GT40s.com Paddock Politics Thread

[DaveM]

"Do you have evidence that Trump would actually appease Putin on any of these assertions? The Altaic states are in NATO and our treaty would make their invasion an act of war would it not?"
Yes, on sanctions:
Trump's offer to Russia: an end to sanctions for nuclear arms cut - London Times | Reuters
Yes on not defending Baltics against Russian attack:
Trump would not leap to defend Baltic states from Russian attack: NYT

Or do you throw these sources into MSM and won't believe it until Russian tanks roll into Tallin and Riga? Trump did say those things.
Why any bromance at all with Putin? He's not our friend and is a tyrant.
Look I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton, but this just is wrong for Europe and America.

 

[Steve]

Well, you asserted sanctions would be removed, but the article indicates in return for nuclear arms reduction. That might be a deal worth making. The sanctions have had no effect on Russia's Ukranian involvement except to unite the Russian people in hating the West even more and feeling like a victim. I didn't see anything indicating Trump would be OK with an invasion of Ukraine. The article from the NYT does lend some credence that Trump would be reticent to defend the Baltic states, but he stopped short of opening the door for Puti to be sure. His primary point is his criticism of NATO in that we spend $650billion of NATO's $900billion budget and only 5 countries (Estonia being one of them) are paying the requisite 2% of GDP. These countries have no problem spending a lot of money on their own population while the US pays for their security at US taxpayers expense. Nice......

And for the record, I didn't vote for either of them as well. Putin's time will come. You can't do what he's doing without the natives ultimately getting restless. He can try to blame the West as much as he wants for all of Russia's troubles but some day his own people will be his undoing.

 

[DaveM]

I think the sanctions-nuclear reduction is just a cover for Trump. I dispute your assertion that sanctions haven't worked. Ruble has drastically declined and Russia is in a recession:
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2015/Russia/sanctions-after-crimea-have-they-worked/EN/index.htm
As for the Ukraine you seem to forget Crimea was Ukrainian territory, Trump is OK with Russian takeover:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-suggests-us-accept-russias-annexation-crimea/
As I keep saying why does Trump complement or support Putin at all? Until we get hold of Trump's tax returns we won't know for sure, but only logical explanation is Trump is indebted to Russian oligarchs. 75% of Americans say Trump should release his tax returns, but he's already reneged on promise to do that.

 

[Steve]

What is the goal of sanctions? To effect change in Putin's behavior right? I don't think it has altered his behavior do you? It has had the economic effect you noted. The hope is the economic issues would result in the population pushing for change. Instead it has resulted in resentment of Russians towards the West and greater support for Putin.

Crimea was taken quite some time before Trump entered the scene. Obama's actions would indicate he's not willing to do anything to force Russia out (and he did nothing to stop them from coming in). Can we really be critical of Trump for forsaking Ukraine (which he actually hasn't done yet) and not be equally critical of Obama for forsaking Crimea (which he has done). Also, do you really want to militarily intervene in Ukraine with American forces?

I think Trump was a dipshit for not releasing his tax returns. Having said that, it's a stretch to make that assumption.

 

[DaveM]

I guess we can disagree on the sanctions. Concerning Crimea Trump said he would recognize Putin's takeover as legitimate. I find it duplicitous that GOP says Obama didn't do enough to stop Putin, but Trump welcomes Putin with open arms?
You at least see Putin as a threat. What really disturbs me are Trumpkins like Hannity that say Russia is our friend and reference our WWII alliance. Even then Stalin was not our friend and Putin the gangster isn't now.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Says it all really.

 

[Doug S.]

Those three do not represent even a small portion of the female population here in the U.S., Pete.

...but, if they did, I would certainly agree with the sentiment of the post. It has long been my opinion that the dancing we see from pop artists, which seem to be little other than pelvic thrusts, DO seem to leave that impression.

Lady GaGa is a Juliard trained vocalist. Why she feels the need to clothe herself in strips of pork is beyond me...and seems more than a bit odd...but as easy as it would be to denounce her as a bit "crazy", it would belie the truth...she realizes that these days to just have a good voice is not enough, a performer must be "notorious" (maybe that should be "noteworthy") in order to even be recognized. LGG is just engaging in the most bizarre form of self-promotion; and seemingly-gone-wild Molly Cyrus did a credible of being a vocal coach on "The Voice" despite her bizarre wardrobe (and her prior antics, such as seen in the photo you posted).

Madonna...she is a master of self-promotion and over her career has been intermittently questionable, but if we had a look into her private life we'd probably find that she's fairly mainstream.

My hope is that images such as the ones under discussion do not convince people around the world that our American women are all outrageous...it's just not true.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

So we have moral outrage and worldwide women's marches focused at Trump for locker room talk and unsubstantiated allegations. Funny, I heard minimal left wing outrage when a 20 year old daughter was coerced into giving a 46 year old man a blowjob, had a cigar inserted in her vagina, and semen climaxed onto her gown in the oval office by the fucking President of the United States. So the whining left is going to keep this bs up for the next 4 years and possibly 8 years? Trump accomplished more in the 2 months prior to inauguration than Obama did on his 1st 100 days. And he sure as hell wont be bowing to any Saudi royalty.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Those three do not represent even a small portion of the female population here in the U.S., Pete.

...but, if they did, I would certainly agree with the sentiment of the post. It has long been my opinion that the dancing we see from pop artists, which seem to be little other than pelvic thrusts, DO seem to leave that impression.

Lady GaGa is a Juliard trained vocalist. Why she feels the need to clothe herself in strips of pork is beyond me...and seems more than a bit odd...but as easy as it would be to denounce her as a bit "crazy", it would belie the truth...she realizes that these days to just have a good voice is not enough, a performer must be "notorious" (maybe that should be "noteworthy") in order to even be recognized. LGG is just engaging in the most bizarre form of self-promotion; and seemingly-gone-wild Molly Cyrus did a credible of being a vocal coach on "The Voice" despite her bizarre wardrobe (and her prior antics, such as seen in the photo you posted).

Madonna...she is a master of self-promotion and over her career has been intermittently questionable, but if we had a look into her private life we'd probably find that she's fairly mainstream.

My hope is that images such as the ones under discussion do not convince people around the world that our American women are all outrageous...it's just not true.

Cheers!

Doug

Madonna has a HBO concert from Germany that is the most digusting pornagraphic display I've seen. One of the organizers of the marches was a Muslim women featured in a CNN article. She supports Sharia Law in the US. Sharia Law is about as anti women as you can get, Quite a contradiction.

 

[Doug S.]

I would support the Muslim community INFORMALLY enforcing their own "Sharia" tenants, but would fight tooth and toenail to keep them from forcing our legal community to adopt it. We already have a lot of laws that we've developed ourselves over the years. No need to re-invent the wheel just to make a particular religion happy...let them make themselves happy. That is the way to deal with Sharia Law without violating their right to freedom of religion...or letting their laws violate our rights. It's a religious thing, and I do support cultures worshiping as they please. That doesn't mean I have to adopt their practices, but I would not try to stop them from adhering to their Sharia practices (with the exception of Jihad, here in the USA).

I think the bottom line is that there ought to be separation between religion and government...if they want to be here, they have to accept that, it's one of the foundations on which our country was founded, so they cannot force our country to adopt laws that we did not enact.

However, I will say this...just because their religion preaches "Jihad" does not mean we need to allow Jihad in the U.S.A. They can practice their violence somewhere else that does not prohibit such activities...their peaceful religious activities they can practice anywhere they like.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Doug, I am not saying all American women are of the same ilk as those depicted, although I suspect those who marched would be. You say you would support Sharia law within the Muslim community, although I am sure that you would not support child brides, female genital mutilation and the killing of homosexuals all of which are tenents of Sharia law.

Al makes a good point about Bill Clinton, why weren't these women marching then, where was the hue and cry? A bit of locker room talk by Trump pales into insignificance as a comparison.

 

[Rod]

Even before the Internet, way back in the 1990's, there were protests against Bill Clinton, and he was impeached:

When the people protest their President - CNNPolitics.com

Also, Clinton's affair was consensual. Trump bragged about non-consensual groping.

 

[Rod]

Oh, and 3 musical artists, at least one of them raped as a child/teenager, doesn't represent the female population in this country.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I would support the Muslim community INFORMALLY enforcing their own "Sharia" tenants, but would fight tooth and toenail to keep them from forcing our legal community to adopt it. We already have a lot of laws that we've developed ourselves over the years. No need to re-invent the wheel just to make a particular religion happy...let them make themselves happy. That is the way to deal with Sharia Law without violating their right to freedom of religion...or letting their laws violate our rights. It's a religious thing, and I do support cultures worshiping as they please. That doesn't mean I have to adopt their practices, but I would not try to stop them from adhering to their Sharia practices (with the exception of Jihad, here in the USA).

I think the bottom line is that there ought to be separation between religion and government...if they want to be here, they have to accept that, it's one of the foundations on which our country was founded, so they cannot force our country to adopt laws that we did not enact.

However, I will say this...just because their religion preaches "Jihad" does not mean we need to allow Jihad in the U.S.A. They can practice their violence somewhere else that does not prohibit such activities...their peaceful religious activities they can practice anywhere they like.

Cheers!

Doug

So if they INFORMALLY stone people and cut off heads, it's OK? We can't even take a Bible into an Arab country. Whatever happened to assimilating to the USA?

 

[Doug S.]

Doug, I am not saying all American women are of the same ilk as those depicted, although I suspect those who marched would be. You say you would support Sharia law within the Muslim community, although I am sure that you would not support child brides, female genital mutilation and the killing of homosexuals all of which are tenents of Sharia law.

Well, I certainly would not conduct myself in that manner, but if my religion required I do that I might. It seems to me that Islam is a religion of extremes. In that respect I would expect that even within Islam there are those who do not practice those acts.

The U.S. has a long history of trying to "absorb" various religious beliefs...Mormons may have multiple "wives" under certain circumstances (many of them "child brides") and the Amish persist in holding on to the past, preferring to get where they are going in horse-drawn carriages rather than automobiles. We have a community very close to where I live that is primarily Mennonite and they run their own schools, own the buildings and all. Only the children of the local Mennonite population can attend that school.

Religious "tolerance" has long been a practice here...right or not. For example, many of the immigrants from Nigeria will send their daughters back to Africa at some point in their adolescence so that their "genital arousal area" could be cauterized (mutilated, as you stated!). It wasn't done in the USA, we don't sanction that kind of act, but we do tolerate their religious practice rather than try to deport them for having it done. We even have a rather sordid history of mistreatment of homosexuals, some of which has been lethal, but none of which has been sanctioned by any western religion of which I know.

So...all of the things you mentioned have been part of the American experience over the decades...for bad or for good, depending on one's point of view...some of which is developed as a part of their religious training.

I don't see how we can avoid it...but we have to be aware of it and vigilant regarding our efforts to stop it.

Maybe President Trump can figure out how to build a wall around America that will keep out only the bad Muslims out and let the good ones in...

When Muslims lobby to attempt to get Sharia law implemented for us ALL, regardless of religious affiliation, we'll see a stop to that here, where religious freedom (freedom to practice ANY religion, or NONE) seems to prohibit the establishment of any laws that favor one religion over another, which implementing sharia law over non-Muslims would do. Within their own "community/culture", however, we have no right to prohibit them from establishing their own religious customs, complete with genital mutilations, in the name of their religion...within limits, of which I would suspect the murder of homosexuals would be a crime according to our laws.

What a mess!

Cheers?

Doug

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I guess I'm wondering why people that come to our country need to to change it to suit where they came from? Why not just stay there? My dad didn't try to change the US when he came from Sweden. Belgium will be Muslim controlled by 2025, all the laws and customs changed. Britain is heading in that direction along with Germany. No need for wars, we will just let it creep in. Ahhh political correctness. The left doesn't have a clue of the monster they are letting in.

 

[Doug S.]

So if they INFORMALLY stone people and cut off heads, it's OK? We can't even take a Bible into an Arab country. Whatever happened to assimilating to the USA?

We do have a history of stoning people here in the USA, Al...it was long ago and far away but it was...and what could be more compassionate about burning witches at the stake rather than stoning them to death. I'm not sure how you "informally" stone someone, though; however, it is my firm belief that if their actions violate an American law regarding torture, illegal imprisonment, or death, they should be held responsible via our American legal system, not Sharia law. As for torture, well, even our newly elected President is condoning it at Gitmo, and so it's hard to say where that will stop. Maybe he'll "tweet" about that?

As for carrying a bible into an Arab country, if it is prohibited then I don't see any reason to take one. The Christians I know can practice their religion just fine without a book to read if they were raised with our Judaeo-Christian beliefs.

I guess I'm wondering why people that come to our country need to to change it to suit where they came from? Why not just stay there? My dad didn't try to change the US when he came from Sweden. Belgium will be Muslim controlled by 2025, all the laws and customs changed. Britain is heading in that direction along with Germany. No need for wars, we will just let it creep in. Ahhh political correctness. The left doesn't have a clue of the monster they are letting in.

I wholeheartedly support your comment about assimilating into our American culture and there are many Muslim examples of having done just that. For those criminals who choose not to do so, I'd support imprisonment and punishment through our legal system of courts just as if someone who was NOT Muslim had committed those acts. It's either assimilate or "vacate", that is my belief; however, within THEIR countries they have the right to establish the same expectations...or different ones, as they choose.

The issue of Muslim control is a difficult issue...how does a country grant compassionate asylum to true political dissidents, or even refugees, without giving them voting rights that allow them to gain control of a country? I could see that...you can live here as long as you don't ask to be allowed to vote in our country...UNLESS you believe in America enough to become a naturalized citizen, then you can vote, too. I watched Alief, TX become a town totally controlled by Asian citizens, now all the street signs are in some sort of character that we can't read. They gained a voting majority and just took over.

Cheers, Al! It's great to see you joining in on our conversations again :thumbsup:

Doug

 

[Steve]

Doug, I agree that supporting religious freedom and expression is to be encouraged.....within the rule of law. You are saying that you would be OK with the muslim community INFORMALLY pursuing Sharia Law. In other words, you're OK with it as long as it's within the muslim community? So committing a crime (enforcing amputation as a punishment for theft for example) is OK as long as it's done within the muslim community? Does US law not apply to muslims? Are you wanting to create a country within a country?

There is no place for Sharia Law within the US. Period. Most of the practices violate numerous state and federal laws. Muslims, if they choose to come here, must abide by US law (same as every other homo sapiens) and if they don't they should be arrested and prosecuted. Committing a crime even if the victim consents is still a crime. Criminal law (lawyers chime in here) considers amputating someone's hand (even if they consent) a crime regardless of the victims consent.

 

[Steve]

Oh, and 3 musical artists, at least one of them raped as a child/teenager, doesn't represent the female population in this country.

Maybe not, but many thousands of those females were certainly OK with having those 3 nimrods speak on their behalf! What does that say about their character or wisdom?

BTW, you do have to give Trump credit: he got more obese women to get out and walk in one day then Michelle Obama did in 8 years of advocacy.:thumbsup:

 

[Doug S.]

Doug, I agree that supporting religious freedom and expression is to be encouraged.....within the rule of law. You are saying that you would be OK with the muslim community INFORMALLY pursuing Sharia Law. In other words, you're OK with it as long as it's within the muslim community? So committing a crime (enforcing amputation as a punishment for theft for example) is OK as long as it's done within the muslim community? Does US law not apply to muslims? Are you wanting to create a country within a country?

There is no place for Sharia Law within the US. Period. Most of the practices violate numerous state and federal laws. Muslims, if they choose to come here, must abide by US law..

No argument with your position, Steve. I believe the muslim population can practice their religious rituals as long as they do not violate OUR laws...when they do, they become criminals.

Genital mutilation...despicable, but not against the law HERE if the act occurs in a different country...and not illegal to send a 12 year old to Nigeria to have it done.

As for amputating a hand for stealing...I guess if the perp submits willingly as a form of religious attonement, it's OK...but a lynch mob holding him down while a crazed Jihadist wielding a schmitar taking a hand against the perp's wishes...book 'im, Danoh!!

If they live here, they follow our laws...but for the most part, I just wish the radical ones would leave.

Cheers!

Doug