US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3889

On May 27 2016 09:07 SK.Testie wrote:


"Hey, I talked to Geoff again. He wants us to call him Shaquanda now"
"Alright, np"

"Hey, I talked to Geoff, I mean Shaquanda again. She wants us to call him Lord Nibbly the third"
"Alright, np"

I'm fine with it, but I'll definitely find it amusing. ;p

On May 27 2016 09:45 kwizach wrote:

Why do you think transgender people would be more likely to choose a name like "Lord Nibbly the third" than cis people? What's "amusing" about someone changing their name to reflect their gender identity?

On May 27 2016 09:52 SK.Testie wrote:
You're assuming that it's about trans atm. I had something more in mind of what Nauracs was hinting at where a person who does not do anything to change their appearance whatsoever just chooses to identify as X or Y. This had nothing to do with trans. We already had that discussion. I'm pretty supportive / non-caring on the issue but question the possible ramifications not of their actions, but of what others may do to abuse our new found tolerance.

On May 27 2016 09:56 biology]major wrote:


99.7% of the population of the country is "cis". No point in even using that word, its unnecessary.

Vince Foster was my brother. Donald Trump should be ashamed.

It is beyond contempt that a politician would use a family tragedy to further his candidacy, but such is the character of Donald Trump displayed in his recent comments to The Washington Post. In this interview, Trump cynically, crassly and recklessly insinuated that my brother, Vincent W. Foster Jr., may have been murdered because “he had intimate knowledge of what was going on” and that Hillary Clinton may have somehow played a role in Vince’s death.

How wrong. How irresponsible. How cruel. [...]

I think Vince felt he was a failure, this brilliant man who had so many talents, had achieved so many honors and was so well-respected by his peers. He must have felt that he couldn’t stay in his job at the White House, and he couldn’t go back to Little Rock. He was so ill, he couldn’t see a way out.

A few months after Vince’s death, I began to see alarming reports in the news articles distributed throughout the Justice Department each day. These clips, which began appearing in newspapers across the country, were similar, as though written by a single source.

This was the beginning of the countless conspiracy theories spun by those who claimed that the Clintons had Vince murdered because he knew something about Whitewater, the real estate transaction that became the subject of the Fiske and Starr investigations. Repeat something enough times and in enough venues, I guess, and people begin to question their own good sense.

These outrageous suggestions have caused our family untold pain because this issue went on for so long and these reports were so painful to read. For years, our family had to wage a court fight to prevent release of photographs of Vince’s dead body. My heartbroken mother was plagued by harassing phone calls from a reporter. [...]

For Trump to raise these theories again for political advantage is wrong. I cannot let such craven behavior pass without a response.

Professional Republicans in the #NeverTrump movement continue to oppose the presumptive nominee selected by the GOP electorate and are now floating strategies to throw the election to Hillary Clinton.
However, an examination of Clinton’s campaign promises reveals that Republicans who are willing to thwart Trump in favor of Clinton will be complicit in electing a President who would seek to bring about the complete and, possibly irreversible, dissolution of our nation’s borders.

A review of Clinton’s stated positions on the issue suggests she is perhaps the most extreme candidate on immigration ever to run for the office of the U.S. Presidency. Her views place her even further outside the mainstream of the American electorate than President Barack Obama, who systematically dismantled U.S. immigration law during his two terms in office.

Below are just a few of the extreme immigration positions held by Clinton.

(1) Expanding Unconstitutional Executive Amnesty

Perhaps one of the most radical aspects Clinton’s open borders platform is that she is openly campaigning on defending and even expanding President Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesties.

“You can count on me to defend President Obama’s executive actions on DACA and DAPA when I am president,” Clinton said, referring to Obama’s 2012 (DACA) and 2014 (DAPA) executive amnesties, which gave work permits and access to federal benefits to millions of illegal immigrants.

Clinton’s campaign website states that, as President, she will “defend President Obama’s executive actions to provide deportation relief for DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful residents.” Meaning, Clinton will allow millions of illegal immigrants to remain in the United States, receive work permits to legally fill American jobs, and get access to federal benefits paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

In addition, Clinton’s website says she will “extend those actions to additional persons with sympathetic cases if Congress refuses to act.”

If Congress continues its refusal to act on comprehensive immigration reform, Hillary will put in place a simple, straightforward, accessible system for parents of DREAMers and others with a history of service and contribution to their communities to be able to make their case and be eligible for deferred action as well.

However, as Sen. Jeff Sessions has pointed out, Congress has acted on so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” and it has rejected it. Sessions explains that the reason any executive-ordered amnesty is unconstitutional is because “the President’s action erases the laws Congress has passed in order to implement laws Congress has refused to pass.”

Sessions said that “Congress considered and rejected these changes to immigration law in 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2014.”

While Clinton is pushing for immigration policies that would expand migration rates, polls show that the American electorate overwhelming wants immigration levels to be frozen or reduced—including 92% of the GOP electorate and 83% of the American electorate overall.

Moreover, according to an October Rasmussen survey, most Americans still oppose Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty. A Kellyanne Conway poll found that by a 2-1 margin, voters believe that illegal immigrants should be encouraged to return home by shutting off their access to U.S. jobs and welfare.

(2) Amnesty Within 100 Days

Clinton has pledged to enact amnesty within her first 100 days in office. As NBC recently reported: “If elected, the former secretary of state has promised to build on President Obama’s executive actions and introduce comprehensive immigration reform during her first 100 days in office.”

Clinton’s website has explained that by “comprehensive immigration reform,” Clinton means full citizenship for illegal immigrants, which would give them welfare access, voting privileges, and the ability to bring over their family members through chain migration.

“As president, Hillary will fight for comprehensive immigration reform that provides a full and equal path to citizenship,” Clinton’s website states.

Full amnesty for the illegal immigrant population will cost U.S. taxpayers $6.3 trillion, according to a report from the Heritage Foundation.

Clinton’s pledge for amnesty perhaps explains why she won the endorsement of open borders advocate Luis Gutierrez–who has previously said “I have only one loyalty… and that’s to the immigrant community.”

In return, Clinton has heaped praise on Gutierrez, declaring that “few people have done as much as Luis to make sure that when it comes to America’s policies on immigration, those policies reflect America’s values. He organizes, strategizes, preaches, teaches, inspires, cajoles, whatever it takes to keep this movement moving forward.”

Interestingly, Paul Ryan also won the early endorsement of Gutierrez prior to being elected as House Speaker. As Bretibart News has previously reported, Ryan’s views on foreign migration, foreign trade, and foreign wars are more similar to Hillary Clinton’s views than those of GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump.

(3) Freezing deportations

Clinton has said that, as President, that she will essentially freeze deportations.

“I would not deport children. I do not want to deport family members either,” Clinton declared in March. Clinton’s pledge not to enforce U.S. immigration law as President represents an essentially unprecedented departure from the nation’s history of enforcing immigration law.

The Center for Immigration Studies’ Mark Krikorian described Clinton’s pledge as “a breathtaking step toward open borders.”

As the Washington Post reported: “Clinton’s pledge not to deport any illegal immigrants except violent criminals and terrorists represents a major break from President Obama, and it could vastly increase the number of people who would be allowed to stay in the country.”

Clinton’s vision erases entirely the protections that U.S. immigration laws are supposed to afford American citizens: such as protecting Americans from losing a job to an illegal immigrant, preventing the sapping of school and hospital resources, as well as defending the voting privileges and enfranchisement of U.S. citizens (giving citizenship to illegal immigrants allows them to cancel out the votes of native-born American citizens).

The implication of Clinton’s platform– i.e. that illegal entry is not in and of itself a deportable offense–represents a central pillar of the open borders credo: namely, that millions of people can illegally come to the country, take jobs, attend U.S. schools, receive affirmative action, apply for federal benefits, and give birth to children who receive birthright citizenship.

Moreover, waiting until after a violent conviction has been obtained to deport an illegal alien means that immigration laws were enforced far too late–i.e. they were not enforced until after an American was victimized, raped, or murdered by a criminal alien. A federal policy that waits to enforce immigration laws until after there is a criminal conviction would mean admitting and releasing criminals by the hundreds of thousands, and letting them roam free until after they have committed a crime, and have been apprehended, tried, and convicted for that crime.

As Sen. Sessions has explained, immigration laws ought to remove criminal aliens before they are convicted of a violent crime. “Our goal should be to keep 100% of dangerous aliens out of the United States… we need to remove potentially violent offenders before they hurt innocent families—before the irreversible occurs.”

(4) There’s no need to secure the border because it’s already “the most secure border we’ve ever had”

Even as tens of thousands of migrants continue to pour across our southern border, Clinton has declared that the border is “the most secure border we’ve ever had”– suggesting that she does not feel it is necessary to take additional actions to secure it. Clinton argues that since the border is already secure, it is time to give amnesty to the millions of migrants who have entered illegally.

“We have the most secure border we’ve ever had… The Republicans, the opponents, no longer have an argument,” Clinton said during a March CNN/Univision Democratic debate. “We enhanced the border security. That part of the work is done… Everybody who I know who has looked at it says it is OK. We have a secure border. There’s no need for this rhetoric and demagoguery that still is carried out on the Republican side. You’ve run out of excuses. Let’s move to comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship.”

(5) Closing Detention Centers

On her website, Clinton pledges to “end family detention and close private immigrant detention centers”.

“Hillary believes we should end family detention for parents and children who arrive at our border in desperate situations. We have alternatives to detention for those who pose no flight or public safety risk, such as supervised release,” Clinton’s website explains.

This again represents a radical step in further dismantling what little immigration enforcement is now in place. Clinton is essentially saying that she will not detain new incoming illegal immigrants, but will instead release them into the interior of the United States.

(6) Obamacare for illegal aliens

Clinton has repeatedly said that she supports giving Obamacare to illegal immigrants. Clinton’s website says that Clinton wants to “Expand access to affordable health care to all families… She believes we should let families—regardless of immigration status—buy into the Affordable Care Act exchanges.”

Chelsea Clinton echoed this sentiment while campaigning for her mother. “It’s so important to extend the Affordable Care Act to people who are living and working here, regardless of immigration status, regardless of citizenship status,” Chelsea Clinton said in March.

(7) Full path to citizenship

Clinton has pledged to use federal resources to ensure that millions of more foreign migrants are able to vote in U.S. elections:

There are millions of people in America who could be naturalized, but for one reason or another, they’re not. So let’s help more of our neighbors claim their rights. It’s so powerful, so precious, to be a citizen of the United States!

To be able to vote in our elections, to have a voice in our future, and I want to take down the barriers that are holding people back. So here’s a few things I will do: I will work to expand fee waivers, so more people seeking naturalization can get a break on the costs. I will increase access to language programs to help people boost their English proficiency. I will enhance outreach and education so more people know their options and are engaged in the process. I don’t want anyone who could be a citizen to miss out on that opportunity.

Polling data suggests that Clinton’s voter importation plan will overwhelmingly benefit the Democratic Party.

A 2011 Pew survey found that Hispanics have a more negative view of capitalism (55%) than do supporters of Occupy Wall Street (47%). A 2012 Pew Hispanic Center survey found that 75% of Hispanics prefer bigger governments that provide more services as opposed to smaller governments that provide fewer services.

Political scientists have documented how mass immigration helps Democratic politicians. As University of Maryland’s James Gimpel noted: “the enormous flow of legal immigrants into the country — 29.5 million 1980 to 2012 — has remade and continues to remake the nation’s electorate in favor of the Democratic Party.”

Reuters has similarly reported: “Immigrants favor Democratic candidates and liberal policies by a wide margin, surveys show, and they have moved formerly competitive states like Illinois firmly into the Democratic column and could turn Republican strongholds like Georgia and Texas into battlegrounds in the years to come.”

(8) Expanded refugee resettlement

Hillary Clinton has called for a massive expansion in Middle East migration.

As Donald Trump has observed, “Crooked Hillary wants a radical 500% increase in Syrian refugees.”

Indeed, last year Clinton called for admitting 65,000 Syrian refugees—on top of the roughly 30,000 refugees and asylees the U.S. already admits from the Middle East each year. Adding in refugees from across the Muslim world, this means that under Clinton’s plan, the U.S. would admit at least 105,000 thousand refugees from the Muslim world annually.

“I’ll work to ensure that every single refugee who seeks asylum in the United States has a fair chance to tell his or her story, this is the least we can offer people fleeing persecution and devastation,” Clinton said in December.

As Breitbart News has previously reported, below is a more detailed breakdown of Islamic migration that would occur in her first term under the minimum numbers she has put forward thus far:

– 374,000 refugees/asylees from the Middle East during her first term, based on DHS data.

– 420,000 refugees/asylees from the Muslim world during her first term.

– 560,000 permanent migrants from the Middle East during her first term.

– 730,000 permanent migrants from the Muslim world during her first term.

According to a September 2015 Rasmussen survey, only 5% of likely voters said that they wanted the U.S. to admit more than 100,000 refugees from the Middle East.

Women oppose Clinton’s plan to bring more than 100,000 refugees from the Middle East by a remarkable 21-to-1 margin, with 84 percent opposing and four percent supporting.

Democrat voters oppose Clinton’s refugee plan by a 17-to-1 margin with 87 percent opposing and five percent supporting.

Most remarkably, 85 percent of black voters oppose Clinton’s refugee agenda with less than one percent of black voters supporting her plan.

On May 27 2016 06:27 Naracs_Duc wrote:
For example, you could be born male, but you identify as female, but you're also a lesbian, who is a crossdresser.

So now you can be a guy, in a suite, who likes girls, who dresses butch, but should be called miss. There's nothing wrong with that. That is so fucking cool that one's personality is so fluid and flexible. But its also really hard for people who want some level of transparency in the way they want to see the world.

On May 27 2016 10:30 xDaunt wrote:
Has anyone been following the Clinton Cash documentary (or book by Schweizer)?

On May 27 2016 10:16 farvacola wrote:
Liberal immigration policy is not antithetical to nationalism, and that article does not prove otherwise. The "border dissolving" language is sheer lunacy lol.

On May 27 2016 11:15 Falling wrote:

Well I suppose the border also collapsed in 1907, 1913, 1991, and 2006.

Donald Trump pledged to cancel the Paris climate agreement, endorsed drilling off the Atlantic coast and said he would allow the Keystone XL pipeline to be built in return for “a big piece of the profits” for the American people.

At an oil and natural gas conference in North Dakota on Thursday, just minutes after he had celebrated hitting the 1,237 delegate mark needed to formally clinch the party’s nomination, Trump gave a speech on energy policy that was largely shaped by advice from Kevin Cramer, a US representative from the state.

In a press conference before the event, Trump praised the advice of oil tycoon Harold Hamm. Hamm and Cramer then introduced him onstage.

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club environmentalist group, was taken aback by Trump’s address.

“I have never heard more contradiction in one hour than I heard in the speech,” he told the Guardian.

“There are pools of oil industry waste water that are deeper than Trump’s grasp of energy.”

Trump gave the speech – which Brune also called “a jumbled collection of oil industry talking points that are devoid from reality in the market place” – in a packed arena that generated an atmosphere more like that of a campaign rally than a staid industry conference.

As he hit a number of familiar talking points, a crowd filled with his supporters raised chants of “build the wall”.

He did not directly address manmade climate change, which he has in the past called a hoax invented by the Chinese, but he took veiled shots at those who are concerned about global warming.”

On May 27 2016 11:15 Falling wrote:

Well I suppose the border also collapsed in 1907, 1913, 1991, and 2006.

On May 27 2016 11:12 Mohdoo wrote:

Breitbart News‎ seems pretty keen on it. That gives some clues as to its legitimacy.

On May 27 2016 11:37 SK.Testie wrote:
Genuinely wonder how democrats would feel if all newcomers into the country voted 65%+ Republican.

On May 27 2016 11:33 xDaunt wrote:

I have a dream, that one day, liberal posters on TL will actually discuss points on the merits rather than rotely discredit the source like mindless boobs.

On May 27 2016 11:37 SK.Testie wrote:
Genuinely wonder how democrats would feel if all newcomers into the country voted 65%+ Republican.

On May 27 2016 11:42 Plansix wrote:

A 10 second look on google lead me to discover it is based on the a book by Peter Schweizer, who is an editor Breitbart News. Who is also the president of the Government Accountability Institute, a conservative think tank. I am sure there are some facts in there, but any attempts to claim that it does not have a clear agenda are patently false.

On May 27 2016 11:33 xDaunt wrote:

I have a dream, that one day, liberal posters on TL will actually discuss points on the merits rather than rotely discredit the source like mindless boobs.