General American Politics Thread

[RandomGuy]

Clinton won every state for the Democrats including both of the important swing states (on top of already winning the other swing states of Iowa, Nevada, and Virginia). Overall a crushing victory for Clinton. Final scores for the night:

 

Vote percentages (C-S)

Florida: 65-33

Ohio: 57-43

Illinois: 50-48

North Carolina: 55-41

Missouri: 50-49

 

Trump wins Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Missouri, while Kasich wins Ohio in a winner-take-all contest. Little Marco got rocked so hard that he suspended his campaign. Overall a crushing victory for Trump. Final results:

 

Vote percentages (T-C-K-R)

Florida: 46-17-7-27

Ohio: 36-13-47-2

Illinois: 39-31-20-9

North Carolina: 40-36-13-8

Missouri: 41-41-10-6

 

Missouri was extremely close for both parties. Less than a 1 point margin of victory for both Trump and Clinton. Wonder why that was...

 

I took a look at the exit polls, as I do after every primary. It's pretty much more of the same- if only white men were allowed to vote, Sanders would have won every state.

 

EDIT: Speaking of campaign finances, Sanders outspent Clinton in today's five states.

[Revan114]

I think so far skimming this thread, that I am in the minority here for supporting Trump.

 

So far, every single post that I've seen here uses the average dismissals of trump.

 

"He is racist"

"He is sexist"

"He is mean :("

 

Without going into any detail what so ever as to WHY or HOW he is these things.

 

I mean regardless of whether or not you like Trump, at the end of the day it's going to be a choice between Trump or (s)Hillary, and I'd rather have Trump any day.

 

If by some horrible travesty Sanders somehow manages to win, then it will be Trump vs Sanders, and then I'll definitely be voting Trump 100% of the way. No thank you Socialism.

[Blightmare]

"He is racist"

"He is sexist"

"He is mean :("

 

Without going into any detail what so ever as to WHY or HOW he is these things.

nor does it need his shameless racism and sexism. 1, 2, 3, 4

 

Skimmed a bit too quick there.

[RandomGuy]

I'm opposed to Trump for the same reason I'm opposed to Sanders. His anti-immigration, anti-free trade economic policies are total populist nonsense that have been debunked for years.

[Revan114]

"He is racist"

"He is sexist"

"He is mean :("

 

Without going into any detail what so ever as to WHY or HOW he is these things.

nor does it need his shameless racism and sexism. 1, 2, 3, 4

 

Skimmed a bit too quick there.

 

Sorry mate.

 

Let's see here...

The first one is from Cosmopolitan, so I'm going to go ahead and instantly close out of that tab.

 

The second one is just your average "OH WELL TRUMP WANTS TO BAN ALL MUSLIMS AND ALL MEXICANS HURR HURR HURR"

 

I want to talk real quick on Trump being a racist. He might be racist towards Muslims or Mexicans but he is racist against them for good reasons. For starters, he doesn't want to ban every single Mexican in America. If you think this, then you obviously have not been paying attention to him or what he is saying. He wants to ban all ILLEGALS, and he wants to strengthen the border.

 

He basically wants to do what any good country does: protect it's people from foreigners who do it harm. And this leads me to my next point: He may want to ban all Muslims/Impose a visa on them, but this is for good reason.

 

You need to understand that the people coming from these war torn countries may not have our best interest at heart, and a great many of them may very well be ones coming here to harm us because of what is in their religion. Their religion literally advocates the destruction of the West in the most violent of ways. I can not fathom why you would want to invite them over here.

 

I'd rather ban all Muslims/refugees then willingly allow potential terrorists in to kill off more people and shed more blood than necessesary. Thank you. Atleast until something is done about ISIS. I don't like saying it, but it needs to be said: We can't trust anyone coming out of there. If that's racist then so be it. It's only logical.

 

Anyways onto the third one... Which is another article that is shamelessly taking everything he has said either literally, out of context, or just warping the words to fit the article. Please, I know that it's hard to do - but STOP LOOKING UP ARTICLES ON THIS. Go DIRECTLY TO HIM AND SEE WHAT HE HAS TO SAY.

http://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

 

And finally we have your final link...

 

>HuffingtonPost

Toplel.

No thank you.

[Seattleite]

I mean regardless of whether or not you like Trump, at the end of the day it's going to be a choice between Trump or (s)Hillary, and I'd rather have Trump any day.

 

If by some horrible travesty Sanders somehow manages to win, then it will be Trump vs Sanders, and then I'll definitely be voting Trump 100% of the way. No thank you Socialism.

 

Rarity got the rest of this post, so I'm going to address this part. One quick thing about Hillary, all the defence of that corporatist shill I'm willing to give, is one question: WHY would she be so horrible? Go ahead, give REASONS. Actual REASONS. Not "I don't like her", because I don't like her either, actual reasons why she would be a disaster instead of Bill Clinton Mk III (Obama was Mk II). I have mine, but I don't think you have even one single reason at all. And please, DO be specific. And then when you're done stumbling to come up with some vague reason or cribbing your answers off of The Blaze, I'll give you some actual reasons, all of which also apply to your precious Donald Trump.

 

Now for the important part: You do not know what socialism is. I'mma let Urban Dictionary do the insulting for me: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=socialism

 

Socialism is anything between full capitalism and communism. As in, anything between the robber baron era and Marxism. As in, any model in which the government provides services, regulates business, or otherwise moves away from laissez faire economics is a socialist model because that is ALL THE WORD MEANS. It isn't a boogie word, it's a word Marx invented for people to the right of him and to the left of Ayn Rand. (Which is everybody.)

 

The United States is already a socialist country by definition, alright? It's socialist because it uses social means to pay for government services instead of them being handled privately like they would be in a pure capitalist economic model. It isn't just health care and colleges that count as socialism, it isn't just the things we aren't doing because we're decades behind the entire civilized world, it's everything else too. That includes law enforcement, the military, fire departments, business regulation, roads, border control and everything else. Every single government project, EVER, is paid for socially and is distance between the US and pure capitalism. Every single government project is socialism. PERIOD.

 

Now, as for Bernie, how socialist is he? He's providing us single-payer health care, that is health care paid for by tax dollars. Like every CIVILIZED country on the planet. Oh, and the first two years of community college being tuition free? Yeah, the US education system is so bad that those two years are covered as part of high school in most of Europe. So he's actually, by the standards of any European country, a centrist. He's not some crazy lefty, he's just bringing us up to date with the rest of the world, and yes he HAS already explained how he's going to pay for all of it.

 

Now let's look at Trump. "But Trump isn't socialist at all!", I hear you scream. Oh, how little attention you pay to EVERYTHING, Trump voter. He ALSO supported single-payer for those who couldn't afford it, saying that we would indeed pay the medical expenses of some people because he didn't want people dying in the street. Probably the only thing I agree with him on, and yes that's still "SOCIALISM!!!". He also wants to beef up border patrol, another "SOCIALIST!!!" project. Oh, and his stupid fucking wall? Do you think that's being paid for privately, and done by a private company? Nope, paid for socially. And not by Mexico either, that's insane. He's also penalizing businesses that are outsourcing jobs and leaving the country, and why yes, that's not in laissez faire economics, that's a "SOCIALIST!!!" regulation. It's also another thing I agree with him on, we totally used to do that. Though his numbers are way too high. He's to the left of Bernie on this one, you do realize that, right? This is an area where he is to the LEFT of BERNIE SANDERS. There's more, too, that I don't have time to list right now. Every populist thing Trump says is "SOCIALISM!!!" by definition. And he says a lot of them, even if he flip-flop on them later. Trump is just as "SOCIALIST!!!" as Bernie, he's just got absolutely idiotic policies. Listen to his speeches and pay attention, you'll see it.

 

So how about next time, you attack Bernie on his policies, not a broad label that doesn't mean what you think it means?

Edited March 17, 2016 by Guest (see edit history)

[RandomGuy]

I want to talk real quick on Trump being a racist. He might be racist towards Muslims or Mexicans but he is racist against them for good reasons.

Heh. This should be good.

 

For starters, he doesn't want to ban every single Mexican in America. If you think this, then you obviously have not been paying attention to him or what he is saying. He wants to ban all ILLEGALS, and he wants to strengthen the border.

Those "illegals" account for about 12 million people currently living and working in the United States, and the only reason they're "illegal" in the first place is because of blatantly racist per country quotas that make it impossible for them to immigrate otherwise. The term is basically a useless weasel word. Yet they come anyway, and get paid way more than they would at home while also strengthening the American economy. It's a win-win, hence why 3/4 of the country supports amnesty.

 

He basically wants to do what any good country does: protect it's people from foreigners who do it harm.

Illegal immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes than native-born Americans. The reasons for this should be obvious. So by your logic we should have you deported and replaced with a Mexican immigrant who wants your job. He'll do it for a cheaper price and will be less likely to murder someone than you would; it's only logical.

 

He's not "protecting the country" by preventing more people from becoming Americans, he's trying to limit its economy while ethnically cleansing the southwest because it fits into his populist platform. This is half of why he's going to lose the race hard; Latinos are 1/6 of all Americans now. Most of those Latinos are Mexican-American. They recognize racially charged rhetoric when they see it.

 

And this leads me to my next point: He may want to ban all Muslims/Impose a visa on them, but this is for good reason. You need to understand that the people coming from these war torn countries may not have our best interest at heart, and a great many of them may very well be ones coming here to harm us because of what is in their religion.

There have been literally 45 people killed by Islamist terrorists in the USA since 2001, out of the several hundred thousand murders committed in that time period. You're many times more likely to die after getting struck by lightning than die in a terror attack. It's downright illogical to shut out potentially useful workers (Trump's not just shutting out refugees, but all Muslims) because of such a statistically insignificant number. Not to mention unconstitutional.

 

Their religion literally advocates the destruction of the West in the most violent of ways.

Christianity advocates the killing of people for very minor offenses like working on Sunday, yet for some reason he doesn't want to ban all Christians from entering the USA.

 

I can not fathom why you would want to invite them over here. I'd rather ban all Muslims/refugees then willingly allow potential terrorists in to kill off more people and shed more blood than necessesary. Thank you. Atleast until something is done about ISIS.

I bet you have absolutely no idea what's even going with ISIS right now.

 

I don't like saying it, but it needs to be said: We can't trust anyone coming out of there. If that's racist then so be it.

Yes, that's extremely racist. I'm pretty sure it's against forum rules too.

 

I don't know why you dislike Sanders so much while being a Trump supporter. Sure he doesn't support obviously fantastical propositions like deporting those 12 million people, but he wants to shut out immigrants too. He even uses the same logic Trump uses (lump of labor fallacy, i.e. "unskilled foreigners will take American jobs and make everyone poor"). It's actually the same reason he opposes free trade... which Trump also opposes (i.e. "dirty Chinese people are taking American jobs, economists who say I'm wrong [basically all of them] don't know shit compared to me").

 

Now, as for Bernie, how socialist is he? He's providing us single-payer health care, that is health care paid for by tax dollars. Like every CIVILIZED country on the planet. Oh, and the first two years of community college being tuition free?

Community college tuition costs about $6,700 for two years, and the majority of the people in community college get aid packages of some kind to alleviate even that. More than a third of them, i.e. the really poor ones, flat-out don't pay anything. It's really not that big of a deal. Furthermore, Sanders doesn't support making the first two years of community college free- he supports making all college tuition free, which is ridiculous for a variety of reasons. Mostly because the current college system already acts as a form of very progressive taxation (whereas if all college was free, you'd have wealthy and middle class people getting government aid when they could easily afford college), where the rich pay a lot, the middle class pay a moderate amount, and the poor pay next to nothing. Students from higher income families paying the full tuition and everyone else getting varying amounts of subsidies down to an actual poor student who pays nothing and get a living stipend on top of it.

 

So under Bernie's system, you would expend an enormous amount of political capital getting this passed, and then expend an enormous amount of political capital to raise taxes on the rich significantly to pay for it, and then you end up barely a step away from where you started. Finally, the college attendance rate in the US is abnormally high while our graduation rate is slightly below average. Any free tuition system would require stricter entrance requirements and stricter performance requirements on colleges to raise their graduation rates. That's what Germany does.

 

By contrast, Clinton's more modest plan is specifically aimed at increasing the already significant subsidies for low income students, and more or less wiping out the cost of community college. This is much more likely to actually pass, and unlike Sanders' plan, which gives free handouts to everyone at the cost of an extra half a trillion dollars, it specifically targets students who actually need support.

 

So he's actually, by the standards of any European country, a centrist.

Most European countries aren't hardcore protectionist, in fact the economy of Denmark which he claims to be trying to emulate has free trade as the main base of its economic policy ("Denmark’s international trade policy fundamentally aims at allowing more free trade on a global basis"). On healthcare specifically, Sanders' plan proposes paying for the plan almost entirely via financially unsound taxes on the wealthy, rather than broad, more efficient taxes like VATs (because then he wouldn't even be able to pretend that the plan wouldn't cost a shitload); this is extreme leftist even by "European" (I assume you exclude the poor half) standards.

 

He's not some crazy lefty, he's just bringing us up to date with the rest of the world, and yes he HAS already explained how he's going to pay for all of it.

Ah yes, that genius plan. I particularly like the part where he said he'd save $324 billion on prescription drug costs... when the USA only spends $305 billion prescription drugs in total ("When I pointed out that the yearly savings numbers they were presenting on prescription drugs were literally impossible, the Sanders camp revised the number to $240 billion — huge and arguably implausible but not larger than total annual spending on prescription drugs").

 

Single-payer is the more efficient model, but Sanders is an idiot with how he wants to implement it.

 

It's also another thing I agree with him on, we totally used to do that.

...and it was dumb because people had to pay more for mediocre products. Now the average American has more purchasing power, and people in poorer countries are rich compared to where they were a couple decades ago. You may as well ask the American people to pay a 10% tax to GM every year and then mail "fuck you" letters to Chinese peasants, it's functionally the same thing as this protectionist nonsense.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Guest (see edit history)

[Blightmare]

Sorry mate.

 

Let's see here...

The first one is from Cosmopolitan, so I'm going to go ahead and instantly close out of that tab.

 

The second one is just your average "OH WELL TRUMP WANTS TO BAN ALL MUSLIMS AND ALL MEXICANS HURR HURR HURR"

 

I want to talk real quick on Trump being a racist. He might be racist towards Muslims or Mexicans but he is racist against them for good reasons. For starters, he doesn't want to ban every single Mexican in America. If you think this, then you obviously have not been paying attention to him or what he is saying. He wants to ban all ILLEGALS, and he wants to strengthen the border.

 

He basically wants to do what any good country does: protect it's people from foreigners who do it harm. And this leads me to my next point: He may want to ban all Muslims/Impose a visa on them, but this is for good reason.

 

You need to understand that the people coming from these war torn countries may not have our best interest at heart, and a great many of them may very well be ones coming here to harm us because of what is in their religion. Their religion literally advocates the destruction of the West in the most violent of ways. I can not fathom why you would want to invite them over here.

 

I'd rather ban all Muslims/refugees then willingly allow potential terrorists in to kill off more people and shed more blood than necessesary. Thank you. Atleast until something is done about ISIS. I don't like saying it, but it needs to be said: We can't trust anyone coming out of there. If that's racist then so be it. It's only logical.

 

Anyways onto the third one... Which is another article that is shamelessly taking everything he has said either literally, out of context, or just warping the words to fit the article. Please, I know that it's hard to do - but STOP LOOKING UP ARTICLES ON THIS. Go DIRECTLY TO HIM AND SEE WHAT HE HAS TO SAY.

http://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

 

And finally we have your final link...

 

>HuffingtonPost

Toplel.

No thank you.

As much as I hate the "lol your sources" argument, I'm gonna roll with it this time because I realize gossip websites are poor sources. But the problem is the more I search, the more I see the exact same things from every source that isn't the biased opposite of these. (yes these are biased sources as well. Welcome to pre-election research.) The best you can do is read up on everything from both sides before formulating which you believe and I've been doing that. It's just from what I've heard come out of his mouth himself as well as the the amount of coverage it gets I'm convinced that trump is the absolute worst we can do.

 

As for going to his website and seeing what he has to say, I'm even less likely to buy into him considering how divided he himself is. And as I said, I've heard plenty come out of his own mouth in those televised debates to have already come to this conclusion long before I posted those here.

 

And to those making the argument "I'm sure he's just saying these to get himself into office. He's just saying what he needs to win." Casting a vote on the off-chance he might be lying has fallacy written all over it.

 

"racist against them for good reasons" there is no such thing as a good reason for racism.

[Revan114]

-Snip-

 

I'll respond to this more in depth later as I'm a little tied up at the moment, but I will say right now real quick: The main driving reason I really dislike Sanders and his supporters is because his economic policies are completely absurd in every possible sense of the word "absurd". He has no idea how the economy works at all on any level what so ever. His policies appeal primarily to SJWs and college going folk.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Guest (see edit history)

[RandomGuy]

Except all his policies that actually matter (i.e. what he can actually do with presidential powers) are identical to Trump's. They're both peddlers of bullshit.

[Vapymid]

Hmmm... I usually loathe getting into an all-American discussions about American things...

But... I just can't let this one pass...

I don't even know what is worse... Trump himself or his supporters?

 

"He might be racist towards Muslims or Mexicans but he is racist against them for good reasons."

"He may want to ban all Muslims/Impose a visa on them, but this is for good reason."

 

There are no good reasons for racism.

When you look into it, the reasons always lie in the ignorance and primitive minds of those who espose racist views. As is generally the case with all extremists and proponents of "easy" solutions.

In reality racism never works as a practical solution to anything.

 

"He basically wants to do what any good country does: protect it's people from foreigners who do it harm."

 

You are talking about immigrant and visitor foreigners and not other nation states who might want to impinge on the interest of your country, I presume. It is well known fact that most "harm" to "good" countries comes predominately from within those countries themselves and not from immigrants or refugees. In any case there is practically no Muslim refugee influx to the US...

 

So all talk about banning Muslims from travelling to the US is simply a lolly-pop being offered by Trump to the feeble minded and ignorant to get a vote from them...

 

"You need to understand that the people coming from these war torn countries may not have our best interest at heart"

 

That is a bit strange as why would they be coming then?

Leaving aside the obvious fact that these countries are war-torm largely as the result of your country's policies and actions, how many such people have come to the US so far and what harm were they able to inflict upon it? This is obvious nonsense... Any that manage to come pass through a lot of hoops and vetting on their way and they don't really have an option of sneaking in illegally after sailing across the Atlantic in a leaking derelict boat, like they do in Europe.

 

"and a great many of them may very well be ones coming here to harm us because of what is in their religion."

"Their religion literally advocates the destruction of the West in the most violent of ways."

 

Maybe you could quote an appropriate sura from the Koran which says the Land of the Free or the West must be destroyed?

 

"I'd rather ban all Muslims/refugees then willingly allow potential terrorists in to kill off more people and shed more blood than necessesary."

 

Non-Muslim Americans obviously kill many more Americans for no reason at all than all the Muslim ones combined, regardless of whether they are motivated by religion or not...

 

Regards

[Revan114]

Those "illegals" account for about 12 million people currently living and working in the United States,

Okay.

And? Your point is?

"Oh, well we have illegal immigrants - but don't worry it's only 12 million!"

 

They don't pay income or property tax, and that's besides the point that 12 million is such a low ball number. That's the smallest possible number. According to http://www.cairco.org/issues/how-many-illegal-aliens-reside-united-states

This number originated with the Department of Homeland Security, which in December 2003 estimated 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens resided in the United States and that 700,000 new illegals enter each year and remain in the country.1 Those stale, outdated estimates have not changed for twelve years, even though the official annual increase alone would yield a corrected estimate of 15.7 million to 19.7 million illegal aliens today

Estimates of the size of the illegal alien population currently living in the U.S. range from about 12 million to over 20 million.

 

So there you go.

 

Illegal immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes than native-born Americans.

Yeah forget about the tax dodging, forget about the initial crime they commited when they went over the border, forget about the harm they do to the economy from cheap labor, forget about the drugs that are smuggled over the border... naw - They do less violent crimes! That means it's ok! Let them all in!!!!

 

OH yeah by the way

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/07/illegal-immigrants-accounted-for-nearly-37-percent-of-federal-sentences-in-fy-2014/

 

But that's besides the point... You realize all of the immigrant statistics are for documented migrants right?

 

The reasons for this should be obvious. So by your logic we should have you deported and replaced with a Mexican immigrant who wants your job. He'll do it for a cheaper price and will be less likely to murder someone than you would; it's only logical.

 

Not even really sure where you're going with this one.

 

He's not "protecting the country" by preventing more people from becoming Americans, he's trying to limit its economy while ethnically cleansing the southwest because it fits into his populist platform. This is half of why he's going to lose the race hard; Latinos are 1/6 of all Americans now. Most of those Latinos are Mexican-American. They recognize racially charged rhetoric when they see it.

 

How is preventing people from illegally entering the country preventing them from becoming Americans? He's said himself he loves immigration, as in LEGAL immigration. He's not going to prevent non-US citizens from becoming a US citizen, he is going to prevent them from illegally entering our country. I don't think you understand what exactly it is that illegal immigration is.

 

There have been literally 45 people killed by Islamist terrorists in the USA since 2001, out of the several hundred thousand murders committed in that time period. You're many times more likely to die after getting struck by lightning than die in a terror attack. It's downright illogical to shut out potentially useful workers (Trump's not just shutting out refugees, but all Muslims) because of such a statistically insignificant number. Not to mention unconstitutional.

 

We have a a massive military presence worldwide, which contributes to the low amount of number of Americans killed in America. Also the fact we are still pretty strict on who gets in. The thing everyone is afraid of is one of those massive big attacks like we saw in Paris.

 

Like I don't get it.

 

We aren't BANNING MUSLIMS FOR ALL ETERNITY, we are trying to impose a temporary ban on Muslims from Syria where there is a civil war with ISIS. Other than "o dats racist" I still have yet to see a single good argument against this idea.

 

Also here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ-QX8LuKHA

 

Christianity advocates the killing of people for very minor offenses like working on Sunday, yet for some reason he doesn't want to ban all Christians from entering the USA.

...

Do you see people still practicing the old testament widespread? Do you see people killing other people in the street over minor offenses? Do you see people following all of that word for word anymore? Are you kidding me?

 

Christianity doesn't even advocate killing, it's one of 10 sinful acts that damn you to an eternity of hell.

 

I can not stress this enough - THEY FOLLOW A RELIGION THAT SAYS TO DESTROY YOU IN THE WORST POSSIBLE WAYS, AND THEY BELIEVE IT AND FOLLOW IT WHOLE HEARTEDLY.

 

I bet you have absolutely no idea what's even going with ISIS right now.

Yeah, do you?

Obviously you don't because of what you said quoted above.

[RandomGuy]

Those "illegals" account for about 12 million people currently living and working in the United States,

Okay.

And? Your point is?

"Oh, well we have illegal immigrants - but don't worry it's only 12 million!"

The point is that deporting them is impractical and would be disastrous for local economies. You're removing 12 million laborers from the market overnight, often for jobs no one else will take. When a US state(Georgia) kicked out a bunch of illegal immigrants, farmers couldn't find Americans replace the immigrants despite offering a high wage ($16/hr) and the country being in the middle of a recession. As a result food simply rotted in the fields.

 

They don't pay income or property tax,

Except they totally do pay property and income tax. You're making shit up. Additionally, due to the complications that come from them being undocumented, the taxes they pay are consistently favorable to the U.S. Immigrant tax payments total $20 to $30 billion more than the amount of government services they use.

 

 

and that's besides the point that 12 million is such a low ball number. That's the smallest possible number. According to http://www.cairco.org/issues/how-many-illegal-aliens-reside-united-states

So you're quoting a random right wing pro-Trump website with no academic credentials and an axe to grind against immigrants in an attempt to disprove a commonly quoted figure that the Department of Homeland Security still uses (according to DHS estimates, "the number of illegal immigrants peaked around 12 million in 2007 and has gradually declined to closer to 11 million.", as of 2012).

 

Yeah, nice try.

This number originated with the Department of Homeland Security, which in December 2003 estimated 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens resided in the United States and that 700,000 new illegals enter each year and remain in the country.1 Those stale, outdated estimates have not changed for twelve years, even though the official annual increase alone would yield a corrected estimate of 15.7 million to 19.7 million illegal aliens today

So they're assuming the peak immigration rate stayed the same even though the DHS said it declined. And they also neglected the possibility of anyone becoming legal during that time period.

 

How reliable.

 

Yeah forget about the tax dodging,

The tax dodging you just made up?

 

forget about the initial crime they commited when they went over the border,

This is kinda like saying civil rights protesters should've been punished for the crime of using white-only bathrooms and water fountains. The current immigration laws only exist because to limit immigration from Latino and Asian countries. Why should they follow it and stay in an area where they're making about $5,000 a year? Because blatantly racist and outdated laws said so?

 

The opportunities they have here are such that median immigrant household income after taxes was $36,000 in 2007 (adjusted for inflation, today that's $41,500; in 2013 it's $40,500). This puts them about 30% higher than the median household in France (which was $31,112 in 2013), though with an average household size of ~3.2 compared to ~2.3 for France.

 

forget about the harm they do to the economy from cheap labor,

You're making shit up. Most mainstream economists disagree with you. But hey, knowing that would require to actually read all the sources I post, and that must be really difficult. I'll try to make it simple. A panel of expert economists from across the country were asked what they thought about low skilled, cheap labor:

 

The only reason immigration is limited despite the economic benefits is because union members and nativists hate foreigners, and turn out in droves to vote for people that agree with them like Sanders and Trump. It's the same reason why Obama had to expend so much political capital passing a common-sense trade agreement like TPP.

 

forget about the drugs that are smuggled over the border... naw - They do less violent crimes! That means it's ok! Let them all in!!!!

Those who run drugs across the border generally want to stay in Mexico rather than the USA, where they can continue getting their supply of drugs. Cartel activity is entirely separate from illegal immigration, you're again making shit up by conflating them.

 

OH yeah by the way

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/07/illegal-immigrants-accounted-for-nearly-37-percent-of-federal-sentences-in-fy-2014/

1. Breitbart? I was wondering when you'd manage to drag up a source even more unreliable than your last. Truly you have out done yourself.

2. Their logic, like the last "source", is full of shit. This is how I'm sure you didn't even bother to read my previous sources, because one of them addresses this exact bullshit argument and those exact figures. In short, they only bring up federal crimes. Federal crimes are a tiny minority of all cases. When we look at total actual crime rates...

Supporters of the Trump theory have been pointing to data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission that found undocumented immigrants account for disturbingly high levels of violent crime. While they represent just 3.5% of the U.S. population, undocumented immigrants represented 7% of federal prison sentences following convictions on charges of sexual abuse, 9% of murders, 12% of assaults and 30% of kidnappings in 2013.

 

Case closed, right? Far from it.

 

Only a tiny percentage of the nation’s violent crimes are handled by the federal court system. Yes, undocumented immigrants accounted for 9.2% of federal murder convictions in 2013, but that represents a grand total of eight murder cases. When you consider that the FBI estimates there were 14,196 murders in the U.S. in 2013, those few cases handled by the federal court system don’t quite register as a reliable sample set.

 

The same goes for the other violent crimes cited in those statistics. Add the fact that undocumented immigrants are far more likely to be caught up in the federal court system because of non-violent immigration violations, and the numbers shouldn't mean much.

Both of your 'sources' outright lie in addition to committing lies by omission.

 

But that's besides the point... You realize all of the immigrant statistics are for documented migrants right?

The sources specifically said illegal immigrants.

 

Nice try.

 

Not even really sure where you're going with this one.

That immigrant is less likely to commit a violent crime than you and can achieve higher worker efficiency than you. Therefore, we should have you deported and replaced, for the good of the country. It's only logical, and you're all about that, right?

 

How is preventing people from illegally entering the country preventing them from becoming Americans? He's said himself he loves immigration, as in LEGAL immigration. He's not going to prevent non-US citizens from becoming a US citizen, he is going to prevent them from illegally entering our country.

Bar drastically altering or abolishing the country quota limits, that's impossible. Currently, no country can make up more than 7% of permanent immigrants coming to the USA. This means that, say, Croatia, with 4 million people, can send exactly as many immigrants as Mexico with 125 million, or China with 1.5 billion. To put it in simpler terms, "current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants". This means that the maximum number of Mexicans can come here legally this year is 47,250 bar certain special family situations (if they're extremely lucky, and Mexicans get all of Latin America's 'refugee' spots on a separate list, that goes up to... 52,250). You know, 7% of the total.

 

Anyone else from Mexico who wants to come is shit out of luck. Hence why people cross in the first place, before even getting into all the other hurdles with coming legally. Unless Trump plans to massively raise the immigration limit and remove per country quotas (LOL), yes, he hates immigration, and wants to stop people from becoming Americans.

 

We have a a massive military presence worldwide, which contributes to the low amount of number of Americans killed in America. Also the fact we are still pretty strict on who gets in.

Oh, so now it's not "ban all Muslims", it's "be pretty strict on who gets in"? So basically keep doing what we're doing?

 

The thing everyone is afraid of is one of those massive big attacks like we saw in Paris.

They should be more scared of our country's own sky-high murder rate rather than potentially being one of the literally 45 victims of Islamist terror in the USA in the past 15 years.

 

80% of the Paris attackers were French-born or Belgian-born citizens who were radicalized in their own countries. Preventing refugees from coming wouldn't have stopped them, and France having problems with its Arab communities is an issue far older than ISIL.

 

Like I don't get it.

We aren't BANNING MUSLIMS FOR ALL ETERNITY, we are trying to impose a temporary ban on Muslims from Syria where there is a civil war with ISIS. Other than "o dats racist" I still have yet to see a single good argument against this idea.

Apparently you don't read my posts either, though with how you've ignored every source that shouldn't really be surprising at this point. I'll say it again for posterity:

 

It's downright illogical to shut out potentially useful workers (Trump's not just shutting out refugees from Syria, but all Muslims) because of such a statistically insignificant number. Not to mention unconstitutional.

1. It's economically inefficient to shut out potentially valuable workers because of religious beliefs.

2. It's illogical to even consider terror attacks as a statistically relevant factor given how sparse they are here and how tough immigration standards are already.

3. It's against the constitution, which says that the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Banning people based specifically on religion is clearly making a law respecting the establishment of one religion over another (because, you know, other religions are not banned)

 

Also here you go.

Conspiracy-nut "Eurabia" nonsense that doesn't prove any of your points. Cite some actual sources to back up your ideas. No, blatantly dishonest right-wing rags do not count.

 

Christianity doesn't even advocate killing, it's one of 10 sinful acts that damn you to an eternity of hell.

Exodus: 31:14 "Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it is to be put to death"

 

Deuteronomy 17: "2If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."

 

Chronicles: 15:13: "that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."

 

You're full of shit.

 

I can not stress this enough - THEY FOLLOW A RELIGION THAT SAYS TO DESTROY YOU IN THE WORST POSSIBLE WAYS,

Stoning is very lenient by comparison, I'm sure.

 

AND THEY BELIEVE IT AND FOLLOW IT WHOLE HEARTEDLY.

Prove right now that all Muslims believe their religion's equivalent of the above quotes for Christianity. I've known several Muslims from other countries and none of them have tried to murder me for being a heretic.

 

Yeah, do you? Obviously you don't because of what you said quoted above.

I know that ISIL has not killed any people in the USA. I know I know that most of the people fighting ISIL right now are Muslims. I know that ISIL's brand of Islam is inherently hostile to even other Islamist extremists.

 

Going on about ISIL when trying to think up excuses for spitting all over the US Constitution is backwards and hilarious. It's not remotely the problem with bringing over a bunch of refugees (there are some... which doesn't matter to the USA anyway, since that's not we're doing and not what anyone's advocating we do), and it absolutely has nothing to do with banning ALL Muslims including ones from countries where ISIL has no significant presence.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Guest (see edit history)

[Blightmare]

Please put the fangs away and continue this discussion respectfully or I will pull out the Squirt Bottle of Unbiased Warnings +1. It's not that bad yet and I'd like to keep it that way, thank you. This is for everyone.

[Seattleite]

I don't have time to respond to every point individually, but I have a quick nitpick.

 

Maybe you could quote an appropriate sura from the Koran which says the Land of the Free or the West must be destroyed?

 

I'm sure he could, if he bothered to look, come up with a few great sources demanding violence, even specifically against non-believers, but none against the US or the West because these concepts just weren't a thing when the books were written.

 

Hell, here, have a list of violent Quran passages:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

 

It's a pretty long list, too. And only one, there's actually other examples that these people sorted under other categories. If you can be bothered to navigate to the main page, you'll find the other lists. This book is fucking evil.

 

That said, the same can be said of the Bible and Talmud.

 

Christianity doesn't even advocate killing, it's one of 10 sinful acts that damn you to an eternity of hell.

 

Wrong! Here, have a list of Christianity and Judaism doing exactly that. Oh, and by the way? Plenty in the new testament, too. Just to clarify since I know you won't actually read it.

 

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

 

Hell, have another.

 

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html

 

Oh, and let's have one more.

 

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html

 

Eh, one more just for fun.

 

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

 

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." -Isaac Asimov

 

Yeah, I think that'll do. Now, only the first list is specifically for violent passages, but there is calls for murder in every single one of these lists. Because that "Thou shall not kill" thing is a fucking joke. Your god was specifically created to justify the actions of bronze-age savages, no matter what they wanted to do. That's why the bible contradicts itself every third word, too. Because most people couldn't READ back then, so they had no way of knowing when one passage supported one thing and another passage supported the exact opposite. This way, the book could be a catch-all excuse for ANYTHING the warlords who made it wanted to do, even when they flip-flopped on positions.

 

Here, actually, have a list of that.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/number.html

 

The difference isn't that Islam is worse, though I do agree that it is considering the whole paedophilia thing it's got going on so, SO much more than the others. The difference is that Christians and Jews largely live in secular nations and aren't allowed to behave like the bronze-age savages their religious texts want them to be. If Muslims mostly lived in secular nations they would also not act like violent savages, especially since most of them have NO IDEA what is in their holy books any more than you have any idea what's in yours. This is actually proven real fast when they immigrate into Europe, and behave like any other (significantly culture-shocked) immigrants.

 

This is plenty of reason by itself to allow them in. They get a better life in a secular society, the world gets more civilized people, the middle east gets fewer violent theocrats. Seems like a no-brainer.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Guest (see edit history)

[Binky The Rabbit]

Just before this becomes a debate on religion (though it's not entirely unwelcome in this thread, as Christianity plays a massive part in American politics, especially towards the conservative end), just want to add an interesting notion: switching support from Sanders to Trump.

 

As one respondent, a 34-year-old male IT technician, put it: “Bernie and Trump agree a lot on healthcare, Iraq war, campaign finance and trade. I really want to move on to something new, new ideas from outside the box. Maybe Donald Trump can provide that.”

 

Additionally, a comparison to terrorism.

 

The EIU placed the possibility of Trump being sworn in as US president next January sixth on their latest list of global threats, as serious as a resurgence of jihadi terrorism, and only marginally less risky than the collapse of the eurozone.

 

Finally, a quick word about 'socialist' Sanders. The Political Compass contests the use of that word.

 

Quite why Sanders is describing himself to the American electorate — of all electorates — as a 'socialist' or 'democratic socialist' isn't clear. His economics are Keynesian or Galbraithian, in common with mainstream parties of the left in the rest of the west — the Labour or Social Democrat parties. Surely 'Social Democrat' would be a more accurate and appealing label for the Sanders campaign to adopt.

 

I guess there's a distinction between 'Democratic Socialist' and 'Social Democrat'.

[Revan114]

Okay so I'm tired right now and I'll probably respond to the big posts tomorrow or next day, but I'd just like to point out, yet again...

 

It literally does not matter that Christianity advocates to killing.

 

Comparing Christianity and Islam is stupid. Christianity is no where near as ass backwards and fucked up as Islam is. Islam is literally how bad Christianity once was 600 years ago. Comparing modern-day Christianity to Islam in it's current form is baffling to me.

[Blightmare]

It literally does not matter that Christianity advocates to killing.

... Killing is killing. It's not more okay for one person to advocate it than any other, let alone an entire religion.

[Seattleite]

Okay so I'm tired right now and I'll probably respond to the big posts tomorrow or next day, but I'd just like to point out, yet again...

 

It literally does not matter that Christianity advocates to killing.

 

Comparing Christianity and Islam is stupid. Christianity is no where near as ass backwards and fucked up as Islam is. Islam is literally how bad Christianity once was 600 years ago. Comparing modern-day Christianity to Islam in it's current form is baffling to me.

 

I find it quite depressing how wilfully ignorant you are.

 

Maybe you're just a bigot who is desperate to pretend Muslims are just evil, and ignore every geopolitical issue you have to in order to do it. Maybe you don't know about the geopolitical issues that have affected them, or think it all must be their faults and they deserve it because they're Muslims and therefore bad.

 

You'd change your tune if you knew and thought about the history of the region. If you knew, just for one example, how badly the death of the Ottoman Empire affected the region, when a bunch of old white men carved up its corpse at random with no fucking clue where the ethnic and sectarian boundaries were. Especially if you also knew that the United States has personally destroyed stable and semi-stable governments in the region, armed and funded terrorism and is an ally and active military supporter of BOTH of the region's most powerful terror states, which are carpet-bombing civilians AS WE SPEAK. Even more so if you knew that the Muslim world was just as civilized as Christendom until very recently, and was indeed much MORE civilized for most of its history, before all that shit above happened.

 

Or maybe you wouldn't. Because something tells me your hatred of Muslims has more to do with collectivism than it does rational thought.

 

The barbarism in the Muslim world is all the fault of geopolitical issues beyond their control, mostly the clusterfuck trifecta par excellence that was the collapse and division of the Ottoman Empire. Islam is just the evil that took advantage of the situation. Christianity would have done just as much damage, so would Jusaism, and even if none of them were present some other malignant organization would have manifested anyway because that is what happens when society breaks down.

 

But you won't listen to any of this, it all went right over your head, I'm sure of it. I mean, it's impossible to talk sense to somebody like you. It frustrates me to no end to know that your knowledge of the region starts with "Muslims bad because they are" and ends with "We good because we bomb them". It frustrates me that you don't know ANYTHING about the history of ANY of the nations involved. It frustrates me that you insist on forming your opinion based on bigoted pre-conceptions rather than actual historical facts, that you don't even know what the word "geopolitics" means, and are unwilling to listen to people who actually know what they're talking about, or even to consider what they have to say.

 

Go ahead and scream "IS NOT!" until you're hoarse in the throat, because I know you won't listen to a word I say. And go ahead and vote for Mussolini, because that fascist piece of shit is exactly the kind of president a bigot like you wants. I'm well aware that I'm wasting my time.

 

It literally does not matter that Christianity advocates to killing.

... Killing is killing. It's not more okay for one person to advocate it than any other, let alone an entire religion.

 

Preach it, sister.

[RandomGuy]

Just before this becomes a debate on religion (though it's not entirely unwelcome in this thread, as Christianity plays a massive part in American politics, especially towards the conservative end), just want to add an interesting notion: switching support from Sanders to Trump.

Heh, called it. Sandernistas and Trumpers cross over in their love their anti-free trade, anti-establishment, anti-immigration, anti-"elite" rhetoric (which in practice translates to "educated professionals are worthless and don't know what they're talking about", to make the former stances consistent). They also tend to be overwhelmingly middle class whites who either work/worked in a low skilled labor job, or who go to college/recently got out of college. A lot of crossover should be expected.

 

Finally, a quick word about 'socialist' Sanders. The Political Compass contests the use of that word. Quite why Sanders is describing himself to the American electorate — of all electorates — as a 'socialist' or 'democratic socialist' isn't clear.

Sanders labels himself a socialist because he was/is a Castro/USSR fanboy.

 

His economics are Keynesian

He's not a follower of Keynesian economics, he's a follower of the grade school version of Keynesian economics, also known as batshit insane economics, also known as autarky. It's not Keynesian economics if you don't cut spending ever. He is in no way mainstream.

 

Sanders' economic policy is identical to the populist measures used in countries like Venezuela and Argentina which generally consisted of "institute tariffs and other protectionist policies, borrow and spend lots of money, if we can't borrow, print money". This never works in the long run. To wit, he hired Stephanie Kelton as an economic advisor. Kelton is one of the biggest proponents of MMT, which is widely agreed to be nonsense.