Bluey's Dad

According to Mr Trump, the media is the 'enemy of the people'. John McCain responds: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/19/donald-trump-john-mccain-media-enemy-of-the-people/98126656/ "If you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free -- and many times adversarial — press," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., speaking on NBC's Meet The Press. "And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time — that's how dictators get started." Citing history, McCain told NBC that "the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press," though he hastened to add: "I'm not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I'm just saying we need to learn the lessons of history." This isn't some statement about media bias or conflicted interests. He actually said that the press is the enemy of the American People. An AMERICAN PRESIDENT said this. This is surely indefensible, although I am looking forward to some of the conservative mental acrobats here try to excuse or contort Trump's statement. 'Alternative Facts' by Conway was disturbing enough, but this is.. I don't know what this is. Just plain wrong I guess. Even a Fox News anchor has taken up the issue. Combine this with the ongoing investigation over the Russian links and I'd say that the word "impeach" is likely to be bandied about a lot in Republican circles today. If the FBI proves Trump knew about the conversations his people were having, then I think it'll be enough to cross that impeachment line. I stand by my comment that he won't be in power by the end of the year. The Russian thing or something else will force the Republicans' hand. They will prefer Pence to Trump, who they only stuck with because he was their only chance of winning the election.

Do I seriously need to spell it out for you Biff? Halting Muslim immigration entirely is the exact same thing as a ban on Muslim immigration. A. Ban. There's no subtle distinction here. No semantic loophole to exploit. You can't wiggle out of this by claiming some sort of intellectual superiority. You blatantly contracted yourself. You are a massive fool.

See post above.

That particular comment, no. But the parallel he drew that exposes a flaw in your argument is valid. If one wants to ban all Muslim migration because of a small number of jihadists, why is there no call for a similar ban on Catholics because of their exposed record of institutionalised child abuse? Also, yes you have indeed advocated for a ban on Muslim migration: WTF man. Advocate for a ban and then claim bans don't work???

Huh? I never said anything like "you obviously like paedophiles". AF said that.

AF drew a valid parallel. Not all Christians are child molesters, just as not all Muslims are jihadists. You only advocate for a ban on one of these. At the end of the day, a ban stands no chance of being implemented here anyway. The ban in the US has been stayed by the courts, and Trump doesn't look like challenging the decision again (wow he sure is bringing his 'winning' business acumen to the White House eh?). He might construct a new EO, but that too will be challenged and likely overturned. I doubt he wants to look like a perennial loser.

lol, I must concede! I simply don't bet money on anything, it's a blanket rule I've applied to my life. It has nothing to do with the strength of my view that somehow he'll be ousted by years' end. If it's a cash bet you're after then maybe someone else will take you up on it. As I said, happy to bet the shame of changing demonland avatars or something like that. edit: spelling

I don't place bets for money. Happy to do a Pro-Dee Jack Watts style demonland avatar one though. @Wrecker45?

It's more like 69% lies (Mostly False plus False plus Pants on Fire). Their selection criteria is found here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/nov/01/principles-politifact-punditfact-and-truth-o-meter/ If you'd like to see the claims themselves: Pants on Fire claims by Trump False claims by Trump Mostly False claims by Trump

Yep. And right now I reckon he's doing a pretty terrible job. At least Mark Neeld had a honeymoon - Trump's been terrible since day 1. And now his national security adviser has resigned. I honestly believe we'll be evaluating the performance of President Pence by the end of the year, such is the rate at which Trump is lurching from one self-inflicted crisis to another.

No no no, you have it wrong AF. The LEFT are the people misapplying labels in order to demonise and censure their opponents. Anyone on the right, especially a learned gentlemen such as Biffen (he read Voltaire don't you know), wouldn't stoop to the level of social justice warriors and simply call opponents Nazis without thinking through the actual meaning. Back in your box you damn hippie pinko.

As much as I'd hate to agree with old Ben up there, he's right, the electoral college is a good system (or at least it achieves one vital aim). Without it, the Democrats win pretty much every election because the bulk of the US population reside in California and the North Eastern blue states. It's where most of the wealth is generated too. Without the collage, the rural communities get screwed - which I believe was a central issue in this last election. There are a lot of visuals around that show the heavily slanted population distribution in the US. I find this one is the most illustrative: This one is just as important, showing where the US generates its wealth: The wealth in the USA is extremely concentrated. The electoral college prevents these areas from running roughshod over the needs of those who live in the other areas. I suppose it's ironic that in the case of the last election, the college allowed for the election of a billionaire from one of those centres (New York) claiming he represented the 'working class' rural communities. And just while I'm on graphics, this one is pretty interesting too (brought to my attention when a mate linked me a John Oliver clip - whatever you think of him, the stat here is pretty staggering): http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ Adding those figures up, 69% of what Trump says is a lie (this excludes the 'half true' figure of 14%). This is flat out dangerous. You can't make policies based on lies. Actually, maybe you can. But you shouldn't. Also, just for the lols: : (I know, out of context etc, I just think it's a funny gif)

I doubt that, but whatever helps you sleep at night. They appear nonsensical because I'm quoting you. I don't think of myself as a hero, interesting you think I'm some sort of inflated PC warrior-hero or whatever (social justice warrior I think is the term people like to throw around?). Well, I don't protest in the streets and I don't berate people who think differently than I do. What I do do is call out something I think is racist. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm unclear on what exactly this means. You mean I care more about the people who are trying to come here than those already here trying to prevent them? Not really, I just think we have an obligation to share our luck and wealth with those less fortunate. I don't advocate open borders, but likewise I don't advocate closing them to people who subscribe to one religion. TBH, I don't care for any sort of religious belief, but I'm not going to close borders to one people based on which imaginary friend they happen to like. I'm not saying you can't have your say. I'm saying some of the comment you have made have been patently racist and untrue. If you discuss the movement of people and immigration policy, that's fine. If you say untrue and racist things, that's not fine and I'll call you on it. What has become apparent to me is that people who want to reduce immigration from Muslim countries are trying to use accusations of racism levelled against them as some sort of suppression of free speech. Well I have news for you Biff - I can't impinge on your ability to speak freely. I am not the government. I cannot impose on you any level of censorship, and to presume that I can and then use that as some sort of call to arms I think is a huge mistake. I think your words speak for themselves on this, and indicate a great animosity towards Muslims. Not sure why you insist on labelling me an Islamist. I have no love for Islam, or any religion - I simply don't think we should be banning subscribers of one faith over another in terms of immigration. I'm not going to advocate for atheist-only immigration just to increase the amount of people in this country who agree with my world view. Maybe most Muslims are more sensible than me. But if they are, why ban them? I'm already here and you can't get rid of me. Maybe Australia needs more Muslims, so the sensible people will outweigh the non-sensible people such as myself.

2 weeks in a 7 week season seems fair.

Wow. Just wow. Do you have to work hard to think yourself in circles or does it come naturally? I'm not imposing a thing. If I think someone's racist, I'll call them racist. Just like if you think someone is a lightweight, finger pointer and self satisfied simplistic PC Nazi, you'll call them a lightweight, finger pointer and self satisfied simplistic PC Nazi. As I said before, I'd be happier if you were not a member of our society Mr Biff. But you are, and I have to tolerate your [censored] just as much as you have to tolerate mine. It does amuse me greatly though that the one thing you have hated through these threads is the accusation of racism. It so clearly comes through in the subtext, and text if we're being honest, of your writings. I tried to respond with actual stats and even some personal examples when we were talking about migrants not contributing via taxes. That discussion didn't last long, after you attempted to retort them but just left my responses after that. So no, I don't think I'm trying to silence you with accusations of racism. But I seem to get more traction by doing it so I'll just keep going. Interesting that you feel that the very accusation itself is somehow impinging upon your ability to express your views. Why is that? You called me a bunch of names up there, and it doesn't prevent me from writing what I want. I dare say my accusation of 'racist' hasn't held you back either. So if I didn't intend to silence you, and you were not in fact silenced, what's your problem? Flame on, you bigot.

I agree. 2000 was the only GF I've ever been to, and I came in knowing we didn't have much of a chance. I wasn't devastated when we lost, because I knew how good we'd be the next season. Got to laugh... right? No? Yeah maybe not.

Agreed, that's disgusting. Also agree on draining the swamp, as you previously defined it. Problem is that I don't think Trump is really filling appointments with people who aren't 'feathering their own nests'. Most appointments I have read about seem conflicted, and his own lack of disclosure on conflicts of interest indicate to me that he's just there for his own personal gain and that of his billionaire mates.

You were talking about Muslim immigration and effects on crime and rape. Was pretty clear to me. The view is mighty fine from my high horse.

Powell was underrated IMO.

Doesn't want to be called a racist. Refers to an entire people as pack animals. You might as well just come out and own it at this point.

Massive divergence of opinion here, harking back to the first page. Current Muslim population of Australia is 2.2%. I think it's fine. You think it's too big. The fact that we cannot even agree on the interpretation of a single stat (one that we both believe is accurate but means different things), shows we'll never sway other in argument. All of us here are beating our heads against the other's, making no progress at all. All I can say from all this arguing is that I've learned a little more about the other side.

Biff, you said: Migration contributes very little to the bottom line of our tax base. Particularly non-english speakers with zero skills. I provided anecdotes and data contrary to that. To answer your questions: - I can't speak for the other examples, but my grandfather came here because the bloke he bribed in his village in Italy stuffed up. He was supposed to go to the USA, but the guy sent him here. - My grandfather and and wife's family are not Muslum. The son of the African immigrants is - at least his parents are. He himself has no strong faith, this seems pretty common with first generation offspring. My grandfather and grandmother were Italian Catholics and raised their kids in that faith, but none of them are believers to the same level as their parents. - No one is arguing against unfettered migration - I note you are also not arguing the contrary, ie stopping all migration. My post was in response to your ignorant and patently untrue statement that migration contributes little to our tax bottom line. - Mate from Africa was a relevant example as he is Muslim. - Majority opinion can be wrong. I think you yourself used the flat earth example a few weeks ago? Might have been a different poster. I never said your opinion was rare or any of the other words you've used in your list - except racist. That's the one thing I did accuse you of (albeit a while back) and I haven't seen anything in your posts since that indicate to me that I was incorrect. A majority can be racist. As a history buff, I'm sure you at least concur with that. That doesn't make it right.

Rofl. My grandfather came here without knowing the language or any skills. He has paid significant taxes over the last 70 years, given the income and assets he was able to build. He now pays almost none, but that's a function of our generous superannuation/pension system, not his status as an immigrant. My wife and her entire family (5 people) came here not knowing the language, her father had rudimentary english skills but that's it. They all have good jobs, one in particular is a very high income earner, and pays significant amounts of tax. A friend I went to high school with is the son of African immigrants. He now has a PhD in mathematics and earns a big money as an actuary for an insurance firm. Paying tax, to the benefit of us all. But those are anecdotal. I had a look at the ABS to see if they had anything. Unfortunately the latest data I could find was from 09-10: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/BBB9748FE6BD1FF6CA257EB50011C95E?OpenDocument Average weekly earnings for migrants - $903.60 ($46,987.20 p/a) Average weekly earnings for non-migrants - $977.10 ($50,809.20 p/a) Now I don't know about you, but I reckon $70 per week off the average without knowing the language is pretty damn good. It also indicates that they are paying their share of tax: Estimated tax payable on above figure (migrants) - $7,462 p/a Estimated tax payable on above figure (non-migrants) - $8,838 p/a So there you go. The average migrant pays roughly $1,300 less tax than the average non-migrant. Hardly adding "very little to our bottom line" as you say. Think before you spout.

Trump's trying to repeal Dodd-Frank. If there was every any evidence that he's in it for himself and his billionaire friends, not the little guy, this is it. But his supporters don't care about evidence. They don't seem to care about Gary Cohn as someone mentioned earlier. Don't get me started on Betsy DeVos. That country, in a word, is [censored].