In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On August 20 2015 05:56 Acrofales wrote: Really? I had to get an authorized translation of my driver's license for it to be recognized here in Brazil, but that only makes sense: my license is in Dutch (and English), and not in Portuguese. If your license is already in English (British English is not different enough from American English to warrant translation), then why the hell require an authorized translation? Sounds like really really lazy lawmaking to me.
The lady at the DMV told me that she couldn't read my date of birth without it being translated into English. It was written in numbers, not words. And yes, we do speak English in Britain.
I'm not saying it makes sense, I'm saying these are the barriers you face when immigrating into the United States.
your driver license is DD-MM-YYYY Americans are MM-DD-YYYY because reasons. She obviously did not believe there are more then 12 months in the year.
On August 20 2015 03:17 Deathstar wrote: Yeah the welfare state needs to get cut down hard. That's how I see it. We're not going to actually get rid of these illegals, even if we want to, but it looks like a good portion of "Americans" want an open border.
What you have in the US is not a welfare state in the slightest.
Also, the idea that "immigrants come to leech of our welfare money" is pretty much an urban legend to all my knowledge. They just want to live in a country that is less shit than the one they come from (can you really blame them for that?), and rather often end up working more for less money than the native citizens.
Compared to the third world countries these illegals come from, US is a welfare state. The illegals know this, and the illegals know they won't be punished for forcing their way into the country, and so they come in swarms.
To your bolded, everyone wants to improve their lives. Illegals are nothing special. What you're saying is that the US is up for grabs by every poor person in the world. A porous border with guaranteed entitlements for everyone. Yeah I don't think so.
As opposed to your ancestors who came to the US to fix up a bad country for all the poor souls already living there? White guys swarming into the new world to grab what they can and put a fence around it is basically the American dream. But you, as someone granted citizenship by birth, feel that you have some special right to all this and that you deserve the profits of your ancestor's envy. And as such you feel threatened by the people trying to follow the same path you walked.
And most of those people got that land by, almost certainly, killing off the other people that previously lived there. (at the very least if you consider intra group violence, there are people whose descendants had a bigger share of their groups territory because they killed off other members of the group they had grudges with)
Essentially every bit of territory worldwide (with the exception of a few places like Antarctica/Ocean floor where people couldn't live there until recently) is owned by people who got it by tracing by a line that started with violence.
Either we allow this to continue (want a new home, get a gun) Or we say, not going to do this anymore, and since there is no property deeds/proofs of descent dating back 20,000-100,000 years we'll just stick with the people who have it now.
Of course I would feel threatened by people that attempted to move into my neighborhood the way people moved into new neighborhoods in 1939 or 1492 or 1066 or well all of history.(but especially more the farther back one goes)
Now as for Peaceful immigration, that isn't something to outright ban, not like invasion. There are some potential problems with that too, at least if you want to provide any type of welfare for the immigrants you let in. (not to mention the general maintenance of order in terms of keeping out criminals and/or epidemics)
As such it shouldn't be totally open, but it shouldn't be totally closed either (for both the sake of equity/justice AND enriching those currently living there)
An extreme libertarian (approaching anarchist) America should have truly open borders, since anyone would be free to come there and sell their organs before starving to death.*
*not the ideal situation, according to me at least
There is some cognitive dissonance all around. I don't know peoples personal political ideologies so I'm not speaking about anyone specifically, but in general some of the recent trends like libertarian-ism are quite shallow I think. These ideologies come in and say how things should be run and what the processes should be after the hard work of building a working state are done and over. For example, you cite that you find the idea of a State to be problematic (in some ways I agree as I tend to try and view things globally, or at least regionally, as that is the most logical way to view many issues) but then say property owners should control this or that. Well, who, if not the state, enforces the right for x person to own y land? Another example for such ideologies, I guess I'll just pick libertarian-ism again because it is quite popular now. What would a libertarian approach to our fight for independence from Britain be? Or how about a libertarian approach to WWII? Again, my point is that some of these political views are quite narrow and really aren't adequate when taking everything into consideration. They tend to come in and cry about a system when the system has already done all the hard work of building something for them to complain about.
That said, I find most people are capable of listening to issues and points and coming to a somewhat reasonable conclusion. For example, I don't think most would advocate for a 'let anyone and everyone' in policy with no sort of oversight of who is coming in. It is a shame that our current lawmakers don't seem to be the type of people that can have a reasonable and logical discussion with people who may disagree with them (which always makes me wonder why they got into politics to begin with, the process of governing is one of constant bargaining, negotiating, and compromising with people on the opposite side, so why people are so unwilling to do this is beyond me).
On August 20 2015 07:13 Kickstart wrote: That said, I find most people are capable of listening to issues and points and coming to a somewhat reasonable conclusion. For example, I don't think most would advocate for a 'let anyone and everyone' in policy with no sort of oversight of who is coming in. It is a shame that our current lawmakers don't seem to be the type of people that can have a reasonable and logical discussion with people who may disagree with them (which always makes me wonder why they got into politics to begin with, the process of governing is one of constant bargaining, negotiating, and compromising with people on the opposite side, so why people are so unwilling to do this is beyond me).
They are capable of doing that, they just don't do so publically.
Publically they don't govern they campaign. (which does not consist of either compromise or reasonable discussion... at its best it can be like giving lectures on governing, second best is sound bites, at its worst it is pure marketing)
Privately they (most of them to some degree) govern.
On August 20 2015 07:13 Kickstart wrote: That said, I find most people are capable of listening to issues and points and coming to a somewhat reasonable conclusion. For example, I don't think most would advocate for a 'let anyone and everyone' in policy with no sort of oversight of who is coming in. It is a shame that our current lawmakers don't seem to be the type of people that can have a reasonable and logical discussion with people who may disagree with them (which always makes me wonder why they got into politics to begin with, the process of governing is one of constant bargaining, negotiating, and compromising with people on the opposite side, so why people are so unwilling to do this is beyond me).
They are capable of doing that, they just don't do so publically.
Publically they don't govern they campaign. (which does not consist of either compromise or reasonable discussion... at its best it can be like giving lectures on governing, second best is sound bites, at its worst it is pure marketing)
Privately they (most of them to some degree) govern.
True enough. But the almost endless campaign cycle in our country is another issue entirely. It is a rather large problem in my opinion and you are right. I think it is a product of how our politicians are in a constant state of campaigning for something and the fact that there are so many polarized 24-hour media outlets that things have just devolved to a pretty undesirable level.
But still, this congress is the most unproductive ever (according to what I hear ). So while some hold their duty to govern as being more important than gaining points for their campaigns, others seem not to.
The lack of open minded politicians also comes in part because of the voters. Most politicians are career politicians. Their sole goal is re-election. Not the great good or anything of the sort so they say whatever they need to say to remain in their position or attain a better one.
Then take for example the Tea Party. (The current Ted Cruz version, not the original) They have very strong opinions about controversial complex subjects. A candidate that comes forward about wanting to negotiate and work out deals is weak in their eyes and they don't want him. And they hold enough power in the system to make candidates chance their story (like Romney had to do).
Almost all problems with the US political scene can be draw down to the faults of its election system (and no I'm not saying others doesn't have its fair share of issues) but sadly that system is not likely to change any time soon because both sides benefit from it greatly.
On August 20 2015 07:13 Kickstart wrote: That said, I find most people are capable of listening to issues and points and coming to a somewhat reasonable conclusion. For example, I don't think most would advocate for a 'let anyone and everyone' in policy with no sort of oversight of who is coming in. It is a shame that our current lawmakers don't seem to be the type of people that can have a reasonable and logical discussion with people who may disagree with them (which always makes me wonder why they got into politics to begin with, the process of governing is one of constant bargaining, negotiating, and compromising with people on the opposite side, so why people are so unwilling to do this is beyond me).
They are capable of doing that, they just don't do so publically.
Publically they don't govern they campaign. (which does not consist of either compromise or reasonable discussion... at its best it can be like giving lectures on governing, second best is sound bites, at its worst it is pure marketing)
Privately they (most of them to some degree) govern.
True enough. But the almost endless campaign cycle in our country is another issue entirely. It is a rather large problem in my opinion and you are right. I think it is a product of how our politicians are in a constant state of campaigning for something and the fact that there are so many polarized 24-hour media outlets that things have just devolved to a pretty undesirable level.
But still, this congress is the most unproductive ever (according to what I hear ). So while some hold their duty to govern as being more important than gaining points for their campaigns, others seem not to.
Extremely low satisfaction yet high retention rates means there is a structural problem in the way congress is elected.
On August 20 2015 07:36 Gorsameth wrote: The lack of open minded politicians also comes in part because of the voters. Most politicians are career politicians. Their sole goal is re-election. Not the great good or anything of the sort so they say whatever they need to say to remain in their position or attain a better one.
Then take for example the Tea Party. (The current Ted Cruz version, not the original) They have very strong opinions about controversial complex subjects. A candidate that comes forward about wanting to negotiate and work out deals is weak in their eyes and they don't want him. And they hold enough power in the system to make candidates chance their story (like Romney had to do).
Almost all problems with the US political scene can be draw down to the faults of its election system (and no I'm not saying others doesn't have its fair share of issues) but sadly that system is not likely to change any time soon because both sides benefit from it greatly.
For the modern political discourse on politicians and factions, just take for example Gorsameth. He has strong opinions on compromise and the complexity of subjects. His decided opinion is that the group known as the Tea Party has these beliefs and they're apt to (1) ignoring controversy, aka too hasty too inconsiderate of opposing views and (2) dumb down complex subjects for their own purposes because understanding complexity is hard for them. From this framework, we can conclude that negotiation and the making of deals is opposed simply for implied weakness, and not for each party's goals going into it and what both parties are willing to compromise over. This leads to duplicity in candidates and a misuse of power in general.
The lack of open minded debaters, who have had their opinion made up on groups like the Tea Party, breaks down debate at the start. Once the worldview, in this case Gorsameth's, is an enduring part of his consciousness and thinking, it is very hard to consider the merit of arguments presented or grasp alternative takes on basic questions such as "How did this country on this issue get into this mess?" "What policies should we consider to get us out?" "What has been done in the past on this issue and what were the merits of both sides back then?" Alternatives are routinely rejected without due consideration out-of-hand, reinforcing the acceptance of political propaganda lines. In the past decade, these tend to follow accusations like "He's unwilling to accept compromise" "It's impossible to work with someone with an extremist ideological agenda" "They're just obstructionist" "They don't offer viable alternatives." The accepted presuppositions (The Tea Party can be characterized as this and that) lead to willful ignorance about what open-mindedness would really look like amongst politicians today (even TL posters for that matter).
On August 20 2015 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote: The underlying narrative being that things aren't "real" until beheld by white eyes, anything seen by millions of people but not white people can therefor be accurately labeled as "New".
I'd use the word "Eurocentrism" for this point, but "White Supremacy" isn't inaccurate (I just tend to try to minimize claims.) And the key thing is the idea that only white people are really "people" rather than things. It's making subject into objects based on racial/national origin criteria. It's failing to recognize the value of the self in the persecutive of the other.
On August 20 2015 07:13 Kickstart wrote: That said, I find most people are capable of listening to issues and points and coming to a somewhat reasonable conclusion. For example, I don't think most would advocate for a 'let anyone and everyone' in policy with no sort of oversight of who is coming in. It is a shame that our current lawmakers don't seem to be the type of people that can have a reasonable and logical discussion with people who may disagree with them (which always makes me wonder why they got into politics to begin with, the process of governing is one of constant bargaining, negotiating, and compromising with people on the opposite side, so why people are so unwilling to do this is beyond me).
They are capable of doing that, they just don't do so publically.
Publically they don't govern they campaign. (which does not consist of either compromise or reasonable discussion... at its best it can be like giving lectures on governing, second best is sound bites, at its worst it is pure marketing)
Privately they (most of them to some degree) govern.
True enough. But the almost endless campaign cycle in our country is another issue entirely. It is a rather large problem in my opinion and you are right. I think it is a product of how our politicians are in a constant state of campaigning for something and the fact that there are so many polarized 24-hour media outlets that things have just devolved to a pretty undesirable level.
But still, this congress is the most unproductive ever (according to what I hear ). So while some hold their duty to govern as being more important than gaining points for their campaigns, others seem not to.
"unproductive" is not necessarily a bad thing.
Its bad if you are talking about smartphones, cars, nice haircuts Its good if you are talking about sewage, pollution, murders
Whether a particular law is like a nice haircut or a murder depends on who you ask.
On August 20 2015 07:36 Gorsameth wrote: Extremely low satisfaction yet high retention rates means there is a structural problem in the way congress is elected.
Not necessarily, it could be a cultural "problem" with the US as a nation (not everyone agrees on everything) low satisfaction is with Congress... an American can only elects 3 of the 500+ members of Congress
If everyone agrees on something then something is either obviously very right or terribly terribly wrong..
On August 20 2015 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote: The underlying narrative being that things aren't "real" until beheld by white eyes, anything seen by millions of people but not white people can therefor be accurately labeled as "New".
More importantly, the Europeans were the one that told everyone in the "Old World" that the "New World" existed... and vice versa. (China received popular knowledge of the New World because Europeans told them)
If the Inca had been telling the Navajo about Europe and China, then Eurasia would be the "New world" and the Americas the "Old World"
Hillary Clinton’s advantage against Bernie Sanders among Democratic voters continues to evaporate, according to the latest CNN/ORC national poll released Wednesday morning. And in a general election matchup with Donald Trump, who has led GOP polling for the last month, Clinton leads by just six points.
Among 358 registered voters who identified as Democrats or leaning Democratic, 47 percent said they would vote for Clinton in a primary, while Sanders picked up 29 percent. Vice President Joe Biden, who has not made his intentions known about a run, grabbed 14 percent. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley received 2 percent, and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb earned 1 percent.
In the same poll last month, Clinton picked up 56 percent to Sanders’ 19 percent, another indication that the “drip, drip, drip” of the email scandal is taking a toll on her presidential campaign.
Hillary Clinton’s advantage against Bernie Sanders among Democratic voters continues to evaporate, according to the latest CNN/ORC national poll released Wednesday morning. And in a general election matchup with Donald Trump, who has led GOP polling for the last month, Clinton leads by just six points.
Among 358 registered voters who identified as Democrats or leaning Democratic, 47 percent said they would vote for Clinton in a primary, while Sanders picked up 29 percent. Vice President Joe Biden, who has not made his intentions known about a run, grabbed 14 percent. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley received 2 percent, and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb earned 1 percent.
In the same poll last month, Clinton picked up 56 percent to Sanders’ 19 percent, another indication that the “drip, drip, drip” of the email scandal is taking a toll on her presidential campaign.
Until he hits 50%+, doesn't really matter. She just needs to win, being "only" ahead by 30% isn't exactly doomsday.
Jeb Bush said while he supports granting birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants, the policy needs "greater enforcement" to prevent "abuse."
Appearing on Bill Bennett's radio show Wednesday, the former Florida governor and current Republican presidential hopeful said he backs cracking down on potential exploitation of the immigration system.
"If there's fraud or if there's abuse, if people are bringing, pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement," he said. "That's the legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don't have these, you know, 'anchor babies,' as they're described, coming into the country."
Bush made similar remarks Tuesday, calling birthright citizenship a "constitutionally protected right," but adding that there should be a "targeted way" to "solve abuses, of people coming into the country so their children can become citizens."
Bush's remarks came as a number of his fellow GOP candidates have voiced support for repealing or changing the 14th Amendment, which says all individuals born in the United States are citizens regardless of their parents citizenship status. The idea of repeal picked up traction with Republican candidates after business mogul Donald Trump included it in his immigration plan, calling birthright citizenship "the biggest magnet for illegal immigration." Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker joined in on Monday, saying birthright citizenship should "absolutely" end. A number of other GOP candidates, including Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, have all called for changing or re-examining the policy.
Hillary Clinton’s advantage against Bernie Sanders among Democratic voters continues to evaporate, according to the latest CNN/ORC national poll released Wednesday morning. And in a general election matchup with Donald Trump, who has led GOP polling for the last month, Clinton leads by just six points.
Among 358 registered voters who identified as Democrats or leaning Democratic, 47 percent said they would vote for Clinton in a primary, while Sanders picked up 29 percent. Vice President Joe Biden, who has not made his intentions known about a run, grabbed 14 percent. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley received 2 percent, and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb earned 1 percent.
In the same poll last month, Clinton picked up 56 percent to Sanders’ 19 percent, another indication that the “drip, drip, drip” of the email scandal is taking a toll on her presidential campaign.
Until he hits 50%+, doesn't really matter. She just needs to win, being "only" ahead by 30% isn't exactly doomsday.
You're right - but this trend can be worrying for the Clinton people - the primaries are still a ways away, and Hillary needs to change the momentum otherwise she might see another Democratic primary season slip away.
I'm a bit worried for the Democratics - people are finally starting to poke serious holes into Hillary and they run a very sparse field. I'm still not entirely convinced that Sanders is electable nationwide
I still can't get over the 2 BLM girls shutting down Sander's rally. That was so pathetic, and infinitely worse than Howard Dean screaming.
Also, don't worry about the Democrats. They're fine lol. Things get more heated and partisan when the nominee becomes clear, and voting women are going to think "Jeb Bush doesn't want to fund women programs" and "Hillary can be the first female president in the country. I can't miss this opportunity."
Hillary Clinton’s advantage against Bernie Sanders among Democratic voters continues to evaporate, according to the latest CNN/ORC national poll released Wednesday morning. And in a general election matchup with Donald Trump, who has led GOP polling for the last month, Clinton leads by just six points.
Among 358 registered voters who identified as Democrats or leaning Democratic, 47 percent said they would vote for Clinton in a primary, while Sanders picked up 29 percent. Vice President Joe Biden, who has not made his intentions known about a run, grabbed 14 percent. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley received 2 percent, and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb earned 1 percent.
In the same poll last month, Clinton picked up 56 percent to Sanders’ 19 percent, another indication that the “drip, drip, drip” of the email scandal is taking a toll on her presidential campaign.
Until he hits 50%+, doesn't really matter. She just needs to win, being "only" ahead by 30% isn't exactly doomsday.
You're right - but this trend can be worrying for the Clinton people - the primaries are still a ways away, and Hillary needs to change the momentum otherwise she might see another Democratic primary season slip away.
I'm a bit worried for the Democratics - people are finally starting to poke serious holes into Hillary and they run a very sparse field. I'm still not entirely convinced that Sanders is electable nationwide
I don't think it's nearly as big a deal as you say. This is the same shit Ron Paul had. There is a phase when the people who would enjoy the things he says hear about him, he gains tons of favoritism, polls going nuts. And then everyone who would ever support the things he calls for have heard of him, the numbers stagnate, and life goes on as usual.
Clinton will be fine. This is all media hype nonsense. It is an interesting story with this whole email thing, but when election day comes, no one will give a shit. It's just like planes crashing and other similar bullshit. Milk it, encourage it, make a big deal out of it. Get all the attention you possibly can. But there's no chance Clinton loses to anyone except Biden. And this email nonsense will be old news by the time the general election comes around.
Honestly, I feel like people just enjoy political drama and are letting the media make a big deal out of something that we all know will fade. We all enjoy politics, else we wouldn't be in this thread. But the email stuff is going nowhere, Sanders is behind 30% and things are going to go the way we'd all predict a year ago.
On August 20 2015 12:39 Deathstar wrote: I still can't get over the 2 BLM girls shutting down Sander's rally. That was so pathetic, and infinitely worse than Howard Dean screaming.
Also, don't worry about the Democrats. They're fine lol. Things get more heated and partisan when the nominee becomes clear, and voting women are going to think "Jeb Bush doesn't want to fund women programs" and "Hillary can be the first female president in the country. I can't miss this opportunity."
I'm worried for Hillary. in June she was ahead 59% to 35% vs Trump. in July she was ahead 56% to 40% vs Trump. Now she is ahead 51% vs Trumps 45%. If Trumps engorged member keeps ejaculating all over her campaign, she might be in deep trouble.
Hillary Clinton’s advantage against Bernie Sanders among Democratic voters continues to evaporate, according to the latest CNN/ORC national poll released Wednesday morning. And in a general election matchup with Donald Trump, who has led GOP polling for the last month, Clinton leads by just six points.
Among 358 registered voters who identified as Democrats or leaning Democratic, 47 percent said they would vote for Clinton in a primary, while Sanders picked up 29 percent. Vice President Joe Biden, who has not made his intentions known about a run, grabbed 14 percent. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley received 2 percent, and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb earned 1 percent.
In the same poll last month, Clinton picked up 56 percent to Sanders’ 19 percent, another indication that the “drip, drip, drip” of the email scandal is taking a toll on her presidential campaign.
Until he hits 50%+, doesn't really matter. She just needs to win, being "only" ahead by 30% isn't exactly doomsday.
You're right - but this trend can be worrying for the Clinton people - the primaries are still a ways away, and Hillary needs to change the momentum otherwise she might see another Democratic primary season slip away.
I'm a bit worried for the Democratics - people are finally starting to poke serious holes into Hillary and they run a very sparse field. I'm still not entirely convinced that Sanders is electable nationwide
I don't think it's nearly as big a deal as you say. This is the same shit Ron Paul had. There is a phase when the people who would enjoy the things he says hear about him, he gains tons of favoritism, polls going nuts. And then everyone who would ever support the things he calls for have heard of him, the numbers stagnate, and life goes on as usual.
Clinton will be fine. This is all media hype nonsense. It is an interesting story with this whole email thing, but when election day comes, no one will give a shit. It's just like planes crashing and other similar bullshit. Milk it, encourage it, make a big deal out of it. Get all the attention you possibly can. But there's no chance Clinton loses to anyone except Biden. And this email nonsense will be old news by the time the general election comes around.
Honestly, I feel like people just enjoy political drama and are letting the media make a big deal out of something that we all know will fade. We all enjoy politics, else we wouldn't be in this thread. But the email stuff is going nowhere, Sanders is behind 30% and things are going to go the way we'd all predict a year ago.
Compare media treatment of John McCain in 08' to the treatment Paul received in 08 and 12 and it's laughable. Ron would have won Iowa and NH in 2012 if it wasn't for the media, but hey, if Sanders actually pulls of the (D) nomination that'll be something as he is not the media-industrial complex's pick; they'd be Clinton and or Biden or one of Bush/Walker/Rubio.
I also can't believe you don't think the media is so far in the tank for the establishment elites that they don't actively try to float them, and torpedo anyone who holds an opinion outside of Clinton/Bush. If you want to see real despicable look at what they did to Buchanan in 1996. Aren't people sick of the establishment elites yet? Sheesh. Give me the Goldwaters of both parties at least - at least we'll have an interesting point of debate instead of more of the same Corporatist-Fascist status-quo.
On August 20 2015 12:39 Deathstar wrote: I still can't get over the 2 BLM girls shutting down Sander's rally. That was so pathetic, and infinitely worse than Howard Dean screaming.
Also, don't worry about the Democrats. They're fine lol. Things get more heated and partisan when the nominee becomes clear, and voting women are going to think "Jeb Bush doesn't want to fund women programs" and "Hillary can be the first female president in the country. I can't miss this opportunity."
I'm worried for Hillary. in June she was ahead 59% to 35% vs Trump. in July she was ahead 56% to 40% vs Trump. Now she is ahead 51% vs Trumps 45%. If Trumps engorged member keeps ejaculating all over her campaign, she might be in deep trouble. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eDRhcUZtWw
Trump is going to win, and Hillary will be watching his inauguration speech from a fucking jail cell where she belongs.
The silent majority in America is sick and tired of political correctness, of SJW bullshit, and most importantly - - being a spineless cuck like the rest of the GOP candidates or Bernie Sanders, who can't even defend his own podium let alone your country. (Seriously, just imagine if JFK or Reagan allowed communists to steal their microphone during their campaigns. It would've been the curtain call right there.) Trump is the alpha male, his charisma and leadership is simply unmatched. I'm predicted a landslide just like Reagan. (Almost fitting since Trump admires him so much.)
Socialism is truly evil. Never in history would I ever have imagined that stopping illegal immigration would somehow be considered controversial and 'racist.' But this is what happens when you allow Marxists to change your immigration laws (see Edward Kennedy in 1965), disrupting the balance of democracy by flooding your country will illegals who will undoubtedly vote for the party which panders to them (Democrats). Europe faces a similar problem only much worse. Nowhere is this pathological altruism of allowing your country to be flooded with third world refugees more prevalent than in Sweden. A true progressive dystopia where, for instance, if you so much as suggest cutting down on the 100,000 refugees they want to bring in this year despite the housing crisis, you'll be called a racist, Nazi, fascist etc. whatever buzzword the socialists feel like using on that particular day to slander the opposition.
Please watch this video to gain an introduction to the ongoing insanity taking place in Sweden:
Today in Germany it was announced they will bring in 800 000 refugees this year alone. They will not be cutting down on this number next year or the years to follow because that's not in the cards, despite how Germans now have the lowest birth rates of any race on the planet and could very well become strangers in their own country. (In some areas they already are.) Now there is a reason why back during the 1920's we slowed down immigration so that these people could assimilate into western culture and adapt western values. However, because white countries (and only white countries, this is not happening in China, Saudi Arabia, Japan or any non-white country because there is an agenda behind this) have embraced mass, unmitigated immigration under the hands of socialists, we are witnessing immigrants form "cultural islands" where they isolate themselves from society and simply revert back to their old culture, rather than assimilating which leads to major problems. Hence why multiculturalism is an utterly failed experiment.
Before the socialists and bleeding heart SJWs in this thread start going berserk, understand that it is NOT racist to make these points. I am not persecuting people for the color of their skin, that is simply absurd. I am simply making the case for the necessity of homogeneity to stop the ongoing cultural genocide taking place in both Europe and North America. Based on Trump's immigration policies, I strongly believe he understands what is at stake. He is quite honestly America's last chance to avoid suffering the same fate as Brazil, which would be a tragedy of untold proportions.
EPT
). So while some hold their duty to govern as being more important than gaining points for their campaigns, others seem not to.
