The Trump implosion thread!

Quote: stinkingliberal

Really, a single incident proves that the entire country is "wholly unsafe"?

You need some help with reading comprehension? I specifically did not say the entire country is unsafe, just specific areas. Did you watch the 60 minutes show? The local police made it clear that the area the reporters were going in was not safe. You think the cops were making that up? For what reason?

Ed's point about poverty, not religion, might be valid. But then do not allow poverty stricken swarms of people in, regardless of religion, if you do not have jobs waiting for them, or are willing to just give them tons of money to keep them out of poverty.

Quote: stinkingliberal

Well, the "voluntary homeless" mythos is also ridiculous. Sure, there are a few people who choose to live on the street, but it's a miserable existence and the vast majority of the homeless want a place to live. Yes, even if they have to work.

I've worked extensively with the homeless, volunteering for various organizations, and the misconceptions that the public has about them--they're all screwed up somehow, they're all drug addicts, they all really WANT to live in cardboard boxes--seriously impede the provision of the help they need.

The last few summers we have large "homeless" camps show up all over BC on public lands, usually some center city park. Some bleeding heart judge ruled that they have the right to camp there. The communities can do nothing to remove them. The communities build shelters and the people don't want to move into them and can't be forced. The only way these camps get shut down is they get so over run with rodents and such fire hazards that the communities can use health and safety regs to remove them, usually at cost of $100,000 or more. They usually look like third world slums before they are removed.

On the coldest days of the years the shelters are full. The rest of the year the "homeless" are on the street because they prefer that life and the shelters are not full. That is a true statement no matter what you think, a statement you would know is true if you actually had worked with "homeless" people. I probably have met more street people than you because I walk through my park on an almost daily basis where they hang out. I talk to them, joke with them and generally interact with them. They aren't bad or dangerous people but the majority of them are life long alcoholics and unlikely to change their life style.

Quote: kenarman

On the coldest days of the years the shelters are full. The rest of the year the "homeless" are on the street because they prefer that life and the shelters are not full. That is a true statement no matter what you think, a statement you would know is true if you actually had worked with "homeless" people. I probably have met more street people than you because I walk through my park on an almost daily basis where they hang out. I talk to them, joke with them and generally interact with them. They aren't bad or dangerous people but the majority of them are life long alcoholics and unlikely to change their life style.

Somehow, I doubt that you've conducted a rigorous scientific study to support those opinions. You may have said hello to a number of street people, but I've actually worked with hundreds of them and understood and dealt with their problems in far greater depth than a casual conversation.

Your attitude is revealed by the crack about a "bleeding heart judge." The issue comes up all over the US as well. The question is whether the homeless have a right to exist. I've seen that judges who rule on issues like this tend to go straight to constitutional concepts. I guess that makes them "bleeding hearts" if they rule that the police can't chase people out of the city park or whatever simply for being there.

All the crap about bleeding hearts aside, it's probably better, and cheaper, for a community to provide basic housing for the local homeless population. You see, shelters aren't really homes. They usually kick everybody out during the day, there's no secure place to store possessions, and there's no space a person can call his/her own. There are logical reasons why a homeless person might not want to live in a shelter.

Quote: SOOPOO

You need some help with reading comprehension? I specifically did not say the entire country is unsafe, just specific areas. Did you watch the 60 minutes show? The local police made it clear that the area the reporters were going in was not safe. You think the cops were making that up? For what reason?

Ed's point about poverty, not religion, might be valid. But then do not allow poverty stricken swarms of people in, regardless of religion, if you do not have jobs waiting for them, or are willing to just give them tons of money to keep them out of poverty.

Well, you're probably not even aware of how prejudicial your language is. "Swarms"? As in, dangerous insects? Tens of thousands of filthy MOOZLEEMS? The police in the show were probably acting out of an abundance of caution, but they didn't say that the area was unsafe because it was "swarming" with filthy Muslims; they said it was unsafe because of a recent incident.

I really can't convince anyone otherwise if they see a slavering jihadist behind every tree, and when Trump stirs up the fears of the ignorant, that's wildly effective, but the threat of "radical Islamic terrorism" (as opposed to radical Christian terrorism) is grossly exaggerated. Gets assholes elected, though.

Quote: stinkingliberal

Quote: kenarman

On the coldest days of the years the shelters are full. The rest of the year the "homeless" are on the street because they prefer that life and the shelters are not full. That is a true statement no matter what you think, a statement you would know is true if you actually had worked with "homeless" people. I probably have met more street people than you because I walk through my park on an almost daily basis where they hang out. I talk to them, joke with them and generally interact with them. They aren't bad or dangerous people but the majority of them are life long alcoholics and unlikely to change their life style.

Somehow, I doubt that you've conducted a rigorous scientific study to support those opinions. You may have said hello to a number of street people, but I've actually worked with hundreds of them and understood and dealt with their problems in far greater depth than a casual conversation.

Your attitude is revealed by the crack about a "bleeding heart judge." The issue comes up all over the US as well. The question is whether the homeless have a right to exist. I've seen that judges who rule on issues like this tend to go straight to constitutional concepts. I guess that makes them "bleeding hearts" if they rule that the police can't chase people out of the city park or whatever simply for being there.

All the crap about bleeding hearts aside, it's probably better, and cheaper, for a community to provide basic housing for the local homeless population. You see, shelters aren't really homes. They usually kick everybody out during the day, there's no secure place to store possessions, and there's no space a person can call his/her own. There are logical reasons why a homeless person might not want to live in a shelter.

I tell you what Stinky. You present your "rigorous scientific study" to support your views and I will follow with my research. Yes my crack about bleeding heart judges does show my thinking on the issue just as much as your language. The mayor of Vancouver who would agree with you on all your issues made a promise when he was elected to eliminate homelessness. Guess what increased funding to them and doubled the amount of low income housing. Guess what we have more "homeless" people now then when he started all crying for more funding and rights.

Let's differentiate between wishful thinking and actual possibilities.

Given how much of Golden Boy's promises in the campaign are outright unconstitutional (including his many conflicts of interest), he's likely to literally step on it sooner or later. So impeachment and removal from an objective sense is likely.

Also given his unstable temperament, constant lies, inexplicable desire to pick fights with many countries, and very high likelihood his actions will have very adverse consequences, impeachment and removal may be viewed favorably by the GOP. Especially if they undergo a disastrous loss in the 2018 mid-term elections.

But unless Golden Boy goes and does something blatantly criminal, like gunning down Ted Cruz in broad daylight, it's going to take time. At least until late 2018 for the process to get started, maybe a little less if the GOP polls badly even in districts they've owned since the Civil War.

And, yes, that's really too bad. The longer that clown stays in the White House pretending he knows what's going on, the more damage will be done to the republic.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/22/democrats-face-grim-prospects-in-2018-midterm-elec/

2018 elections will be as successful for Democrats as Hillary was. Pocahontas will not defeat General Custer, aka TRUMP

Quote: buzzardknot

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/22/democrats-face-grim-prospects-in-2018-midterm-elec/

2018 elections will be as successful for Democrats as Hillary was. Pocahontas will not defeat General Custer, aka TRUMP

I would enjoy seeing Trump meet the same fate as Custer. I agree with you that the 2018 elections will be Trump's Little Bighorn.

Where you go off the rails is with the silly Pocahontas reference. It doesn't even make sense the way you used it, since Custer and Pocahontas lived two centuries and two thousand miles apart. It doesn't even work as an insult--it's like my trying to insult Trump by calling him "Lord Nelson."

Really, buzz, you should learn to stop parroting Trump, especially his dumber attempts at insults. You just make yourself look foolish.

I don't know if there will be a "Trump implosion"; it can't be ruled out as a possibility...but I do know there have been an implosion of civility, decency, and standards of conduct on the left. It has gone too far. The left's constant rhetoric of Trump hatred is driving the fringe elements and even children to do crazy things. It isn't enough to try to fight Trump like you would normally oppose a President you didn't agree with; we are way beyond that. People calling for his death, calling him Hitler, and dehumanizing him in general has gotten way out of had. Some here even do it and the things that some of them say should happen to him are reprehensible.

I get that some don't like him. Protest all you want. Win the 2018 elections (or at least as many seats as you can). Hand him political defeats. Do all that and more...but stop the wishes for death and other stuff and keep your fringe in check.

Now you've got idiot kids throwing things at his motorcade. They didn't think of that themselves; they were driven to that by the constant drone of hatred from their parents, other adults, and covered by the news media. I know, I know...it is an isolated incident. Just like all of the crazy crap that went down before the election in DC (contrasted with the PEACEFUL protests the day after). People act out like that when all they hear is hatred.

Trump like it or not, is as much the Democrat's fault as anyone else's. Your team put a player on the field that was widely distrusted and disliked. Your candidate called the very Democrat voters that have helped deliver them wins of late as "deplorables" because they considered voting for Trump. Yeah, those same "deplorables" that the party always says that it will help got tired of being patronized and your awful candidate pulled a Romney (47%) and took them from thinking about voting for Trump right over to being solid for Trump. Nope, Trump and his orange team did not do this all by themselves. They had lots of help from your side.

Now get your party out of the gutter and get back in the game. Throwing 2"x4"s at the motorcade, destroying property, wishing death on the President, calling him Hitler, and all that don't increase your chances of making Trump a one term President. The will likely increase his chances of being a two-termer because they will solidify the people who supported him and disgust some of those who didn't.

Trump may implode.

The Democrats have imploded.

Quote: RonC

Trump like it or not, is as much the Democrat's fault as anyone else's.

This is complete and total B.S.