Donald Trump

[iNow]

Ok, I'm confused. Please explain.

Immigration creates far more jobs than it takes away. This is extremely well established, supported by evidence, and consistent throughout history and across countries. Even if it weren't true (which it is), the jobs immigration does take away tend to be the ones nobody wants to do anyway. It's a bad argument that's wrong. You should stop making it.

 

 

Using the handy quote feature offered by the software of this forum, kindly please quote EXACTLY what I have said that causes you to suggest I am "simply accepting everything Hillary says without looking it up" and simply "nodding my head in agreement."

 

That's quite a charge. If you think you're right, prove it.

Third time. Still waiting.

[swansont]

The immigrant was an illegall immigrant. Also, it seems I have phrased something wrong. I don't mind immigration, I'm against illegal immigration. So it IS the law. They did the math, and came out with the proper number of immigrants we could handle annually without ruining us, and I trust whoever did the math. But I think you should still have to go through the immigration process before your allowed in.

 

 

 

Who are "they" and what was the number? You imply you don't know who they are, and yet you trust them. That's not rational. It's almost like you "trust" them because you got an answer you liked.

[Raider5678]

Who are "they" and what was the number? You imply you don't know who they are, and yet you trust them. That's not rational. It's almost like you "trust" them because you got an answer you liked.

 

You can get the number by simply looking it up.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheet

That should explained. Everything.

 

Know, I have looked and found nothing that convicts you. Not guilty!

 

Either way, do you look up everything everyone says? As it was, it SEEMED like you didn't think Hillary lied much at all. Once again, IT ONLY SEEMED like that. Which would mean you were accepting what Hillary said more readily then what Trump said. This isn't evidence, just a conclusion I came out with. You DO look up some things Hillary says, but you would sooner look up what Trump said then what she said. Is this true?

[swansont]

You can get the number by simply looking it up.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheet

That should explained. Everything.

 

I don't understand. These are positive numbers, and the current flux from Mexico is negative. So there is no problem . The immigration from Mexico is far below these limits.

 

Also, AFAICT the page you cited is reiterating the law — there's no analysis of "what we could handle without ruining us"

 

Either way, do you look up everything everyone says? As it was, it SEEMED like you didn't think Hillary lied much at all. Once again, IT ONLY SEEMED like that. Which would mean you were accepting what Hillary said more readily then what Trump said. This isn't evidence, just a conclusion I came out with. You DO look up some things Hillary says, but you would sooner look up what Trump said then what she said. Is this true?

I don't really need to. I looked at the summary at politifact; you had linked to that site. Donald's "true" or "mostly true" statements comprise just 8% of the tally, while for Hillary it's 51%. For "mostly false", "false" and "pants on fire" Donald weighs in at 73% with Hillary at 28%. That tells me what I need to know. If Donald says it, it's more than likely complete crap. With Hillary I've got even money it's mostly true.

 

Compared to Donald, Hillary doesn't lie much at all. In fact, what would be interesting to find is if a candidate repeats something that's not true once they've been made aware of it. That's a divide between a mis-statement and a lie: stating something you know to be false (like not knowing anything about David Duke, or how he never said things he's on record as saying, or all the crap he just makes up) rather than getting a statistic wrong.

[DrmDoc]

Am I the idiot?

 

If I may, that was StringJunky's response to Ten Oz's post regarding The Donald's propensity for name calling--in my opinion.

[Phi for All]

Am I the idiot?

 

You're the young person who is currently being exposed to multiple political perspectives you aren't used to hearing in the home. You're only the idiot if you don't think about them, and look at them objectively.

 

Speaking of complainers, what if we just grew bamboo,and thorn bushes about a mile wide? Easier to patrol then a wall. Bamboo can grow a foot a day, thorn bushes are quite tricky to trim, remove, or make a path through. And I'm speaking from experience, I work on a farm.

 

OK, sounds plausible. First thing to look at is something comparable. The Bwindi Impenetrable Forest in Uganda sounds just like that. Except it just makes it difficult to get through, not impossible. The border between Uganda and the DRC is still hotly disputed. It would create a lot of firefighter jobs though.

 

This might actually work as a curb to immigration from Mexico (which is negative, and doesn't need curbing). They might not need to come to the US if they find jobs at the border making bamboo furniture.

[swansont]

And what does the fact that Trump won his primary and Sanders didn't win his tell you about the effectiveness of those respective strategies, unfortunately?

 

 

That Trump won and Sanders lost isn't a fair comparison, as they weren't running against each other. You would have to show that Clinton won using a Trumpian strategy.

 

The difference this ignores is the respective constituencies. (Sadly IMO) it means that tapping into xenophobia and bigotry is a winning strategy element for the GOP race.

[zapatos]

Speaking of complainers, what if we just grew bamboo,and thorn bushes about a mile wide? Easier to patrol then a wall. Bamboo can grow a foot a day, thorn bushes are quite tricky to trim, remove, or make a path through. And I'm speaking from experience, I work on a farm.

I wonder how the people who own that roughly 2000 square miles of land will feel about the government filling it with bamboo and thorn bushes.

[Raider5678]

I wonder how the people who own that roughly 2000 square miles of land will feel about the government filling it with bamboo and thorn bushes.

It was my belief that the border was owned by the us government.

[MigL]

IIRC, Zapatos, D. Trump said he'd make the Mexicans pay for the wall.

It should then be simple enough to build the bamboo/thorn-bush wall on the Mexican side of the border so that THEY lose 2000 mi^2.

( ha-ha-ha )

 

Now I'm no fan of D.Trump by any stretch, but something has been going on which troubles me.

At all his rallies and speeches there is invariably some incitement or act of aggression/violence by people demonstrating against him.

This has to stop, You don't demonstrate the 'better way' by acting worse.

 

He is disliked ( even hated ) by most Democrats and a lot of Republicans also, I've no doubt he'll implode before, or suffer a major defeat in, the election.

But people protesting against him should keep the violence in check, or risk having the American electoral system become the laughing stock of even third world countries.

[Delta1212]

It was my belief that the border was owned by the us government.

A large percentage, if not outright majority, of the land that the US-Mexican border cuts through is privately owned.

 

Which is one of the reasons that the proposed wall is unrealistic.

[iNow]

Interestingly, if Trump is elected it will be the Canadians erecting a wall on the northern border of the US (whether made of bamboo, bricks, or bull moose remains to be seen).

[rangerx]

The Trump doctrine of wall building will apply to Canada. America will pay for it. If they don't then Canada will subtract it from oil, water, softwood lumber, grain. etc. Tourists will have to take a test. Hard questions like... are you a tourist?

 

Maybe a ban on all Americans is better. Canada has no 2nd Amendment, or Twinkies. They'll only allow immigrants if they learn to speak French and Newfie and do the work no self respecting Canadian would do.

[zapatos]

Now I'm no fan of D.Trump by any stretch, but something has been going on which troubles me.

At all his rallies and speeches there is invariably some incitement or act of aggression/violence by people demonstrating against him.

This has to stop, You don't demonstrate the 'better way' by acting worse.

 

He is disliked ( even hated ) by most Democrats and a lot of Republicans also, I've no doubt he'll implode before, or suffer a major defeat in, the election.

But people protesting against him should keep the violence in check, or risk having the American electoral system become the laughing stock of even third world countries.

The violence doesn't surprise me terribly.

 

It has been my experience that no matter the group, whether Democrats, Republicans, Priests, thieves, pre-teens, or auto mechanics, you will always find a mix of people who are good, bad, smart, dumb, mean, good looking, considerate, etc.

 

On another note...

 

 

 

Fence Dividing U.S./Mexico Border Puts Popular Course Out of Business

 

The Fort Brown Memorial Golf Course in Brownsville, Texas, is sandwiched between the fence and the Mexican border. The fence, which was constructed only a few years ago, was not built directly on the border for logistical reasons but rather in a way that trapped the course in a sort of dead zone, gradually decreasing business and resulting in a full stoppage of operation in May of this year.

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/fence-protecting-usmexico-border-puts-golf-course-out-business Edited June 8, 2016 by zapatos

[rangerx]

Now I'm no fan of D.Trump by any stretch, but something has been going on which troubles me.

At all his rallies and speeches there is invariably some incitement or act of aggression/violence by people demonstrating against him.

This has to stop, You don't demonstrate the 'better way' by acting worse.

 

He is disliked ( even hated ) by most Democrats and a lot of Republicans also, I've no doubt he'll implode before, or suffer a major defeat in, the election.

But people protesting against him should keep the violence in check, or risk having the American electoral system become the laughing stock of even third world countries.

 

Violence at protests is not a Trump or election thing. Keeping the peace is a civil behavior which societies are founded and laws are written.

 

Here's the thing. According to Trump and republican supporters, violence against Hillary or Bernie protestors is a "love fest" where "I'd love to punch them in the face", "get em outta here" or be dragged from venues, assaulting media etc. are excusable actions because they are angry about whatever chip d'jour they have on their shoulders. NO repudiation whatsoever. Now on the other hand, pushing, shoving and verbal abuse by Trump protestors deserve to be assaulted, branded as thugs, criminals that should be jailed according to the Donald.

 

Trump is a do-as-I-say not-as-I-do totalitarian hypocrite that already did a fine job of making the USA the laughing stock of the planet. The damage is done.

[Raider5678]

Violence at protests is not a Trump or election thing. Keeping the peace is a civil behavior which societies are founded and laws are written.

 

Here's the thing. According to Trump and republican supporters, violence against Hillary or Bernie protestors is a "love fest" where "I'd love to punch them in the face", "get em outta here" or be dragged from venues, assaulting media etc. are excusable actions because they are angry about whatever chip d'jour they have on their shoulders. NO repudiation whatsoever. Now on the other hand, pushing, shoving and verbal abuse by Trump protestors deserve to be assaulted, branded as thugs, criminals that should be jailed according to the Donald.

 

Trump is a do-as-I-say not-as-I-do totalitarian hypocrite that already did a fine job of making the USA the laughing stock of the planet. The damage is done.

Proof there are violent protests against Hillary and Bernie?

 

Interestingly enough I found this a while back.

 

http://www.infowars.com/craigslist-ad-get-paid-15-an-hour-to-protest-at-the-trump-rally/

 

What's civil disobedience? I think its breaking the law, but I'm not sure.

Also, someone is suing trump for inciting them to be violent. Which, if you think about it, means they have no control over themselves.

[iNow]

Infowars? Black helicopters repeatedly debunked conspiracy theorist Alex Jones from Austin public access call-in television... Really?

[rangerx]

Interestingly enough I found this a while back.

 

This is a science forum. You will have to do a little better than the blathering of a neoconservative conspiracy theorist.

[iNow]

I'm not saying Alex Jones is never right, but he's most certainly adjacent and/or proximal to never right.

Edited June 8, 2016 by iNow

[StringJunky]

This from Clinton comes across as egotistical narcissism;

 

 

Hillary Clinton has thanked her supporters for helping her reach a historic moment for women - the Democratic nomination for president.

"Thanks to you, we've reached a milestone," she told cheering crowds at a rally in New York.

She hailed "the first time in our nation's history that a woman will be a major party's nominee".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36475840

 

I think the next US election is definitely a case of picking the lesser of the evils. I don't trust either of them.

[Ten oz]

This from Clinton comes across as egotistical narcissism;

 

 

I think the next US election is definitely a case of picking the lesser of the evils. I don't trust either of them.

Clinton is running to be the President of the United States. Trump is running to be the Ruler of World. Clinton, like her policies or not, plans to function within the status qou and has a normal centerist platform. Trump has said he'll make Mexico pay for the wall, will make China sign more favorable trade deals by increasing our military presence in Asia to strengthen our negotiating position (stated policy of his own campaign site), and will kill and or torture the families of terrorists (he literally said that). This isn't between lesser evils. Clinton is the boring status qou; not evil. This between someone we may not like much and evil.

 

Trump wanting to use our military for to force China to change trade policy would violate nurmerous international agreements; dangerous

Trump threatening to torture and kill families of terrorists violates the Constitution of the U.S. and nurmerous international agreements; dangerous

Trump's border wall is nonsensical, divisive, and involves us dictating terms to another sovereign nation; dangerous

In addition to those dangerous policies Trump denies Climate Change, doesn't believe there is a drought in California, want to lower taxes for rich people, remove federal control and oversight from medicare and all gov't from healthcare, and etc, etc, etc.

 

What dangerous of evil policies can you list that Clinton advocates? I can name many that I wish were different or think fall short of going far enought but none that I feel would direct lead to war or toture. None that deny basic realities like climate change.

[Raider5678]

Clinton is running to be the President of the United States. Trump is running to be the Ruler of World. Clinton, like her policies or not, plans to function within the status qou and has a normal centerist platform. Trump has said he'll make Mexico pay for the wall, will make China sign more favorable trade deals by increasing our military presence in Asia to strengthen our negotiating position (stated policy of his own campaign site), and will kill and or torture the families of terrorists (he literally said that). This isn't between lesser evils. Clinton is the boring status qou; not evil. This between someone we may not like much and evil.

 

Trump wanting to use our military for to force China to change trade policy would violate nurmerous international agreements; dangerous

Trump threatening to torture and kill families of terrorists violates the Constitution of the U.S. and nurmerous international agreements; dangerous

Trump's border wall is nonsensical, divisive, and involves us dictating terms to another sovereign nation; dangerous

In addition to those dangerous policies Trump denies Climate Change, doesn't believe there is a drought in California, want to lower taxes for rich people, remove federal control and oversight from medicare and all gov't from healthcare, and etc, etc, etc.

 

What dangerous of evil policies can you list that Clinton advocates? I can name many that I wish were different or think fall short of going far enought but none that I feel would direct lead to war or toture. None that deny basic realities like climate change.

I would like to correct what you are claiming. At no point did he say he would torture the families.he said specifically he would kill the families, and torture the militants. Which, in all areas, wouldn't be fair. Though, the terrorist do a whole lot worse then waterboarding to our soldiers. Waterboarding doesn't have the person screaming and begging for death.

 

Also, the constitution says:

No use of cruel or unusual punishment.

 

If in an attempt to save lives, torture isn't actually prohibited by the constitution, it is inside the Geneva Convention.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

I would like to correct what you are claiming. At no point did he say he would torture the families.he said specifically he would kill the families, and torture the militants. Which, in all areas, wouldn't be fair. Though, the terrorist do a whole lot worse then waterboarding to our soldiers. Waterboarding doesn't have the person screaming and begging for death.

Which is what make them the bad guys. If all they did was negotiate peaceful terms there wouldn't be a problem would there? As a nation we can't justify violating our Constitution and international treaties because rogue individuals do bad things.

 

I stand correct on what Trump has advocated. He said he'd kill the famlies and torture the terrorists. Either way it is against our laws and international law. Beyond the pale for a major party candidate for the White House to say such.

[Raider5678]

Which is what make them the bad guys. If all they did was negotiate peaceful terms there wouldn't be a problem would there? As a nation we can't justify violating our Constitution and international treaties because rogue individuals do bad things.

 

I stand correct on what Trump has advocated. He said he'd kill the famlies and torture the terrorists. Either way it is against our laws and international law. Beyond the pale for a major party candidate for the White House to say such.

Perhaps your right. But once again, would you think it was alright if we tortured them to save lives?

[Delta1212]

Perhaps your right. But once again, would you think it was alright if we tortured them to save lives?

That's a false dilemma. You'd first need to show that torturing them would actually save lives. And then you have to take that a step further and ask whether it's ok to torture innocent people to save lives.

 

Because that has happened, more than once. We've picked up people who, through faulty intelligence or cases of mistaken identity, we thought were terrorists and imprisoned and tortured them. Because they don't get trials ahead of time to determine whether or not they are actually guilty of anything, we have a case where it is not "Do we want our government to be able to torture terrorists in order to save lives" but "Do we want our government to be able to pick up anyone they want, take them to a hidden location and torture them?"

 

And frankly, no, I'd rather live with the risk than be a tacit part of that. It's exactly the kind of thing that we criticize every despotic regime in history for doing, and they always had a label for the people they were doing it to in order to justify it.

 

The existence of terrorists doesn't make me any more anxious to live in a country where the state disappears people that it suspects of being its enemy.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Delta1212