More illegals is a fantastic boon to the establishment. It is a YUGE negative for we the people. Of course the establishment radically minimizes the terrible impact on the country as a whole, because they are getting filthy rich by maintaining the status quo. I get why they LOVE supporting lawlessness in this regard. We the people are tired of being sold down the river by the establishment statists. I am more upset with Repub than Dem politicians, fyi.
Here is a tiny example of what we the people are up against when it comes to illegal immigrants, and the citizens that support them:
The UC Irvine petition had declared “having border patrol agents on campus is a blatant disregard to undocumented students’ safety and well-being.” That sentiment was echoed recently by students at San Diego State and the University of Arizona, who have taken preemptive measures against border protection agents on campus.
RELATED — VIDEO: ‘F*ck your borders’ – Rowdy students protest border patrol agents at campus job fair
RELATED: Border Patrol backs out of campus career fair after student petition calls agency unsafe and offensive
“The university must divest any and all partnerships with U.S Customs and Border Patrol,” according to demands lodged this month by a group of self-described “marginalized” students at the University of Arizona.
Look, no one is arguing that we should not deal with illegal immigration, we are arguing that Trump's plan to do so is completely asinine. It will be incredibly costly, it will not address the core issues of the problem, and I do not believe it will be effective at keeping out illegals. What we should do instead is look more closely at where these illegals are finding jobs. Companies like Trump are the main reason this problem continues because they get away with employing illegals. It would be more cost effective and have better results to crack down on the businesses that employ illegals. But Republicans do not want to address that elephant in the room because it goes against their "business friendly" platform so instead they rail on border security because that does not sound anti-business. Make no mistake if we make it harder for illegals to find work they will be less likely to come back and we will open up jobs for Americans at the same time.
More illegals is a fantastic boon to the establishment. It is a YUGE negative for we the people. Of course the establishment radically minimizes the terrible impact on the country as a whole, because they are getting filthy rich by maintaining the status quo. I get why they LOVE supporting lawlessness in this regard. We the people are tired of being sold down the river by the establishment statists. I am more upset with Repub than Dem politicians, fyi.
Here is a tiny example of what we the people are up against when it comes to illegal immigrants, and the citizens that support them:
The UC Irvine petition had declared “having border patrol agents on campus is a blatant disregard to undocumented students’ safety and well-being.” That sentiment was echoed recently by students at San Diego State and the University of Arizona, who have taken preemptive measures against border protection agents on campus.
RELATED — VIDEO: ‘F*ck your borders’ – Rowdy students protest border patrol agents at campus job fair
RELATED: Border Patrol backs out of campus career fair after student petition calls agency unsafe and offensive
“The university must divest any and all partnerships with U.S Customs and Border Patrol,” according to demands lodged this month by a group of self-described “marginalized” students at the University of Arizona.
Look, no one is arguing that we should not deal with illegal immigration, we are arguing that Trump's plan to do so is completely asinine. It will be incredibly costly, it will not address the core issues of the problem, and I do not believe it will be effective at keeping out illegals. What we should do instead is look more closely at where these illegals are finding jobs. Companies like Trump are the main reason this problem continues because they get away with employing illegals. It would be more cost effective and have better results to crack down on the businesses that employ illegals. But Republicans do not want to address that elephant in the room because it goes against their "business friendly" platform so instead they rail on border security because that does not sound anti-business. Make no mistake if we make it harder for illegals to find work they will be less likely to come back and we will open up jobs for Americans at the same time.
Agreed. The wall and MUCH more frequent border patrols by each country is not enough. Going after businesses that break the law is very important. A big chunk of the illegals enter legally, but then overstay their visas. So that needs to be improved too. Colleges that knowingly harbor illegals should be punished. And the 100s of "sanctuary cities" across the land that openly defy federal law r/t illegal immigration need to feel the hammer of justice.
You are most correct, in stating that comprehensive reform is a LOT more than just a wall.
Kasich, IMO, has sunk his own battleship. Lo and behold:
Below are just some of Kasich’s most bizarre and radical statements on immigration, which have flown under the radar.
“I couldn’t imagine” enforcing our current immigration laws: “That is not… the kind of values that we believe in.”
“I don’t know many people that believe we should deport 11 million people—just because people shout loud doesn’t mean they’re a majority. I think most Republicans would agree that you can’t deport 11 million people. We shouldn’t even think about it. What are you going to do? Break their families up?”
America can’t deport illegal immigrants because they are “made in the image of the Lord”
“For the 11 and a half million who are here, then in my view if they have not committed a crime since they’ve been here, they get a path to legalization. Not to citizenship. I believe that program can pass the Congress in the first 100 days,” Kasich said.
The Washington political establishment has hit the panic button. Not because they are afraid of any one individual or candidate, but because they are afraid of losing their own political power.
This town is filled with well-intentioned people who believe they are doing the right thing, but far too many have lost their way after years in Washington. Politicians pay more attention to special interests groups and powerful lobbyists writing checks to their next campaign, than listening to the people back home who sent them here in the first place.
This dangerous power vacuum has fueled frustration and created an entirely new breed of disenfranchised voters who are fed up with the status quo. These are real people, their anger is palpable, and it’s not going away anytime soon.
A recent survey of likely Republican primary voters showed that 86 percent believe that “people like me don’t have any say about what the government does.” Another recent exit poll in my home state of Georgia showed six in ten Republicans felt “betrayed” by their political party.
Posted the above for anyone that still thinks fancy language, super friendly ideas, happy slogans, and a tweak or two will "turn the tide" against Trump.
I am NOT guaranteeing victory, but I am guaranteeing that we the people have barely begun to politically battle the obese gvt. Please don't sit on us any longer.
Kasich, IMO, has sunk his own battleship. Lo and behold:
Below are just some of Kasich’s most bizarre and radical statements on immigration, which have flown under the radar.
“I couldn’t imagine” enforcing our current immigration laws: “That is not… the kind of values that we believe in.”
“I don’t know many people that believe we should deport 11 million people—just because people shout loud doesn’t mean they’re a majority. I think most Republicans would agree that you can’t deport 11 million people. We shouldn’t even think about it. What are you going to do? Break their families up?”
America can’t deport illegal immigrants because they are “made in the image of the Lord”
“For the 11 and a half million who are here, then in my view if they have not committed a crime since they’ve been here, they get a path to legalization. Not to citizenship. I believe that program can pass the Congress in the first 100 days,” Kasich said.
I have to agree with Kasich on each of those except the image of the lord one. Its not feasible to deport that many people and if they are not committing any crimes then they are a functioning part of society. What impact would there be to suddenly removing that many functioning members of society from a relatively small area. Businesses may have to close from sudden loss of workforce, tax revenue could shrink dramatically shrink, the unforeseen consequences of such radical action would be immense.
I know it seems like the easy and obvious choice to solve this issue but in reality I believe it needs more scrutiny before we move forward.
Kasich, IMO, has sunk his own battleship. Lo and behold:
Below are just some of Kasich’s most bizarre and radical statements on immigration, which have flown under the radar.
“I couldn’t imagine” enforcing our current immigration laws: “That is not… the kind of values that we believe in.”
“I don’t know many people that believe we should deport 11 million people—just because people shout loud doesn’t mean they’re a majority. I think most Republicans would agree that you can’t deport 11 million people. We shouldn’t even think about it. What are you going to do? Break their families up?”
America can’t deport illegal immigrants because they are “made in the image of the Lord”
“For the 11 and a half million who are here, then in my view if they have not committed a crime since they’ve been here, they get a path to legalization. Not to citizenship. I believe that program can pass the Congress in the first 100 days,” Kasich said.
I have to agree with Kasich on each of those except the image of the lord one. Its not feasible to deport that many people and if they are not committing any crimes then they are a functioning part of society. What impact would there be to suddenly removing that many functioning members of society from a relatively small area. Businesses may have to close from sudden loss of workforce, tax revenue could shrink dramatically shrink, the unforeseen consequences of such radical action would be immense.
I know it seems like the easy and obvious choice to solve this issue but in reality I believe it needs more scrutiny before we move forward.
Your position is perfectly reasonable, and I bet we could have an interesting discussion on the matter.
But my top point is that Kasich appears to have forgotten that he is trying to receive votes from Republicans. It is confuzzling.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
Your position is perfectly reasonable, and I bet we could have an interesting discussion on the matter.
But my top point is that Kasich appears to have forgotten that he is trying to receive votes from Republicans. It is confuzzling.
His position is certainly an odd one for a Republican to have. But then again I do not personally see why this needs to be a politically charged issue. I just see more reasonable resolutions to it than just build a wall.
Your position is perfectly reasonable, and I bet we could have an interesting discussion on the matter.
But my top point is that Kasich appears to have forgotten that he is trying to receive votes from Republicans. It is confuzzling.
Republicans oppose deporting 11 million people by something like 55-35.
November 24, 2015
Nearly half of GOP-leaning respondents in the poll — 47 percent — both support the deportation of undocumented immigrants and oppose accepting refugees from Syria and other Mideast conflicts. If a GOP-leaning voter supports deportation, there is a 79 percent chance she or he also opposes Syrian refugees, compared with 54 percent if they oppose deportation.
Nearly half of GOP-leaning respondents in the poll — 47 percent — both support the deportation of undocumented immigrants and oppose accepting refugees from Syria and other Mideast conflicts. If a GOP-leaning voter supports deportation, there is a 79 percent chance she or he also opposes Syrian refugees, compared with 54 percent if they oppose deportation.
"Some candidates favor rounding up 11 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally and sending them to their home country. Do you think this is the right way or the wrong way to address the situation?
Among Republicans, 37% say "right way" 54% say "wrong way".
If you look at the crosstabs in the wapo poll, it's 42% support, 55% oppose.
Nearly half of GOP-leaning respondents in the poll — 47 percent — both support the deportation of undocumented immigrants and oppose accepting refugees from Syria and other Mideast conflicts. If a GOP-leaning voter supports deportation, there is a 79 percent chance she or he also opposes Syrian refugees, compared with 54 percent if they oppose deportation.
"Some candidates favor rounding up 11 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally and sending them to their home country. Do you think this is the right way or the wrong way to address the situation?
Among Republicans, 37% say "right way" 54% say "wrong way".
If you look at the crosstabs in the wapo poll, it's 42% support, 55% oppose.
Interesting. Appreciate the link. More info is win for you and I, and all others seeking knowledge and truth.
I anxiously await any further precise polling on the topic, to see if things shift around as the general election approaches.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
Mainstream parties have stridently refused any sort of television debate with AfD members.
But the analyst believes that the taboo surrounding such right-wing populism could be soon shattered.
"In which case, we would have to live with AfD like France does with the National Front and Switzerland with the SVP (Swiss People's Party), and be confronted daily with xenophobia in political discourse," he said.
The rise of the right in Germany, and across Europe, is a fascinating parallel to what we see happening in MuriKa. You can only silence peeps for so long.
It looks like the government's schtick of shaming German citizens into the shadows, and far from the public arena, is faltering. I heart free speech.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
The rise of the right in Germany, and across Europe, is a fascinating parallel to what we see happening in MuriKa.
I'm not sure what you intend to connote by speaking positively of the growth of right-wing populism in Germany. Does that not ring any historical bells for you?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The rise of the right in Germany, and across Europe, is a fascinating parallel to what we see happening in MuriKa.
I'm not sure what you intend to connote by speaking positively of the growth of right-wing populism in Germany. Does that not ring any historical bells for you?
Respectfully, does left wing statism ring any historical bells for you?
Totalitarians on the Left and Right have a TON in common, so I don't really accept the idea that Hitler and Stalin are on different ends of a spectrum.
It makes a lot more sense to put shades of totalitarianism on one side, founding fathers near the center, and anarchists on the other side. Thoughts?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
Respectfully, does left wing statism ring any historical bells for you?
"Statism" just means supporting the existence of a state. It's the opposite of anarchism. The Founding Fathers were statists. Trump is a statist. So, again, not sure what you're getting at.
Totalitarians on the Left and Right have a TON in common, so I don't really accept the idea that Hitler and Stalin are on different ends of a spectrum.
There are many different spectra. If Hitler and Stalin happen to be on different ends of one spectrum, this doesn't indicate that spectrum is bogus.
Respectfully, does left wing statism ring any historical bells for you?
"Statism" just means supporting the existence of a state. It's the opposite of anarchism. The Founding Fathers were statists. Trump is a statist. So, again, not sure what you're getting at.
"Left wing statism" = the American gvt is STILL not big enough. And if you disagree with that, they immediately shift into vicious bully mode and start spewing words like "racist, xenophobe, mysogonist" and dozens of other such pejoratives. Many Republican politicians are actually Left wing statists. They claim to believe that the country can get out of debt by getting TRILLIOINS more into debt... for the good of the children, or some other such silliness. "Left wing statists" took the blue pill, and they are trying to force the rest of us to "be good" so that utopia can be achieved. Sounds way too much like a religion for my liking. Separation of church and state FTW.
Imagine if I had the power to FORCE you to pay tithing to the church of my liking. I would call it "super spiritual justice", and use the threat of public shaming and fines and incarceration to create compliance. Would you resist? Or choose to slowly be ground underfoot?
Believing that gvt sometimes gets it right, and that gvt is practically the savior of mankind are 2 VERY different things. Savvy?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
"Left wing statism" = the American gvt is STILL not big enough. And if you disagree with that, they immediately shift into vicious bully mode and start spewing words like "racist, xenophobe, mysogonist" and dozens of other such pejoratives. Many Republican politicians are actually Left wing statists. They claim to believe that the country can get out of debt by getting TRILLIOINS more into debt... for the good of the children, or some other such silliness. "Left wing statists" took the blue pill, and they are trying to force the rest of us to "be good" so that utopia can be achieved. Sounds way too much like a religion for my liking. Separation of church and state FTW.
Imagine if I had the power to FORCE you to pay tithing to the church of my liking. I would call it "super spiritual justice", and use the threat of public shaming and fines and incarceration to create compliance. Would you resist? Or choose to slowly be ground underfoot?
Believing that gvt sometimes gets it right, and that gvt is practically the savior of mankind are 2 VERY different things. Savvy?
Okay, come on back from that random tangential cliche storm. We were talking about right-wing populism in Germany and whether it's a good or a bad thing. You never actually answered the question -- just changed the subject.
"Left wing statism" = the American gvt is STILL not big enough. And if you disagree with that, they immediately shift into vicious bully mode and start spewing words like "racist, xenophobe, mysogonist" and dozens of other such pejoratives. Many Republican politicians are actually Left wing statists. They claim to believe that the country can get out of debt by getting TRILLIOINS more into debt... for the good of the children, or some other such silliness. "Left wing statists" took the blue pill, and they are trying to force the rest of us to "be good" so that utopia can be achieved. Sounds way too much like a religion for my liking. Separation of church and state FTW.
Imagine if I had the power to FORCE you to pay tithing to the church of my liking. I would call it "super spiritual justice", and use the threat of public shaming and fines and incarceration to create compliance. Would you resist? Or choose to slowly be ground underfoot?
Believing that gvt sometimes gets it right, and that gvt is practically the savior of mankind are 2 VERY different things. Savvy?
Okay, come on back from that random tangential cliche storm. We were talking about right-wing populism in Germany and whether it's a good or a bad thing. You never actually answered the question -- just changed the subject.
It does not bother me in the slightest that some powerful and rich politicians on the Left--in Germany--will now be inconvenienced by those with a different perspective. And I, for one, am glad that they finally found a way out of the shadowy corner that they were pushed into. One side wants to open all the doors and windows, while the other side believes that MUCH more caution is best. Too much of either direction can be very, very bad. But trying to find the exact middle ground is not always the best option either. When one side--whichever one it is--achieves near total domination, that is a political bomb waiting to explode. The citizens of Germany are speaking loud and clear. The citizens of America are doing the same. In each nation, leaders are rising up to represent the will of many millions of human beings. It is great to see peeps take a stand against the totalitarian mindset. There is no perfection on either side, so this move back towards balance is groovy beans.
(Gonna continue using the terms "Left" and "Right", because that is how most people choose to view the political spectrum.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
And this is the direction our country's going. A peaceful member of the working press arrested for no reason (well, besides being brown-skinned, probably).
And this is the direction our country's going. A peaceful member of the working press arrested for no reason (well, besides being brown-skinned, probably).
At what point is he legally at risk of being charged with inciting violence? Because this whole thing is getting way out of hand and it is more than obvious that Trump is responsible.
It does not bother me in the slightest that some powerful and rich politicians on the Left--in Germany--will now be inconvenienced by those with a different perspective. And I, for one, am glad that they finally found a way out of the shadowy corner that they were pushed into. One side wants to open all the doors and windows, while the other side believes that MUCH more caution is best. Too much of either direction can be very, very bad. But trying to find the exact middle ground is not always the best option either. When one side--whichever one it is--achieves near total domination, that is a political bomb waiting to explode. The citizens of Germany are speaking loud and clear. The citizens of America are doing the same. In each nation, leaders are rising up to represent the will of many millions of human beings. It is great to see peeps take a stand against the totalitarian mindset. There is no perfection on either side, so this move back towards balance is groovy beans.
Do you notice how you're writing in broad, sweeping platitudes full of (mixed) metaphorical cliches? You're telling a story, a pleasingly simple story, with good guys and bad guys and an easy-to-understand plot. Your story makes no noticeable contact with anything like a fact or detail. I don't get any sense from what you say that you grasp Alternative für Deutschland's past or current situation beyond the headlines, and I'm pretty sure that I cite Donald Trump's actual words and actions in this thread more than you do. You are, in short, doing nothing more than describing a vague fantasy in order to get yourself excited. And it's nauseatingly obvious to everyone who hasn't bought into the same fantasy. If you want to play a meaningful part in this conversation, you need to let go of this rhetoric that, like a balloon, soars into the sky but only because it's empty and filled with hot air. You need to look at, and talk about, what real people are doing in the real world.
Now. Totalitarianism. You keep using that word. But the only candidate in the American presidential race who is making totalitarian noises is Donald J. Trump. Bernie Sanders isn't threatening legal action against critics in the media. Hillary Clinton isn't encouraging mob violence against protesters. Marco Rubio isn't leading crowds in weird-ass pledges of allegiance. Ted Cruz isn't bragging that he could commit murder and his cult of personality would still be behind him. So if you're not big on totalitarianism, I recommend you throw your support behind anyone else. (And look, there's me citing Trump's actual words and actions again.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
At what point is he legally at risk of being charged with inciting violence? Because this whole thing is getting way out of hand and it is more than obvious that Trump is responsible.
For obvious reasons, our laws and law enforcement err on the side of extreme caution when it comes to anything that looks like criminalizing speech -- especially political speech. It is all but impossible that Trump will be charged with incitement, unless he does something like say outright "We need to beat up Mexicans" and a full-blown race riot immediately ensues. He is responsible as hell, but his responsibility is moral, not legal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And this is the direction our country's going. A peaceful member of the working press arrested for no reason (well, besides being brown-skinned, probably).
At what point is he legally at risk of being charged with inciting violence? Because this whole thing is getting way out of hand and it is more than obvious that Trump is responsible.
The leftists that keep illegally disrupting rallies, and then initiating violence, are personally to blame. Any Trump supporters that initiate violence are also equally guilty. Protesters chose to attend a Trump rally, then they chose to break the law by disrupting, and then some of them chose violence. Trump supporters chose to attend a rally in good faith. Most of the violence has been in self defense. Protesters should stop their illegal disruptions.
Leftists have killed a heck of a lot more human beings in the last 100 years than extremists on the right. They choose bullying and theft and violence at least as often as extremists on the right.
The fact that u don't recognize the extremists on the Left is disturbing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
The fact that u don't recognize the extremists on the Left is disturbing.
We recognize extremists on the left just fine. We're just not talking about them here because the topic of this thread is Donald Trump, who is an extremist on the right and who attracts other extremists on the right. The existence of bad people on the left does not make the people on the right any better. When you see what Stalin and Mao did, you don't think to yourself, "Wow, Hitler must have been a swell guy!" The Five-Year Plans and the Great Leap Forward do not excuse the Holocaust. Any student of reasoning ought to know that the tu quoque argument is fallacious. And yet you and your buddies here repeatedly keep changing the subject by pointing at these bad leftists. It's like you don't have an actual defense for the horrible things Trump is saying and we're calling him out on, and part of you knows that but you're not willing to admit it, so you're trying to distract our attention instead.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Look, no one is arguing that we should not deal with illegal immigration, we are arguing that Trump's plan to do so is completely asinine. It will be incredibly costly, it will not address the core issues of the problem, and I do not believe it will be effective at keeping out illegals. What we should do instead is look more closely at where these illegals are finding jobs. Companies like Trump are the main reason this problem continues because they get away with employing illegals. It would be more cost effective and have better results to crack down on the businesses that employ illegals. But Republicans do not want to address that elephant in the room because it goes against their "business friendly" platform so instead they rail on border security because that does not sound anti-business. Make no mistake if we make it harder for illegals to find work they will be less likely to come back and we will open up jobs for Americans at the same time.
You are most correct, in stating that comprehensive reform is a LOT more than just a wall.
Kasich, IMO, has sunk his own battleship. Lo and behold:
Below are just some of Kasich’s most bizarre and radical statements on immigration, which have flown under the radar.
“I couldn’t imagine” enforcing our current immigration laws: “That is not… the kind of values that we believe in.”
“I don’t know many people that believe we should deport 11 million people—just because people shout loud doesn’t mean they’re a majority. I think most Republicans would agree that you can’t deport 11 million people. We shouldn’t even think about it. What are you going to do? Break their families up?”
America can’t deport illegal immigrants because they are “made in the image of the Lord”
“For the 11 and a half million who are here, then in my view if they have not committed a crime since they’ve been here, they get a path to legalization. Not to citizenship. I believe that program can pass the Congress in the first 100 days,” Kasich said.
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2016/03/14/john-kasich-goes-all-in-for-amnesty-illegals-made-in-the-image-of-the-lord/
The Washington political establishment has hit the panic button. Not because they are afraid of any one individual or candidate, but because they are afraid of losing their own political power.
This town is filled with well-intentioned people who believe they are doing the right thing, but far too many have lost their way after years in Washington. Politicians pay more attention to special interests groups and powerful lobbyists writing checks to their next campaign, than listening to the people back home who sent them here in the first place.
This dangerous power vacuum has fueled frustration and created an entirely new breed of disenfranchised voters who are fed up with the status quo. These are real people, their anger is palpable, and it’s not going away anytime soon.
A recent survey of likely Republican primary voters showed that 86 percent believe that “people like me don’t have any say about what the government does.” Another recent exit poll in my home state of Georgia showed six in ten Republicans felt “betrayed” by their political party.
http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/14/why-washingtons-political-class-is-losing-control/
Posted the above for anyone that still thinks fancy language, super friendly ideas, happy slogans, and a tweak or two will "turn the tide" against Trump.
I am NOT guaranteeing victory, but I am guaranteeing that we the people have barely begun to politically battle the obese gvt. Please don't sit on us any longer.
I have to agree with Kasich on each of those except the image of the lord one. Its not feasible to deport that many people and if they are not committing any crimes then they are a functioning part of society. What impact would there be to suddenly removing that many functioning members of society from a relatively small area. Businesses may have to close from sudden loss of workforce, tax revenue could shrink dramatically shrink, the unforeseen consequences of such radical action would be immense.
I know it seems like the easy and obvious choice to solve this issue but in reality I believe it needs more scrutiny before we move forward.
But my top point is that Kasich appears to have forgotten that he is trying to receive votes from Republicans. It is confuzzling.
Republicans oppose deporting 11 million people by something like 55-35.
His position is certainly an odd one for a Republican to have. But then again I do not personally see why this needs to be a politically charged issue. I just see more reasonable resolutions to it than just build a wall.
November 24, 2015
Nearly half of GOP-leaning respondents in the poll — 47 percent — both support the deportation of undocumented immigrants and oppose accepting refugees from Syria and other Mideast conflicts. If a GOP-leaning voter supports deportation, there is a 79 percent chance she or he also opposes Syrian refugees, compared with 54 percent if they oppose deportation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/24/its-not-just-donald-trump-half-of-republicans-shares-his-views-on-immigrants-and-refugees/
And a LOT more republican voters oppose anything that smacks of amnesty. Again, does Kasich think he is running on the Dem ticket?
http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm
Among Republicans, 37% say "right way" 54% say "wrong way".
If you look at the crosstabs in the wapo poll, it's 42% support, 55% oppose.
I anxiously await any further precise polling on the topic, to see if things shift around as the general election approaches.
Mainstream parties have stridently refused any sort of television debate with AfD members.
But the analyst believes that the taboo surrounding such right-wing populism could be soon shattered.
"In which case, we would have to live with AfD like France does with the National Front and Switzerland with the SVP (Swiss People's Party), and be confronted daily with xenophobia in political discourse," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/afd-success-smashes-wing-populism-taboo-germany-212123923.html
The rise of the right in Germany, and across Europe, is a fascinating parallel to what we see happening in MuriKa. You can only silence peeps for so long.
It looks like the government's schtick of shaming German citizens into the shadows, and far from the public arena, is faltering. I heart free speech.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Totalitarians on the Left and Right have a TON in common, so I don't really accept the idea that Hitler and Stalin are on different ends of a spectrum.
It makes a lot more sense to put shades of totalitarianism on one side, founding fathers near the center, and anarchists on the other side. Thoughts?
There are many different spectra. If Hitler and Stalin happen to be on different ends of one spectrum, this doesn't indicate that spectrum is bogus.
You're literally eliminating dimensions.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Imagine if I had the power to FORCE you to pay tithing to the church of my liking. I would call it "super spiritual justice", and use the threat of public shaming and fines and incarceration to create compliance. Would you resist? Or choose to slowly be ground underfoot?
Believing that gvt sometimes gets it right, and that gvt is practically the savior of mankind are 2 VERY different things. Savvy?
This thread has confirmed that Left/Right has no meaning anymore besides labeling your political opponents.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
(Gonna continue using the terms "Left" and "Right", because that is how most people choose to view the political spectrum.)
And this is the direction our country's going. A peaceful member of the working press arrested for no reason (well, besides being brown-skinned, probably).
I think this perfectly sums up Donald Trump's supporters. It's not that they're frustrated and angry. It's that they're gullible and racist.
Now. Totalitarianism. You keep using that word. But the only candidate in the American presidential race who is making totalitarian noises is Donald J. Trump. Bernie Sanders isn't threatening legal action against critics in the media. Hillary Clinton isn't encouraging mob violence against protesters. Marco Rubio isn't leading crowds in weird-ass pledges of allegiance. Ted Cruz isn't bragging that he could commit murder and his cult of personality would still be behind him. So if you're not big on totalitarianism, I recommend you throw your support behind anyone else. (And look, there's me citing Trump's actual words and actions again.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Leftists have killed a heck of a lot more human beings in the last 100 years than extremists on the right. They choose bullying and theft and violence at least as often as extremists on the right.
The fact that u don't recognize the extremists on the Left is disturbing.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.