Random Politics & Religion #09

I miss when we talk about things besides politics !

They should vote for trump if they want to pay 40-80% more money on imported goods.

This is almost as funny as trump stating the republican campaign has never been so well United...

Can we talk about how you really should go about finding a new large-breasted avatar?

But taxes will go down, so as long as we're funding someone else's government or economy, it's okay.

But wait, I forgot, Trump is going to manage to push people into slave labor right here at home!

Fone, I'm not gonna ***.

That .gif is mesmerizing.

One more:

I mean, both good, but it's not even a sexual thing with that first one. It's just a very mesmerizing thing.

A woman's *** cheeks fluttering is not sexual ok !

He isn't going to repeal any trade agreements. You should know that by now.

Like how the DNC is united? Through corruption and discord?

I corrected for clarity and/or honesty.

It's a bipartisan trait these days.

It is, but Sparth's assertion is that Republicans are the only ones not united...

*note to self* watch women's running thing.

They aren't saying it's impossible, or even implausible.

They are saying it's impractical. Because of the cost of the material, the legal issues in land acquisition, severe overreach of the government, illegal use of eminent domain, and of course, the ongoing, skyrocketing cost of maintaining the wall, simply from a logistics stand. It's not fiscally responsible, or even fiscally achievable. Trump would have to wipe his *** with the US constitution, and flush several state constitutions down with it, in order to make it happen.

Look at the projected cost from an engineering standpoint. Just on materials, never mind the cost of hiring design firm to draw up the plans needed to cover the entire US/Mexico border, and any land discrepancies or fortifications needed, to keep the wall secure. Trump has been looking at this much like a Wile E. Coyote cartoon, where stacking bricks without mortar will solve the entire issue, until it falls over on him. But in this case, it would be falling on the American Taxpayers to cover the construction, and subsequent removal of the debris, since forcing Mexico to pay for it is just bait and fodder for the land of the loony tunes.

Can we build a wall to keep Canadians out too ?

It wasn't about the trade agreements, it's about imposing tariffs on countries who don't want to "play ball" with his brand of "business politics". Which is what will hurt EVERYONE, and the country as a whole.

A bit of an artifact of the fact that Donald won the primary and Bernie didn't -- and subsequent e-mail hack aids in this as well -- is that it's clear and almost accepted the Dems aren't all exactly on the same page, where the GOP seems to be in a bit of denial about it.

Neither is really handling it well, though. For the GOP it's a problem because...it's fairly obvious there's a lot of unhappiness in the ranks and few are admitting it. For the Dems it's because despite admitting it, they're still left with no choice but to put all their chips in on Hilldawg and say "she's not Trump! Don't waste your vote on a third party who you like more or Trump will win!"

...which isn't the most convincing way to get me to like and/or vote for your candidate, honestly, but it's also not entirely false.

No it isn't.

It's my assertion that Hillary has alot of rich voters because they want stability rather than whatever diarrhea Trump is cooking up. Rich people and markets tend to favor stability.

To summarize

Imposing tariffs is the same as repealing the trade agreements, which is supposed to remove said tariffs.

I mentioned the wrong person. I should have said Flavin.

I'm sorry.

They don't want to admit it. The real problem is the Tea Party, which came to power so quickly so soon. If we can get rid of that fringe part of the Republican party, the party (and country) would be in a better place.

I for one wouldn't mind telling Ted Cruz to GTFO.

Their problem is that they were so obvious about it, and so deceptive about it. The media helping them out didn't help matters any either.

Then again, the media is all about Clinton anyway. Who cares about being objective, when you can just make ***up about Trump and yell "First Amendment" when he sues you later?

Protip: Libel is not a First Amendment protected right.

Nothing said about him (that I've seen) has been even close to libelous. In fact, nothing even comes close to out of context in the way the right gripped "you didn't build that" and took it so far out of context that it practically was libelous/slanderous.

But it still wasn't, because that's not really how libel and slander work.

You didn't actually say anything besides repeat that it's difficult and impractical so I'm going to + your post anyway.

Oh really?

You don't say?

I mean, seriously

And that 3 very easily accessible libel (although, that third one may be passed off as opinion, still doesn't change the fact that it's libel) articles just from the past 3 days.

Do I really need to post more? And no Nik, I won't if you ask.