The News Thread

[arg]

Undocumented residents contribute greatly to our society, including doing many jobs no one else is willing to do and paying into services that they can't take advantage of. Spending billions to deport them benefits nobody. It's a massive expense (and since you want to lower taxes, I'd be interested in how you expect to pay for this), creates tons of empty jobs, destroys families, and creates a massive foster care crisis. Create a realistic path to citizenship and there won't be so many undocumented residents.

illegals lower wages and take jobs. it's a myth that they "take jobs no one wants to do". many low-skilled but legal american citizens, including legal mexican-americans, would take them.

i don't think Trump will be able to build the entire wall anytime soon or deport every illegal. but if he builds part of the wall at key areas, gives more authority and resources to border patrol, and deports -some or a lot- of illegals that would be great. implement e-verify and penalize businesses that hire illegals, cut off welfare and healthcare to them and they will self-deport.

The refugee vetting process is thorough already. The unfounded paranoia regarding refugee terrorism (remind me of how many refugee terrorist attacks America has experinced) is just fear-mongering from the right.

no matter how thorough the vetting is, if there is no data to check the refugee against, then there is nothing to base the vetting on. furthermore, there is no reason to accept even the ones who are not terrorists.

Less terorists? Trump will cause an increase in terrorist attacks and is already giving tons of anti-American fodder to terrorist organizations with his anti-Muslim propaganda. He's ISIS's #1 recruiting tool ATM. Moreover, the vast majority of terrorism in this country, whether the purpitrator was black, brown, or white, have been by US citizens. So please explain to me how a president who is constantly fanning the flames of racial hatred will decrease terrorism.

by barring entry based on where they're from, and deporting suspicious muslims preemptively.

Less taxes? For whom? There are people and corporation in this country who need to being paying more taxes.

less taxes for everyone. including you and me, and the companies that hire us, so they can give us bonuses. don't you want a bigger paycheck? then we can buy more stuff and the economy will be better

As for you're claim that personalities don't matter in a political leader, that's just laughable. Someone who has hissy fit everytime someone calls him out on his bullshit does not have the sort of disposition needed to decide when we do and do not go to war. Moreover, someone who is openly racist against Muslims and Mexicans and indirectly racist against blacks cannot be an effective leader of one the most diverse nations on the planet. Furthermore, he is simply too uneducated on foreign affairs (as his embarassing comments on Ukraine this weekend showed) to do the job. Lastly, it sounds like the leaders of the military have so little respect for him that they might disrupt the chain of command and reject his orders.

nope, his personality, his rhetoric, and even his past dont matter, only the policies that he will implement in office and the competent republican staff he will appoint to carry them out. and how those policies affect your and my and every legal american of every ethnicity's quality of life.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

illegals lower wages and take jobs. it's a myth that they "take jobs no one wants to do". many low-skilled but legal american citizens, including legal mexican-americans, would take them.

damn right Auggie.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

You guys already know how much i dislike Trump, but man was he on point here ...



I'm starting feel less bad about the fact that im going to vote for him

 

[CiG]

How can people say "lol illegals aren't taking your jobs" and then also say "they take jobs nobody wants"?

 

[Einherjar86]

If you are here illegally, than you shouldn't have a job in this country, as simple as that.

I have family on the other side of the world who have been trying hard as fuck to come here legally and start a proper future for themselves and their families for over 10+ years now, but its okay for julio to just hop the fuckin' fence tomorrow and come right on over? fuck no.

This is part of the problem though, is it not? It's great that your family has been patient with the whole process, but others might feel like they don't have that kind of time. It's certainly not the case that the process isn't cautious or rigorous (or bogged down in bureaucracy, in some cases I'm sure), especially considering it takes this long to do it legally.

nope, his personality, his rhetoric, and even his past dont matter, only the policies that he will implement in office and the competent republican staff he will appoint to carry them out. and how those policies affect your and my and every legal american of every ethnicity's quality of life.

I wish this wasn't the case, but personality has a lot to do with why his supporters are voting for him - maybe not you, but most people. Same goes for Hillary, a major point of criticism we hear has to do with her personality, or lack thereof rather.

A large part of Trump's success has been a cult of personality built around himself as a successful businessman and kind of Stonewall Jackson of negotiation. The cult of personality is also a huge part of why Obama won in 2008, and it's something Hillary hasn't quite managed to congeal. Her success derives more from her support of identity politics, which is still a big fucking walking stick.

 

[arg]

Yea you're probably right about that. I don't give a shit about Hillary's personality, emails, Haiti, or Benghazi either, but what policies she will very likely enact:

- she will let in more illegals and refugees, not because she cares about them, but to manufacture more democratic voters dependent on the government to prolong its power. they will be dumped in american towns against the will of the locals, our taxes spent on them as they take our jobs and lower our wages

- more terrorists because like obama she will be very lax with them or maybe even outright protect them because she is bought off by huge muslim organizations that would love to ruin us

- more taxes and regulations that will cripple big, medium and small businesses, cause them to cut wages, lay off workers, relocate/outsource to China/India or shut down altogether

- more big government programs that waste money, try to control all aspects of our lives, disarm the populace, inhibit free speech, shove "equality" in our face, etc

- more obamacare. if government would gtfo of healthcare, leave it to the free market, let people choose their insurance (or not to have it) and doctors, let those who can't afford healthcare die as nature intended (nothing wrong with that it's the circle of life), overall costs will go down

- more social welfare, not enough to lift them out of poverty, just crumbs to keep them alive and breeding more lowlife demorats

- more corporate welfare because she is bought off by them. they have donated millions to her while she was secretary of state, during her campaign, and if she wins she will bail them out with our taxes so they don't fail, even if by economic principle they should

People should vote with their heads and their wallets. Not feelings...I think that's how you're voting, einherjar and crimsonfloyd. Separate the candidates and ask...what's better for my bank account, quality of life, and that of my fellow americans?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

It's great that your family has been patient with the whole process, but others might feel like they don't have that kind of time.

I'm pretty sure they belong in that "they dont have that kind of time" group as they've been living in the slums of Greece for 15 years now. Yes the whole process is fucked up and they need to find a way to fix it, but it is what it is ... and that doesn't mean we get to take the law into our own hands. And it certainly doesn't mean juan should get a free pass or that my family should come here illegally.

*edited for typos*

 

[Einherjar86]

People should vote with their heads and their wallets. Not feelings...I think that's how you're voting, einherjar and crimsonfloyd. Separate the candidates and ask...what's better for my bank account, quality of life, and that of my fellow americans?

You probably won't want to hear this, but you're voting with your feelings just as much as crimson and I are. All the proposals you've made assume a specific set of values, none of which have anything to do with logic or rationality. From your perspective, everything you listed seems perfectly logical - but that's because you have a deep-seated emotional commitment to the values that inform these positions.

Something like "quality of life" is a fascinatingly vague position, but your other suggestions tell a lot about what it means. Basically, I should think about the quality of life of "my fellow Americans." But plenty of my fellow Americans are elderly and/or handicapped, neither of which necessarily amounts to an unwillingness to live on their part or the impossibility of still enjoying their lives. You'd deny them any and all kind of support... but then isn't this damaging the lives of your fellow Americans?

When I read your list of positions, I don't see a carefully thought-out and rigorously conceived argument. I see an emotionally charged and contradictory rhetorical rampage. You only think you're voting with your head because these positions fuel your pre-established emotional convictions.

For instance, you say that Hillary will provide corporate welfare, but on the previous page you wrote:

If Hillary wins I hope to god she's lying about the refugees and illegals and is pro-corporation

The big kinds of corporations you're talking about (multinationals) operate on a level of economic complexity that demands government intervention. At this point we could let the big ones fail, but that's going to fuck up your life as much as it fucks up the board members' lives. Given this information, corporate assistance seems like a pretty "pro-corporation" policy from my perspective.

As far as Hillary's economic policies "crippling" American businesses... that's at best an overstatement, and at worst completely inaccurate. Obama's economic policies have in fact not crippled American businesses, nor can it be effectively argued that in an overwhelming number of cases his economic policies were directly responsible for companies that did fail (i.e. there are many reasons why companies go under). Plenty of small businesses continued to thrive and grow under Obama's presidency, so I don't see how Clinton's policies will be catastrophically worse.

 

[Internally Deformed]

I'm pretty sure they belong in that "they dont have that kind of time" process as they've been living in the slums of Greece for 15 years now. Yes the whole process is fucked up and they need to find a way to fix it, but it is what it is ... and that doesn't mean we get to take the law into our own hands. And it certainly doesn't mean juan should get a free pass or that my family should come here illegally.

*edited for typos*

I think there are some pretty convincing arguments for why first world countries might need migrants for menial labour, or to balance out age demographics. But I agree that those arguments in no way support tolerating illegal immigration - if a country needs migrants, it can allow them to enter legitimately and in a way that allows for control of overall numbers and vetting of individual migrants.

 

[Dak]

I think there are some major misunderstandings as to what it means when these major companies fail. It simply is not going to be this epic disaster for the common man. There are differing levels of bankruptcy/failure, and even in the worst, it doesn't mean the products and services vanish. It means they become available for more competent ownership/management. Such rhetoric about "too big to fail" is simply self-serving for the ".1%"

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

man i could have sworn i edited the typos in my sloppy as post up there.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

I feel like I would be willing to support Donald Trump if someone could show me good evidence that he'd follow through on even the major parts of what he claims he would do to help citizens.

I also seem to remember someone saying there's evidence that he has employed illegal workers in the past. Can anyone tell me more about that?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... something about illegal Polish immigrants building the Trump tower or some shit. Not sure if its true though.

 

[Internally Deformed]

According to politiburo it's half true.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...rubio-says-donald-trump-had-pay-1-million-hi/

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

It seems like it would be hard to say whether he was aware of the illegal workers or not. He might have known or he might have just learned a valuable lesson in being more careful about who he gets into business arrangements with.

 

[Internally Deformed]

My guess would be that he hired a cheap contractor fully aware of the fact that he'd cut corners to reduce costs, and probably aware of the fact that that might put him in dodgy legal territory, but that's just speculation. The problem with a guy like Trump is most of the crooked things he's done will have been through subordinates or intermediaries, primarily because I doubt he actually does a great deal himself.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

There's never been a better election to vote third party in imo.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

yea but that's kind if useless. The only chance of stopping Hillary is to vote for Trump. So i'm going with the lesser of the two evils.

 

[Dak]

Nominal independents outnumber party voters iirc. So if they all didn't buy the "it's useless" line, you'd have winning 3rd party candidates.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I don't usually buy into that shit either, since you know im voting republican in cali and all .... but i just dont see a 3rd party ever making a serious run for the office.

Nominal independents outnumber party voters iirc.

Really? hmmmm, i doubt it.