U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[Svip]

I wasn't confused as to what the President does, I was confused as to why they're viewed as direct equivalents to a Prime Minister, when half the duties associated with Prime Ministers are vested in some other guy that nobody talks about.

A President and a Prime Minister are not the same thing. A Prime Minister cannot veto bills, for instance. Nor is he/she ever considered a head of state. In most parliamentary systems, the Prime Minister is also a member of the legislature, whereas a President is not.

 

Indeed, in the US, 2/3 of the President's job description is foreign policy, the rest is handling some domestic issues. But primarily, domestic issues are supposed to be handled by Congress and of course the states.

 

And in practice, this is what happens. The President may have an agenda, and since he has allies in Congress, can address them to put forward legislation. Indeed, I don't think the President actually put forth a bill in Congress. He has to do it via a member of Congress.

 

So what the President has most of all on domestic politics is influence. As for his executive powers, that's mostly handling day to day business, such as calling state of emergencies and whatnot, but all within the framework set by Congress and the constitution.

 

A Prime Minister is far more involved in his legislature than a President is. But Prime Minister does not have the same level of executive powers as a President is. In most parliamentary systems, most of the powers we associate with the US President are spread among several different people, a lot of who are not even politicians.

[El Dildo]

people love to call our president "the most powerful leader of the free-world" at the helm of a mighty "democracy," but in reality, the executive office itself is often castrated by an inept and utterly corrupt Congress who operate like a noble aristocracy that passes more legislation to enrich themselves than to do anything remotely benefiting their actual constituents...

 

the Constitution is a fun concept but it was long ago trampled underfoot.

[Svip]

I also think Donald Trump's appeal proves that most Americans don't really give a sh*t about the constitution. You'll hear a lot talk about the constitution on internet forums and whatnot, but that's frankly a tiny minority.

 

The Democrats never really talk about the constitution. Mostly because they believe in looking beyond that, whereas the constitution appears to be conservatives' answer to any policy they don't agree with. But then again, isn't conservative supposed to mean a movement to maintain the status quo? Well then, a conservative should never be in favour of any new legislation.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Svip

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

The constitution is pretty much just a museum piece now. Practically useless in modern policy-making. It held up great for a while. But it's outdated. Conservatives love to appeal to the authority of our "founding fathers" as if they would give a flying f*ck about modern American principles. If any of them ran for office today, they would make Trump and even Cruz look like progressives.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[El Dildo]

we're all to blame, though.

 

liberals disown the Constitution the moment they're unable to interpret it in their own way.

just like conservatives do.

 

the "founding fathers" are often held on much too high a pedestal.

yeah, you know, some of them were pretty cool like my boy TJ and Benny Franks. but god damn, most of these guys were just the elite-slave-owning-money-class from their own time. they weren't magically noble or superior in their wisdom just because they signed that old piece of paper. as documents go, the Constitution is an above-average piece of literature... but it's not the f/cking holy grail of Democracy.

[Spaghetti Cat]

people love to call our president "the most powerful leader of the free-world" at the helm of a mighty "democracy," but in reality, the executive office itself is often castrated by an inept and utterly corrupt Congress who operate like a noble aristocracy that passes more legislation to enrich themselves than to do anything remotely benefiting their actual constituents...

 

the Constitution is a fun concept but it was long ago trampled underfoot.

With respect Diablo, that is backwards.

 

If anything Congress has given away power towards a unitary executive. For example, during the recent Iran nuclear agreement, Congress specifically did not want to consider this a treaty with another nation. Instead of a majority being required to affirm the treaty, it was a majority to oppose the treaty with Iran. Another example might be the unilateral decision on immigration, which is being fought in the courts right now. The preverbal 'pen and a phone.'

 

To be fair, Mr. Obama hasn't been the only one to do this. Mr Bush for example went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan without a formal treaty of war from Congress. The whole mess at the end of his Administration with regards to TARP and the bailouts would be another example.

 

My point is that it's not a partisan issue. The reason we have separation of powers, and a Constitution, is to limit the power in one man's (or woman's) hand. Part of the reason is job security. If you are an incumbent, why put yourself out there on an issue that can come back and haunt you during election season. Another reason, as you correctly point out, is the trappings of office. For example, the Obamacare provisions do not apply to members of Congress as they do with the rest of the country.

 

Congress, as it now stands, is a job security program for incumbents. The system is set up to keep those in Congress from loosing their jobs. A great majority of those elected to Congress this year will be re-elected. Why rock the boat when you have a good thing going? Here's an interesting example, the Trump supporters are supposed to be 'screw the system' right? Senators who have won in most of the primaries have been incumbents. The same people that voted for Trump also voted for the status quo in Congress. Figure that one out right?

 

I could go on and on why the Constitution is still relevant and important in this day and age, but let me leave with this thought. You bring up Benjamin Franklin in another post. I'm sure you have heard the quote about a Republic as long as we can keep it. If we want to be a successful nation, if we want to be a people together and not at one anothers throat, if we want to keep our liberty, even if it's just doing our own thing, then the Constitution is still relevant. But it's up to us to keep it that way. Everytime we allow the powers-that-be to divide us with trivial issues like transgendered bathrooms allows them the time to keep their positions of power. They are not the sovereign, we are, the citizens of this great nation.

 

I may not always agree with this policy or that position. However I try to keep my eye on the bigger picture. I don't want to see Trump use unconstitutional methods to get even with Democrats, and I don't want to see it with Hillary either. We must all, regardless of party or affiliation, keep in mind that liberty is precious. We must be the ones that effect government, not be the ones that government effects.

[E.A.B.]

 

 

who's underestimating him?

The entire Republican party underestimated him.

yes but I'm talking about ordinary people.

the GOP voting block is comprised of simple retards.

 

 

You are what's wrong with political discourse in this nation, you'd fit in with Donald Trump's rhetoric. Or Allen West.

 

Allen West is funny though. I feel like a broken record saying this but people on opposing sides of the aisle have legitimate grievances and beliefs that perhaps aren't the retard perception you have of them, otherwise it would be, uhh...retarded. And I know you aren't so stupid that you legitimately believe the opposing side of the isle is actually the cartoon depiction you have in your mind of them.

 

Trumps appeal is among the white working class, which has been thrown aside by the Democrat party and Trump's appeal is him bringing back blue collar jobs. There are large swaths of blue collar working class whites that have been left behind by both parties, and Trump is appealing to them. He can very realistically win the union vote, which has generally swung Democrat. As for younger people, his appeal is a cultural one. I've got a 21 year old friend that never cared about politics, but the one thing he likes about Trump is how he makes SJW's heads explode. I doubt he has more young people behind him than Bernie or Hillary, though.

 

 

He still has to win my vote though, since that dumbass trade policy of his is what destroys him for me. I honestly don't see why the wall is such a big deal, since Mexico has mandatory jail sentences for illegally trespassing in their nation, and they don't welcome people into their nation that are physically or mentally unsound and/or do not add to the well-being of their nation's economy.

 

I can't for the life of me figure out this progressive mind-set that when America does it it's racist but when other nations do it it isn't. It's like some silly arithmetic and hierarchy of grievance.

 

 

most of these guys were just the elite-slave-owning-money-class from their own time. they weren't magically noble or superior in their wisdom just because they signed that old piece of paper.

 

Everyone knows they owned slaves, and the praise they receive isn't for their slave ownership or how shrewd they were in slave management.

 

This is like saying walking into a room with people discussing how good Tiger Woods is in his sport and blurting out, ''yeah but he cheated on his wife''.

 

This isn't news, everyone knows it, and it has no effect on his golfing prowess or the legacy he left within the sport. I get that you believe The Constitution is some old paper no one should care about but if you're going to criticize it or the people behind it at least have some substantive criticism that diminishes it's standing rather than something inconsequential like, ''well yeah but the paper wasn't papyrus''.

Edited May 6, 2016 by E.A.B.

[Clem Fandango]

I wouldn't say all Republican voters are toxic morons, but I understand it's frustrating to have people vote against their own interests and in turn ram horrible policy down the throat of the rest of the population.

 

 

 

We should strive for a more thoughtful approach.

[Skeever]

I honestly don't see why the wall is such a big deal, since Mexico has mandatory jail sentences for illegally trespassing in their nation, and they don't welcome people into their nation that are physically or mentally unsound and/or do not add to the well-being of their nation's economy.

I can't for the life of me figure out this progressive mind-set that when America does it it's racist but when other nations do it it isn't. It's like some silly arithmetic and hierarchy of grievance.

Have to agree with you there. I haven't seen a single complaint about Japan's strict immigration laws, denial of Syrian refugees (they accepted, what, 27 last year?) or even them flat-out saying that they want to preserve their homogeneous society and culture, but Trump wants to build a simple wall in order to halt illegal immigration and everyone loses their minds, saying that the wall would be "too expensive" or that "it wouldn't work".

 

Mexico has built a wall on its southern border to keep illegal immigrants from Guatemala out of its country and you don't see anyone complaining about that, why is this any different?

[Clem Fandango]

f*cking SJWs always complaining about their own state but no word on the other ~200 sovereign states in the world and their millions of pages of policy, what no time to read about every administrative decision in every corner of the world? they probs just hate America.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Melchior

[Twang.]

We should definitely set our human rights standards to match that of a third world sham democracy.

[Svip]

 

I honestly don't see why the wall is such a big deal, since Mexico has mandatory jail sentences for illegally trespassing in their nation, and they don't welcome people into their nation that are physically or mentally unsound and/or do not add to the well-being of their nation's economy.

I can't for the life of me figure out this progressive mind-set that when America does it it's racist but when other nations do it it isn't. It's like some silly arithmetic and hierarchy of grievance.

Have to agree with you there. I haven't seen a single complaint about Japan's strict immigration laws, denial of Syrian refugees (they accepted, what, 27 last year?) or even them flat-out saying that they want to preserve their homogeneous society and culture, but Trump wants to build a simple wall in order to halt illegal immigration and everyone loses their minds, saying that the wall would be "too expensive" or that "it wouldn't work".

 

Mexico has built a wall on its southern border to keep illegal immigrants from Guatemala out of its country and you don't see anyone complaining about that, why is this any different?

 

For one thing, the US-Mexican border is far larger than Hungary's border with Serbia and Croatia and the Mexican-Guatemalan border. So the wall Trump is proposing is going to be far larger than any of those.

 

Additionally, Trump isn't just proposing a fence (as in the case of Hungary), but an actual wall. That's only going to bring costs up.

 

As it is right now, a lot of people own the land where the wall is supposed to be placed and some US laws actually prevent the government from building a wall on the border to protect the nature running along the border, thus forcing them to build the wall somewhat inland, potentially forcing US citizens to live between their own country's wall and the Mexican border.

 

As for its effectiveness, most illegal immigrants who enter the US do it so through the official ways, e.g. flight or the border crossings. They simply overstay their visas after having gotten in. So a wall is not going to curb any of those people (which is the vast majority).

 

In the case of Hungary, it is a reaction to the European migration crisis, where most of the migrants did not have the money to actually buy plane tickets, so most of them enter by land. As such, a border fence might actually have an effect.

 

But I believe you are very wrong in suggesting that people have not criticised Hungary for what they are doing; it's a very hotly debated topic in Europe.

 

Also, I cannot find anything on the wall you are talking about between Mexico and Guatemala. Care to elaborate on that?

 

To summarise: A wall on the US-Mexican border is not actually going to curb the vast number of illegal immigrants, as only a minority of them actually crosses the physical border illegally. If the wall is to be built of what Trump suggests it is, it is going to cost around 40-50 billion USD. Both inefficient and costly at the same time.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Svip

[E.A.B.]

 

 

I honestly don't see why the wall is such a big deal, since Mexico has mandatory jail sentences for illegally trespassing in their nation, and they don't welcome people into their nation that are physically or mentally unsound and/or do not add to the well-being of their nation's economy.

I can't for the life of me figure out this progressive mind-set that when America does it it's racist but when other nations do it it isn't. It's like some silly arithmetic and hierarchy of grievance.

Have to agree with you there. I haven't seen a single complaint about Japan's strict immigration laws, denial of Syrian refugees (they accepted, what, 27 last year?) or even them flat-out saying that they want to preserve their homogeneous society and culture, but Trump wants to build a simple wall in order to halt illegal immigration and everyone loses their minds, saying that the wall would be "too expensive" or that "it wouldn't work".

 

Mexico has built a wall on its southern border to keep illegal immigrants from Guatemala out of its country and you don't see anyone complaining about that, why is this any different?

 

For one thing, the US-Mexican border is far larger than Hungary's border with Serbia and Croatia and the Mexican-Guatemalan border. So the wall Trump is proposing is going to be far larger than any of those.

 

Additionally, Trump isn't just proposing a fence (as in the case of Hungary), but an actual wall. That's only going to bring costs up.

 

As it is right now, a lot of people own the land where the wall is supposed to be placed and some US laws actually prevent the government from building a wall on the border to protect the nature running along the border, thus forcing them to build the wall somewhat inland, potentially forcing US citizens to live between their own country's wall and the Mexican border.

 

As for its effectiveness, most illegal immigrants who enter the US do it so through the official ways, e.g. flight or the border crossings. They simply overstay their visas after having gotten in. So a wall is not going to curb any of those people (which is the vast majority).

 

In the case of Hungary, it is a reaction to the European migration crisis, where most of the migrants did not have the money to actually buy plane tickets, so most of them enter by land. As such, a border fence might actually have an effect.

 

But I believe you are very wrong in suggesting that people have not criticised Hungary for what they are doing; it's a very hotly debated topic in Europe.

 

Also, I cannot find anything on the wall you are talking about between Mexico and Guatemala. Care to elaborate on that?

 

To summarise: A wall on the US-Mexican border is not actually going to curb the vast number of illegal immigrants, as only a minority of them actually crosses the physical border illegally. If the wall is to be built of what Trump suggests it is, it is going to cost around 40-50 billion USD. Both inefficient and costly at the same time.

 

 

See Svip, this is where you f*cked up.

 

He said Mexico is gonna pay for it.

 

checkmate atheists

 

I never thought the presidency was that important anyway. People place WAY too much emphasis on it and then are disappointed when they didn't elect a leader that can do it all and realize there are hundreds of other elections for the House and Senate. I mean, they ARE the law-making body so I never figured why people didn't realize that if they want laws to be made they should vote in races for lawmakers, not the glorified popularity contest that is the presidential race. So when Trump says he's gonna do X, Y, and Z I have a little faith in the checks and balance system and Congress not allowing what will essentially amount to cost of living increases on all Americans to get through just so some tire makers in Alabama can keep making tires and not have to compete.

 

I don't know how elections work in the parliamentary system but AFAIK the Prime Minister is merely another law maker from a district that is picked from the party in the majority, and I assume races are run with said person already being decided upon through internal political decisions within the party, thereby having both what is an election on the district level for law-makers but also having the personality races we have when it comes to Presidential elections by having the person who will eventually become prime minister competing with an opposing party's Prime Minister-to-be.

 

At least then you are actually in the branch of government that makes laws rather than promising changes that are decided in a different branch of government. Unless you're Obama of course, then you can just tell departments to not do their jobs and bypass Congress altogether. The Constitution is just an old piece of paper anyway. They were slave holders, you know.

Edited May 7, 2016 by E.A.B.

[Skeever]

But I believe you are very wrong in suggesting that people have not criticised Hungary for what they are doing; it's a very hotly debated topic in Europe.

I never suggested that Hungary's border fence wasn't criticized, I was suggesting that Hungary's border fence had a substantial impact on illegal immigration.

 

As for the Mexico-Guatemala border, it appears I was mistaken in there being an actual wall there, so I apologize for that. Should probably make it clear that Japan, Mexico and wherever else has every right to dictate who comes into their country (no matter how strict) and I respect them for that, but I just find it to be a bit irritating at how most people are reacting to one candidate wanting to build a proper wall on our southern border in order to combat illegal immigration.

[Clem Fandango]

 

But I believe you are very wrong in suggesting that people have not criticised Hungary for what they are doing; it's a very hotly debated topic in Europe.

I never suggested that Hungary's border fence wasn't criticized, I was suggesting that Hungary's border fence had a substantial impact on illegal immigration.

 

As for the Mexico-Guatemala border, it appears I was mistaken in there being an actual wall there, so I apologize for that. Should probably make it clear that Japan, Mexico and wherever else has every right to dictate who comes into their country (no matter how strict) and I respect them for that, but I just find it to be a bit irritating at how most people are reacting to one candidate wanting to build a proper wall on our southern border in order to combat illegal immigration.

 

mfw Japan isn't considered a racist and nationalistic society.

[Creed Bratton]

As for its effectiveness

As for its effectiveness we just have to remember John Oliver's rant: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11275300/john-oliver-trump-wall-last-week-tonight

[Tchuck]

 

But I believe you are very wrong in suggesting that people have not criticised Hungary for what they are doing; it's a very hotly debated topic in Europe.

I never suggested that Hungary's border fence wasn't criticized, I was suggesting that Hungary's border fence had a substantial impact on illegal immigration.

 

As for the Mexico-Guatemala border, it appears I was mistaken in there being an actual wall there, so I apologize for that. Should probably make it clear that Japan, Mexico and wherever else has every right to dictate who comes into their country (no matter how strict) and I respect them for that, but I just find it to be a bit irritating at how most people are reacting to one candidate wanting to build a proper wall on our southern border in order to combat illegal immigration.

 

 

But you're missing the point that the wall won't be effective at all. By and large illegals come in through legal means, and end up staying. It is a much safer way in, than risking their lives with some coyote who doesn't give a damn who makes and who doesn't. The wall is also all kinds of impractical; not only on the cost side of things, but also its location. It's a huge span of land between the two countries, with varying terrain and features, and laws and property owners. It will be a nightmare to build it.

 

Not to mention, this is a nation that took over a decade to replace the Twin Towers. How long do you realistically think it will take them to build even the basic skeleton for this wall? I'd wager Trump would be out of office by them, replaced by someone who would likely stop this ridiculous project, but by then all the billions would already have been spent, completely wasted.

 

As for comparing it with the Hungarian border; sure, that border is "effective" because the massive influx of refugees in there is by foot. They don't have other ways. It's pretty much the opposite situation for America/Mexico border. Building a wall would be as effective as increasing naval presence in the Gulf of Mexico to stop illegals coming in by boat. That is, nearly zero effect on the overall influx.

 

You want to fight illegals? Better screenings at the borders of entry, faster evaluation of refugee visas/requests, better support for legal families already settled down here that want to bring family members over, better pathways to legal visas/citizenships etc.

 

Building a wall will be very effective. For a day. Then the ladders will be extended, the tunnels will be redug, other ways will be found around it. If you're so intent on building a wall, then increasing the budget of the border patrol, equipping them better and enlarging the personnel would be far, far more effective.

[Skeever]

Trump addresses quite a bit of that in his immigration reform plan. Enhanced penalties for overstaying a visa, tripling the number of ICE officers, etc..

Also, I think you keep on forgetting that Mexico would be the one paying for the wall. If it ends up being a waste then so be it, it's out of their pockets, not ours.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Skeever

[Clem Fandango]

Mexico will not pay for the wall lmao are you taking the piss? I can't tell if your whole profile is a parody.

[Raavi]

Building this ever taller wall to combat illegal immigration is like the geopolitical equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears humming a happy tune whilst mouthing "Can't hear you." Not to mention the fact that the Donald's wall would quite simply not combat what he claims it would, according to an estimate published by Pew nearly half of all unauthorised migrants enter the country through legal means (ports, airports etc.) but end up overstaying their visas. Little a wall with Mexico could do there. A wall, might I add, nobody is ever going to pay for. It's purely wholly unfeasible comic book villain level rhetoric. Not even touching on the fact that immigration is by and large beneficial to the US economy, and the economic benefit (as opposed to ludicrous costs of any wall) of creating better and easier paths to citizenships for undocumented workers.

[Tchuck]

Trump addresses quite a bit of that in his immigration reform plan. Enhanced penalties for overstaying a visa, tripling the number of ICE officers, etc..

 

Also, I think you keep on forgetting that Mexico would be the one paying for the wall. If it ends up being a waste then so be it, it's out of their pockets, not ours.

 

Except none of his points really address the problem at all, instead treating only the symptoms. All I see is punishment, punishment and more punishment. Instead of looking at the reasons why people immigrate illegally, it just treats the whole thing in a "we just need to punish them harder" way.

 

Where's any mention for support for those foreigners who risked their lives to aid the US government? You know of all those translators who risked their lives and lost their families and are in grave danger due to aiding the US in their wars? Yeah, they're all waiting for years and years to maybe get a visa. Apparently risking their own lives is not enough.

 

Instead of just punishing, make simpler paths to citizenship. Most of those illegals tend to bring good things to the country, doing the jobs Americans are too proud to do, warming up the economy by spending and bringing in more diversity.

 

But no, f*ck, he's even saying to remove citizenship by birthright. Which is hilarious since America was founded by immigrants. Illegal ones at that, since the Native Americans were the real citizens of the land.

 

And again, for the wall, do you not get it? It is useless. It is worthless. It will help with nothing. To even propose such a thing, just screams of attention-seeking. I haven't forgotten that he's THINKING that Mexico will pay for the wall. There's no way Mexico will pay for it. You guys will foot the bill, you can be damn sure. Should he even threaten Mexico with any action, well, see, most of your menial jobs that keep your country rolling are done by these damn dirty illegals. Imagine if they went on strike. Boy, oh boy, you guys would be f*cked.

[sivispacem]

Seriously, how the f*ck would the US compell Mexico to pay for the wall? Anyone who thinks that that's vaguely possible is completely delusional.

[Clem Fandango]

I'm literally in disbelief that anyone bought his 'Mexico will pay got it' bit. I mean, not so much that people buy it, but that regular contributors to this section buy it. This is a space where it's taken for granted that welfare isn't the domain of black women driving Cadillacs, that AQ did 9/11 and that the Bolshies weren't Communist, I mean c'mon we know our stuff here chaps.

[make total destroy]

mexicos gonna pay for the wall also FREE TEQUILA for every american citizen

 

also tacos. i love latinos!

[Clem Fandango]

In case anyone's confused Trump pretended his hotel/restaurant/bar whatever sold tacos (it doesn't) and then said "GOD I LOVE LATINOS" this is stu's guy for president you guys.

[GTA_stu]

He has indeed received my endorsement.

[mr quick]

I can't even tell if you're taking the piss. Are you?

[Spaghetti Cat]

 

As for its effectiveness, most illegal immigrants who enter the US do it so through the official ways, e.g. flight or the border crossings. They simply overstay their visas after having gotten in. So a wall is not going to curb any of those people (which is the vast majority).

 

 

 

This cannot be stressed enough, but is lost in the chatter on immigration.

[Svip]

Well, from a purely political stand point, the wall is an effective talking point. It's very simple, people can easily comprehend it, it's brief in speech and it effectively puts a symbol - and a solution - to a problem a lot of people consider an issue. Never mind that it isn't actually a proper solution.[1]

 

But quite frankly, I don't think Trump would ever really get a wall built should he get into office. I think a realistic view is this:

 

When Donald Trump announced his candidacy, he wasn't actually betting on himself winning. Instead, he wanted to raise issues that concerned him. Specifically: The United States' standing in the world and illegal immigration.

 

Because he wasn't really counting on winning, he felt unhinged from conventional political behaviour and just went all in. Unfortunately, it had the side effect of a significant portion of GOP primary voters ended up supporting him. And seeing it working, he kept hammering. Maybe hoping the other candidates would take his positions or that he would actually win this.

 

There is some chatter from people close to Trump that his initially intentions was not to necessarily win the nomination, but rather to raise issues. But exactly how true this is is hard to gather, since Trump always seems very confident in himself. But there is some evidence to it, like Trump's rhetoric about 'winning' first really began appearing once he began surging in the polls.

 

As a result, I actually think the wall is something Trump is unlikely to get through. Whether or not he will continue to talk about it in the campaign remains to be seen. I wouldn't be surprised if he tones it down or if he just keeps hammering and then blame Congress once in office (assuming he wins) for it getting blocked.

 

To sum up: Even in the event that Donald Trump becomes the next President of the United States, there probably will not be a wall along the US-Mexican border.

 

I cannot tell how much he cares about an actual wall, but it won't happen because it just isn't doable.

 

[1] I sort of hinted at it in my previous post, but Trump's wall is not comparable with the border fence in Hungary for all sorts of reasons, which I won't get into now.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

Trumps appeal is among the white working class, which has been thrown aside by the Democrat party

They have indeed been cast aside. But they weren’t thrown aside by either the Democrats or the Republicans single-handedly. They were thrown aside by a modernized labor market…a market that is worshiped by the free-market fundamentalist in the Republican party until it performs to their detriment. Why would you pay an American to do the same job for 2 or 3 times the cost? American labor ensures quality perhaps, but more frequently in the case of "skilled" labor.

 

I must admit, if Trump stated he would legalize marijuana (likely with no intent to do so), then he could scoop a nice chunk of young voters. It could also backfire because he'd lose some Republicans. To attract young voters, we'll probably see him focus on youth unemployment and underemployment. Nearly half of the jobs gained since the high unemployment phase of the recession have been low-level sales and low-income service jobs (retail and food service).

 

I honestly don't see why the wall is such a big deal, since Mexico has mandatory jail sentences for illegally trespassing in their nation, and they don't welcome people into their nation that are physically or mentally unsound and/or do not add to the well-being of their nation's economy.

 

I can't for the life of me figure out this progressive mind-set that when America does it it's racist but when other nations do it it isn't. It's like some silly arithmetic and hierarchy of grievance.

His wall is a big deal because economically speaking, it’s unfeasible and arguably devastating. I’ve never met an informed progressive who praised Mexico’s pathetic treatment of illegal immigrants and their indigenous population too for that matter. But since when is Mexico the humanitarian role model for the United States? So that’s largely a moot point.

 

The Dems are definitely Latino vote-pandering weasels when it comes to enforcing illegal immigration policy. But I haven't met anyone who suffers from a lower quality of life because of illegal immigrants. As someone who actually lives in a border state with a significant illegal immigrant population, I can confidently say f*ck the wall. Most illegals come here legally and overstay visas; so the wall would do f*ck all besides serving as a massive “f*ck you” symbol to the Mexican people. Counterproductive on all fronts. But if you are going to talk about where it’s done well, at least point to Israel.

 

Everyone knows they owned slaves, and the praise they receive isn't for their slave ownership or how shrewd they were in slave management.

 

This is like saying walking into a room with people discussing how good Tiger Woods is in his sport and blurting out, ''yeah but he cheated on his wife''.

 

This isn't news, everyone knows it, and it has no effect on his golfing prowess or the legacy he left within the sport. I get that you believe The Constitution is some old paper no one should care about but if you're going to criticize it or the people behind it at least have some substantive criticism that diminishes it's standing rather than something inconsequential like, ''well yeah but the paper wasn't papyrus''.

 

Substantive criticism? You mean like how the founder’s slave ownership impairs their credibility when crafting a document about freedom and independence? That’s like a rapist preaching feminist literature into the face of a woman as he’s raping her.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Triple Vacuum Seal