why sith? I'm not saying that because he's horrible and horrible=sith. No. I'm saying that because in spite of how horrible he is he still got elected to the highest office in the WORLD.
Just food for thought,
"Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal"-Immortal Technique
You can act real rude and totally removed
And I can act like an imbecile- Men without hats
Training Masters: Carlos.Martinez3 and JLSpinner
Kobos wrote: So, I stay out of politics for the sake of it always becoming a "Thanksgiving table" style discussion where no one's mind is actually changed but I have a point that I want to bring up. I think in today's environment we really need to look at the media we intake, when you read a story that evokes an emotional reaction are you checking a different source for that information. Are you following up on the story to see if the original is being updated with corrections? These are things I ask because it happens on both sides and it serves to blind us to the actualy cause of the ever increasing political divide that stops meaningful legislation instead of "seesaw" laws that will just be thrown away by the next congress or president. Also, how often are things flying under the radar so to speak because we are all looking in one direction?
Just food for thought,
I think this is spot on Kobos. We live in an era where everyone is accused of 'Fake News', yet the amount of times I see people posting stuff which a quick Google search confirms to be total nonsense is insane!
I must admit that I don't necessarily check EVERY SINGLE source, but as soon as I see anything which surprises me or makes me think 'hmmm', I always look for a second or third source confirming it
Uzima Moto wrote: Btw, there are plenty of conspiracy theories that have been found to be fact..
The whole Epstein Case is one GIANT reoccurring conspiracy.. as he's not the first high profile Pedophile connected to industry heads and policy makers..
911 was an inside job, the Deep State is 70 years old, and your planet is ran by psychopaths, pedos, and murderers..
If you think the rich and powerful don't conspire for more wealth and control.. well.. just bless your heart lol
I see a lot of false equivalence here. Just because one thing is true doesn't make another thing true. I see this in conspiracy theories all the time. There's usually a leap in logic that people gloss over like a plot hole in a movie. If you're into the movie you might not notice the plot hole. If you're critical of the movie (and there are endless youtube videos proving this) you can find almost every single hole in it. And if you're a fanboy of a certain franchise its easier to find easter eggs in a movie. Not seeing the holes doesn't mean you're not smart. It just means that the narrative has suspended your disbelief. Tons of science fiction movies have very bad science but we don't generally watch them for the science so we try not to pay too much attention. Conspiracy theories are the same way. If you like conspiracy theories then you're in it more so for the narrative and are less likely to see the plot holes. Please understand this is not an attack. I wish I had some kind of blinking sign that said "Not an attack", but it's really not because like I said before I was into conspiracy theories too. I even thought Alex Jones's secret Molech video was legit. But I was also a Christian and so the idea of politicians worshiping a 30 foot idol appealed to my beliefs.
With that said... you've said the whole Epstein case was a conspiracy before. I challenged you on that. You basically tried to make the point that people knew and didn't report it. But that's not what a conspiracy is. Conspiracy theorists will have you believe that people knew and sat on the information BECAUSE (and this is something they couldn't know without these people admitting it) they were in on some conspiracy to cover it up. Conspiracy theorists are ALWAYS hyping their own brand as a "truth teller" and to do that they know they have to discredit and undermine mainstream news organizations because guess what? That's their competition.
But how? A news giant should never be competition to a conspiracy theorist unless that one person thinks of themselves as a source of "news". But what journalism school did they attend? What credible sources do they have? Who did they get on the record? They just insert their opinions and theories as fact and ignore the most likely alternative to their own BS.
Reporters do not own the paper or network. It has to go through a process. Because the organization can be sued this means the process has to be legal and avoid legal liability. It's the difference between a legal company that operates over the table vs an illegal operation that operates UNDER the table. The standards are completely different. You can't go to a pharmacy and get mad when they wont sell you marijuana. Same thing. A news organization has checks and balances on zealous reporting. And yes, going after prominent or wealthy people is incredibly dangerous for an organization. Jeff Bezos aint worried about Alex Jones but if he was and Alex Jones said something to affect Amazon's profits... even Alex Jones would probably keep his mouth shut. It's not the same thing as the NY Times or the Daily Beast or CNN or some other organization saying it. And so these organizations have to PROVE what they say where as conspiracy theorists do not. Which means theorists can say whatever they want and if asked they'll just say "it is my opinion. It's just a theory." And they hide behind free speech. But there are libel and slander laws that can hold an organization responsible financially. So even if they sit on a story, that doesn't mean it is a story they don't want to tell. Sometimes its a story they simply cannot tell or cannot tell YET. Every major organization has come out since and told the Epstein story. So what happened? Are they no longer part of the conspiracy? Or... is it because they had enough information to tell the story they wanted to tell (and not get sued)? Don't forget, Epstein's documents of allegations were SEALED. That's the whole point of having such things sealed; so that they can't be used publicly. That's the whole point. So again... not a conspiracy. Just real journalism.
what evidence do you have to support your claims of a 70 year old deep state, and psychopaths, pedophiles, and murderers. What evidence do you have?
Are there rich and powerful people that conspire for more wealth and power? Obviously. But they don't have to do what conspiracy theories are telling you they do. There are completely legal ways for the wealthy to gain more wealth and power. The Koch brothers is a perfect example. All they have to do is lobby and support candidates who will vote according to their interests. If they were doing something more effective outside of this then for what reason would they waste their money doing it this way? And Trump actually proved that if a rich person can use an organization with other people's money for their own agenda, they will. So why then, would the rich and powerful not use vehicles like corporations and superPACs to get their way? That's all they need. This is what makes them masters of the universe. Thinking they need to like drink blood and sacrifice babies is a completely fabricated drama designed to sell products the same way that rap music has been invaded by sex, drugs, violence and greed. These things SELL. Period. Conspiracy theories are an industry that prey on people that want to hear the worst about people in authority. The theorists get fame and notoriety and more views on their videos so they actually make money on it. Many will even have patreon or some other form of monetization and beg for your support so they can "keep doing this important work". And people keep falling for it.