Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Donald Trump running for president

Aleksandar37 said:
I'm not in favor of open borders or welfare, including social security. But about your second paragraph... "ONLY to work"? You have religious persecution which is the reason why some of the very first Europeans came here. You have escaping disease. You have escaping hostile governments. You have escaping famine. You have criminals who needed to go somewhere they weren't known. Some people were forced into indentured servitude, so I guess we can count that as work.
Click to expand...
I mean “only to work” as in as opposed to looking for a handout. I admittedly worded it poorly. The reason why they left their home country isn’t the issue so much as what they plan to do when they’re here. If they are willing to work, and be self sufficient, that is what I mean by “only work.” With the opposite/contrast being people coming and thinking they’ll rely heavily on social programs.

Also, side note, we don’t want people coming here escaping the law, at least if it’s for legitimate crimes anyway.

Edit: Social security, that you pay into, isn’t exactly what I meant by welfare/entitlement either. I’m paying into it, and have NO expectation of getting any of it back when I retire if I’m being honest.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
It is largely believed that you can have one or two things. Open borders or significant welfare programs. It isn’t financially sustainable to have very open borders AND a ton of welfare spending. The US used to be very open and had little welfare. Many of these European states that people tout as being “Democratic Socialist” countries have a lot of welfare, but strict immigration; good luck moving there as a citizen without proving you have the skills and talent, and/or money, to be very unlikely to be a drain on the system.
Click to expand...

Here in NYC (I dont live there, but north) they do want both. Our mayor just unveiled a plan to give "free" health care to 600,000 uninsured, 300,000 of them being all illegal undocumented immigrants paid by taxpayers at a cost of 100 million dollars a year. Its crazy, NYC is so expensive, so many seniors are moving out because they cant afford the property tax hike and so many other issues.

If this passed and I was an illegal Id def show up in a hospital in NYC and get free healthcare.
 
ax1 said:
Here in NYC (I dont live there, but north) they do want both. Our mayor just unveiled a plan to give "free" health care to 600,000 uninsured, 300,000 of them being all illegal undocumented immigrants paid by taxpayers at a cost of 100 million dollars a year. Its crazy, NYC is so expensive, so many seniors are moving out because they cant afford the property tax hike and so many other issues.

If this passed and I was an illegal Id def show up in a hospital in NYC and get free healthcare.
Click to expand...
Oh, I know they WANT both, I’m just saying that economically literate people know it’s not sustainable. ;)
 
Like father like son:

Invalid Link Removed
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Of all the examples of walls working in the world, he picked literally the only one that sounds incredibly racist. That’s actually almost impressive in a messed up sort of way.
Click to expand...
Haha id say. It probably wasn't intended that way but it won't bode well for him lol
 
ax1 said:
Here in NYC (I dont live there, but north) they do want both. Our mayor just unveiled a plan to give "free" health care to 600,000 uninsured, 300,000 of them being all illegal undocumented immigrants paid by taxpayers at a cost of 100 million dollars a year. Its crazy, NYC is so expensive, so many seniors are moving out because they cant afford the property tax hike and so many other issues.

If this passed and I was an illegal Id def show up in a hospital in NYC and get free healthcare.
Click to expand...

if NYC passes that it will be very bad for socialist democrats...every sick uninsured person from far and wide is gonna be loadin up the truck and headin to the city...new York is where I want to be, lol....


I am sorry ax1 but I truly hope he gets this passed, but not so sure even new York liberals are that stupid!!!
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I'm open to hearing a solid plan on a wall, but right now it's a vague money pit that changes everyday. If I submit a bid to the government for a job, I need to state exactly what I'm going to do and why with references. So far we've heard a wide spectrum of statement as to what exactly the wall is going to be and how it is going to be funded. Trump's mind is still stuck in a world where everybody told him yes and he said **** like "I'm going to build the best and biggest (insert whatever)" and then just threw money at it.

As for the concept of the wall, I don't think that it will work to protect us from actual threats. It's based on lies and scare tactics of somebody that ignores security experts. Crime is lower along the border compared to the rest of the country. Illegal crossings have been dropping since the 90s. Not a single US terror attack has come from illegally crossing over from Mexico. Those are facts. If somebody is trying to sell me on an idea and keeps shouting or tweeting lies that go against the facts, then I'm not even wasting time on the conversation. That doesn't mean that I don't think there is an issue with illegal border crossings, but the "justification" that I've seen so far has either been completely made up or distorted into demonizing actual asylum seekers who are following the rules.
Click to expand...

didn't ms13 gang members cross the Mexican border...explain to me the difference between ms13 and terrorists?

doesn't the rules require applying for asylum in 1st country, which would be mexico for Salvadorans?
 
justhere4comm said:
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
In all fairness, the claims can be greatly exaggerated and these gang members can still be scum who are dangerous to the area they’re in, even if they’re not actually a threat to the entire country, and we probably want to keep them out. It’s not like our immigration policy is “criminals and gang members OK to enter as long as they don’t pose a threat to national security.”
 
thebigt said:
didn't ms13 gang members cross the Mexican border...explain to me the difference between ms13 and terrorists?

doesn't the rules require applying for asylum in 1st country, which would be mexico for Salvadorans?
Click to expand...

MS13 is a gang that Trump has decided to turn into a boogie man to get votes. I grew up on the south side of Chicago so I have a wee bit experience in this subject. Gangs are not a new thing. There were Italian gangs that people like to look back on history as if they were heroes. There were Irish gangs. There was a gang for every group of people coming here. Terrorists have political or religious aims, so gangs like MS13 don't fall under that definition.

That "rule" requiring asylum seekers to apply in the first country they get to isn't true in the way that most people are stating online and in fact is also not true in how some of the Trump administration have claimed it is. There is a ruling from the EU for asylum seekers that says they have to apply in the first EU country which would be equivalent to states here. If somebody shows up in California, Arizona, etc they have to apply there. They can't say I want to go to Utah to apply. People are also misunderstanding the US Canada Safe Third country agreement (more info here Invalid Link Removed) that says somebody coming through the US has to apply in the US and somebody coming through Canada has to apply in Canada, but it only applies to those two countries.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
MS13 is a gang that Trump has decided to turn into a boogie man to get votes.
Click to expand...

One group supports the idea of pillaging people's hard earn money at gunpoint, and the other group supports the idea of pillaging people's hard earn money at gunpoint. Resist and both sides MS13 and Dump will destroy your life and crush you in one way or another except the later will find away to find and take everything else you have away from you.

Hmmmmm....who's side should I pick?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
MS13 is a gang that Trump has decided to turn into a boogie man to get votes. I grew up on the south side of Chicago so I have a wee bit experience in this subject. Gangs are not a new thing. There were Italian gangs that people like to look back on history as if they were heroes. There were Irish gangs. There was a gang for every group of people coming here. Terrorists have political or religious aims, so gangs like MS13 don't fall under that definition.

That "rule" requiring asylum seekers to apply in the first country they get to isn't true in the way that most people are stating online and in fact is also not true in how some of the Trump administration have claimed it is. There is a ruling from the EU for asylum seekers that says they have to apply in the first EU country which would be equivalent to states here. If somebody shows up in California, Arizona, etc they have to apply there. They can't say I want to go to Utah to apply. People are also misunderstanding the US Canada Safe Third country agreement (more info here Invalid Link Removed) that says somebody coming through the US has to apply in the US and somebody coming through Canada has to apply in Canada, but it only applies to those two countries.
Click to expand...

doesn't it sound like cherry picking if Salvadorans fleeing oppression refuse Mexican offer to stay there and instead continue on to the u.s.?


I mean if given a choice I would rather be here than mexico too, but motives appear a little sketchy!!!
 
Aleksandar37 said:
MS13 is a gang that Trump has decided to turn into a boogie man to get votes. I grew up on the south side of Chicago so I have a wee bit experience in this subject. Gangs are not a new thing. There were Italian gangs that people like to look back on history as if they were heroes. There were Irish gangs. There was a gang for every group of people coming here. Terrorists have political or religious aims, so gangs like MS13 don't fall under that definition.

That "rule" requiring asylum seekers to apply in the first country they get to isn't true in the way that most people are stating online and in fact is also not true in how some of the Trump administration have claimed it is. There is a ruling from the EU for asylum seekers that says they have to apply in the first EU country which would be equivalent to states here. If somebody shows up in California, Arizona, etc they have to apply there. They can't say I want to go to Utah to apply. People are also misunderstanding the US Canada Safe Third country agreement (more info here Invalid Link Removed) that says somebody coming through the US has to apply in the US and somebody coming through Canada has to apply in Canada, but it only applies to those two countries.
Click to expand...

I think terrorists have one thing in common-to terrorize!!! what their motivation for terrorizing probably is of little concern to the person being terrorized.
 
thebigt said:
doesn't it sound like cherry picking if Salvadorans fleeing oppression refuse Mexican offer to stay there and instead continue on to the u.s.?


I mean if given a choice I would rather be here than mexico too, but motives appear a little sketchy!!!
Click to expand...

What motives? Some are staying in Mexico, but Mexico is still far more dangerous than the US so it's settling, not cherry picking.
 
thebigt said:
I think terrorists have one thing in common-to terrorize!!! what their motivation for terrorizing probably is of little concern to the person being terrorized.
Click to expand...


We can argue all day and make up our own individual definitions of what a terrorist is. Yes, in the most simplified form, a terrorist causes terror. I'm telling you how modern governments differentiate the two. If you simplify a definition, it broadens who it applies to as well and that's a slippery slope full of hypocrisy. We have known terrorist groups and hostile countries (some that have attacked us) that we're ignoring and helping so that we can focus on a street gang?! We can and should focus on both, but we're not because distraction is Trump's best and only strategy and it's working.

MS13 isn't even the most organized gang currently operating. They're violent and make for good news articles and tweets, but they're not well funded and don't typically go after people that are not part of other gangs. They also don't represent the caravans and asylum seekers even though you've been told to lump them all together.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
We can argue all day and make up our own individual definitions of what a terrorist is. Yes, in the most simplified form, a terrorist causes terror. I'm telling you how modern governments differentiate the two. If you simplify a definition, it broadens who it applies to as well and that's a slippery slope full of hypocrisy. We have known terrorist groups and hostile countries (some that have attacked us) that we're ignoring and helping so that we can focus on a street gang?! We can and should focus on both, but we're not because distraction is Trump's best and only strategy and it's working.

MS13 isn't even the most organized gang currently operating. They're violent and make for good news articles and tweets, but they're not well funded and don't typically go after people that are not part of other gangs. They also don't represent the caravans and asylum seekers even though you've been told to lump them all together.
Click to expand...

I don't know this for fact, and unless you are there seeing for yourself what is going on I would be hesitant to believe anything anyone says since everyone seems to have an agenda, not just trump. c'mon alek, trump isn't the only one full of shyt.
 
thebigt said:
I don't know this for fact, and unless you are there seeing for yourself what is going on I would be hesitant to believe anything anyone says since everyone seems to have an agenda, not just trump. c'mon alek, trump isn't the only one full of shyt.
Click to expand...

No, he's not.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
No, that's retarded. When did I say that? Anybody can apply for asylum, but they don't. Not everybody wants to come here.
Click to expand...

i'm not up on current statistics but mexico city used to be the most violent city on the planet...if I was just a poor working man in mexico I would want to come here, especially if I had health issues-I would head straight to NYC, lol.
 
thebigt said:
so everyone living in mexico should be eligible for asylum?
Click to expand...

What Dump could do is push to change the Asylum laws and try to even get rid of it. I dont see him trying that, but being this country is 20 trillion dollars plus deficit, thats a far greater national emergency than terrorism. We need to seal the borders down until this country is fixed and only let those who can help us economically in.

I want to register for Asylum but Im already here so I dunno what else I can do to save myself, lol
 
ax1 said:
What Dump could do is push to change the Asylum laws and try to even get rid of it. I dont see him trying that, but being this country is 20 trillion dollars plus deficit, thats a far greater national emergency than terrorism. We need to seal the borders down until this country is fixed and only let those who can help us economically in.

I want to register for Asylum but Im already here so I dunno what else I can do to save myself, lol
Click to expand...

we have an estimated 12 million illegals here already....how many is too many?
 
thebigt said:
we have an estimated 12 million illegals here already....how many is too many?
Click to expand...

Then focus on illegals. Punish anybody caught employing them which includes Trump. Cut off welfare. Stop grouping illegals together with people who are following the rules we set up for them (aka the caravans).
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Then focus on illegals. Punish anybody caught employing them which includes Trump. Cut off welfare. Stop grouping illegals together with people who are following the rules we set up for them (aka the caravans).
Click to expand...

Thats why I mentioned Dump changing the asylum laws...I mean people are only following "legal" protocol, but I havent heard about changing that which is a shock (well not really, lol) that its not bought up. Dump already contributes to mass genocide in the middle east, ending or temporarily freezing asylum shouldnt be a big deal although it will be of course.
 
ax1 said:
Thats why I mentioned Dump changing the asylum laws...I mean people are only following "legal" protocol, but I havent heard about changing that which is a shock (well not really, lol) that its not bought up. Dump already contributes to mass genocide in the middle east, ending or temporarily freezing asylum shouldnt be a big deal although it will be of course.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it's as easy as that. It's based on a UN agreement from right after WWII, back when the US was all "never forget, never again...wait, we only meant the white people."
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I don't believe it's as easy as that. It's based on a UN agreement from right after WWII, back when the US was all "never forget, never again...wait, we only meant the white people."
Click to expand...

I wonder what the break down is on legal immigrants according to race since ww2?



I don't think there is much doubt who owns the illegal record.
 
thebigt said:
define illegal immigrants please.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? I said that the most abundant group of immigrants to America are white Europeans. What the hell does that have to do with illegals?

Edit: the settlers who came to America didn’t break any laws. Yeah, they screwed over the natives BIG TIME, but if they didn’t have any immigration laws, they weren’t illegal immigrants. :)
 
muscleupcrohn said:
What are you talking about? I said that the most abundant group of immigrants to America are white Europeans. What the hell does that have to do with illegals?

Edit: the settlers who came to America didn’t break any laws. Yeah, they screwed over the natives BIG TIME, but if they didn’t have any immigration laws, they weren’t illegal immigrants. :)
Click to expand...

read post 2735...I clearly stated 'I don't think there is much doubt who owns the illegal record'...
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Ok. I assumed when ax said “all time record” he meant simply the most immigrants, not illegal. Unethical maybe, but it wasn’t illegal.
Click to expand...

I did meant "illegal." To me its the same exact concept but the way governance was at that time and place it was just very different, different way of thinking and implementing a system. Should it have been a law that you have to write down a formal law to make it a law? I think if you suggested natives concepts of "written laws" at first they would laugh and just say "we are the law" or something. Just my opinion.

They we have west coast Mexico...I assume they did have written down immigration laws so it was taken by force. You can say more Americans illegally crossed the border into Mexico than the other way around.

Anyways thats how I perceive it, I can understand why you would think differenty....but to be clear Im 100% for and support strict but fair immigration laws here in the USA as things are in the present day. Whats done in the past was done but any conversation about these issues at least needs this curveball thrown in because its fun and the natives and mexicans deserve to have this acknowledged.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Ok. I assumed when ax said “all time record” he meant simply the most immigrants, not illegal. Unethical maybe, but it wasn’t illegal.
Click to expand...

you are aware of the pitfalls of assuming, correct?....:laugh2::newangel:
 
ax1 said:
I did meant "illegal." To me its the same exact concept but the way governance was at that time and place it was just very different, different way of thinking and implementing a system. Should it have been a law that you have to write down a formal law to make it a law? I think if you suggested natives concepts of "written laws" at first they would laugh and just say "we are the law" or something. Just my opinion.

They we have west coast Mexico...I assume they did have written down immigration laws so it was taken by force. You can say more Americans illegally crossed the border into Mexico than the other way around.

Anyways thats how I perceive it, I can understand why you would think differenty....but to be clear Im 100% for and support strict but fair immigration laws here in the USA as things are in the present day. Whats done in the past was done but any conversation about these issues at least needs this curveball thrown in because its fun and the natives and mexicans deserve to have this acknowledged.
Click to expand...

2019=life is but a curveball...it seems everything is open to interpretation...what might be acceptable today may be taboo in the near future and vice versa.....
 
ax1 said:
I did meant "illegal." To me its the same exact concept but the way governance was at that time and place it was just very different, different way of thinking and implementing a system. Should it have been a law that you have to write down a formal law to make it a law? I think if you suggested natives concepts of "written laws" at first they would laugh and just say "we are the law" or something. Just my opinion.

They we have west coast Mexico...I assume they did have written down immigration laws so it was taken by force. You can say more Americans illegally crossed the border into Mexico than the other way around.

Anyways thats how I perceive it, I can understand why you would think differenty....but to be clear Im 100% for and support strict but fair immigration laws here in the USA as things are in the present day. Whats done in the past was done but any conversation about these issues at least needs this curveball thrown in because its fun and the natives and mexicans deserve to have this acknowledged.
Click to expand...
Ok. I think anyone who can show they’re not a criminal and doesn’t have an infectious disease should be able to enter in a reasonable way and timeframe. That said, I also think we should cut off most welfare spending; that way if you come in it’s with the belief and intention to do it on your own, which, admittedly, most immigrants do anyway. :)

Ron Paul inspired idea.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Ok. I think anyone who can show they’re not a criminal and doesn’t have an infectious disease should be able to enter in a reasonable way and timeframe. That said, I also think we should cut off most welfare spending; that way if you come in it’s with the belief and intention to do it on your own, which, admittedly, most immigrants do anyway. :)

Ron Paul inspired idea.
Click to expand...

it is the welfare spending I take issue with...I think I read that 76% [at least] of all illegals are on some form of welfare.

I would have it that if you agree to employ a illegal you accept full responsibility for their support, including healthcare....it is totally unfair for businesses to pay illegals a pittance and then expect the taxpayer to cover that illegals expenses they cannot afford with the small amount they are being paid it's bullshyt!!!
 
thebigt said:
it is the welfare spending I take issue with...I think I read that 76% [at least] of all illegals are on some form of welfare.

I would have it that if you agree to employ a illegal you accept full responsibility for their support, including healthcare....it is totally unfair for businesses to pay illegals a pittance and then expect the taxpayer to cover that illegals expenses they cannot afford with the small amount they are being paid it's bullshyt!!!
Click to expand...

Welfare state is also a product of "illegal immigration" when welfare then becomes generational, so it ends up promoting greater welfare state growth and more government dependency in the long term. Its a big gain for the big government political vote.
 
I got a better idea Dump...while Fleshlight face gets the boot off the plane on her way to Afghanistan, now is the time to order EVERY troop, CIA, general, etc....back home NOW, I mean TODAY. This country is 22 trillion deficit, we cant afford that Fleshlight faced hag to fly and we cant afford another day in Afghanistan. Lets use the money on Americans and American needs by eliminating immoral useless corrupt UN-Constitutional illegal Military Industrial Complex policies that are sinking Americans and the country to the deepest pits of hell.
 
Oh and thats it? I guess all you "50 centers" are off the payroll cant take the time to spread your disinformation here anymore?
 
ax1 said:
Oh and thats it? I guess all you "50 centers" are off the payroll cant take the time to spread your disinformation here anymore?
Click to expand...

Lol, you've been spending too much time in China. What's to say? This is exactly what the people pulling Trump's strings said that they wanted. This shutdown is what they said they would do, except everybody got excited for the tearing down without a plan for building back up.
 
So apparently a bunch of fancy restaurants are offering to give free banquets to the Clemson football team since Trump’s banquet was fast food. So Trump wins again. He got the players multiple free banquets. #4dchess lol.
 
OK good, at least two of you are willing to work for free. Good to know some people would do anything for their cause while maintaining a positive attitude despite being taken off the payroll over a stupid wall argument.
 
ax1 said:
OK good, at least two of you are willing to work for free. Good to know some people would do anything for their cause while maintaining a positive attitude despite being taken off the payroll over a stupid wall argument.
Click to expand...

I wasn't excited about flying with unpaid air traffic controllers looking out for my safety and my clients all have to wait on getting any new drug approvals, but it really hasn't affecting me beyond that. We all just get to watch while Trump and Pelosi play games. In the meantime, Daesh continues killing Americans in Syria even though Trump said they were defeated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top