Donald Trump for President?

Tools    





Originally Posted by Citizen Rules
Neiba, immigration is: legal entry into the country. All the immigrants who came and built America did so by legal means.
I've heard this type of reasoning before and to be honest, it makes no sense to me.
Sorry, I can't help you if you can't grasp the reasoning of the rule of law.



That's one of the main things that puzzles me about America. As you say there is no way that every "proud rifle owner" just so happens to agree with absolutely everything the Republican party stands for if they vote for them, and there's no way that every gay person happens to agree with everything that the democrat party stands for if they vote for them. Replace those two people with whatever labels you want, you get the point of what I'm saying, just the fact you can label/stereotype people in to what you'd expect them to vote for based on a couple of minor details about them, shows the problem. I was talking to Cobpyth the other day about the lack of options really with both sides being so opposed to each other. What happens if you have liberal beliefs but you also believe in conservative financial policy. Whilst I believe that if a candidate gets voted in, the choice of those who voted for them should be respected, and you'd expect them to carry through on those policies, it's just weird to me how the candidates are all identical. Clinton and Sanders policies are pretty much the same, and I was looking at the Republican candidates and they're very similar too. I think Trump is a slight exception because what we have on him are mainly ideas rather than plans, and people also despise his personal attacks on people, be it the disabled, women etc.

Whilst it's similar in the UK at the moment, I think, with the conservatives versus Corbyn's now very left wing Labour party, he was voted in by Labour party members who had three other options that all seemed pretty unique to me. Then I'd say a party like UKIP has a mismatch of elements that are left/right wing, even if not everyone is aware of this.

It's a real problem right now and one that seems to be coming to a head this election cycle. A lot of people are saying Trump is doing so well because he is a different voice, one that isn't that of a typical politician. That may be true, the problem is he is the exact opposite type of different that this country needs right now. He is even more dogmatic, mean spirited, and divisive. Baffling.
__________________
Letterboxd



So do you think all countries should have 100% open border policies, everyone comes and goes as they please with no restrictions whatsoever?
Pretty much, yes. But it should be in conjunction with other policies that look to provide education and support not only to current citizens but those in need outside of your country, create a system that works on cooperation and not division.
May not be the most brilliant idea with those ISIS guys and that whole behead anyone who isn't Muslim thing



You also can't keep using the excuse that because of the sins and lack of enlightenment of some in the past, we cannot establish, maintain and uphold laws now. That kind of thinking also makes no sense.
That's not what I said at all. Seriously, please read through it, I'm not advocating for ANY particular policy.

I'm not saying you necessarily can't do policy x, y, z. But please don't pretend that fair immigration is the tradition.

For example, would you say that the British legally immigrated to this continent? It doesn't seem like "legality" is really a concept that applies (It also doesn't seem "illegal").

On some level generally all of us are trespassing (you could even argue that indigenous tribes are trespassing on nature, even if I wouldn't) so please, if you are arguing for strengthening borders, use something other than the paper-thin justification of "well we got here first (except not really) so we are legal and they are not".

You can totally use other reasons (entitlement programs can't handle them/we want to maintain a specific culture/whatever reason even if I disagree with it), but that one is honestly too weak to consider.

Sorry, I can't help you if you can't grasp the reasoning of the rule of law.
No need for this, dude.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Neiba, immigration is: legal entry into the country. All the immigrants who came and built America did so by legal means. There are millions of legally immigrated Mexicans in the USA. Once they have become a citizen, I consider them an American.

But crossing the border illegally in the middle of the night is a totally different thing.

Do you know what we do with illegal Mexican immigrants? We give them drivers licenses, medical treatment in hospitals and other benefits.

Do you know what would happen to me if I illegally crossed over the border into Mexico and was caught? I would be thrown into a Mexican jail and treated harshly.

And that's something that bugs me, the USA treats illegal immigrants like people and yet Mexico criticizes us while at the same time their Mexican immigration laws are much harsher than ours.
What SlappyDavis said. The way the original immigrants entered America wasn't exactly pacific and by the moral rules...

" the USA treats illegal immigrants like people and yet Mexico criticizes us while at the same time their Mexican immigration laws are much harsher than ours"

So the answer is to drop to their level? Immigrants (illegal or not) should be treated as people, because that's what they are. Think about the way a illegal immigrants risks his life to get into a country (the recent Mediterranean wave is the best example). If they choose to risk their life, imagine the alternative!

Now, I'm not saying you should just accept everyone. Of course immigration rules are necessary. But building a wall or shooting whoever tries to come close, calling all of them criminals and rapists (ignoring the fact that people emmigrate illegally because they simply don't have money for the legal way) is not the way! It's a very complex subject, I'm aware. The stability of a whole country may depend on that but I completely disagree with the way Trump suggests to deal with it...



I think a certain part of the American people is so desperate for truly noticable change, that they are willing to follow any candidate that they believe can offer that. It does not really seem to matter for them that much what that change actually contains. They project their hope on that candidate and will rationalize or simply ignore all the negative aspects about him or her. There grows some kind of blind trust out of their desperation.

That's what I think is happening with Trump right now. It's a very difficult phenomenon to overcome.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Pretty much, yes. But it should be in conjunction with other policies that look to provide education and support not only to current citizens but those in need outside of your country, create a system that works on cooperation and not division.
This is also my belief!



That's not what I said at all. Seriously, please read through it, I'm not advocating for ANY particular policy.

I'm not saying you necessarily can't do policy x, y, z. But please don't pretend that fair immigration is the tradition.

For example, would you say that the British legally immigrated to this continent? It doesn't seem like "legality" is really a concept that applies (It also doesn't seem "illegal").

On some level generally all of us are trespassing (you could even argue that indigenous tribes are trespassing on nature, even if I wouldn't) so please, if you are arguing for strengthening borders, use something other than the paper-thin justification of "well we got here first (except not really) so we are legal and they are not".

You can totally use other reasons (entitlement programs can't handle them/we want to maintain a specific culture/whatever reason even if I disagree with it), but that one is honestly too weak to consider.


No need for this, dude.
I'm not trying to pretend that there's been a whole lot that's been fair in American history.

This country's past is indeed checkered at best.

Unfortunately we can't go back in time and undo what has already occurred. The only reality we have to work with is now and the idea of reparations to all those peoples victimized by Manifest Destiny is not realistic since neither the victims nor the perpetrators are alive.

With that said, a checkered past is not a justification to throw security out the window, disregard systems of governance, ignore active laws, or reward people who break the law.

You can't punish the injustice committed by those long dead of the past by rewarding people who disregard the law today. Yet, it's a rationalization that is presented in many ways and many guises that we hear over and over again.



Those damn illegal immigrants invaded Donald Trump's thread!



But the argument is that the current security and laws have been created to consolidate and protect the interests of the people who have done wrong in the past. People like them and say they work because they do for them, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be challenged and changed based on the always evolving world. I'm not saying reward those that break the law, I'm saying understand why they do it and look to rectify the problem instead of focussing on punishment.



Maybe we can get Yoda to build a firewall.
Yoda will build the best and most terrific firewall ever. He will even get MoFo's to pay for it.
__________________
[ J ] - [ S ] - [ F ]



What SlappyDavis said. The way the original immigrants entered America wasn't exactly pacific and by the moral rules...
If you mean the first colonist from England, they were settlers, or if you like, conquers. Not at all the same thing as immigration as established by the USA in the 19th and 20th centuries.... I'm referring to the legal immigration that took place mainly through Ellis Island and on up to today.

IMO it's pointless to compare Native American's experience with current immigration and illegal immigration. That's not comparing apples to applies. But you guys are entitled to your opinion.

My opinion is if Mexicans (or anyone) enters the country illegally, it should be no different than if someone from Ireland in the mid 1800s skipped legal immigration processes and came into America by clandestine means. That person if caught would have been detained and deported.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
If you mean the first colonist from England, they were settlers, or if you like, conquers. Not at all the same thing as immigration as established by the USA in the 19th and 20th centuries.... I'm referring to the legal immigration that took place mainly through Ellis Island and on up to today.

IMO it's pointless to compare Native American's experience with current immigration and illegal immigration. That's not comparing apples to applies. But you guys are entitled to your opinion.

My opinion is if Mexicans (or anyone) enters the country illegally, it should be no different than if someone from Ireland in the mid 1800s skipped legal immigration processes and came into America by clandestine means. That person if caught would have been detained and deported.
And I agree with that. I just hate that people talk about illegal immigrants as if they go to a specific country with the intent to hurt that country and that's becoming more and more common now, not only in America. The shadow of fascism is slowly returning to Europe too. In France, Hungary, Russia, minories are being persecuted. If you look for the 3 years before the Hitler election the arguments he uses are exactly the same as the ones Trump uses now, with a small difference: Germany was actually in crisis. The USA are not!

Oh, and the fact that illegal immigrants were used in the construction of the Trump tour is just hilarious... How can someone actually take this guy seriously???



Um... I think the comparisons of Trump to Hitler are a bit extreme. I haven't heard Trump say that the world's problems are the result of "the Jew" and the solution is to exterminate all of them.


On the colonization of America - it is such a historical mixed bag. Most would agree that the early Spaniards who invaded South, Central and lower North America were a murderous, disease-spreading nightmare to the natives.

The intentions of those who came here from Europe were as varied as the people themselves.

Many don't understand the story of the Plymouth Pilgrims - first, they didn't represent European imperialism (that's what they were escaping), they came seeking religious freedom and to live autonymously, but their problems with the natives arose from their alliance & mutual protection pact with one tribe and getting caught in the middle of wars between tribes.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Um... I think the comparisons of Trump to Hitler are a bit extreme. I haven't heard Trump say that the world's problems are the result of "the Jew" and the solution is to exterminate all of them.


On the colonization of America - it is such a historical mixed bag. Most would agree that the early Spaniards who invaded South, Central and lower North America were a murderous, disease-spreading nightmare to the natives.

The intentions of those who came here from Europe were as varied as the people themselves.

Many don't understand the story of the Plymouth Pilgrims - first, they didn't represent European imperialism (that's what they were escaping), they came seeking religious freedom and to live autonymously, but their problems with the natives arose from their alliance & mutual protection pact with one tribe and getting caught in the middle of wars between tribes.
Hitler NEVER said the Jews should be exterminated before he was elected! In fact, it's easier to find racist remarks in Trump's remarks than in Hitler's prior to being elected as chancelor, so no, the comparison is not extreme!



Hitler NEVER said the Jews should be exterminated before he was elected! In fact, it's easier to find racist remarks in Trump's remarks than in Hitler's prior to being elected as chancelor, so no, the comparison is not extreme!
Does that mean that after Trump is elected he may soon call for the extermination of Mexicans and Muslims?



Well I will throw my 2 cents on all this political talk.

We live in an increasingly polarized society when it come to politics. We live in a "you are with us all in" politically, or not time. Moderate views are dying. Now while I certainly find it far easier to travel in the more conservative to libertarian crowds, I identify as an Independent. Why? Cuz I just don't fit in to either party.

Now naturally I am never going to really fit in with the hip uber liberal Bernie Sanders and the Clinton crowds. All I need mention is that over the past weekend I drove my pick up truck to the range, shot my AR-15 with full capacity magazines, had a damn good time then went to mass on Sunday and I will have more icy death stares pointed my way more then that time I ate a bucket of KFC at a PETA protest. No matter how much I say I want to preserve our parks or accept the gays, it is kinda hard to rub elbows with folk when they think I am an ignorant redneck. Which is ironic since my folks are New Yorkers. Oy vey.

On the flip side, because of my previous military experience, hobbies, and current line of work I am very easy to get along with some pretty right wing cats. I get along great with the Limbaugh and Hannity crowd. But issues will arise when my pro gay marriage and anti death penalty views come to light. The anti death penalty stuff might actually get some folks to try and have me kicked out of Texas. If the guy is locked up tighter then Scrooge's coin purse in the beginning of the Christmas Carol, I see no reason to execute a guy.

Now you would think I would be a sure in for the Libertarian crowd, and for a while I thought I was. But as a cop not only do I have a VERY different opinion with libertarians on the drug issue (you see a lot of stuff in my line of work), but lets just say certain very extreme members of the libertarian spectrum are not exactly police friendly.

So here I stand. One schmuck as an island in a sea of what seems to be an increasingly polarized society. Part of this is due to the culture we now live in. We live in a society where it is deemed socially acceptable to demonize the opposition. You can't just disagree and debate, you need to destroy now a days. Freedom of thought and the free exchange of ideas in a civil manner are damn near extinct thanks to the extremes on either side. Especially on the internet. Go to any chat board, forum, or comment section for the major political blogs whether it be the uber Liberal Salon or Breitbart and if you voice an honest opinion disagreeing with the whatever is posted expect to be personally attacked. Go to Brietbart and say something remotely pro liberal or the very least a backhanded compliment to the Democrats expect to be attacked. Go tot he Huffington Post and say something that can be deemed the slightest bit conservative and the SJW sharks will swoop in to attack. And this is just beyond the normal A-holes on the net. Thanks to the anonymity of the net it is acceptable to be downright cruel and even cheer for the deaths of those who just happen to have a different opinion. I got issues with some of the points made by Anita Sarkeesian but there is no reason to call for death threats. You may think Limbaugh is an brainless A-Hole, but that is no reason to wish for him to die if he gets heart surgery. Sad part is, both of the last two actually happened. All you have to do is surf through Twitter to find them. And people do it for STUPID stuff too. Scarlett Johanson becomes a spokesman for a make you own soda at home company. The company is based in Israel, so that means she hates the Palestinians, and she must be destroyed. Richard Dreyfus goes to a Ted Cruz rally because he wants to hear the man speak from his own mouth. Richard walks away still thinking Cruz is wacky, but just GOING to the rally apparently apparently is an endorsement. We need to attack Matt Hooper now!

It is not just the internet. Just look at the mainstream news. No longer is there straight news. Now each major new channel like Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC have to carve out niches. Fox News caters to the more Conservative crowd, MSNBC is so far left into the Progressive spectrum their tagline is "Lean Forward" and even CNN had to have it's own spat with MSNBC and Fox just to try and compete. And here I am stuck trying to decipher all the BS.

Said polarization has spread to the political field. Just look at the political races the last few years. The last few have been pretty brutal. But the one we are having right now is making McCain v Obama look like kindergarten kids fighting. And that political race had people attacking a toddler with down syndrome just to get to the kid's mom!

Sad part is NO ONE wants to listen to people who try to bring SOME decorum or SOME civility to the political stage. Whether it be news, the internet, or running for office. Mostly because that does not get votes or sell these days. What does sell is opponent A is Hitler or opponent B is a socialist. Unless it is Bernie Sanders, who described himself as a socialist.

The sooner we can be able to have CIVIL discussions about politics the better. And while debates may get heated, I think we can reach the point where we can discuss politics, disagree, think the other side is a bunch of idiots, but can walk away without the need to try and destroy the person with the opposing viewpoint.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Does that mean that after Trump is elected he may soon call for the extermination of Mexicans and Muslims?
As I said: the difference is that Germany was actually going through a severe crisis, unlike USA now and that's a very important difference.

But they both used racism to rise to power, they both put the country's problem in a specific minory, they both said their country has to be great again (whatever that means) and they both had a gift of manipulating crouds using angry speeches... So, yes, Trump is not only an idiot, he is a dangerous idiot.