US Politics

[VCheng]

Well again, i was asking that do you think people will decide to change the party and vote for a democrat as many sources claim just because they do not want Trump? It can be other way around as well but i asked thins based on what little i came to know about the current situation. Lets hope @anon45 can give a straight answer.

Let the nominations happen first, and the VP candidates selected. Then the real fun begins.

 

[anon45]

Even if it means keeping democrats in office?

Well thanks a lot for the detailed reply. That was helpful Considering you have first hand knowledge and know the ground situation better so will like to know just this from you, what your opinion?

Minorities typically vote Democrat.

The next thing I say isn't totally true, but the GOP is stereotyped as the party of 'angry old white men'.

It is true that the large majority of their voter base is White, but this isn't exactly a winning strategy anymore so they've been trying to court Hispanics without alienating their voting base.

Well again, i was asking that do you think people will decide to change the party and vote for a democrat as many sources claim just because they do not want Trump? It can be other way around as well but i asked thins based on what little i came to know about the current situation. Lets hope @anon45 can give a straight answer.

I see alot of Reddit berniebros cry about supporting Trump over Clinton, but this is mostly a hollow threat given Trump's policies are the antithesis of Bernie's. There may be a small minority who do so, but most will vote Hillary, her voting record is 92% the same as Bernie's. She is just more centrist. There is a segment of the Republican Party that is 'never Trump', but I don't know for sure how big that is.

The most interesting thing is wide speculation that we are seeing the implosion of the Republican party.

I understand your emphasis on "due process" and understand the meaning behinde this but in emphasising on this you are missing what i actually am looking for
Do you think that people may chose not to support trump even if it means selecting a

The question was:

If if this means electing a Democrat again?

It is not about the system brother, i am just asking about the general mentality of public, will people go this far that they may change there party if they do not like the candidate? will you? IF suppose you also didn't liked Trump?

In the general election people can vote for whoever, they are not limited by party.

If the GOP 'steals' the nomination from Trump if he clearly has the delegate and plurality count, it could potentially lead to voters leaving en masse and starting a third party/ going independent.

 

[Audio]

I read in recent primaries Trump has been gathering votes from the educated and mid to upper mid class districts, the way it was written it was implying a new achievement.
Additionally, Washington Post reported that he in on his way to getting the most Republican votes in history, ie literally the biggest amount of people turning up to vote for him. A record so to speak.

Something to think about imho.....

 

[anon45]

But which of his comments was "racist"?? That's the problem, everyone's calling him "racist" yet can't provide where he made a racist statement!

His policies and a strong portion of his voter base are racist. That is not a coincidence.

Secondly, yes there are rapists and criminals who are entering/have entered our country through the Mexican border and have caused a lot of trouble, thus that border should/must be sealed and all illegals deported. So how is that "racist" again?

Because the vast majority are not rapists and criminals, and he paints a mainly hispanic flow as being composed of such. If you don't see how this is racist, I can't help you. His policy of 'building a wall and making Mexico pay for it' is also terrible. Yes I know where he plans to take the money from, it still sounds terrible. It won't get finished, and it won't be very effective, and it will be a continuing maintenance drain. A waste of money which can be easily circumvented without wasting even more money and leading to even more cost.

Finally, can you tell me how exactly Trump is "racist" against Muslims for wanting to implement a temporary ban on Muslim immigration and stop any refugees from coming in?? Anyone opposing this policy is by default, in favor of terrorist infiltrating and harming American citizens.

Me being Muslim in fact gives me more exposure to the mentality of Muslims, whether in America or abroad, and trust me, a good number of them don't like America, they're just leaching off of it for economic reasons, that's it, just as they're doing in Europe, where they knowingly sheltered one of the masterminds of the Paris Attacks for weeks.

Good point, it isn't racism, it's religious discrimination to refuse entry on the basis of religion, regardless of background check.
So basically in the first place his ban is unconstitutional, and your support of it is the support of an unconstitutional act.

Your targeted attack against anyone opposing the policy is meaningless. I am by default for the constitution, and Trump's policy is unconstitutional, against the core ideals of what makes us American. Trump's policies in general strike at the core of what it means to be an American. He advocates closing ourselves, when historically we have been an open nation.

Muslims, or anyone really, immigrating to the US for economic reasons is obviously not new, why do you expect me to be shocked? It is one of the main drivers of immigration in general. I don't care if they are immigrating here because they want money to send back to their family or to have a better quality of life, that is the America, I expect that, and I'd be surprised if anyone, Republicans included, would oppose immigration if they new the immigrants were going to work to better their life.

If you are talking about leeching off our welfare than good luck, it isn't quite as nice as European countries.

I'm sorry to hear you have such bad opinions about your fellow Muslims, but Muslim extremism in the US is not quite the problem they have in Europe. 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants have tended to integrate, they haven't been forced into ghettos.

The US also has dedicated intelligence agencies. They sometimes take it too far, but Mosques know what's up, and for the most part there is heavy pressure to conform and out potential extremists.

I read in recent primaries Trump has been gathering votes from the educated and mid to upper mid class districts, the way it was written it was implying a new achievement.
Additionally, Washington Post reported that he in on his way to getting the most Republican votes in history, ie literally the biggest amount of people turning up to vote for him. A record so to speak.

Something to think about imho.....

I read further into it, basically republican voters of that metric.

Nationally his polling among that segment (not just the republican side) are still bad.

 

[Audio]

link?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/twelve-thirty-seven/2016/04/donald-trump-popular-vote-record-222510

Can't be arsed to go search for WP article just now.

 

[T-72M1]

 

[Desert Fox]

His policies and a strong portion of his voter base are racist. That is not a coincidence.

Which policy is racist? Building a wall to prevent illegals from coming into the country is "racist"? By your definition every country in the world that enforces its borders is "racist", including America's #1 ally Israel..

Because the vast majority are not rapists and criminals,

How do you know when most of these people are undocumented and there is no way of checking their criminal history? That's the security threat: there is no way of knowing who's coming in through that "border" and where they're going.

and he paints a mainly hispanic flow as being composed of such.

Because Hispanics happen to make up the largest chunk of the illegals in this country and Mexico (from where most of them are coming from) happens to be a Hispanic country. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out and in no way is he racist for stating this because 1). its a fact that even Federal Statistics recognize that Mexicans and other central/south American nationalities make up the largest chunk of illegals in America.

If you don't see how this is racist,

Because it isn't racist. You're beginning to sound like those SJW's who yell and scream "Trump's a racist" at the top of their lungs but when asked for proof you have no real, legitimate proof and out of desperation you're trying to portray Federal Government recognized facts as "racist".

. His policy of 'building a wall and making Mexico pay for it' is also terrible. Yes I know where he plans to take the money from, it still sounds terrible. It won't get finished, and it won't be very effective, and it will be a continuing maintenance drain. A waste of money which can be easily circumvented without wasting even more money and leading to even more cost.

So many countries (including America's #1 Ally israel) have built border walls to keep out various threats and its proved to work just fine. Secondly, the Federal government has wasted trillions on various programs and foreign interventions within the past decade alone, a $17 billion dollar wall (it won't be a waste) is peanuts in comparison. If we cut down wasteful spending on other areas then we will have more than enough $$ to build the wall.

Good point, it isn't racism, it's religious discrimination to refuse entry on the basis of religion, regardless of background check.
So basically in the first place his ban is unconstitutional, and your support of it is the support of an unconstitutional act.

Your targeted attack against anyone opposing the policy is meaningless. I am by default for the constitution, and Trump's policy is unconstitutional, against the core ideals of what makes us American. Trump's policies in general strike at the core of what it means to be an American. He advocates closing ourselves, when historically we have been an open nation.

FDR's ban on immigration from Axis countries during WW2 and Abraham Lincolns suspension of Habeas Corpus (among many other unconstitutional things Lincoln did) were unconstitutional, BUT during times of war they were necessary and today these two presidents are considered one of the greatest leaders of this country for taking the necessary measures to preserve America and her peace.

ISIS has declared they will send terrorists infiltrators among refugees and immigrants to attack the West, thus the common sense thing to do would be to temporarily halt Muslim immigration until the threat of ISIS has been significantly reduced. Anyone opposing this sensible move is by default in favor of exposing American citizens to terrorist attacks by ISIS and similar organizations.

Muslims, or anyone really, immigrating to the US for economic reasons is obviously not new, why do you expect me to be shocked? It is one of the main drivers of immigration in general. I don't care if they are immigrating here because they want money to send back to their family or to have a better quality of life, that is the America, I expect that, and I'd be surprised if anyone, Republicans included, would oppose immigration if they new the immigrants were going to work to better their life.

If you are talking about leeching off our welfare than good luck, it isn't quite as nice as European countries.

If someone is coming to my country just to make money and not because he shares my values or my outlook on life or because he wants to integrate into my culture, then that is bound to cause conflicts on so many levels between me and that person and naturally that is an unavoidable outcome. Just look at Europe where there are Muslim majority neighborhoods, they're not following European laws, rather they're following Shariah.

I'm sorry to hear you have such bad opinions about your fellow Muslims, but Muslim extremism in the US is not quite the problem they have in Europe. 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants have tended to integrate, they haven't been forced into ghettos.

The US also has dedicated intelligence agencies. They sometimes take it too far, but Mosques know what's up, and for the most part there is heavy pressure to conform and out potential extremists.

Being a second or third generation "well integrated" Muslim doesn't make one any less prone to extremism:

Radicalised Muslims in UK more likely to be born in Britain, rich and depressed

 

[T-72M1]

Because it isn't racist. You're beginning to sound like those SJW's...

 

[T-72M1]

 

[RabzonKhan]

I understand that the general views are that Trump is a bigot, at least that is what is being claimed the general views are!! The issue here is that he is winning the elections to secure nomination. If the views about Trump being a "bad choice" were that much true he would not have been leading the race to secure party nomination.

With all due respect, you’re comparing apples and oranges, primary elections are different from general elections, so far, Trump has won 38% of Republican primary votes, but he still has not secured the nomination of his party, but if he does somehow secures the nomination, according to many national polls, he would be the most unpopular candidate to represent either party in modern times.

Seven in 10 national adults have an unfavorable view of him, he is unpopular with majority of women, men, young, old, liberals, moderates, conservatives, Blacks and Hispanics.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-unpopularity-stays-sky-high-cruz-hits-high/story?id=38370127
Trump's Unpopularity Stays Sky High

For me, this was the only place where he could have been stopped because if he do wins the nomination, then the chances of his party are already strong in these upcoming elections and we eventually see him in the office.

You say, “the chances of his party are already strong”, may I ask, on what basis, please elaborate?

Personally, i also do not like this guy but the thing is that he is winning the primaries and this was the place with a real chance of stopping him.

I think it’s the other way around, in the general elections, majority of the voters are not angry white middle-age men.

 

[anon45]

Which policy is racist? Building a wall to prevent illegals from coming into the country is "racist"? By your definition every country in the world that enforces its borders is "racist", including America's #1 ally Israel.

The wall is just a terrible idea, but the comments he made in his support of it were racist, thus making one of the motivating factors of his policy racism, on top of already not being worth the cost, the Muslim thing is pure discrimination.

I don't care about Israel's border policy, they have their own reasons, which may or may not be racist, that's none of my concern ultimately. I care about the policies of the elected President of my own country more than I care about the policies of the leader of Israel, China, Pakistan, whatever, and we don't need to take that step back from fear and ignorance, certainly not on this issue.

How do you know when most of these people are undocumented and there is no way of checking their criminal history? That's the security threat: there is no way of knowing who's coming in through that "border" and where they're going.

Are you serious? How do you know most of those people aren't riding unicorns and eating liquid gold? Since when is it my burden to prove the majority of undocumented illegals are
not rapists and druggies? The burden is on YOU (and Trump) to prove it.

If your issue is not in fact whether they are rapists or not but the issue of not knowing period, then the simplest solution is to legalize illegal immigrants so that the illegals have incentive to become known. That comes with pitfalls and complications of its own, but it is the cheaper and simpler solution. As it is the hispanic immigration has not proven itself to be a cultural and national security threat warranting the spending of absurd amounts (given our national budget) of money on building a wall as well as building and maintaining the absolutely huge security force that would be needed to effectively man that wall. Until the illegal immigration has proven itself to be just such a threat, I see no reason to spend the money to build a wall to deal with a security threat that doesn't exist.

Honestly instead of locking potential immigrants out, we should be creating more avenues for legal immigration, a way for existing illegal immigrants to become legal citizens. That would both lessen the illegal immigration flow and do more to sort out those with criminal intentions/ bakcground than any wall could possibly do in today's world.

Because it isn't racist. You're beginning to sound like those SJW's who yell and scream "Trump's a racist" at the top of their lungs but when asked for proof you have no real, legitimate proof and out of desperation you're trying to portray Federal Government recognized facts as "racist".

I can see you are starting to get personal, so before we get into personal name-calling we should just agree to disagree on how racially damaging his policies are.

So many countries (including America's #1 Ally israel) have built border walls to keep out various threats and its proved to work just fine. Secondly, the Federal government has wasted trillions on various programs and foreign interventions within the past decade alone, a $17 billion dollar wall (it won't be a waste) is peanuts in comparison. If we cut down wasteful spending on other areas then we will have more than enough $$ to build the wall.

Its not just the upfront cost, its the ongoing maintenance of this wall, plus the manpower needed to man it and the surveillance needed to make it effective, all 2000 miles of it. Israel's wall is going to be about 1/5 the size when finished, and given their historical tensions with Muslims (especially the Palestinians in the area) the strategic calculus might actually make it a good idea for their armed forces, which don't have to worry about far ranging commitments and global power projection. Not to mention their citizenry generally has military training.

We simply don't have such deep hate or tensions with either Mexico, or Hispanics in general at this time as what exists between the Israeli's and the Palestinians. Just because we have wasted lots of money on other programs doesn't mean I support wasting our money on another, and yes I still view it as a waste for a problem that is not much of a problem aside from the entirely legal aspects of it. It is a problem the same way Marijuana is a problem, and building a 'YUGE' wall is not the way to fix it.

FDR's ban on immigration from Axis countries during WW2 and Abraham Lincolns suspension of Habeas Corpus (among many other unconstitutional things Lincoln did) were unconstitutional, BUT during times of war they were necessary and today these two presidents are considered one of the greatest leaders of this country for taking the necessary measures to preserve America and her peace.

Next time we are at war with all Muslims, your point will be more relevant. Also next time ISIS is actually a state, your point will be more relevant.

ISIS has declared they will send terrorists infiltrators among refugees and immigrants to attack the West, thus the common sense thing to do would be to temporarily halt Muslim immigration until the threat of ISIS has been significantly reduced. Anyone opposing this sensible move is by default in favor of exposing American citizens to terrorist attacks by ISIS and similar organizations.

This is why we have domestic intelligence agencies, to weed out the threats instead of a blanket ban. They've generally done a good job of it.

You calling it sensible does not make it sensible, it is unconstitutional, and would be rightly challenged and struck down in court until we actually formally declare war on all Muslims states, if not all Muslims. Good luck getting that doozie through Congress.

If someone is coming to my country just to make money and not because he shares my values or my outlook on life or because he wants to integrate into my culture, then that is bound to cause conflicts on so many levels between me and that person and naturally that is an unavoidable outcome. Just look at Europe where there are Muslim majority neighborhoods, they're not following European laws, rather they're following Shariah.


Being a second or third generation "well integrated" Muslim doesn't make one any less prone to extremism:

Radicalised Muslims in UK more likely to be born in Britain, rich and depressed

UK != US

Likewise EU != US

Instead of looking at the UK or European countries for how immigration might effect the US, you would be better served to look at Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Like the US, they have a similar immigrant history that is not connected to any single ethnicity that the European countries simply don't.

http://www.ibtimes.com/why-do-american-muslims-fare-better-their-french-counterparts-2189449

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...-better-america-europe-islamic-yet-integrated

 

[RabzonKhan]

It is not about the system brother, i am just asking about the general mentality of public, will people go this far that they may change there party if they do not like the candidate? will you? IF suppose you also didn't liked Trump?

Yes they would, that happens in every election.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04...ublicans-vote-hillary-clinton-trump-wins.html
A new Suffolk University poll has found that 19% of Republicans say they will support Hillary Clinton if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination.

The poll contained some numbers that should terrify Republicans. 40% of Republicans polled said that they would not support the party’s nominee if Donald Trump wins. 25% of the anti-Trump Republican vote would consider voting for a third party candidate. 19% of the never Trump Republicans would vote for Hillary Clinton, and 18% would stay home and not vote at all. By gender, 10% of men, and 9% of Republican women would vote for Clinton over Trump. 18% of very likely Republican general election voters would support Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

I'll take it that you have no proof that Trump is racist, as you claimed he was.

I never take a position that I cannot back, but I don’t think I need to reply at this time, since anon45 is doing a good job.

 

[ultron]

Delegates update.

http://www.cnn.com/election

 

[Desert Fox]

The wall is just a terrible idea, but the comments he made in his support of it were racist, thus making one of the motivating factors of his policy racism, on top of already not being worth the cost, the Muslim thing is pure discrimination.

Again, which "comment" of his was racist? Back your claim. The onus is on YOU to prove he's racist, which you have thus far failed to provide any evidence of.

Are you serious? How do you know most of those people aren't riding unicorns and eating liquid gold?

I don't!

Since when is it my burden to prove the majority of undocumented illegals are rapists and druggies? The burden is on YOU (and Trump) to prove it.

No, the onus is NOT on me (or Trump) to prove anything because those illegals should not be in this country to begin with. By illegally coming into this country is already breaking the law. I don't have to prove zilch.

Secondly, my point still stands: we don't know who these people are, where they're headed, or what their intentions are. They should enter through legal channels.

Until the illegal immigration has proven itself to be just such a threat, I see no reason to spend the money to build a wall to deal with a security threat that doesn't exist.

You're telling me a unsecure border through which anyone can come in is not a security threat?? What a magnificent logic, or lack there of.

Honestly instead of locking potential immigrants out, we should be creating more avenues for legal immigration, a way for existing illegal immigrants to become legal citizens. That would both lessen the illegal immigration flow and do more to sort out those with criminal intentions/ bakcground than any wall could possibly do in today's world.

We already have legal channels for immigration. Sneaking in through the border is not one of them.

I can see you are starting to get personal, so before we get into personal name-calling we should just agree to disagree on how racially damaging his policies are.

I'm not personally attacking you. All you have been doing is accusing Trump of racism but have failed to prove where he said anything racist. The onus is on YOU to prove Trump is racist, PS Hispanic is not a race, neither is a Muslim/Islam.

Its not just the upfront cost, its the ongoing maintenance of this wall, plus the manpower needed to man it and the surveillance needed to make it effective, all 2000 miles of it.

The US spends more money in one year on maintaining a military presence abroad all over the world + the trillions spent on ongoing military interventions. Building + maintaining a border at HOME won't somehow cripple the US economy. The money can be easily made up for through cutting useless spending elsewhere.

We simply don't have such deep hate or tensions with either Mexico, or Hispanics in general at this time as what exists between the Israeli's and the Palestinians. Just because we have wasted lots of money on other programs doesn't mean I support wasting our money on another, and yes I still view it as a waste for a problem that is not much of a problem aside from the entirely legal aspects of it. It is a problem the same way Marijuana is a problem, and building a 'YUGE' wall is not the way to fix it.

It's not about hate, its about common sense.

This is why we have domestic intelligence agencies, to weed out the threats instead of a blanket ban. They've generally done a good job of it.

Apparently not good enough.

You calling it sensible does not make it sensible, it is unconstitutional, and would be rightly challenged and struck down in court until we actually formally declare war on all Muslims states, if not all Muslims. Good luck getting that doozie through Congress.

Whether it goes to congress, or if it ever gets to that, lets wait and see. Only circumstances will decide what's sensible, and as history has proven the constitution is trampled upon in times of necessity.

UK != US

Likewise EU != US

Instead of looking at the UK or European countries for how immigration might effect the US, you would be better served to look at Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Like the US, they have a similar immigrant history that is not connected to any single ethnicity that the European countries simply don't.

http://www.ibtimes.com/why-do-american-muslims-fare-better-their-french-counterparts-2189449

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...-better-america-europe-islamic-yet-integrated

I think you missed my point, not sure if deliberately, or you just don't understand. You made a claim of "well integrated" aren't prone to extremism and i I clearly gave you an example of "well integrated" second to third generation well-to-do Muslims from a Western country who did not live in "ghettos", yet still joined a terrorist organization. It doesn't matter if its Europe, America, or Australia because they are "integrated" and well-to-do yet still an extremist ideology appealed to them, that was my point. I hope you were able to understand it this time.

I don’t think I need to reply at this time

Thanks for proving that Trump is not racist.

 

[ultron]

I voted Trump to kick illegals back where they came from.

THIS IS AMERICA!