Lawyer versus Businessman; Presidential styles.

rpenner said:
Under US law, illegal residency in the US is not a crime. It is a civil matter. And each and every deportation has to proceed before a Federal judge.

http://time.com/4475102/donald-trump-enrique-pena-nieto-transcript/
Click to expand...
President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico: (in part)
Illegal weapons, drugs, and cash flows in both directions, have multiple negative consequences on both sides of the border. Our border must be seen as a joint opportunity. Both countries must invest more – more infrastructure, more people, and more technology to make it more – safer, and more efficient.
Click to expand...

Thanx for the link.
I also found another text. Here's the link:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ss-conference-annotated/#annotations:10314909

..................
check out ICE detainees
 
Bells said:
Uh huh..

Curiously, however, a spokesman for Peña Nieto told the press that Peña Nietospecifically told Trump during the meeting that Mexico would not be paying for such a wall, a statement the Mexican president himself later repeated. Who to believe?
Sounds like it went really well.​
Click to expand...
"Who to believe?"
Lets start with:
President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico:
"Illegal weapons, drugs, and cash flows in both directions, have multiple negative consequences on both sides of the border. Our border must be seen as a joint opportunity. Both countries must invest more – more infrastructure, more people, and more technology to make it more – safer, and more efficient."

Quite often, "headlines" seem designed for misdirection and obfuscation.

It seems that a/the "wall" is largely symbolic.
Make it beautiful. Paint it pink.
Then, invite graffiti artist to embellish it.
Then tear it down!
What about that part of the border that is a river?
 
Last edited:
Notes on the Tribe, with specific example:

schmelzer said:
There is no contradiction between "she looks like a maniac" and "she looks like herself". The context does not change this - I have found descriptions of the context, so I know it, and this has not changed the main point, that she looks like a maniac.
Click to expand...
The fact remains that she is not a maniac, and does not look like one to people aware of the context of those videos.

If you were not so completely ignorant about that context, then and now, you would not be as easily hypnotized into thinking she looks like a maniac. Your inability to defend yourself against that manipulation - tricking you into thinking she looks like a maniac - is a consequence of your unfamiliarity with American politics or Clinton's long career in it, and the skill of American marketing professionals in taking advantage of you.

It works like an optical illusion now, for you and the rest of the Tribe. Compare with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion Try as you might, you can no longer "see" the Clinton videos in any other way. Your only hope is careful and rigorous logical analysis based on solid information, a careful filtering of the hypnotic context induced in you. Failing that, and I doubt you can succeed, your only sound option is avoidance of media material from those sources.

Do you need evidence for the above claims? Look at this:
schmelzer said:
So, why should the fact that I have not seen the video before have significance? In this case, the video itself was quite impressive, and surprised me.
Click to expand...
Notice that your mind has altered, significantly, the plain sense of my posting - I assigned absolutely no significance to the fact that you hadn't seen the videos "before" (before what?). I assigned great significance to the fact that you knew nothing of Clinton's long career in the public eye, and you knew almost nothing of the nature of the media sources you were relying on - the techniques they used, etc - and you still don't.

And that was explicit, in my posts. That was my explanation for why you found the videos "impressive" in the way you did. Why do you think your mind rejected the sense of my posting, and altered - again - the direction of my argument, etc?
 
wellwisher said:
Trump will dismantle the lawyer scam. For example, Trump has been audited by the IRS, which Obama has shown will be used to manhandle enemies.
Click to expand...
This is just another lie that you have bought into without doing research.

But this backfired on the DNC, since Trump does not have to show his tax returns if the IRS is investigating, since a fair trial cannot be achieved with both public and private sector audits, coming from a biased DNC running for election.
Click to expand...
This is clearly not true. Even if the IRS is investigating, they already have his tax returns.
 
sculptor said:
"Who to believe?"
Lets start with:
President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico:
"Illegal weapons, drugs, and cash flows in both directions, have multiple negative consequences on both sides of the border. Our border must be seen as a joint opportunity. Both countries must invest more – more infrastructure, more people, and more technology to make it more – safer, and more efficient."

Quite often, "headlines" seem designed for misdirection and obfuscation.

It seems that a/the "wall" is largely symbolic.
Make it beautiful. Paint it pink.
Then, invite graffiti artist to embellish it.
Then tear it down!
What about that part of the border that is a river?
Click to expand...

The wall is not intentionally or primarily symbolic only. Here is a major, media present, Trump supporter, talking about it (among other things):
The most memorable and best illustrative reference to the Wall is right at the end (No need to sit through the whole thing, although other immigration references occur throughout, and the entire interview is a very interesting display of the psychology behind the T Party and Trump factions. Notice especially the amnesia, the almost palpable flinch avoidance of various events - the huge gaps in the various historical recountings. She talks about the failure in Iraq without once naming anyone in the Bush administration, for example.)
 
sculptor said:
"Who to believe?"
Lets start with:
President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico:
"Illegal weapons, drugs, and cash flows in both directions, have multiple negative consequences on both sides of the border. Our border must be seen as a joint opportunity. Both countries must invest more – more infrastructure, more people, and more technology to make it more – safer, and more efficient."

Quite often, "headlines" seem designed for misdirection and obfuscation.

It seems that a/the "wall" is largely symbolic.
Paint it pink.
Then, invite graffiti artist to embellish it.
Click to expand...
We can start with him.. And document how he declared he had been upfront about "the wall" with Trump, which Trump denied happened and then his campaign had to admit that Nieto had in fact told Trump that Mexico would not be paying for the wall that Trump wants..?

Asked by reporters after his statement if he’d discussed with Peña Nieto his plan to force Mexico to pay for his massive border wall, Trump said it didn’t come up. “We did discuss the wall. We didn’t discuss payment of the wall. That’ll be for a later date.” A short time later, Peña Nieto tweeted that he told Trump right at the outset of their meeting that Mexico won’t pay for any wall, which the Trump campaign later confirmed was true.​

Ya, let us start there...

So Trump declares who would pay was never brought up. Nieto advised it was brought up and that he told Trump right from the start of said meeting that Mexico would not pay. Trump's own campaign later confirmed that Nieto had in fact made that statement... Which means Trump lied. After a fumbling meeting where he was supposed to look Presidential and instead, looked like a beaten puppy.

You sure you want to start there?

Or would you prefer we start at his rally, where after fan-girling Mexican people in Mexico, demurely saying how they are such wonderful people, a mere few hours later, he painted them as rapists and murderers in a "policy speech", which, I might add, the only thing missing to turn it into a white supremacist shindig were the burning crosses and white hooded robes and a few Nazi flags. It's no wonder that the KKK and their ilk are rejoicing. Ranting about immigrants and 'illegals'.. Well.. That isn't going to end well either..

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/01/tru...ation-push-and-the-hypocrisy-is-mind-numbing/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/donald-trump-model-management-illegal-immigration

Tell me, how does it feel to support a white supremacist candidate, Sculptor?

And yeah, the wall is not "symbolic". Dumbass even discussed using sensors on the wall. Perhaps you believe it is symbolic to allow you to sleep better at night? Sadly it is not symbolic. The loon actually wants to build a physical wall. Apparently he hasn't realised that Mexicans have ladders.
 
PhysBang said:
No, it clearly isn't. Have you not paid attention to anything that Trump said?
Click to expand...

The problem with posting like I do is that there are some days I feel stupid for not scribbling down a note; to wit, what was it, just yesterday that one or another chattering head on msnbc made the point that it doesn't really matter what Trump says as he appears to be down to core support that doesn't really care. The people who are left on his side seem to be the proverbial, "he could shoot people down in the street and they'd still support him" crowd. They don't care what he actually is; they're antisocial and just want to see someone fuck shit up.

To the other, it doesn't matter which talking head; plenty have said it over time. The network's hosts and guests the other day went off, reiterating the phrase "fourteen months" all day in order to make the point.

For my own part, I did a bit yesterday↱ looking back to the beginning of July, asking people to think back and try to remember what Donald Trump was doing and saying that had everybody horrified, mortified, terrified, apoplectic and wide-eyed. It's actually kind of hard to do:

Fraud and plagiarism, mostly. As July loomed, the Trump University scandal also tumbled into the Trump Institute branding scandal, something about “heebajeebees”, and questions of competence involving basic arithmetic that also happen to come up at a time when Donald Trump himself could be heard wondering aloud, “Why am I not doing better in the polls?”

As we looked toward July, people still wondered if maybe it would all sort itself out; Mitt Romney even piped up, revealing that one of his sons told him, “You’ve gotta get in, Dad, you’ve gotta get in”.​

In other words, after all this time, "Have you not paid attention to anything that Trump said?" might well be the wrong question. There is a certain degree to which it doesn't matter whether they're paying attention or not because that's not their point.

For these people, the worst thing Donald Trump could do is pretend he's some manner of decent human being.
 
Bells
Bringing claims of racism into the discussion bespeaks desperation.

Again, what about the river?
Who owns the river?

The "illegals" I've known were often preyed upon by those who would cheat them out of fair pay.
I worked with one from mexico about 30-35 years ago(I didn't know it until later). He was an intelligent hard working fellow who always sent money home to his mom, and only had to be taught the job once. (no complaints)

as I said, paint it pink..............then tear it down.
"Largely symbolic" = ineffective-----smoke and mirrors---show and tell.
And, what exactly does it symbolize? Are we to emulate gated communities?

..........................
One should almost always ignore the loony toons propaganda headlines, and pay attention to what was actually said.

.............................
Do our drug laws indirectly(or directly) support the criminal element(drug cartels, etc...)?
Is that the real reason we have them?
Do our drug laws do harm to our neighbor Mexico?
.................
rio-grande-river-on-border-of-texas-on-right-hand-bank-and-mexico-BETXD6.jpg

Rio Grande river on border of Texas on right-hand bank and Mexico Big Bend Ranch State Park Texas USA

We don't need no stinkin christo running wall. It's pretty enough all by itself.
 
Last edited:
One of the aspects of the Wall that should be part of discussion on a science forum is its ecologically disastrous implications. Trump would have to bypass the EPA and the Parks agencies and a couple others - basically go around all environmental oversight - to get it built within a decade.

And if his tenure - the build time, since nobody else is going to - is four years or less, as seems likely given his age and circumstances, merely bypassing would be insufficient - he'd have to block or remove all environmental oversight completely.

sculptor said:
Bringing claims of racism into the discussion bespeaks desperation.
Click to expand...
Claims? These are claims?

Is the racism inherent in, and motivating, the Trump support faction, merely a "claim"?
 
Last edited:
Sculptor said:
Bringing claims of racism into the discussion bespeaks desperation.
Click to expand...

It's a little late for that one, Sculptor; suggesting such pretenses of cluelessness about one's own argument bespeaks craven desperation.
 
Tiassa said:
It's a little late for that one, Sculptor; suggesting such pretenses of cluelessness about one's own argument bespeaks craven desperation.
Click to expand...

I have never argued nor ever will argue in favor of racism, sexism, clanism, nor xenophobia.
If this whole global population cannot have uniculturalism, then we must all learn to embrace multiculturalism.

Whose argument did you have in mind?

..................
What I eschew is militarism, warism, and a total disregard of frugalism(especially of the limited resources of our shared co-evolutionary biom).
But.......this ain't that thread.
 
wellwisher said:
But this backfired on the DNC, since Trump does not have to show his tax returns if the IRS is investigating, since a fair trial cannot be achieved with both public and private sector audits, coming from a biased DNC running for election. Trump has lawyers too, for defense. The criminal use of the IRS, makes even more lawyers necessary, while it is done in ways that make it appear legal; hide evidence.
Click to expand...
PhysBang said:
This is clearly not true. Even if the IRS is investigating, they already have his tax returns.
Click to expand...
I know. It's clear that Trump believes the story he told under oath on his IRS forms is completely unsuitable for his campaign needs. If it's the truth, it's either an unflattering truth or associates him with causes that he would rather not be associated with. If it's lies, then they are lies suitable only to a blinkered government auditor with no remit to go on fishing expeditions beyond the paperwork without probable cause.

But to withhold from the public forms that he already filed with the government while swearing that they are true on the basis that the government is attempting to verify them as trustworthy, seems to fall far short of the candor we should expect from any politician.

Trump's only claim to office-holder-worthy competence is his business dealings. If Trump is unwilling to reveal the story he was required to swear is true, why should we listen to the marketing version of the story?
 
sculptor said:
Why is it that racist seem to need to call others racist?
Click to expand...
Maybe the same reason religious folks tell other people their philosophies, materialisms, etc, are religions, and thieves think other people are ripping them off. "That art thou", as the Buddhists say.
sculptor said:
Who, among you, is going to publish your tax returns on this site?
Click to expand...
Anyone who wants to be elected President. Comes with the territory. Like the security clearance to be a CIA agent, only not as thorough.
 
sculptor said:
There is no law requiring your satisfaction of this nosey snooping fetish.
none
Click to expand...
There's a possible alternative: require that anyone elected to the Presidency be completely debt free, and divest themselves and their spouses of all other gainful employment, financial holdings, and commercial interests other than Treasury bonds, permanently - for the rest of their lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top