Your logic here is pretty shaky. The fact that a budget is “too far left” for a Republican-leaning district does not mean the budget is objectively ‘left.’
But yes, I’m happy to concede that Obama wanted a “more partisan, left-oriented budget” than such districts would prefer.
And recently across the wires from the Chinese Government:
“…Twitter shouldn’t become an instrument of foreign policy. Foreign policy isn’t child’s play…”
Democrats, our Intelligence Agencies and anyone who disagrees with him is one thing…but China is a Dragon that I don’t think Trump wants to continue to irritate…
I just want to see if you are logically consistent in your definition of supremacy. That it’s supremacists to engineer policies within a country to maintain an ethnic majority.
So should the US engineer policies to maintain a white ethnic majority?
Was my description of what you consider supremacy accurate?
I think every country should have a large single ethnic majority regardless of the nation to avoid racial/cultural strife. That includes different ethnicities belonging to the same race. In Canada for instance French and English maintain separate cultures have a history of infighting.
Ok, to clarify, do you think the United States should adopt policies to insure it has a white ethnic majority?
You keep glossing over my question about supremacy
Ok. Thats the last I’ll say about it, then we can just watch it play out.
Kinda like the discussions in The Next POTUS threads. After all the squabbling is done, it’s time to let the numbers tell the tale.
No, I don’t, my answer was obvious - yes, it’s supremacy (assuming you have described their policies accurately).
Now, answer my question.
SkyzykS:
Did I miss something?
Did we disagree on some point?
(I’m lost…!)
If you believe all countries should be open and that all types of people should be allowed to move into every country then you’re not actually a fan of diversity. If countries weren’t “supremacist” the way you define it, then we would all eventually blend together, everyone becomes a shade of brown and individual cultures that currently exist go away. I think that’s depressing. I like all sorts of cultures and people, I want everyone to continue existing.
To answer your question- I would want a moratorium on immigration for 5-10 years, then a preference for people of ethnic origin from British Isles 75%-25% everybody else.
Hoping back in the thread because I’m catching up with this thing still, but I don’t agree with this at all.
Saying that is essentially saying that power is a necessary prerequisite for principles to matter. And I don’t buy that. Discrimination based on race is bad no matter whether its low class or high class. In other words, the welfare trailer park trash doesn’t have any power or money, but can still be racist. If they can be then black people can be.
I do not think BLM is an inherently racist movement. I do think they have a ton of problems and many things they do de-legitimize the movement. However I do not think your underlying premise vis a vis “you have to have some sort of power to be racist” holds any logical water whatsoever.
Maybe? That wasn’t meant out of anger or anything though. It’s more like “I have my bets on this horse, your money is on that one”.
It’s just that I’ve been of the mind that businesses were keeping their heads down for the past 8 years because they didn’t want to gain the attention of a very business hostile government. That is changing now and some major corporations are doing some things differently.
I say that the business environment is changing, you say I don’t want to hear that shit.
They’re at the gate and chomping at the bit, lets let em run and see who wins!
Fair
Oh no!
The business environment is definitely changing…no disagreement there!
And that is something that they are now factoring into their decisions. (Like businesses always do, and have always done).
What I consider bullshit is that they are making those decision based mostly on a Trump-Tweet; or that Trump simply makes a phone call and plans worth millions, sometimes billions, of dollars are suddenly changed.
We agree for the most part then. I think that the tweets are a bit of a call out of sorts, and definitely not the only factor involved in a change in plans like we’ve seen.
It can be compelling though. Companies can lose a billion or more on bad sentiment or bad news in hours, and when the money starts hemorrhaging, no one wants to be the last one out.
It is also an active policy undertaken by the Japanese, to be fair. Their immigration controls are tighter than a tick’s ass.
We can’t dance. Trust me.
EDIT: Barring that Flatley bloke.
Perception is a funny thing here, raj.
You interpret this as “LOL, Bernie used a Trump tweet, even the Democrats are singing his praises!” or something like that.
Bernie brought this Tweet on a poster for a specific reason: if/when Republicans make a move to cut SS and/or Medicare, he’s got a Trump card (get it?) that their own President-Elect has stated via Twitter a promise that there will be no cuts to those programs. I know that “politician breaks campaign promise” isn’t shocking news, but still, Trump is the guy who’s supposedly not like those other lying, grubby politicians, so what happens? Do the Republicans have to leave these programs alone as long as Trump is in office? If they do cut them, how does Trump react?
BTW, while you’ve pointed out the effectiveness of Trump’s tweeting in reaching out to people (which is correct), this is one illustration of where it may eventually start to backfire. If he keeps Tweeting out every thought or promise that comes to his mind, it’s very easy to point out when he’s walking back on things he said he would do. All people will have to do is look through his Tweets and find that time he said he’d do X when he’s just gone ahead and done Y instead.
I heard his tweeting has moved from his personal review to Kellyanne Conway to a dedicated team of responders, and is now being handled by an A I algorithm set up in the basement at Trump Tower.
The I portion of the algorithm makes me suspicious of this frankly.