Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Rue

  1. The determination of his acting in a conflicted manner was his own words -he publically bragged that he did and could ask Ukraine and other foreign governments to investigate Joe Biden for suspected crimes. He has never hidden his intent to investigate someone he knows is a political candidate running against him through foreign governments. You Trump supporters agree with this because Biden is a Democrat and you think any challenge to this action is only because Biden is a Democrat being defended by Democrats. You suspend any other consideration as to what acting in a conflicted manner means and why it should not be allowed. A standing US President in a conflicted position of interest can not and should not use his office of Presidency regardless of his reasons, to order anyone let alone a foreign government to investigate an American citizen who is running against him in an election. That is a direct conflict of interest. He must recuse himself from any such role and have a non conflicted individual decide whether an investigation is warranted. That applies whether he is a Republican President targetting a Democratic opponent or Republican opponent running against him and it would equally apply to a Democrat President targeting a Republican opponent running against him for office of even a fellow Democrat running against him. This is the issue you and Trump supporters won't address. Because you think Biden is a Democrat, you believe the US President can ask foreign governments to investigate Americans. You don't address the conflict of interest. You don't address the issue that Trump was asking Ukraine to investigate Biden because Trump said his own enforcement agencies could not be trusted. This is a standing US President saying he would trust foreign investigators more than his own investigators to investigate his fellow Americans. You refuse to acknowledge the implications of that. You ignore his dismissals of his Attorney Generals, Deputy Attorney Generals, FBI heads, other FBI executives, fights with his own CIA, Homeland Security. Trump has declared his entire US government partisan against him, justifying him doing whatever he feels like in an unchallenged manner. He can be unaccountable and a dictator on the grounds everyone is out to get him. This belief also is applied to Republicans he disagrees with and attacks personally. His attacks on the reputation of John McCain and Mitt Romney and other people who disagreed with him including the former candidates who ran against him are there on the Twitter for all to read. You have a President who uses his Twitter as a raving and ranting communication device evidencing his state of hatred for anyone who challenges him and you ignore this. His legal counsel argued to prevent proper disclosure of evidence and the summonsing of witnesses to prevent a trial from properly being conducted. This counsel argued that if the President wasn't allowed to use privilege to prevent investigation of himself, the common American would have their constitutional rights ignored. The counsel argued privilege is a constitutional right that is absolute and is good for the public and if not allowed makes it easy to abuse the public's constitutional rights. Come again? What constitutional rights? No American has a constitutional right holding them above the law? No American can ignore a supeona, a summons, or obstruct justice by refusing to hand over evidence directly related to a criminal proceeding under their control as Trump demands. Why would creating a double standard and giving Trump rights under the constitution no American has protect them. How is giving the President unlimited powers to do what he likes in aid or support of the constitutional rights of Americans? The US constitution was created to safeguard the use of powers so that no one could and can abuse American citizens. Isn't it ironic the very country created an rebelling against a King having absolute powers and created a legal system from preventing this from happening, now has Trump partisans in the name of American democracy demanding Trump have the very same powers as the King they created their country to rebel against. Very ironic and sad. The US now sees Republicans in the Senate abandoning their role and responsibility to the people to hold all politicians accountable. Some blatantly do not attend and is it any wonder. Their house leader Mitch McConnell said he would never allow them to conduct an impeachment trial in any manner that would find Trump guilty of anything. Bottom line is Americans must decide in their next federal election whether to keep Trump in and their next congressional and senate elections to decide who to vote in. Bottom line is Americans have seen if the President has enough control in either the Senate or House of Representatives, he can break any law he wants act like a complete dictator. It will all come down to a partisan process to determine his power not legal principles. Using this reasoning Nixon would have walked and for that matter President Johnson the last President to be impeached.
  2. You just insulted football fans and all Americans. I suspect some in both categories care about what has happened to the state of Potus.
  3. Its not mind reading. He told everyone publically what his motives were-to have Ukraine investigate Joe Biden for suspected crimes.
  4. Please do not throw in the Jew card. Certain Orthodox Jew sects may indeed not touch each other not all Jews the way you threw it out. This Jew shakes hands with many people including Muslims who do shake hands. The practice of not shaking hands might be based on religion or many other reasons. I suspect with the corona virus from China people will not shake hands anymore and is in fact why the fist pump became popular back in the Sars outbreak. It should not be a big deal no. I wish. At this point in time I have been told as a Professor I am not to shake the hands of any woman or man in class. I have been told as part of zero tolerance against harassment policies never to shake hands with any student of either gender. I am a radical. I still shake hands if students initiate this. I was actually sent up before a disciplinary board in one university for shaking hands with students at Christmas .I shook a female student's hand wishing me Merry Christmas. I did not take offence because she did not say Happy Chanukah. Her boyfriend did take offence claiming I sexually harassed her and should not have touched her hand and filed a complaint. The university wanted to hold a disciplinary hearing with me based on his complaint. The female student never complained. This is how insane its become.
  5. Thank you for being precise. I tend to babble too much. The above is the paradox and point.
  6. Again I agree on much of what you say as I always have. We disagree on what method detection should take place or how to define things I can't say I have perfect solutions for you. Never.
  7. Thanks for the clumsy transfer to Modest and the use of the word Israelian. You clearly want to troll. Do it with someone else.
  8. Thank you for the first sentence. Whatever true direction it comes from East or West so to speak, it has the same intent...but you are dead on. I probably took the bait. Thank you for that.
  9. For those of you who support Trump's political views, you use that reference point to suspend and refuse to acknowledge how he linked military aid to a partisan investigation of Biden. So you engage in the very partisan politics you accuse the Democrats of engaging in challenging this attempt to link the two. Interesting this double standard. You seem to think if a President conforms with your partisan views, he can exercise the powers of his office where he has a clear conflict of interest when exercising those powers. You live in a selective world of partisanship. So to you partisans for Trump, why pretend he did not act with a conflict of interest? Why live in a fantasy land not even Trump lives in? He admitted unlike you Trump cult followers that he acted in conflict of interest. He stated for all to hear he wanted foreign governments to investigate Biden and he would not stop with the Ukraine asking for this and thought nothing wrong about what he did. He never denied he had a conflict of interest-he said as President he can and still act on the issue he is conflicted with. How about you listen to what your own leader stated...he doesn't deny what you Trump zombies do. Come on man stop drinking that Trump koolaid. You want to call me partisan and selective for saying this? Lol. I do not support many Democratic policies. In the US I probably would be a Democrat if Ted Kennedy was alive and running the party or former Gov. Cuomo of New York. However I would be equally as comfortable with Mitt Romney, the late John McCain, Arnold Schwarznegger (if he qualified), Eisenhower.. . Parties and partisanship to me are not the predicator of merit and morality. How about you Trump partisans? You really think if he was a Democrat doing this shit, you wouldn't be calling for his head? Right. Kanye West for President.
  10. Why do you use the name Yukon. You think if you use a Canadian sounding name it disguises who you are? Really. Zogs can not be allowed to exist. Finish it. Don't make veiled threats. Explain how you intend to kill ZOG(s). Explain it. Do you want to use a nuclear bomb, anthrax, please enlighten me. Next when you use your translator try get the verb and adverb or noun and adjective references to both be plural or singular. You might also want to use capital letters. Now in regards to the use of the word pathognomonic. It is only intended to be used for a physical medical condition, not any opinions you disagree with. In fact using your reasoning if we were to apply the term that way, which disease then do you have given your desire to kil Zog(s)? You think that is a healthy adjusted response? You came on this forum to engage in anti Israel rhetoric recycling yourself with yet another Canadian sounding name. Have the integrity to state what your beliefs are and who you are. Don't male veiled threats and pretend to be Canadian. You are an arm chair terrorist. Its easy to sound tough behind an anonymous name. You come on this board demanding Zionists be wiped out. You have done it before on this forum under different aliases. You know where to find me whatever alias you want to use. Yah yah, Zionism is a cancer that needs to be wiped out. Oh I remember. The name changes but the hate remains identical. So do the deficiencies in your syntax, grammar, and spelling. You are precisely the kind of person Argus and I have debated over how to identify and deal with. Oh hell I just go by smell. I do not need to interview.
  11. Argus the determination of all immigration processes the way it works now is not binding or finalized or begin to become applicable until you step foot on Canadian soil so from that practical perspective its a moot point whether the Charter applies. Getting back to the interview process, it has been seen as redundant if you use a point system and verify the information obtained on the point system. Whether that is right or wrong I leave to others. I myself think an interview process of any kind leads to people prepping for it and giving canned answers. This brings us also back to other issues such as: 1-what questions would you ask 2-how would you know the answers are not true. The fact is to try determine 1 is a dog's breakfast. Good luck getting agreement on that. In regards to 2, its a huge problem because forensically at this time, the specialists we do have who detect lying or look for possible violent individuals have specialized training that is costly and would not necessarily be accurate. Also for the Charter to not apply you would have to do the interviews overseas and even that is not a guarantee because the Supreme Court of Canada could still say the Charter applies to anything a Canadian legal process or official does anywhere since it originated from a decision in Canada. Interestingly Donald Trump stated to Congress he likes our points system for economic class immigrants. In the US they still interview everyone. Quick as you come up with an interview process, bingo: https://www.visaplace.com/blog-immigration-law/preparing-for-your-immigration-interview-plus-25-sample-questions/ Now may I be serious without getting into a dispute. I do have a Master's in Applied Psych and a Master's in Law and some profiling training. I never use it to say I am smarter or more educated than anyone when they have opinions. All I will tell you from it is I would love to finish my doctorate so lend me another 80,000. From my knowledge of it which I make no claims is 100% absolute, I do know that criminal profiling used to detect criminal characteristics to create a profile can be quite accurate. I know for example one of the first psychological profiles ever done, was by a Harvard Psychologist hired by the OSS in WW2 and you can find that profile on the internet and it was about Hitler and historic hindsight has proven it quite accurate. The problem is criminal profiling would not use techniques germaine to determining whether someone had the "right" cultural values. That would be too general in concept for it too work. It's a complex exercise requiring any profiler to have had experience in investigation for many years before they train to use profiling techniques: http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/605/383-392.pdf and for that reason even if it was to be used on all prospective immigrant applications it would be costly, time consuming and require sending highly trained profilers overseas. So its just not going to happen. Psychological profiling of criminals is NOT the same as psychological personality testing for personality types like the ones used to determine if you are compatible with others or even the ones used taking a test where the person chooses from a list descriptions that best describe how they are feeling (used to try predict the likelihood of a mental illness) The self identifying inventory tests are not stand alone. You then need to follow up with an extensive psychiatric evaluation that could take months, even years. People with specific personality disorders identified may not have disorders relevant to determining their suitability to be Canadian or that would prevent them necessarily from working or being compatible with others. I can tell you the idea of using criminal profilers to search for a particular criminal type in all immigrant applications is impractical and not designed for it. I took one class in Virginia City on hand-writing analysis but it was only an introduction level course. I do know you can train a CBSA officer to detect possible forgery from looking at handwriting and signatures on a passport. I do know the course and info they provide CBSA and Visa officers on examining passports and hand-writing for possible forgery and counterfeiting and they do give them interview technique training but there is a limit to what they can teach and this training is not the training a true profiler or forensic investigator would have. I do know the very experienced CBSA and Visa officers are better at detecting people "lying" then less experienced ones because years of investigative experience has made them more aware or in tune with non verbal language or more aware of certain repeating patterns of answers that serve as a red flag to them of possible lying. That is why the research we have as to the accuracy of profiling says even if you want to screen someone accurately you can't just rely on a test you still need to have a very experienced questioner using the test who has years of investigative experience. Manipulative personalities, people who lie, who are anti-social, might be terrorists, they learn to feedback what you want to hear to escape detection. It is by no means easy to pick up. Some of the best homicide and sex crimes officers, some of the best doctors have missed the signals. I know some profilers say criminals lack empathy which they look for. Is our immigration system defective? Yes of course. So now when I found out what report you refer to it refers specifically to a concern you have I now better understand it. I originally thought you were complaining about CBSA procedures. Now I know your concern, and all I can say is the Senate report you raised has recommendations that I think are of course valid. Few if any have been followed up on and should be but as you see they focus on many issues. The best way to see this issue is there will be no one quick fix. Argus in certain jobs I have witnessed mistakes about people we were sure were "bad" who were innocent and vice-versa. That did not make me righteous, just the opposite, humiliated. Humility is what you are hearing in me not righteousness. I do not claim to speak for anyone but me but I do at times speak to the history of Jews when it becomes necessary not as a preacher but as someone trying to prevent myths or generalizations that might lead to unfair assumptions. Its hard to wash the blood of the innocent off one's hands even years later. That is not righteousness talking, its humility. Like I said I scrub toilets. I just know the shit gets under the fingernails and won't come out easy. The job also makes me smell. I am well aware of that and try shower. I would not be alive if non Jews did not challenge the negative generalizations about Jews to give my grandparents a way to escape what they did and come to Canada. I have had to do and witness things that make me deliberately know hating Muslims or anyone else will not win or achieve anything just keep the cycle of violence going. Its the people who do not doubt things I worry about. A person without doubt as to decisions that lead to violence or death is the person I watch.
  12. What I now can say and I will leave it at this, is that I know from working and speaking with immigration officers, visa officers, CBSA, and immigration lawyers its best summarized like this: immigration lawyers and immigration consultants find the system to harsh, people working in the government find it too lax. I can tell you that it is very possible to come to Canada and be undesireable of course. The issue is not that. Its how does anyone intend to fix deficiencies noted above. It requires money and commitment. As well there can never be a system that can screen out all undesireables. The Charter of Rights and lawyers can and will defend the right of people Argus and others will not like. Me personally I would agree with Argus a personal interview other than ones to follow up on application forms might be a good thing...but then? Let us get real and practical. What so we do at an interview. It brings us back full circle to what devices does anyone think will weed out bad people. Now that I can see what Argus is focusing on and its not the initial interview process, but the lack of them with skilled workers, all I can say is, the Charter of Rights most certainly limits what questions can be asked in an interview-in particular they would have to be questions on merit. The Charter won't allow questions that discriminate based on negative generalizations about a culture, race, religion, social group, gender. Read it yourself to see why.
  13. The report Argus quotes mentioned these 10 recommendations that best summarize back in 2015 concerns with how we admit immigrants/refugees: RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1 – The Government of Canada establish an oversight body for the CBSA to ensure appropriate compliance with legislation and policy, including adequate protection for Canadians’ privacy rights. Recommendation 2 – The Government of Canada establish an independent, civilian review and complaints body for all Canada Border Services Agency activities. Recommendation 3 – With respect to all interviews conducted by CBSA officers, the CBSA should ensure that interviews are audio and video recorded and that recordings be retained for a period of at least 10 years from the date of recording. Recommendation 4 – Building on the Beyond the Border Initiative and in light of national security concerns, the Government of Canada move, as soon as possible, to implement a system to register the entry and exit of all travellers, Canadians and non-Canadians. Recommendation 5 – With respect to hearings for persons deemed inadmissible, hearings by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada should incorporate technology such as video conferencing, while individuals are outside Canada, whenever possible. Recommendation 6 – CIC, the CBSA, CSIS and the RCMP should work closely together to ensure all their databases are utilized in screening all visitors and immigrants to Canada. Recommendation 7 – With respect to those seeking to immigrate to Canada (e.g. students, temporary foreign workers, refugees and permanent residents), CIC should establish a pilot project to examine the feasibility of using secure video conferencing and mobile teams of experienced Canadian immigration officers to conduct fully recorded face-to-face interviews, in the applicant’s country of residence. Adequate staffing should be put in place to ensure decisions on immigrant or temporary resident visas are always made by Canadian employees. Recommendation 8 - The CBSA move to enhance regional intelligence capabilities and information sharing with frontline officers. Recommendation 9 – Ensure that the CBSA front line officers are provided with the most relevant information on travellers at all times, including updated lookouts in the Integrated Customs Enforcement System database and access to the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database at primary inspection. Recommendation 10 – The Government of Canada should fully implement a plan to collect biometric information from all foreign nationals arriving in Canada, subject to existing provisions in agreements with other governments. Further, the CBSA should use this biometric information to verify the departure of all foreign nationals, subject to privacy and security safeguards.
  14. Your concerns are part of a large set of complex deficiencies within the immigration system of which the interview process is one of many but not one immigration lawyers fret over because the point system is not as easy as some think to pass. That said since January 2015 we have had what is called The Canadian Express Entry program. Its all done on-line and takes in applications for immigrants applying under economic immigrant programs, i.e., the Canadian Experience Class, Federal Skilled Worker and Federal Skilled Trades. Under these categories prospective immigrants create what is called an Express Entry profile. They have to meet the criteria for at least one of these immigration programs points test under Express Entry. Then after that they are placed in what is called an Express Entry pool and rated again against others in that pool-based on a Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS), and the CRS score will determine the applicant’s rank within the pool as to who gets offered the next job. Then, applicants with the highest scores are invited by the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) to apply to immigrate to Canada as permanent residents. The above system is for SKILLED WORKERS. It presumes it has properly screened candidates and they have skills needed in Canada. Its true with this system the need for interviews is not considered as high because what is called a Labour Market Assessment is conducted to make sure the person has the proper skills he or she claims, the proper language skills, has an employer that needs them and is waiting for them and is not taking a job from a Canadian. It also has already screened for medical or criminal issues. The initial point system for determining eligibility can be found at: https://www.canadapravenue.com/canada-immigration-points-calculator/ The Express Entry point system is at: https://www.visaexperts.com/canada-immigration/canada-points-system.aspx Let's back up a second. Anyone coming to Canada goes through 2 screening interviews. At the first one: The officer will request to see your visa and travel documents He/she will confirm the validity of these documents The officer may raise questions concerning your health The immigration officer from the CBSA will ask general questions such as: Are you traveling with your family? Have you been convicted of a serious crime? How long is your stay? How much money do you have with you? Are you healthy? Among others. At the second interview: second interview you are asked what you’re bringing with you to Canada. This is where the CBSA is looking for criminals, smugglers, terrorists, etc. Obviously its not by any means full proof. With the skilled workers programs there is no real consideration of the individuals Canadian values because the criteria assumes if they speak an official language and will provide a skill we need that makes them valuable and the point system to be passed evaluates language proficiency, education, work experience and transferability,
  15. I can tell you from what I know if its of any relevance, I know personally from practice, there is heavy reliance on the point system for skilled workers which causes them not to feel they need to do interviews of skilled workers. I think its very rare for me to have seen an interview of a skilled worker once their applications are verified. Sometimes they are verified that quickly because its employer driven. If the employer asking for a skilled worker, conducted what is called an LMIA (an assessment to show they have the right skills and no Canadian is available to do the job) they try get them into the job. They already tested their French or English. They assume because they have a needed skill and can speak the language, that is sufficient for them to be eligible. I will get back to you further.
  16. Thank you for the source. Now I can properly understand what concern with percentage of interviews you refer to. I will respond to it because you raise a legitimate concern. One of the problems I know with the above percentage number is it doesn't take into account whether some or many of the interviews were dispensed only because the information was properly obtained and to do an interview would be redundant. It also does not take into consideration the processes where interviews are done but not calculated in the above percentages because they were "fast tracked". It is I agree a concern if we are not conducting sufficient interviews when we need to. I will try to some research on it before I respond further. You raise a good point.
  17. No. I said Immigration Canada will not give an interview if it already objectively obtained and validated the information it would otherwise ask for in an interview because that would be redundant. You also need to find out what the criteria are that applicants are assessed for because they do already consider objective criteria to try and determine who would be desireable in Canada in a point system.
  18. You clearly on the other hand don't realize what it means. It actually shows interviews can and are done BEFORE people have been defined as eligible and if they are not because the same information is already obtained. It also shows interviews are done with anyone coming to Canada and that refugees are of course questioned.
  19. Again at this point you misrepresent what I have challenged and deflect. Your first comment makes no sense. Whether a generalization is helpful or harmful or as you say "fine" depends on the context in which it is used not your subjective pronouncement. Comments that you think are truthful may not be. Comments that are truthful can also if not explained in a sensitive manner injure and incite hatred. Next you falsely stated I "showed" more outrage at your depiction of Muslims then anti-semitism. No on the contrary I have used analogies to state for me they use the same cognitive process and so are equally as repugnant to me,. You again hurl insults and negative generalizations and I see now I am not just in a category with Dialamah (thank you) but Bill Maher and Obama. You are actually dead on about Maher but not Obama who Maher and I disagreed with over his foreign policies. But hey put me in his category. Label away. The last portion of your remarks are angry complaints about positions you think others hold. They make no sense to me. You haven't quoted anyone.
  20. Firstly, yes you clearly have no idea what personality tests are used for. Here is what they are used for: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-psychology/chapter/personality-assessment/. It might therefore have bee a good idea after admitting you are not an expert on them to have researched their purpose BEFORE you then continued to present them as being able to detect if when asking people cultural value questions, these people would be lying. Your reasoning makes the false assumption personality tests detect lying. They do not. Your response also deflects from and ignores the point made to you that you have no response for that states that lie detection testing is not accurate or reliable:https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00748/full Next when asked to define what would be the values you would be searching for in immigrants you did not answer and this was no surprise because while you are quick to say what is not a Canadian value you can’t say what is./ Argus for any psychological testing to have accuracy it must use objective criteria that can be validated . That means simply asking people questions to feed back agreement with your preconceived views as to what is culturally acceptable is subjective criteria not objective criteria. Next you have already stated numerous times you have already decided anyone who believes in Islam is incompatible with Canadian values. So why the pretense? . In fact you even used a device on a religious thread about Islam to throw out as an insult to me that I “admire Islam” as if that in itself was an automatic ground to reject any challenge I made as to your negative generalizations about Muslims. No problem its just a recycled version of calling someone a n...ggr lover. Fine by me. Here’s the thing though. I do not “admire” Islam or any other religion. The word “admire” means from the definition I warmly approve of i and/or look at Islam or other religions with pleasure. You threw that out to insult and belittle and that is because rather than try be respectful over a difference of opinion you choose instead to throw out ignorant spiteful negative comments meant to insult and then whine that if I challenge this, it means I am angry or feel superior to you. I most certainly however respect people as individuals and so their beliefs including Islam,, or any other belief system as long as they do not use their belief system like you to negatively generalize, rationalize hatred, engage in terror, sexism, or physical or mental practices that are questionable. This is why I continue to categorically challenge your comments and point out what I feel are t glaring deficiencies , your deflections from being unable to support your positions with objective criteria. Its interesting because you hurl out false misrepresentations, profanities, insults and then when I challenge them whine that I am sanctimonious. No but I will challenge your use of abusive language towards me or anyone else.
  21. Your above comment was in direct response to my remark in which I said: "To start with the immigration law process for determining eligibility already interviews." What I do know ignoring your name calling is this: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/new-immigrants/prepare-life-canada/border-entry/interviews.html What I also know is this: that under 3 economic immigration classes of the federal express entry system because there is an objective point assessment screening system that may preclude the need for an interview. What I also know is that personal interviews may be required depending on the category of immigration applied for and there is an Express Entry system that takes the need away because the information obtained in an interview because it is already objectively obtained and screened for validity. It is most often required with family sponsorships, and non skilled workers but not usually with skilled workers. So what I know is there is no stratistic that says only 10% of applicants to immigrate to Canada are interviewed and if someone is not interviewed its because they already provided and validated information that would otherwise be obtained in an interview. Immigrants not seeing anyone until they get here has nothing to do with whether they provided objective information that was already validated before they come to Canada. Provide where you got your 10% figure from and what it refers to. It appears fabricated because you do not understand when interviews might be waived depending on what class of eligibility an immigrant applies. It also appears you have no idea about preliminary interviews or the immigration refugee process that deals with an initial interview with the CBSA officer who can reject them or choose to send them on to the Refugee Board which conducts a hearing to determine if they are eligible and in that process extensively questions and tests the testimony of refugees. What I do know is you shoot off at the mouth about what I know, and over simplify the immigration application process.
  22. Here was your answer: "We can start with an interview to try to determine what kind of a person we are inviting to come join us here, what their views are on various subjects and how tolerant they are likely to be once in Canada. Hell, the Swiss seem to have discovered that merely attempting to shake hands with someone of the opposite sex is enough to show they're not the type to fit in there." Where is the "more to it". Please explain what other suggestions you provided.
  23. In regards to statement 1, that is blatantly obvious. In regards to statement 2, no why would I? You mistake me for you. I challenge generalizations and steretypes, you again mistake me for you, In regards to statement 3, no, never did and already answered that, however when you claim to speak for all Jews, tell all Jews how to think, tell us who to hate and stereotype, I will call you out as a Jew. If you raise the Jewish card, I will challenge it as is my right as a Jew. In regards to statement 4, that is precisely why I challenged you and you show there is little hope for you. It also explains in your next statement 5, how you demonstrate one can lie and stereotype at the same time. In regards to statement 5, no evidently not. In regards to statement 6, no of course not. I take you for what you are someone who relishes telling people he does not give a damn what they think. I regards to statement 7, no I am not on a pedestal. I do not look down or up at you. If I had t use an analogy though I would say I am standing next to someone sitting on a toilet. As for your claims of being "generally true" about your "generalizations", I would say you have shown that it is not generally true. In regards to statement 8, I have never disagreed with the fact that there is strong anti-semitism in the Muslim world. Repeating that false misrepresentation won't make it true. Provide the words where I denied it. You can't because I never provided them, so if anything Argus your petulant response is to be expected and adds nothing but more name calling from you,
  24. IF by this June, the Democratic Party does not have majority holding candidate, just months before election campaigns begin a shock challenge and therefore surprise candidates could then offer to run. This might be what is happening at the moment...certain individuals waiting to see if there will be a stalemate and see how popular Trump is in June....so that conceivably means someone none of us are considering which caused one writer to speculate on Hilary Clinton again coming back: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1223243/trump-news-hillary-clinton-tipped-for-surprise-second-election-run-in-2020-spt. Yikes. However has anyone considered that under such a circumstance Bam Bam's wife Michaelle Obama might be thrown in as a candidate? While a deadlock has never happened in over 50 years, there is no clear front runner and the convention and has a system of new rules that could cause such an event to arise and some have said the new rules were designed to let it arise to enable a last minute candidate to come in. What they refer to as a "brokered" convention has to be contemplated. How could it not? How could the Democrats feel comfortable with Saunders, Biden or Warren at this point. 2 geriatrics whose prostates are considered historic monuments and an over caffeinated Betty White. Some choice. Saunders, Biden or Warren also appeal to the same constituents of the party making the overlap or deadlock even more likely. The remaining candidates coming up the rear are polling very low to justify serious consideration. And so ladies and gentlemen I reveal to you the next President and first lady who will come to the rescue and defeat Donald Trump: President Kanye West and the first lady Mrs. Kim Kardashian West
  25. Yes unless you are in Russia. Then as Putin is now doing, you just re-write the constitution to suit you so that you can stay in power for life. China's President did that too. If Trump could he would amend the constitution to keep him in for life then have his daughter take over. King Donald, Queen Ivanka, of the house of Trump.
  • Create New...