• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP’s dishonesty led to the rise of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz -

i posted the solution to the problem of gerrymandering upthread. they'll never pass it because both sides have too much to gain from the current system. however, there's no defense for the practice, including "but the other side does it, too."

You have to admit that gerrymandering is an improvement over how redrawing districts were done before gerrymandering became law on the 1840s. And you will also have to admit that the democrats abused gerrymandering considerably more then republicans have. I have not seen your suggestion for a solution....and I do not really want to browse back through 147 posts to find it. Would you mind posting a link to that post?
 
Reagan had to deal with a democrat congress. You cannot blame all of the spending on him. He also made the point many times that he could have had much more success cutting spending if congress would give the president the power of a "line item veto". A significant portion of spending in Washington is done by congressmen adding riders to bills they know the president has to sign. As for going after communism, that did not break the budget and it was quite successful. The USSR no longer exists. And much of Eastern Europe is now out from under the iron boot of communism.

The only reason the USSR doesn't exist is because we had a higher limit on our credit cards and they couldn't compete. We didn't outperform them and prove the superiority of capitalism, we just outspent them. That's not much of a victory for conservatism when you leave billions in debt for future generations.
 
Reagan was a true conservative. Jeff Sessions is a true conservative. Mike Lee is a true conservative. There are true conservatives who get elected, however they are still dominated by spineless RINOs.
Jeff Sessions from Alabama? Jeff Sessions 'councils' Trump on many constitutional issues. Trump bases his arguments against using the 13th amendment to legalize gay marriage and bases his arguments against using the 14th amendment to legalize anchor babies from Session's council.

I trust Sessions to follow The Constitution much more than, for example, Ted Cruz because Cruz is a (constitutional) lawyer. Lawyers readily accept the notion of the judiciary changing The Constitution...lawyers call these changes constitutional.

The Constitution describes the duties of the judiciary to be:
(1)determine if a law or provision is constitutional
(2)clarify laws using previous documentation from The Constitution
Changing is done with an amendment.

I've always wondered how Cruz would react if SCOTUS decried the language of the guns portion of the 2nd amendment only dealt with militias? Would Cruz go along with this determination by SCOTUS that it only dealt with militias?
 
Last edited:
The only reason the USSR doesn't exist is because we had a higher limit on our credit cards and they couldn't compete. We didn't outperform them and prove the superiority of capitalism, we just outspent them. That's not much of a victory for conservatism when you leave billions in debt for future generations.

But then you are falsely assuming that it is defense spending that put us in that debt. It's not. The one type of spending that put us there is runaway entitlement spending.
 
You have to admit that gerrymandering is an improvement over how redrawing districts were done before gerrymandering became law on the 1840s.

i don't care. gerrymandering needs to be outlawed nationwide. it is screwing up democracy.

And you will also have to admit that the democrats abused gerrymandering considerably more then republicans have.

again, i have no interest in which half of the duopoly did it more than the other. they both do it. they need to be stopped from doing it.

I have not seen your suggestion for a solution....and I do not really want to browse back through 147 posts to find it. Would you mind posting a link to that post?

i was incorrect; i posted my potential solution in a different thread. here it is.

#6
 
Smug question out of the gate.

I love how you run and hide from your own positions.



I don't seek to discriminate against people like you do... Therefore the question does not apply to me.



This is your side show, meant to distract from the fundamental issue that despite statistically being absurd, your aim is to sow prejudice, and eventually discrimination against Muslims by society on the basis that SOME, a MINUTE, TINY, MINUSCULE amount of Muslims MIGHT commit a terrorist act in Canada.

Canada across its history has barely had an issue with Islamic terrorism, we've stopped a few plots and in there was those two unfortunate attacks... but Do not forget Justin Bourque, a 24 year old New Brunswick Native killed and injured more people at once than those two attacks combined...

We should ban NEW BRUNSWICKERS!

All immigrants to Canada are vetted... Personal and Political beliefs are generally not... why?

Because we're a free country, but where hate speech and hate crimes are outlawed, so if you come here, you can believe all you want that gays are bad... But act on it and we will punish you.

How many homophobic attacks committed by Muslims in the GTA? Any Numbers for me?

"WELL WHAT DO THEY THINK ABOUT THE GAYZ?"

Well what does that matter considering for example the extreme right wings position on gays in America... Should those Christians that take a hard line against gays be deported to Saudi to live with the hard line Muslims if thats such a criteria you would use?



Your smugness in the face of your own authoritarian tendencies does you no credit, I will continue to expose and point out what you really are.

A xenophobe with a hard on for fascist policies.



Side show it is too.

The Harper Conservatives tried to hide behind the "vetting issue" to disguise their racism. What they don't tell you is, those 25,000 refugees we are going to accept and which the Harping Harpers have been in the que since before this war began. They create an idea that it's total chaos, no one has ID etc. The truth is if you don't have a passport, you stay. Further, the international aid communities do a pre-screening and turn over anyone suspected of being a real terrorist.

The process can take ten years, in this case there are refugees waiting for a home who have been without for over five years.

So, for the Harperites to be right about a "threat" here is what would have to happen. The terrorist would have had to obtain a working false passport that will survive scrutiny from the best. They will have to have been trained in terrorist techniques as well as working as a mole, and then begin a wait that could last ten years, with no guarantee he would hit a his intended host host country.

Based on historical fact, the greatest threat to Canada's national security of any ethnic community it would have to be the Sikh population, as the Air India bombing by Punjab separatists in 1985 claimed 329 lives. 286 Canadians died in that episode, perhaps we forget they were Canadians because they were Sikhs.

Today, the Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan is Canada's top cop; a former soldier wounded for his Canada in Kandahar. He volunteered to put his life on the line in service to his Canada. I know few Canadians so inclined, very few.

In 30 years, "they" have gone from being feared like we now fear Islam, to one of them our chief guardian and protector
 
Last edited:
i don't care. gerrymandering needs to be outlawed nationwide. it is screwing up democracy.

It is only screwing up democracy if it's abused. For instance, one party engineering a district into a majority minority party based on the knowldegge that a given minority votes 90% for that party.



again, i have no interest in which half of the duopoly did it more than the other. they both do it. they need to be stopped from doing it.

Knowing how it's abused is the first step towards fixing it.


i was incorrect; i posted my potential solution in a different thread. here it is.

[/QUOTE]


Interesting suggestion.....however not foolproof. eventually the politicians would work out the patterns and find a way to manipulate them through the way the census is taken.
 
It is only screwing up democracy if it's abused. For instance, one party engineering a district into a majority minority party based on the knowldegge that a given minority votes 90% for that party.

no, it's screwing up democracy period. gerrymandering needs to be banned, and the solution that i proposed would help.


Knowing how it's abused is the first step towards fixing it.

it's abused by the politicians who benefit from being able to draw districts.

Interesting suggestion.....however not foolproof. eventually the politicians would work out the patterns and find a way to manipulate them through the way the census is taken.

how would that work? sort of like putting obstacles in the way of voting? i'm sure that we could figure that one out, too.
 
But then you are falsely assuming that it is defense spending that put us in that debt. It's not. The one type of spending that put us there is runaway entitlement spending.

That's just making excuses. The national debt almost tripled under Reagan, from $907 billion in 1980 to $2.6 trillion in 1988. The federal government also increased by about 324k to 5.3 million employees. That's not the sign of an administration dedicated to fiscal responsibility and small government no matter how you spin it.
 
Reagan had to deal with a democrat congress. You cannot blame all of the spending on him. He also made the point many times that he could have had much more success cutting spending if congress would give the president the power of a "line item veto". A significant portion of spending in Washington is done by congressmen adding riders to bills they know the president has to sign. As for going after communism, that did not break the budget and it was quite successful. The USSR no longer exists. And much of Eastern Europe is now out from under the iron boot of communism.

A line item veto would be a good idea.

However, you do realize that Reagan's proposed budgets were consistently more than Congress was willing to spend...

...or do you ?
 
Side show it is too.

The Harper Conservatives tried to hide behind the "vetting issue" to disguise their racism. What they don't tell you is, those 25,000 refugees we are going to accept and which the Harping Harpers have been in the que since before this war began. They create an idea that it's total chaos, no one has ID etc. The truth is if you don't have a passport, you stay. Further, the international aid communities do a pre-screening and turn over anyone suspected of being a real terrorist.


The process can take ten years, in this case there are refugees waiting for a home who have been without for over five years.

So, for the Harperites to be right about a "threat" here is what would have to happen. The terrorist would have had to obtain a working false passport that will survive scrutiny from the best. They will have to have been trained in terrorist techniques as well as working as a mole, and then begin a wait that could last ten years, with no guarantee he would hit a his intended host host country.

Based on historical fact, the greatest threat to Canada's national security of any ethnic community it would have to be the Sikh population, as the Air India bombing by Punjab separatists in 1985 claimed 329 lives. 286 Canadians died in that episode, perhaps we forget they were Canadians because they were Sikhs.

Today, the Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan is Canada's top cop; a former soldier wounded for his Canada in Kandahar. He volunteered to put his life on the line in service to his Canada. I know few Canadians so inclined, very few.

In 30 years, "they" have gone from being feared like we now fear Islam, to one of them our chief guardian and protector
In fact the Air India bombing was related to politics in India and there was no international terrorism by Sikhs going on at that time. The same is not true of the Islamists. No one I know has ever 'feared' Sikhs.

But from your inside knowledge, sans any evidenciary support, you seem convinced that the bureaucracy will not be risking any Canadian lives. But Canadians should be asking what sort of compensation will the victims or their families receive from the Canadian government should their optimism be misplaced and more Canadians are killed by Islamists. How will the government react if terrorist plots are not discovered in time?

These and similar questions should be asked by responsible legislators, despite all optimism, just in case the worst case scenario occurs.

Islam is not a race, by the way. It is a belief system married to a political system.
 
But Canadians should be asking what sort of compensation will the victims or their families receive from the Canadian government should their optimism be misplaced and more Canadians are killed by Islamists. How will the government react if terrorist plots are not discovered in time?

I don't know much about Canada or its citizen's viewpoints, but this statement of yours caught my eye.

Are you saying that the Canadian government has guaranteed that no citizens will be killed by terrorists? Or, that the government will compensate victims for their losses from terrorists? Is this some sort of insurance system the Canadian government has enacted?

Could you expand and clarify this statement of yours?
 
I don't know much about Canada or its citizen's viewpoints, but this statement of yours caught my eye.

Are you saying that the Canadian government has guaranteed that no citizens will be killed by terrorists? Or, that the government will compensate victims for their losses from terrorists? Is this some sort of insurance system the Canadian government has enacted?

Could you expand and clarify this statement of yours?
The recently elected Canadian government is planning on bringing in anywhere from 25,000 to 60,000 Syrian refugees. They claim these people will be well vetted but I, as well as the American government, have doubts.

My question is whether or not Canadians and their families will be compensated in case any of the refugees commit crimes or acts of terror while in the country.

There have been Islamic plots discovered in Canada, one being broken up by a sharp American border guard, while other Canadians have been killed. Violence has also erupted at Muslim demonstrations in Canada.

I think Canadians, and of course all citizens in the democracies, deserve a more through report and additional guarantees given what's happened in other countries.
 
The recently elected Canadian government is planning on bringing in anywhere from 25,000 to 60,000 Syrian refugees. They claim these people will be well vetted but I, as well as the American government, have doubts.

My question is whether or not Canadians and their families will be compensated in case any of the refugees commit crimes or acts of terror while in the country.

There have been Islamic plots discovered in Canada, one being broken up by a sharp American border guard, while other Canadians have been killed. Violence has also erupted at Muslim demonstrations in Canada.

I think Canadians, and of course all citizens in the democracies, deserve a more through report and additional guarantees given what's happened in other countries.

Okay. I think I understand. This compensation notion is your opinion...not a government policy. Thanks for clarifying that, Grant.
 
Okay. I think I understand. This compensation notion is your opinion...not a government policy. Thanks for clarifying that, Grant.
Yes, it's more like an insurance policy than just taking their words that these people are vetted. I want them to put their money where their mouth is, though I expect this will not happen.

The program is based on ideological lines, which is why terms such as "Racist" are often used. I don't much care for social experiments but instead prefer responsible government ensure that the safety and security of the Canadian people come first.
 
In fact the Air India bombing was related to politics in India and there was no international terrorism by Sikhs going on at that time. The same is not true of the Islamists. No one I know has ever 'feared' Sikhs.

But from your inside knowledge, sans any evidenciary support, you seem convinced that the bureaucracy will not be risking any Canadian lives. But Canadians should be asking what sort of compensation will the victims or their families receive from the Canadian government should their optimism be misplaced and more Canadians are killed by Islamists. How will the government react if terrorist plots are not discovered in time?

These and similar questions should be asked by responsible legislators, despite all optimism, just in case the worst case scenario occurs.

Islam is not a race, by the way. It is a belief system married to a political system.



Oh stop


Are you now saying the air india bombing wasn't terorism? It wasn't international?

We're done here. You're too far out ther
 
A line item veto would be a good idea.

However, you do realize that Reagan's proposed budgets were consistently more than Congress was willing to spend...

...or do you ?

For some reason (partisan denial), it's the group of people who approve the budget's fault for the budget being drafted so big in the first place.
 
For some reason (partisan denial), it's the group of people who approve the budget's fault for the budget being drafted so big in the first place.

Absolutely, and their credit when the budget does balance, or at least is less unbalanced than before. The POTUS really has little to do with the amount of money in the budget.
 
Absolutely, and their credit when the budget does balance, or at least is less unbalanced than before. The POTUS really has little to do with the amount of money in the budget.

What ?

The POTUS drafts the budget. That means the budget won't increase unless the president agrees that it should.

Further, once he sends congress a budget, they will change it and send it back to him. He can subsequently veto it.

Now, i'll agree that he can't do much to just arbitrarily increase the budget, but the budget won't increase without either laws that pass the president's desk (that he can veto) or his own damn budget proposals.

So, unless your claim is that President Reagan's discretionary spending was forced down his throat by congress through supermajority, then President Reagan is absolutely responsible for discretionary spending increases.
 
What ?

The POTUS drafts the budget. That means the budget won't increase unless the president agrees that it should.

Further, once he sends congress a budget, they will change it and send it back to him. He can subsequently veto it.

Now, i'll agree that he can't do much to just arbitrarily increase the budget, but the budget won't increase without either laws that pass the president's desk (that he can veto) or his own damn budget proposals.

So, unless your claim is that President Reagan's discretionary spending was forced down his throat by congress through supermajority, then President Reagan is absolutely responsible for discretionary spending increases.
The president can't sign the budget until the Congress passes it. All he can do is propose a budget, then veto it if it's too far out of balance and the Congress doesn't have a veto proof majority.
 
The president can't sign the budget until the Congress passes it. All he can do is propose a budget, then veto it if it's too far out of balance and the Congress doesn't have a veto proof majority.

I agree that he has limited control, but he is uniquely positioned to have more control than anyone else. Democrats didn't force spending increases down President Reagan's throat, in practice he embraced them.
 
Last edited:
I agree that he has limited control, but he is uniquely positioned to have more control than anyone else. Democrats didn't force spending increases down President Reagan's throat, in practice he embraced them.

Not only did he embrace them, but his proposed budgets were consistently higher than what Congress actually passed.
 
Oh stop Are you now saying the air india bombing wasn't terorism? It wasn't international?We're done here. You're too far out ther
You're asking what I'm saying when the post is there in front of you?

You don't seem to know what happened during that period and should have the cajones to just say so.
 
Back
Top Bottom