Actually I agree with many things Raj argues in particular making the border in all of its forms (physical and immigration) secure.
But maybe he is trolling you guys to the max.
The key word here is secure. We should absolutely secure all of our borders and we should absolutely enforce all of our immigration laws. There is; however, a right way and a wrong way to do it and using the NSA to spy on all Americans in an effort to locate illegals to then be rounded up and mass deported, unilaterally, by the executive branch without due process is not the right way.
1 Like
Dude should stick to his cartoons.
Sure but isn’t 1 million new immigrants per year way too high? That doesn’t include illegal immigrants.
Boot, a project-power conservative, is on fire lately. The whole thing is worth reading and absolutely filled with evidence in hyperlink, but this is the KO flurry:
[Quote]
The trend has now culminated in the nomination of Donald J. Trump, a presidential candidate who truly is the know-nothing his Republican predecessors only pretended to be.
Mr. Trump doesn’t know the difference between the Quds Force and the Kurds. He can’t identify the nuclear triad, the American strategic nuclear arsenal’s delivery system. He had never heard of Brexit until a few weeks before the vote. He thinks the Constitution has 12 Articles rather than seven. He uses the vocabulary of a fifth grader. Most damning of all, he traffics in off-the-wall conspiracy theories by insinuating that President Obama was born in Kenya and that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the Kennedy assassination. It is hardly surprising to read Tony Schwartz, the ghostwriter for Mr. Trump’s best seller “The Art of the Deal,” say, “I seriously doubt that Trump has ever read a book straight through in his adult life.”
Mr. Trump even appears proud of his lack of learning. He told The Washington Post that he reached decisions “with very little knowledge,” but on the strength of his “common sense” and his “business ability.” Reading long documents is a waste of time because of his rapid ability to get to the gist of an issue, he said: “I’m a very efficient guy.” What little Mr. Trump does know seems to come from television: Asked where he got military advice, he replied, “I watch the shows.”
Mr. Trump promotes a nativist, isolationist, anti-trade agenda that is supported by few if any serious scholars. He called for tariff increases that experts warn will cost millions of jobs and plunge the country into a recession. He claimed that Mexican immigrants were “bringing crime” even though research consistently shows that immigrants have a lower crime rate than the native-born. He promised that Mexico would pay for a border wall, even though no regional expert thinks that will ever happen.
Mr. Trump also proposed barring Muslims from entering the country despite terrorism researchers, myself included, warning that his plan would likely backfire, feeding the Islamic State’s narrative that the war on terrorism is really a war on Islam. He has since revised that proposal and would now bar visitors from countries that have a “proven history of terrorism” — overlooking that pretty much every country, including every major American ally, has a history of terrorism.
Recently, he declared that he would not necessarily come to the aid of the Baltic republics if they were attacked by Russia, apparently not knowing or caring that Article 5 of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty obliges the United States to defend any NATO member under attack. Last week, Mr. Trump even invited Russia’s intelligence agencies to hack the emails of a former secretary of state — something impossible to imagine any previous presidential nominee doing. It is genuinely terrifying that someone who advances such offensive and ridiculous proposals could win the nomination of a party once led by Teddy Roosevelt, who wrote more books than Mr. Trump has probably read.[/quote]
5 Likes
Every single point here has been individually discussed previously. Nothing new
I’m not sure we gave all of those their due. Such is the nature of the Trump era, I guess, that we cannot keep proper tabs on all the rampant stupidity.
But anyway, I didn’t post it because it is new. I posted it because it is correct.
No.
But if you think so, shouldn’t you leave?
1 Like
“From the mid-1980s to 2005, California’s population grew by 10 million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population swelled by 115,000.”
7 out of 10 immigrants are on the dole, while only 1.5% of those new immigrants pay taxes. Be careful what you wish for, it turns a state blue at warp speed.
Agreed as my own government scares me to death consolidating power, since my countrymen are too sorry to exercise their checks and balances responsibility in the voting bòoth.
1 Like
If Donald Trump, unique danger to truth, justice, and the American way that he is, wins the election, will it be time to rethink the system? Will we have to ask ourselves, “Should we have some standards, other than basically nothing more than physical presence, that voters must meet?” Will we have to ask ourselves, “With there being such large numbers of people with vastly different desires and views, is it time to decentralize and allow the people to freely associate with others who share their desires and views?” Will we just say, “It’ll all be better in 2020”?
I read this awhile back and thought it was funny:
"Let’s do away with this shit. Many millions of Americans want their next president to be Carly Fiorina—an inept, failed CEO with no experience of public service who spent last night threatening to make war on half the fucking planet. She was like the eighth most irresponsible psychopath on the stage, and the rest of them, down to the least of them, all represent vast constituencies. This isn’t a failure of the political system—this is the political system working, expressing the will of the governed.
Any polity that can produce such an outcome should be abolished. Dissolve the United States, replacing it with a set of city-states, villages, and thinly-peopled hinterlands; let every public that wants one have their own Carly Fiorina or Bobby Jindal, and let everyone else go about their business. The candidate who proposes that will be the one to get behind."
(Note: I do not take the content entirely seriously, I just thought it was funny)
Isn’t this a little bit of a chicken and egg problem? Is it immigrants coming that is driving the policy, or is it the policy driving the immigrants coming?
Texas is a big border state - do they have the same experience?
I wonder how many of those folks cite almost the same things as reasons not to vote for Donald Trump? Weird.
If “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” it would seem we may be approaching(?) the point of government claiming unjust powers.
Who gives a fuck what a cartoonist has to say about the qualifications a candidate for POTUS should possess?
An inexperienced president with no understanding of the theory and practice of foreign policy surrounded by inexperienced advisors is a recipe for disaster. As the political scientist Elizabeth N. Saunders writes, “This scenario raises the possibility of inexperienced advisers gathering information and formulating policy options without the substantive background to know where to look, what might be missing, and what has worked in the past — all while working for a boss who is not likely to spot the problems or fill in the gaps.”
Trump? He’s not only ignorant of the theory and practice of foreign policy, his policy prescriptions (if his call his bar-stool bluster qualify as much) are antithetical to the core pillars of the American world order that have maintained great power peace for over seventy years, brought about unprecented prosperity, and led to the proliferation of democratic norms and values - all to the enormous benefit of America and her allies. A Trump presidency would make his midnight phantasm of America’s place in the world a reality.
This is not a chicken and egg problem. If enough immigrants inhabit Texas, it will go blue. It will take time but it will happen. Immigrants vote Democrat because when they come they are usually poor.
As for the fallacy that Republicans will do better with Latinos if they pass immigration reform, look no further than the 1988 Presidential Election to show why that’s bullshit.
Just two years after the 1986 Reagan Amnesty was passed, Republicans were rewarded with a whopping (drum roll please) …30% of the Latino vote. Latinos still voted Dem 69-30.
You make some good points, however, the Libertarian party is partly to blame here. They haven’t tried to make themselves relevant. Or they haven’t tried as hard as they need to, to become legit contenders. Some libertarians have lobbied hard for the party, but I don’t see where the libertarian party is helping or supporting them.
The L’s need to make some noise and shake some shit up. I want to see the party succeed because I like a lot of what they stand for, but they need to shake shit up.
They also need to purge the anarchists among them as well, so they don’t seem like a landing place for the crazies, like the green party.
They need to make some noise, start winning more local and regional elections, shoot commercials, and put them out on the TV and internet. Put up some billboards, develop skilled debaters that can argue policy publically. Name recognition is important and too many people don’t even know party exists. That’s a problem for a party that’s been around for a while now.
Isn’t that up to the electorate?
The great thing about Democracy is that everyone gets a vote, but the problem with Democracy is that everyone gets a vote.
1 Like
1 Like