2016 Presidential Election (General Election)

[fattony]

I don't understand why Democrats have such a hard time differentiating because legal and illegal immigration.

Legal vs illegal immigration is a red herring. There never was a distinction before because "legal" immigration was simple and virtually free. When my families came here legally, they did it exactly the same way so-called illegal immigrants do it today. You can't just make up a bunch of outrageous hurdles and then start casting moral judgments on the people who are willing to jump them to escape war, famine, violence, and economic conditions that make American middle-class concerns over stagnant wages and the cost of healthcare look laughable.

These rants over "illegal" immigration are thinly veiled xenophobia, bordering on outright racism. Calling for English to be the national language is not so thinly veiled...

None of my immigrant relatives spoke English before arriving in the US and few spoke it well before they died. My grandfather spoke a bizarre Czech/Polish/Brooklyn dialog/accent that was completely unintelligible outside of Williamsburg. He was "legal" because he showed up on a boat at Ellis Island and waited in line for an hour holding a piece of paper with the spelling of his name. Believe me, his poor English skills were a much bigger burden on him and his family than the native speakers he struggled to interact with daily.

But you know, he was white and Christian and we hadn't invented the bugaboo of illegal immigration yet, so that was all fine.

 

[DZH22]

Legal vs illegal immigration is a red herring. There never was a distinction before because "legal" immigration was simple and virtually free. When my families came here legally, they did it exactly the same way so-called illegal immigrants do it today. You can't just make up a bunch of outrageous hurdles and then start casting moral judgments on the people who are willing to jump them to escape war, famine, violence, and economic conditions that make American middle-class concerns over stagnant wages and the cost of healthcare look laughable.

These rants over "illegal" immigration are thinly veiled xenophobia, bordering on outright racism. Calling for English to be the national language is not so thinly veiled...

None of my immigrant relatives spoke English before arriving in the US and few spoke it well before they died. My grandfather spoke a bizarre Czech/Polish/Brooklyn dialog/accent that was completely unintelligible outside of Williamsburg. He was "legal" because he showed up on a boat at Ellis Island and waited in line for an hour holding a piece of paper with the spelling of his name. Believe me, his poor English skills were a much bigger burden on him and his family than the native speakers he struggled to interact with daily.

But you know, he was white and Christian and we hadn't invented the bugaboo of illegal immigration yet, so that was all fine.

First off, we already take in a million PER YEAR. Why again do we need more?

Secondly, if you want to compare the world to the American middle class, how many of them are living worse? Out of 7+ billion, that number must be approaching, what, almost 6 billion? Are we going to take them all in out of some sort of misplaced guilt?

Third, I didn't realize all Americans were well enough taken care of that we can turn our attention to those other 6 billion people. Silly me. I must have dementia because I swear I hallucinate a bunch of homeless people every time I walk around Boston. I guess they don't matter, right? What about the struggling veterans? Oh and by the way, I just donated my car to a charity for veterans, so I can use that argument if I want to, and I do want to, because they deserve better.

Fourth, to say that 1 country should have a single unifying language is XENOPHOBIC is ANOTHER GOOD REASON WHY I ABANDONED THE DEMOCRAT PARTY!!! The correct word you were looking for is pragmatic. I guess it doesn't matter to you that Americans be able to communicate with other Americans. As Hillary would say, what difference does it make?

Fifth, it isn't a "red herring" when people are sneaking into the country. Countries need borders the same way that houses need doors. I challenge you to remove the front door of your house, and then put up fliers in all the poorest towns/neighborhoods in the state telling them that your house is wide open, and asking that they please be respectful. Seriously, please do it. See if your little mental utopia matches reality. I look forward to hearing the results on the news.

Is a 20 trillion dollar debt also a red herring? We can't afford to take care of the rest of the world. Both the US and the EU are hanging by a string at this point.

 

[fattony]

There is nothing new about how many people in America don't speak English. There never was a time when everyone spoke perfect English. There is nothing pragmatic about creating new barriers for immigrants just because you personally don't like the language they speak or the culture they come from or the color of their skin.

For Christ's sake, read a history book that wasn't picked by a white supremacist school board for 8th graders.

 

[tysmith95]

Personally I think Spanish is a beautiful language. I don't get the hate. Also Mexicans are Christians, have varied skin tones, and tend to be hard working.

 

[DZH22]

There is nothing pragmatic about creating new barriers for immigrants just because you personally don't like the language they speak or the culture they come from or the color of their skin.

It's funny, when I look back at my posts I don't remember mentioning the other languages immigrants spoke, their culture, or the color of their skin. Actually, it isn't funny at all. It's incredibly sad that this is what the far left has to resort to. I just think the citizens of a country should be able to communicate with one another. It sounds like YOU ARE THE RACIST if you don't think that people from certain cultures/countries are capable of learning English. Give them some credit. That's some nasty stereotyping from you, fattony.

 

[tysmith95]

Conservertive:
WE SHOULDNT LET MEXICANS IN AND WE SHOULD DEPORT ILLEGALS WHO ARE HERE
Liberal:
YOURE RACIST
Conservative:
NO YOURE RACIST. WHOEVER SMELT IT DEALT IT.

 

[DZH22]

Conservertive:
WE SHOULDNT LET MEXICANS IN AND WE SHOULD DEPORT ILLEGALS WHO ARE HERE
Liberal:
YOURE RACIST
Conservative:
NO YOURE RACIST. WHOEVER SMELT IT DEALT IT.

Liberal: LET'S THROW OPEN THE DOORS AND LET EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD COME TO OUR COUNTRY!!! YAYYY!!!!!
Independent: Shouldn't we make sure they have something positive to offer our country before we just let them in here willy nilly? Shouldn't we know who we are letting through the gates?
Liberal: AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH BIGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's another one, literally just happened a couple posts ago.
Independent: Citizens of a common country should be able to communicate with each other.
Liberal: AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH XENOPHOBE!!!!!!!!

 

[bigpicture7]

Let everyone in. It's the immigrants who do the real, honorable work. Those already here for generations become management consultants and high-speed traders.

Some view additional humans as added burden on the system.
I view those already here as the real burden on the system.
Some view additional humans as needy.
I view additional humans as having potential to add value in ways we haven't seen since the last wave of letting everyone in.

Also, the point of my comment that DHZ labeled as "overly snide" (which, sure, it was) was to call attention to the fact that some of these folks are running for their lives from genocide and civil war...they are not just perfectly safe people looking for a better job.

Here's a dose of free market mentality: if the border was open and there were no jobs left, safe (e.g., non-refugee immigrants) would have no reason to come and the population would stabilize. The counter-arguement: it would lower wages by expanding supply...nope, because with all of the outsourcing that goes on now, the undercutting of wages already rampantly happens outside our shores in an ongoing basis...plus minimum wage legislation sets a lower bound.
Do not call refugees opportunists - that is extraordinarily insensitive and insulting.

 

[DZH22]

By the way, I voted for Obama twice, but I hate the way the party has been hijacked by such blind intolerance. I still agree with many Democrat values, but I'm not going to stick my head in the sand like an ostrich, and scream "BIGOT RACIST XENOPHOBE" as a counter to anything I might disagree with.

Here is one unintended consequence of the current set of overly liberal policies in the Western World. Reported by CNN (aka most liberal news I could find)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/22/middleeast/france-israel-jews-immigration/

 

[tysmith95]

This thread is a shit-show. However DHZ you do bring some good arguments. Your arguments are much better than some of the conspiracy theories that other posters (cough cough) have brought to the table. It's a legitimate question with how many immigrants we should let in. Clinton and other democratic politicians don't want open borders, and Trump don't want totally closed borders (just a big beautiful wall with a beautiful door). The actual candidates are less polarized on this issue than it sounds like on this board.

And just saying I don't think CNN is a real liberal news source. While they are more left leaning than they used to be, they still do a good job at bringing both sides to post debate panals. It's news sources like Fox News and MSNBC that fail to look at both sides. And some online news sources like BrietBart are even worse.

 

[TheRifleman]

Frankly, Liz Warren is one to watch on that front. She scares a lot of people on the far right, but she's got the reputation for fighting "Wall Street" and fiery personality (without alienating huge segments of the population) to be a pretty big contender next time around. I think she'd be crushing him this time around simply because she can get under his skin better than Hillary can and she presents to the public better.

.

I couldn't respond to all the other posts. Too much crazy talk now. But this one was a doozy. Elizabeth Warren is the one to watch. Warren is the biggest hypocrite in the room.

Warren is nothing more than a politican. She claims its a rigged game and Wall Street executives need to go to jail. Really---Warren not only supports Wall Street ----Warren supports Clinton who is a paid in full by Wall Street.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/
But Warren stands up for the small people. SURE---She was playing politics before choosing Sanders or Clinton. SHE IS JOKE. I wouldn't even see these people speak.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-15/elizabeth-warren
"Warren: Next Administration Should Probe, Maybe Jail Wall Street Bankers "
Really why not the Obama Adminstration along with Hilary being secretary of state. These are your Democrats that are currently in the presidential administration.

These people are Hypocrites they are liars. Warren would take the bankers side to remain elected. They don't stand by any real moral values. They will say anything to remain important and stay elected.

 

[tysmith95]

I couldn't respond to all the other posts. Too much crazy talk now. But this one was a doozy. Elizabeth Warren is the one to watch. Warren is the biggest hypocrite in the room.

Crazy talk? I think you need to look in the mirror.

 

[Jouhou]

Whoa whoa, I won't stick my neck out for clinton but don't talk about my home girl Elizabeth Warren like that. Before this cycle started I was one of the people who petitioned her to run for president and she refused despite the overwhelming support for her to run.

That's a REAL grassroots movement. 365,000 people petitioned her to run in 2015 and she politely declined.

 

[kmp1284]

I couldn't respond to all the other posts. Too much crazy talk now ...

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the Moody's Analytics assessments.

 

[TheRifleman]

Whoa whoa, I won't stick my neck out for clinton but don't talk about my home girl Elizabeth Warren like that. Before this cycle started I was one of the people who petitioned her to run for president and she refused despite the overwhelming support for her to run.

That's a REAL grassroots movement. 365,000 people petitioned her to run in 2015 and she politely declined.

You're delusional: if warren really believed what she says about the bankers- warren would have supported Bernie sanders but instead played politics to the clintons who is supported by wall st.

Either your very stupid and have bad judgement in people or you are supporting a complete fraud.

Warren contradicts herself-- she is a complete fraud. Why didn't she support Bernie as she claims the bankers have rigged the system?

 

[DZH22]

your very stupid

It doesn't matter whether or not I agree with the rest of what you are saying. I will never spare anybody when I see this. Be more careful next time.

 

[Lrfox]

I couldn't respond to all the other posts. Too much crazy talk now. But this one was a doozy. Elizabeth Warren is the one to watch. Warren is the biggest hypocrite in the room.

Warren is nothing more than a politican. She claims its a rigged game and Wall Street executives need to go to jail. Really---Warren not only supports Wall Street ----Warren supports Clinton who is a paid in full by Wall Street.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/
But Warren stands up for the small people. SURE---She was playing politics before choosing Sanders or Clinton. SHE IS JOKE. I wouldn't even see these people speak.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-15/elizabeth-warren
"Warren: Next Administration Should Probe, Maybe Jail Wall Street Bankers "
Really why not the Obama Adminstration along with Hilary being secretary of state. These are your Democrats that are currently in the presidential administration.

These people are Hypocrites they are liars. Warren would take the bankers side to remain elected. They don't stand by any real moral values. They will say anything to remain important and stay elected.

You don't like Elizabeth Warren? Color me shocked.

Regardless of what you think of her, she IS one to watch on the left. That's not an endorsement of her (though I do like her); but rather an observation the changing political environment and the niche she's carved out for herself. I think Trump is literally the worst major party nominee in my lifetime and possibly ever. However, I see why he appeals to his supporters. Even if your elephant blinders are on incredibly tight, you've got to be able to see why she appeals to a lot of people.

You can call her a hypocrite (though of course, you provide no evidence), you don't have to like her (I really appreciate the effort it must have taken for you to avoid a Pocahontas jab); however you have to admit she is the type of progressive that Democrats will rally behind as her message resonates. She'd have broader support than either Hillary or Bernie, and her "stick it to Wall St." message would resonate with a lot of the people who are backing Trump now.

 

[bigpicture7]

Lrfox, very well said. Spot on.

 

[Justin7]

DZH22 is making valid arguments that I think are worth discussing. I don't agree with much of what he writes, but let's not group him in with crazy far right fridge posters in this thread.

There is nothing wrong with debating how open our borders should be, as long as we're respectful of those on both sides.

 

[Lrfox]

You're delusional: if warren really believed what she says about the bankers- warren would have supported Bernie sanders but instead played politics to the clintons who is supported by wall st.

Warren isn't stupid. There is absolutely a system in place and she had to make a decision about whether or not to run against Hillary who has massive support and backing, is 70 years old, and will almost certainly be done with running for office after this election regardless of the outcome (I don't see her running for a 2nd term and wrapping up at nearly 80). There were a lot of meetings behind closed doors between the two and without a doubt the discussion hit on Warren's popularity and a potential run as well as Hillary's goals beyond November. Without a doubt they agreed that it's in everyone's best interests for them to work together instead of competing. That's not "being in the tank" for Clinton, nor is it hypocritical. Even Bernie has endorsed and supports Clinton. They're uniting against a common foe who really would be worse from an economic standpoint than any of them. Warren will run in 2020. She'll be very popular when she does. You don't have to like her to acknowledge that.

Either your very stupid and have bad judgement in people or you are supporting a complete fraud.

The irony of using the wrong "your" when calling someone "stupid" never gets old. You realize how you come across, right?

Warren contradicts herself-- she is a complete fraud. Why didn't she support Bernie as she claims the bankers have rigged the system?

She didn't not support Bernie. She didn't see him as having potential to win and she was right. She only endorsed Clinton after it was perfectly clear he wouldn't win. Her backing wouldn't have put him over the top either. Bernie was never going to win the primary. The colluding within the party and the stupid things Clinton said about Sanders supporters didn't make the difference. Bernie's problem was always that he simply was unable to reach beyond his token demographic. The race wasn't really close. They might have the same views on fighting the "big banks," but how does her backing a loser help anyone? She continues to fight the banks (as evidence in the link you posted), but she also has to pick her battles. Endorsing/backing Sanders for president wasn't the right battle. It also doesn't mean she didn't support him. She did and still does.