Trump & Kim Jong Un sign a ‘historic document’

[Potjeh]

Name one after retirement of Ron Paul. GOP took USA off gold standard with Nixon, went from reducing debt as percentage of GDP to tripling it under Reagan, and trod all over the constitution with the Patriot Act under Bush Jr. How is that conservative?

Also, unemployment rates are bullshit because it counts shitty part time jobs as real jobs, and if somebody has three of those jobs he counts as three employed people. Show me median income growth in the bottom quintile and you can talk about improving economic condition of minorities. And just because someone is employed doesn't mean they're not on the dole. For example, in 2014 Walmart employees alone cost taxpayers 6.2 billion in public assistance.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

...Tensions have diminished...it's unfair to say that this new direction of policy on North Korea has been an effective nuclear deterrent...

It appears to me you contradict yourself. Lower tensions = less likely hood of hostilities of any kind, least of all nuclear war. You are correct that we do have a long way to go, but at least for the first time since the 1950's we are moving in the correct direction. I pretty much concur with the rest of your analysis.

Diminishing of tensions is the equivalent of us losing the momentum creating international pressure against North Korea.
It's fair to say that since the "thaw," North Korea has achieved its key policy goals and the USA has taken steps backward.

I believe when the tin pot despot talks big, Pres. Trump talks bigger and backs his words with American might. It's called standing up to the bully. The bully backed down and came to the table to talk. And Pres. Trump was willing to let leave the past in the past and offer Rocket Man the benefit of the doubt, meet him at the table, and hash out our differences. Now the bully is trying to save face among his crew by talking big again. And if it hasnt already happened, Pres. Trump will once again stand up to the bully and tell him to poop or clear the seat.

"Talking Big" doesn't accomplish anything.
Calling Kim "Rocket Man" just makes us lose international credibility, as it appears our international policy is being led by a schoolyard bully. Which Trump is. And was. My Father went to elementary school with Donald Trump (who is 4 years older), in Queens, NY, and got into schoolyard fist fights with Trump. This was before Trump was sent to military school for his behavioral problems. Such as punching his teacher for trying to correct his poor instrument technique. Because Trump was a spoiled egotistical brat, even in the 1950s.

Conservatives have never had an issue with people who abide by the rule of law, regardless of their port of origin. Furthermore, Conservatives have NEVER said ANY one issue is THE problem.

I guess you aren't a conservative then, CaddoPuma.
You've clearly got a problem with Muslims, even though many adbide by the law:

Remember Islam hates Judaism and Christianity. Always has and always will. The rest of the minutiae are just either excuses or results of the root of religious hatred.

. . . a sincere passion to defend the children of Abraham from the vicious onslaught from the children of Ishmael.

Certainly, the President you so faithfully support also seems keen on prejudice towards Muslims, even those legally entering the United States.
He even loves to blatantly lie about things Muslims do in an attempt to drive a wedge between these "others" and good, true, CaddoPumian Americans.

Jim Crowe Laws, the KKK, Pitching poor against rich, Minorities against whites, Women against men, Secular against religious ... Talk about "Anti-'others'"! It is the Democrats who have always been rife with prejudice.

As to the "Jim Crowe Laws" and the "KKK":
This is like saying that Germany was responsible for Hitler and therefore Modern Germany is anti-semtitic and prone to genocide.

Yes, every policy has winners and losers. You've correctly identified that "leftist" policy would increase the prosperity of the poor against the interests of the rich.
I don't think it's accurate to say that the goal of the Democratic party (not that I particularly support the Democratic party) is to attack Whites, Men, or Religious peoples. Surely you could find examples of individuals with ridiculous ideas and bigotry in the Democratic party, and on the left, much as you can in the Republican party, and on the right. But hopefully they don't see mainstream support. Or get elected President, you know.

But you can only eat an elephant 1 bite at a time and the Illegal Immigration issue is high on the priority list we American Voters gave him to fix, along with American Jobs, The American Economy, Government corruption, and more.

I don't think illegal immigration is anywhere close to the top of the list of priorities that we *should* be addressing.
Here's what the CBO during the Bush administration had to say about immigrants in the United States:
"Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use."

Insofar as whether illegal immigrants entering the United States take entry level, unskilled labor positions, at lower wages than US workers would otherwise accept those positions: Yes, of course they will and are. Deporting them all because they are taking shitty low end jobs costs more money than educating the poor people who have had their jobs taken, and/or enacting additional welfare policies. As a practicing lawyer, you'd be shocked to know how long some of my clients who are stuck in federal immigration detention with revoked bonds have cost the U.S. Taxpayer as we attempt to deport them.

I recently had a client that that has been in federal immigration detention for over a year. (I represented him on matters unrelated to his immigration issues, but I am keenly knowledgeable of U.S. immigration law). He's lived in the United States for almost twenty years, and has been deported twice in the past. Both times he simply came back over the border. He's also got 3 kids here. He's going to get deported a third time, probably, and be back in less than a month. At a total bill to taxpayers of north of $100k for this single deportation.

I agree with fighting Government corruption. We should start by ousting this administration, that appears to be the most corrupt in recent history.

It took a Conservative administration to bring unemployment levels to historical record lows among blacks, hispanics, and women. President Obama's 8 years boasted the highest number of Americans ever on the public dole. In less than 2 years, President Trump has reversed the trend. It looks like a lot of problem solving to me.

Just to be fair, this is a ridiculous false premise and not demonstrative of how the economy works.
But, to use your own argument against you, the economy fairs far, far, better under Democratic presidents than Republicans under every major metric:
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data- ... he-economy
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2 ... f5c81d6786


Source: http://fortune.com/2014/07/29/economic- ... residents/

[CaddoPuma]

Name one after retirement of Ron Paul. GOP took USA off gold standard with Nixon, went from reducing debt as percentage of GDP to tripling it under Reagan, and trod all over the constitution with the Patriot Act under Bush Jr. How is that conservative?

So you mean there was no conservative Republican elected President. I'd give you a point for that one if that was what you said. But you said there is none in the GOP. That is easily proven false. Steve Scolise, Bill Cassidy, John Kennedy. There are 3 of then just from my state currently serving in Washington. And there are many in the Republican party who havent been elected yet, not to mention the ones who for whatever reason have never sought political office.

Show me median income growth in the bottom quintile and you can talk about improving economic condition of minorities. And just because someone is employed doesn't mean they're not on the dole. For example, in 2014 Walmart employees alone cost taxpayers 6.2 billion in public assistance.

Fair enough. Since there is no data available past 2016, we'll have to wait until the 2020 census reports to settle the winner on this question. Hopefully the mods will offer a special allowance for reviving a dead thread to settle a standing debate.

There are no conservatives in the Republican party, it's all neocons.

Spoken like someone who has no understanding of either conservatives, Republicans, or neocons.

I must apologize for this remark. You have clearly demonstrated an acute awareness of the difference between Conservatives and Neocons. I was wrong on that point.

[CaddoPuma]

There's a lot to which I want to respond here, but I'll restrict myself to just this one point for now. I may revisit some of the other poiints at a later time.

... better under Democratic presidents than Republicans under every major metric:...<charts and graphs>

Here are the problems with your data and the charts and graphs which result from it:

You are comparing a Conservative Democrat like President JFK (The last great Democrat President this country has ever had) against those which Potjeh accurately labels Neocons (I apologize my disparraging remarks about Potjeh on that point. He does know the difference between Conservatives and Neocons.) I am not pro Republican. I'm not even a registered Republican. I'm an Independant Conservative. If you make that chart Cons vs Libs, instead of Dems vs Reps, it would be an altogether different story.

[Potjeh]

I have to admit I'm not familiar with those three, are they in the Congress? I'm generally more familiar with the Senate. But even if slightly hyperbolic, I think the point stands. Those neocon presidents had almost universal support among GOP representatives in Senate and Congress, that's how they managed to pull off all that BS. The closest to a conservative I know of in GOP is Rand Paul and he's not half the man his father is - he talks the talk but he doesn't walk the walk (just look how he flipped on Pompeo). Just out of curiosity, how did those three vote on Trump's tax cuts? I think no true conservative could support cutting taxes while spending exceeds revenue by far.

[CaddoPuma]

I think no true conservative could support cutting taxes while spending exceeds revenue by far.

Then you don't understand Conservatism nor budgeting. The answer to fixing your budget problems isnt grab more money from other people. It's reduce spending. The same applies to the US Govt, but only on a bigger scale.

“I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

Taking a higher percentage of your income to support Government bloat is not the way to end the deficit. Ending the bloat is. You know; Like putting a stop to expensive war game exercises?

[Potjeh]

Well, yes, a conservative would want to cut taxes, but only *after* cutting expenses. Trump plan didn't include anywhere near enough cuts to cover the deficit increase, let alone reduce the deficit, and true conservatives would *eliminate* deficit before cutting taxes.

[CaddoPuma]

Well, yes, a conservative would want to cut taxes, but only *after* cutting expenses. Trump plan didn't include anywhere near enough cuts to cover the deficit increase, let alone reduce the deficit, and true conservatives would *eliminate* deficit before cutting taxes.

And that's why I left the Republican party and became an Independent. It's amazing how much we can find to agree on when we start paying attention to what each other is saying rather than how we choose to interpret what we're hearing.

[CaddoPuma]

...I guess you aren't a conservative then, CaddoPuma.
You've clearly got a problem with Muslims, even though many adbide by the law:

Remember Islam hates Judaism and Christianity. Always has and always will. The rest of the minutiae are just either excuses or results of the root of religious hatred.

. . . a sincere passion to defend the children of Abraham from the vicious onslaught from the children of Ishmael.

Certainly, the President you so faithfully support also seems keen on prejudice towards Muslims, even those legally entering the United States.

Here is a perfectly clear example of your hypocrisy. You are playing the exact "anti-'others' " game against which you rail. You are fully aware of the historical record which clearly shows the on-going conflict between Israel and Ishmael. You are fully aware of the fact that President Trump is calling for a temporary moratorium (although he unfortunately and incorrectly calls it a ban) on immigration from certain countries, some of which have no sizable Muslim population but all of which represent a clear and present danger to the security if the United States. But you have to call it a "Muslim ban" so you can continue to falsely demonize "the others" who don't share your globalist, socialistic, Utopian, idealistic world view.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

You are fully aware of the fact that President Trump is calling for a temporary moratorium (although he unfortunately and incorrectly calls it a ban) on immigration from certain countries, some of which have no sizable Muslim population but all of which represent a clear and present danger to the security if the United States. But you have to call it a "Muslim ban" so you can continue to falsely demonize "the others" who don't share your globalist, socialistic, Utopian, idealistic world view.

An interesting position that shows how much of dat koolaid yall been drinking.
The words "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" is taken verbatim from a campaign statement issued by Donald Trump.

Here's a shitty source from a fox news affiliate so you can't yell fake news and bury your head in the sand.
Anything else?