• filter:
  • 1255256257258 259
  • Page
  • Previous 40
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
rated:
larrymoencurly said:   scrouds said:   
larrymoencurly said:   That's what I said, but you didn't seem to understand when you called Hillary a carpetbagger.  How did carpetbagger status  disqualify Robert Kennedy for Congress or the presidency?
Keep beating your straw man, it suits you.

  IOW Scrouds has nothing.

Can't swing at the ball if you're pitching it to second base.

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   scrouds said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
evlemonkfish said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
TPP is an anti-China trade deal, and if we don't get TPP, China will step in and negotiate a treaty among the very same Pacific nations but exclude the US.  

 

So, if Hillary is against TPP, why don't you call her out on it ... or do you believe she's just holding the Sanders crowd's water until January?

But I have criticized her and everyone who opposes it.  I've said it should be sold as anti-China, although the president can't openly say that, despite the fact that's the reason for TPP.

Please, enlighten me. Explain how it is anti china.

The TPP partners are:

  • Australia
  • Brunei
  • Canada
  • Chile
  • Japan
  • Malaysia
  • Mexico
  • New Zealand
  • Peru
  • Singapore
  • United States
  • Vietnam

Wiki says some other nations interested in joining include Taiwan, Philippines, Colombia, Thailand, Laos Indonesia, Cambodia, Bangladesh, and India.  

Where is China among them?  How can anything relating to the Pacific or Asia that excludes China not be anti-China? On the other hand, if TPP isn't approved, China will negotiate its own treaty among the Far East nations and possibly exclude the US.  I'm guessing that most people who oppose TPP think it includes China.

 

That's perfectly logical. What about all the other countries on the Pacific? Is it anti them too?

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
deusxmachina said:   
 
lol. So "to keep the world calm so the odds and extent of military confrontations will be minimized," you want to put in charge Crooked Hillary who has helped lead the charge on military confrontations and has been on the wrong side of practically every foreign policy decision of the last 15 years.  And who put her own convenience ahead of national security.  And lied about it.  And forgot about it.  And "short circuits."  And is called Extremely Careless by the FBI.  And despite being in or around high-level government for decades is still too stupid to know a "c" on a classified document doesn't stand for alphabetical order.   

Have I mentioned Crooked Globalist Hillary wants open borders?  Check how France and Sweden and Germany are doing with their "cultural enrichment."

Right, because Hillary has the best policies for the future to keep the calm, such as by not criticizing our NATO allies or sending US ground troops into the Middle East again.

Donald, Hillary, and GW Bush all said they supported invading Iraq, but only Donald and GW Bush really wanted it to happen.  IOW they were the 2 who most favored policies that would encourage a refugee crisis, and you favor one of them to become President.

  
Ah, such great "allies" that allow the U.S. to protect them and pay for them and die for them.  Such great "allies" to have.  It wasn't that long ago that people camped out in parks to draw attention to everyone "paying their fair share."

You keep pushing your Donald really wanted to invade Iraq thing.  Private uninformed citizen Donald Trump saying an off the cuff "I guess" when first asked about the topic doesn't constitute strong support.  It was more-informed politician Crooked Hillary who was gung ho about invading Iraq.  And then she with all her government knowledge and doing it full-time on a daily basis continued making bad foreign policy decisions for years and years after that.

It's ridiculously absurd that you even try to put Iraq more on private citizen Donald Trump than on politician Crooked Hillary who actually voted for it and who is obviously the more hawkish of the two, including having plenty of warmongering neocons voting for her.

rated:
A couple of pages ago, several people were discussing Trump's comments about "stop and frisk" during the first debate with HIllary 

Below is the perspective of Rudy Guiliani, a former federal prosecutor, who was mayor of New York City from 1994 to 2001.  He explains how Judge Scheindlin, who ruled that stop and frisk was unconstitutional,  was biased towards police and intentionally steered the case to her courtroom .

Excerpt pasted below .  You can read the entire column here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-is-right-about-stop-and-frisk-1475018152 

"One of the strategies that helped bring about an 85% reduction in crime in New York City between 1994 and 2013 was the careful and appropriate use of “stop and frisk.” This practice dramatically reduced the number of guns, knives and other dangerous weapons, as well as illicit drugs, in the city....  During my administration, the U.S. Justice Department spent two years examining stop and frisk and it filed no case. After continued use of the practice during the administration of Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly, Judge Scheindlin found that the volume of stops and the focus on the African-American community made the practice not unconstitutional in general but unconstitutional as applied. This is the distinction that is so important—yet was misunderstood by Mr. Holt and misrepresented by Mrs. Clinton. ....  During the debate, Donald Trump described the history of the case correctly. He said that after the judge decided the case, the city appealed and asked for a stay of the lower court’s decision. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a scathing opinion, criticized Judge Scheindlin for improperly steering the case to her courtroom. It issued an unusual stay to allow the Bloomberg-Kelly form of stop and frisk to go forward until the court could decide the appeal. And in a rare action, it removed Judge Scheindlin from the case. "

It was then liberal mayor Bill de Blasio who decided not to appeal Judge Scheindlin's ruling

Edited to add this quote from the the NY Times a few years ago regarding Judge Scheindlin 
"She was abruptly removed from the case =17px by a panel of appellate judges who pointedly questioned her neutrality; her ruling was thrust into legal and political limbo; and her reputation came under attack from city officials and newspaper editorial writers, seemingly emboldened by the appellate court’s blunt critique. "

rated:
I've been meaning to type this out.

September 11, 2002, Howard stern, sometime after asking trump where his was was and is she naked, asked trump if he's for invading Iraq. His response?

Yeah, I guess... so.

https://youtu.be/77P6fxa2KOs

That is not "supporting the Iraq war", a direct claim made by both Hillary and Lester holt.

Has there ever been a presidential debate where the moderator lied twice while hurling accusations at one candidate, but never the other?

rated:
scrouds said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
scrouds said:   
larrymoencurly said:   That's what I said, but you didn't seem to understand when you called Hillary a carpetbagger.  How did carpetbagger status  disqualify Robert Kennedy for Congress or the presidency?
Keep beating your straw man, it suits you.

  IOW Scrouds has nothing.

Can't swing at the ball if you're pitching it to second base.

  This is one of the those instances where sports analogies don't apply to real life.  

rated:
scrouds said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
scrouds said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
evlemonkfish said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
TPP is an anti-China trade deal, and if we don't get TPP, China will step in and negotiate a treaty among the very same Pacific nations but exclude the US.  

So, if Hillary is against TPP, why don't you call her out on it ... or do you believe she's just holding the Sanders crowd's water until January?

But I have criticized her and everyone who opposes it.  I've said it should be sold as anti-China, although the president can't openly say that, despite the fact that's the reason for TPP.

Please, enlighten me. Explain how it is anti china.

The TPP partners are:  Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States, Vietnam

Wiki says some other nations interested in joining include Taiwan, Philippines, Colombia, Thailand, Laos, Indonesia, Cambodia, Bangladesh, and India.  

Where is China among them?  How can anything relating to the Pacific or Asia that excludes China not be anti-China? On the other hand, if TPP isn't approved, China will negotiate its own treaty among the Far East nations and possibly exclude the US.  I'm guessing that most people who oppose TPP think it includes China.

That's perfectly logical. What about all the other countries on the Pacific? Is it anti them too?

I don't think there's any hostility against other countries from joining, but when a nation with over a billion people isn't invited, that's unlikely to be an unintentional oversight, don't you think?  

rated:
China was invited. You're not making any sense.

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   scrouds said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
scrouds said:   
larrymoencurly said:   That's what I said, but you didn't seem to understand when you called Hillary a carpetbagger.  How did carpetbagger status  disqualify Robert Kennedy for Congress or the presidency?
Keep beating your straw man, it suits you.

  IOW Scrouds has nothing.

Can't swing at the ball if you're pitching it to second base.

  This is one of the those instances where sports analogies don't apply to real life.  


I was thinking of just saying wooooosh but figured a sports analogy would be more relatable for you. I figured wrong.

rated:
bighitter said:   A couple of pages ago, several people were discussing Trump's comments about "stop and frisk" during the first debate with HIllary 

Below is the perspective of Rudy Guiliani, a former federal prosecutor, who was mayor of New York City from 1994 to 2001.  He explains how Judge Scheindlin, who ruled that stop and frisk was unconstitutional,  was biased towards police and intentionally steered the case to her courtroom .

Excerpt pasted below .  You can read the entire column here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-is-right-about-stop-and-frisk-1475018152 

"One of the strategies that helped bring about an 85% reduction in crime in New York City between 1994 and 2013 was the careful and appropriate use of “stop and frisk.” 

Here's a graph showing the rates of property crime and violent crime in New York City from 1985 to 2015 and the rate of stop & frisk from about 2002-2015. Changes in property and violent crime correlated highly with each other, but how did changes in either crime rate relate to the rate of stop & frisk?  Yes, crime went down when stop & frisk started, but it had already been decreasing before the program started, and more than tripling stop & frisk activity didn't seem to make the crime rates drop any faster than they had already been falling:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2614058

rated:
scrouds said:   China was invited. You're not making any sense.
  You're right, and apparently China didn't want US dominance in any trade pact.  Also it seems China wasn't particularly actively recruited, although China says they don't care either way.

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
bighitter said:   A couple of pages ago, several people were discussing Trump's comments about "stop and frisk" during the first debate with HIllary 

Below is the perspective of Rudy Guiliani, a former federal prosecutor, who was mayor of New York City from 1994 to 2001.  He explains how Judge Scheindlin, who ruled that stop and frisk was unconstitutional,  was biased towards police and intentionally steered the case to her courtroom .

Excerpt pasted below .  You can read the entire column here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-is-right-about-stop-and-frisk-1475018152 

"One of the strategies that helped bring about an 85% reduction in crime in New York City between 1994 and 2013 was the careful and appropriate use of “stop and frisk.” 

Here's a graph showing the rates of property crime and violent crime in New York City from 1985 to 2015 and the rate of stop & frisk from about 2002-2015. Changes in property and violent crime correlated highly with each other, but how did changes in either crime rate relate to the rate of stop & frisk?  Yes, crime went down when stop & frisk started, but it had already been decreasing before the program started, and more than tripling stop & frisk activity didn't seem to make the crime rates drop any faster than they had already been falling:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2614058

  when did the program start?

Your graph suggests 2002, but guiliani started it early in his mayorship. An NYS attorney general report showed 175,000 documented stop and frisk reports between Jan 1 1998 and Mar 31 1999

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
bighitter said:   A couple of pages ago, several people were discussing Trump's comments about "stop and frisk" during the first debate with HIllary 

Below is the perspective of Rudy Guiliani, a former federal prosecutor, who was mayor of New York City from 1994 to 2001.  He explains how Judge Scheindlin, who ruled that stop and frisk was unconstitutional,  was biased towards police and intentionally steered the case to her courtroom .

Excerpt pasted below .  You can read the entire column here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-is-right-about-stop-and-frisk-1475018152 

"One of the strategies that helped bring about an 85% reduction in crime in New York City between 1994 and 2013 was the careful and appropriate use of “stop and frisk.” 

Here's a graph showing the rates of property crime and violent crime in New York City from 1985 to 2015 and the rate of stop & frisk from about 2002-2015. Changes in property and violent crime correlated highly with each other, but how did changes in either crime rate relate to the rate of stop & frisk?  Yes, crime went down when stop & frisk started, but it had already been decreasing before the program started, and more than tripling stop & frisk activity didn't seem to make the crime rates drop any faster than they had already been falling:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2614058

 did you even read the paper?  At least read the abstract.  "The New York Police Department (NYPD) under Operation Impact deployed extra police officers to high crime areas designated as impact zones. Officers were encouraged to conduct investigative stops in these areas. ... Impact zones were significantly associated with reductions in total reported crimes, assaults, burglaries, drug violations, misdemeanor crimes, felony property crimes, robberies, and felony violent crimes."
 

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.
  • 1255256257258 259
  • Page
  • Previous 40


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2016