Trump Administration Predictions (8 Viewers)

[Cotswold]

In the UK we were embarrassed to see and hear Starmer be a little less than honest and it has been suggested, somewhat deceitful to Donald in their press conference at Turnberry yesterday. In regards to immigration and free speech.

 

[Isaac]

I am more interested in effects of reducing the size of government and reducing the number of regulations, because the regulatory nature of the last several years has drained some profits due to cost of compliance. Some regulations DO make sense, but some of them ... not so much.

I agree, and this should help shrink the deficit, too. Yes, Trump's tax cuts expand the deficity BUT other things are bringing it back down - like the tariff revenue and the additional investment deals he has recently made.

And in a country that values freedom and personal responsibility/autonomy, the idea of trading tax cuts (briefly raise the deficit) followed by other things that (bring it back down), I think that combination of actions is perfectly reasonable.

And I heartily agree that the cost of regulatory compliance is a HUUUUUUGE deal. I've worked in a number of healthcare companies and let me tell you, there are MILLIONS of dollars spent on teams/leaders/programmers/consultants/contractors/audits for the sole purpose of fulfilling some government mandate--in some cases government mandates that were rather nonchalantly tossed out with zero regard for the business negative consequence (and of course some that are more reasonable/valuable/needed).

 

[Isaac]

Dept. of Education launches investigation into Duke University over alleged racial preferences

The U.S. Department of Education announced an investigation into Duke University after reports of Duke Law Journal awarding applicants for highlighting their race.

www.foxnews.com

Since I've been 'down' on Trump recently, mostly due to immigration/citizenship type of stuff, here's a positive thing to balance it out :: I love what his administration is doing by publicly declaring what everyone knew to be true the whole time but was too afraid (especially since Floyd) to dare to say anything about it :: Programs that gives "special help" to minorities-only are racist and illegal

Non profits that try to tactfully steer their work towards the underprivileged and low income people is totally fine - and in fact, I myself willingly and voluntarily contribute from my earnings to such organizations, but the government giving "special help for black people only", for example, or Universities doing it - why, it's just as wrong as it would be if we did it for whites-only. And Trump is correcting that evil

 

[Isaac]

In the UK we were embarrassed to see and hear Starmer be a little less than honest and it has been suggested, somewhat deceitful to Donald in their press conference at Turnberry yesterday. In regards to immigration and free speech.

Humor me, I'm curious of what kinds of dishonesty/speeches were occurring? I believe you - I'm just curious

 

[Cotswold]

Illegal immigration according to Starmer is 'Irregular Immigration'.
Are you on top of it? "Oh, yes we have signed agreements to sort it out"
It isn't. It is out of control and appears to be going worse by the week. Over 25,000 illegals this year alone. When they arrive they are given free board and lodging in hotels.

They have just enacted a law to claiming to "control the internet" Which requires proof of ID and aimed at protecting children but there
are obviously serious implications to everyone. They are now talking about wanting to ban VPNs.

Then we get to non-hate-crimes which simply exist to prevent un-approved opinions being stated. Plus the intention of banning the discussions of contentious issues. Until the the recent legal definition you could be prosecuted for stating that a man claiming to be a woman was a actually a man. There is actually a case in progress in Scotland where a nurse upset a six footer, ex-rugby playing trans doctor.

Non-Crime Hate Incidents: Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data (accessible)

www.gov.uk

We have free speech as long as we don't have an unapproved opinion. Presumably these forums will all close within a year or so.

 

[Pat Hartman]

We have free speech as long as we don't have an unapproved opinion. Presumably these forums will all close within a year or so.

The UK is sinking fast. I am worried about you. You're children are probably indoctrinated the way ours have been to think that "woke" is right and good and are not bothered by the oppressive regulations.

We have risen up. We are taking back our schools but it will be more than a generation before Americans go back to being independent thinkers and that means we need to curtail ALL illegal immigration and perhaps even limit legal immigration.

 

[Isaac]

Illegal immigration according to Starmer is 'Irregular Immigration'.

That's CLASSIC typical for how liberals operate. I've always said if I said I once I said it 100x, it's all about speech terminology which is geared toward controlling/creating a mindset to allow something or disallow something. Liberals usually can't justify a lot of their opinions by normal everyday English logic, so they invent new words to give something a veneer of credibility. It's the hoary old technique of changing the dictionary.

I.E.

• If my daughter doesn't like the truth I'm telling her about getting up and going to work every day, then my conversation is "toxic". (everything and its brother is 'toxic' these days to gen z)
• "Gender" being called out as different from sex, in such a disparate way that your brain is supposed to then assume "well I guess if sex is biological, gender can be mental or anything you want"
• Non-binary
• Deadnaming
• Microaggressions, usually to include any behavior that suggests you may not approve of or particularly like the other person's behavior. For example, if I am at the theater and someone is being extremely loud and obnoxious, who happens to be African American, and I say to please shhh, I'd probably be guilty of a "micro aggression", in some's eyes
• Cultural appropriation - this is a real nifty one. We used to celebrate the magical mix of assimilation and diversity by recognizing that everyone borrows from everyone else - even indigenous cultures cannot say they hvae existed from the beginning of time, thus NO ONE is exempt from the 'borrowing', but now it's "cultural appropriation" and patented by one culture - totally ridiculous.
• White privilege - which, in reality, describes certain people's success based on those people's daily choices which started from childhood but have been distorted and twisted into an ignoring of all those root causes, and instead focusing on nothing but the outcome, i.e. "Whites have been outcomes than blacks, thus it must be a privilege to be born White" - which is a logical fallacy. It's a privilege to be born with certain opportunities to make good choices, which we ALL have
• Structural inequality - even though many White people have proved that they came from the same poverty as any black person and still made good choices which then led to good outcomes, meaning being White had nothing to do with it
• Carceral state, meaning that we incarcerate people as the primary form of punishment (which is actually an IMPROVEMENT in civilization, which used to punish people based on beatings, torture
• School to prison pipeline, which means that some people behave so badly while their teachers are trying to give them an education that they tend to go from school to prison, essentially - but the newly invented term implies that the [truthfully positive opportunity] of teaching is the thing that results in prison - totally ridiculous
• Toxic masculinity - this started out not too bad, it described men who were so full of machismo that they put women down, beat women, or felt that all decisions had to be made by men. Now it's expanded to mean masculinity in general, despite the fact that we desperately need more of it at this point.

I could go on and on

 

[Isaac]

They have just enacted a law to claiming to "control the internet" Which requires proof of ID. This is aimed at protecting children but there
are obviously serious implications to everyone

Is this related to porn?

I do support the gov's attempts to restrict and lessen the general amount of porn availability.

States have the constitutional right to look after the health and welfare of their citizens.

Any man who can make fog on a glass right now, Knows, that using excessive porn greatly stymies your ability to have regular and fulfilling sex with your spouse, which is an important element of a marriage that stays together. And anyone who has used porn, (which is all of us), knows that gradual leads to more leads to excessive. To say nothing of its addictiveness or gradual need for more shocking scenes.

 

[Cotswold]

The UK is sinking fast. I am worried about you. You're children are probably indoctrinated the way ours have been to think that "woke" is right and good and are not bothered by the oppressive regulations.

We have risen up. We are taking back our schools but it will be more than a generation before Americans go back to being independent thinkers and that means we need to curtail ALL illegal immigration and perhaps even limit legal immigration.

I do fear that we are becoming a totalitarian state.
It all cannot be laid at Labour's door, although they are enthusiastic. The last so called conservative government laid many of the foundations to where we are today. It is the European way to pass decision making onto unelected officials. Presumably in time we will become more subservient to Europe.

 

[Isaac]

25,000 illegals this year alone

And you're lucky. We get 10 times that many, until Trump came along.

Picking up people and detaining them without access to lawyers or family solely because of the color of their skin and the fact they weren't crusing along with a birth certificate in their pocket is of course grossly wrong and unconstitutional - and affects all of our safety - However, sealing up the border 100% is a great move

 

[AccessBlaster]

25,000 could be devastating, especially if they are concentrated in a small area with little hope of assimilation.

 

[Cotswold]

Is this related to porn?

I do support the gov's attempts to restrict and lessen the general amount of porn availability.

States have the constitutional right to look after the health and welfare of their citizens.

Any man who can make fog on a glass right now, Knows, that using excessive porn greatly stymies your ability to have regular and fulfilling sex with your spouse, which is an important element of a marriage that stays together. And anyone who has used porn, (which is all of us), knows that gradual leads to more leads to excessive. To say nothing of its addictiveness or gradual need for more shocking scenes.

It is t do with porn and preventing "children' having access to it. If the government is concerned why teach five and six year olds about trans people and goodness knows what else?
In the UK a sixteen year old can vote at the next election but they cannot have a smart phone until they are 18. Work that one out!
People running these social media sites don't allow their children to have phones. A school child cannot have a phone account. So fine the parents for providing them.
One problem of course is that parents, who we do imagine, probably incorrectly are mature adults, also sit there all of the day gazing at their phones. If I go on a bus, or a train I am the only one not looking at my phone for the whole journey. Another problem is that for 90% of them, maybe more security is a mystery. I doubt if any of them know how to block sites on their broadband. In parliament every other MP is sat looking at their phone, ignoring the cameras.

It is a mess and actually politicians are the last ones who should be tinkering. I doubt if of them any know the difference between IT, SD, HD and AI. If they can use a spreadsheet they consider themselves to be virtually at degree level in computer science.

 

[Isaac]

If the government is concerned why teach five and six year olds about trans people and goodness knows what else?

Good point.

In the UK a sixteen year old can vote at the next election but they cannot have a smart phone until they are 18. Work that one out!

It should be exactly the opposite in reverse. No smart phone until they are 16, no voting until they are 18 25. Kids are too dumb to have a vote in the future of our world

 

[Isaac]

If they can use a spreadsheet they consider themselves to be virtually at degree level in computer science.

Hey now, when I first figured out how to do a MsgBox 16 years ago I was pretty impressed with myself. (I say this laughing).

but you're right, the parents aren't setting any better example - BUT, the point is that with these two identical seeming things:
- children looking at their phone 24/7
- parents looking at their phone 24/7

.... It's more damaging to kids, comparably. It's horribly damaging to both, but more so to kids, and we're supposed to protect kids from themselves until a certain age, after which they can feel free to self destruct.

Here's my pet peeve, something that just chaps me to no end - in times of emergency, everyone holds up their phone to record a video of it instead of doing something helpful. I saw an article where a guy ran past a woman in NYC and shot her in the leg. She's writhing on the ground in pain, and 8 people - mostly young adults - are literally standing around her, perfectly still, holding up their phones to take a video of the shot girl.

It infuriated me when I saw that. Forget your f**cking phone (sorry God) for a minute and HELP the person out!