politics thread

[Stymietee]

Sorry but polling data is intentionally skewed and misreported to push a narrative. I know you will find it frustrating (I do too, as it becomes harder to genuinely discuss issues) but chances are any cited poll you provide will be highly debatable/suspect, and the reporting on it even moreso.

OK, whatever man!

 

[Toadman005]

Anytime I have seen a mine field laid, or claymores deployed, the express intent was to deter or kill an enemy. But usually to kill.

Deter!? What a concept! It's as if they'd be harmless to anyone not trying to come in illegally!

 

[Toadman005]

Clearly it wasn't as "obvious" as you claim. Crazy people do things all of the time, so in answer to your question, if there's some event in Michigan that requires federal investigation, it would not surprise me to find out that someone who posted their "obviously" humorless threat of destroying Michigan, on a list of people that needs to be checked out. I'm not sure what world you're living in, but I assure you in the post 9-11 world everything is checked out. You're attempting to make this out to be bigger than what it is and worse personal. It's a fools errand to go personal and not worthy of more debate when the original response was to make clear your intent. I'm done with you, now either play nice or don't, your call!

Well, your advice it noted. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Even IF something bad happened in Michigan, it wouldn't matter, as I wouldn't be responsible so, yeah.

But I think you know that.

 

[Sharkinva]

Deter!? What a concept! It's as if they'd be harmless to anyone not trying to come in illegally!

I dont consider these people an enemy.

 

[Stymietee]

I

I have put up numbers that show otherwise from violent crimes to ID theft , to voter fraud to drug importation . To have a view that this is a serious issue doesn’t preclude that gun violence isn’t serious either . Hypocrisy doesn’t apply it’s just a deflection from the issue at hand , border security . Now if you want to talk about guns then we can have that conversation . I have plenty of ideas

You guys are a trip, first it's don't believe the polls, the data from a certain ideological bend can't be trusted and it's "fake" news, then have the audacity to post polls, data from other ideological perspectives and more "fake" news to prove some point. Now that's interesting!

Is it possible to take the temperature of this thread to find out what's acceptable and what is not? Maybe the conversation can finally be one that advances rather than one that constantly goes in circles.

 

[Stymietee]

Well, your advice it noted. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Even IF something bad happened in Michigan, it wouldn't matter, as I wouldn't be responsible so, yeah.

But I think you know that.

Yes, I do know that, but I also know how disrupting any investigation might have in your life should that occur. Like I said, a word to the wise!

 

[Toadman005]

I dont consider these people an enemy.

I don't care.

 

[Stymietee]

OK, whatever man!

 

[Toadman005]

Yes, I do know that, but I also know how disrupting any investigation might have in your life should that occur. Like I said, a word to the wise!

Look, the FBI is partisan dog shit these days, but I find it hard to believe even they would be so incompetent that they, should some unfortunate attack in the entirety of the state of Michigan occur, look into ME as being potentially responsible. But again, your advice is noted.

 

[Stymietee]

Look, the FBI is partisan dog shit these days, but I find it hard to believe even they would be so incompetent that they, should some unfortunate attack in the entirety of the state of Michigan occur, look into ME as being potentially responsible. But again, your advice is noted.

The "entirety of the state of Michigan?" Ok, I see what you're doing, carry on!

 

[Toadman005]

The "entirety of the state of Michigan?" Ok, I see what you're doing, carry on!

Not doing anything. Your "word to the wise" was hyperbolic at best. I still think you were making a threat, and when called out on it, are feigning concern that SHOULD something bad happen ANYWHERE in Michigan, I'd be public enemy number 1 in the FBI investigation, ruining my life in the minutes it would take to research I was not only entirely uninvolved, but literally in a position it would be impossible I had any involvement.

 

[j_y19]

Smart, don't ya think?

I hope you are kidding. Its hypocritical at best. She is willing to approve the money and it can be used on a fence, just not a wall? That only makes sense if your only goal is to say you beat Trump. And if that is your only goal, you should not be Speaker of the House.

 

[Sharkinva]

I hope you are kidding. Its hypocritical at best. She is willing to approve the money and it can be used on a fence, just not a wall? That only makes sense if your only goal is to say you beat Trump. And if that is your only goal, you should not be Speaker of the House.

Agreed. BUt I would say on the flip side if your only concern is winning to keep your base happy, and to hell with anyone that isnt in your base....

You probably shouldnt be President

 

[Stymietee]

Not doing anything. Your "word to the wise" was hyperbolic at best. I still think you were making a threat, and when called out on it, are feigning concern that SHOULD something bad happen ANYWHERE in Michigan, I'd be public enemy number 1 in the FBI investigation, ruining my life in the minutes it would take to research I was not only entirely uninvolved, but literally in a position it would be impossible I had any involvement.

Speaking of hyperbole ^^^^^

Maybe you're unaccustomed to people who don't mean harm to you, benefit of the doubt is therefore granted.

 

[j_y19]

Agreed. BUt I would say on the flip side if your only concern is winning to keep your base happy, and to hell with anyone that isnt in your base....

You probably shouldnt be President

Oh, should have been more clear. They are both hypocrites, at best. We need to stop worrying about a wall and start worrying about how we encourage people truly interested, and capable, in helping this country move forward to run for office and win. Because our current system is all about our representatives concerned with re-election. Until we change that focus, nothing meaningful will be achieved.

 

[Toadman005]

Speaking of hyperbole ^^^^^

Maybe you're unaccustomed to people who don't mean harm to you, benefit of the doubt is therefore granted.

Nah, thats not it. Ive been doxxed before by a spiteful, angry lunatic SJW, and I can smell the tactics.

But Ill give you the same benefit you extend to me.

 

[Toadman005]

Oh, should have been more clear. They are both hypocrites, at best. We need to stop worrying about a wall and start worrying about how we encourage people truly interested, and capable, in helping this country move forward to run for office and win. Because our current system is all about our representatives concerned with re-election. Until we change that focus, nothing meaningful will be achieved.

Sadly that will never happen short of something terrible uniting us (tragedy or violence).

 

[Stymietee]

I hope you are kidding. Its hypocritical at best. She is willing to approve the money and it can be used on a fence, just not a wall? That only makes sense if your only goal is to say you beat Trump. And if that is your only goal, you should not be Speaker of the House.

Mending/upgrading already existing fences makes all of the sense in the world. I hope that you're kidding about this. New walls are problematic for reasons already stated, but just in case.

1. They don't work, (see tunneling system and my diagram below)

2. It's wasted money when funds can be better spent on things that actually work.

3. There are already existing walls fencing and barriers, manmade and natural.

4. It's a political scare tactic for a "crisis" that doesn't exist.

5. Imminent domain lawsuits will delay any wall building for years beyond the horizon.

 

[Stymietee]

Nah, thats not it. Ive been doxxed before by a spiteful, angry lunatic SJW, and I can smell the tactics.

But Ill give you the same benefit you extend to me.

I'm an old dude, and I'll admit that I had to look up what "doxxed" meant. Sorry that happened to you man, but I did mention crazies in earlier posts. Yes, in another context, but crazy is crazy right?

 

[j_y19]

Mending/upgrading already existing fences makes all of the sense in the world. I hope that you're kidding about this. New walls are problematic for reasons already stated, but just in case.

1. They don't work, (see tunneling system and my diagram below)

2. It's wasted money when funds can be better spent on things that actually work.

3. There are already existing walls fencing and barriers, manmade and natural.

4. It's a political scare tactic for a "crisis" that doesn't exist.

5. Imminent domain lawsuits will delay any wall building for years beyond the horizon.

Really? That's what you believe Pelosi's motivations and intentions are?