Who do you support? (general election edtion)

[lyhom]

so there's technically already a thread for this, however things have changed a bit since that poll was created and now with both the republican and democratic national conventions coming up we basically know who the nominees for the parties are by now.

anyways go ahead and vote

[Flapjack]

Hilary Clinton. A vote for anyone aside from her and Trump is a waste. I cannot stand Clinton but at least she's not Trump.

[Vlerchan]

Hilary Clinton. A waste for anyone aside from her and Trump is a waste. I cannot stand Clinton but at least she's not Trump.
Welcome to the right side of history.

---

Clinton, of course.

[PlasmaHam]

I would honestly prefer a Libertarian candidate, but the likelihood of that happening is slim to none. I'm going with Trump. He's no where near the ideal, but party relations and his stance on things like immigration and terrorism put him over Hillary.

[Bull]

I am a registered republican, however, there is no way I will vote for an arrogant, bully, prig who thinks wages are too high, loves the uneducated so he can con them into spending money for a fraudulent "university" in order to line his personal pockets, who loves bankruptcy because he gets to legally stiff those to whom he owes money while again lining his personal pockets, who wants to give huge tax breaks to his fellow billionaires with a resulting huge increase in the federal deficient. He is a total nut case. I don't love Clinton, but she is the better choice to lead our nation. IMO

[Melodic]

Hilary Clinton.

I was a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders. However, he dropped out and I absolutely hate Trump. With all of the recent hate violence and terrorism, Trump is the LAST person we need running this country. I don't care much for Hilary either but I share similar political beliefs with her.

[mattsmith48]

Just want to point out that the US could make history by electing Hilary Clinton and for the 1st time in history the US would do something right before Canada did weve never had an elected woman lead the country

[dxcxdzv]

Just want to point out that the US could make history by electing Hilary Clinton and for the 1st time in history the US would do something right before Canada did weve never had an elected woman lead the country
I don't see why electing a woman should be seen as a "right" thing in itself.

[mattsmith48]

I don't see why electing a woman should be seen as a "right" thing in itself.

It shows to the rest of the world that women in your country as equal opportunities as men espacially in the US where from the outside it seem a very white christian country electing a woman would help their image, and not letting Hitler 2.0 get nukes is a huge plus.

[dxcxdzv]

It shows to the rest of the world that women in your country as equal opportunities as men espacially in the US where from the outside it seem a very white christian country electing a woman would help their image, and not letting Hitler 2.0 get nukes is a huge plus.
Once again, I don't see why the gender of the candidate should be taken into account during an election.

It is not because you're a woman that you're more legitimate for a position than a man.
Same applies for skin colour (Hello Obama).

[mattsmith48]

Once again, I don't see why the gender of the candidate should be taken into account during an election.

It is not because you're a woman that you're more legitimate for a position than a man.
Same applies for skin colour (Hello Obama).

I dont say elect her just because shes a woman, I say elect her because she wont start WWIII. With Obama people didnt vote for him because hes black people voted for him because they thought he was the best candidate but the fact you guys elected a black guy is a good thing it shows everyone can do it in this country.

[dxcxdzv]

I dont say elect her just because shes a woman, I say elect her because she wont start WWIII.
May I analyze your first post?

Just want to point out that the US could make history(1) by electing Hilary Clinton and for the 1st time in history the US would do something right(2) before Canada did weve never had an elected woman lead the country(1)(2)
(1) You're suggesting that electing a woman (Hilary Clinton, here) would be an historical move in the US democracy's history. Which seems a valid point. I will admit this affirmation is objective enough.
(2) You are linking the idea that doing something right in this election would be to elect a woman as leader. To be clear you suggest that electing a woman would be a right thing (as you didn't say anything that could suggest that the commutativity of those two ideas would be invalid in your reasoning, I take the liberty to assume that you say ["Electing a woman" -> "Right thing"] is equivalent to ["Right thing" -> "Electing a woman"]).
This is a problem, because there is no reason to consider electing a particular gender is a good thing, or at least compared to another gender.

I must also point out that in this post (the one that I am discussing about since the beginning) you're absolutely not referring to Donald Trump.

With Obama people didnt vote for him because hes black people voted for him because they thought he was the best candidate
I can imagine that not everyone voted Obama just to have a black guy as president, of course.
But some people did. And Obama made what he could so a maximum of persons could think the same.
Yes we can, what wonderful words in the mouth of a black candidate in a country so much marked by racism.

but the fact you guys elected a black guy is a good thing it shows everyone can do it in this country.
I'm not American. And to avoid any confusion, despite what my location may suggest, I am not British either.

[mattsmith48]

May I analyze your first post?

Just want to point out that the US could make history(1) by electing Hilary Clinton and for the 1st time in history the US would do something right(2) before Canada did weve never had an elected woman lead the country(1)(2)
(1) You're suggesting that electing a woman (Hilary Clinton, here) would be an historical move in the US democracy's history. Which seems a valid point. I will admit this affirmation is objective enough.
(2) You are linking the idea that doing something right in this election would be to elect a woman as leader. To be clear you suggest that electing a woman would be a right thing (as you didn't say anything that could suggest that the commutativity of those two ideas would be invalid in your reasoning, I take the liberty to assume that you say ["Electing a woman" -> "Right thing"] is equivalent to ["Right thing" -> "Electing a woman"]).
This is a problem, because there is no reason to consider electing a particular gender is a good thing, or at least compared to another gender.

I must also point out that in this post (the one that I am discussing about since the beginning) you're absolutely not referring to Donald Trump.


I can imagine that not everyone voted Obama just to have a black guy as president, of course.
But some people did. And Obama made what he could so a maximum of persons could think the same.
Yes we can, what wonderful words in the mouth of a black candidate in a country so much marked by racism.


I'm not American. And to avoid any confusion, despite what my location may suggest, I am not British either.

Electing the woman in this context is clearly the right thing to do, can we all agree with that? Now about only the electing a woman part, right thing wasnt probably the best choice of word its more of a good thing. I was just pointing out that fact, I wasnt trying to start a debate.

For Obama some people yes probably voted for him just because he was black, but im pretty sure theres more people that didnt vote for him because he was black than theres people who voted for him because hes black

[Fleek]

Third party canidates allow an easier win for another. Since the Third party may not win.

[dxcxdzv]

Electing the woman in this context is clearly the right thing to do, can we all agree with that?
No we can't.
Electing Clinton, yes, perhaps.
Electing a woman, no.

Now about only the electing a woman part, right thing wasnt probably the best choice of word its more of a good thing. I was just pointing out that fact, I wasnt trying to start a debate.
Considering a certain equality of gender in the presidency looks as a good thing at first sight, but advancing the fact that a candidate is of a certain gender to support him/her is not a good thing.
This is actually a debate section btw.

For Obama some people yes probably voted for him just because he was black, but im pretty sure theres more people that didnt vote for him because he was black than theres people who voted for him because hes black
Minority doesn't mean insignificant.
According to Edison Media Research/Mitofsky International (http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2008/) it looks like an astounding proportion of 95% of the African-American population voted for Obama in 2008.
You could say that this may be because of general income level of African-American that tends to favour Democrats but this proportion is not as big even for the lowest income level presented in this poll (<$15,000).
That would be very surprising that the skin colour of Obama didn't influence 95% of 12.6% of the US population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans) and 12.1% of US voters (https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p20-577.pdf#page=6) (able to, at least).
I say "would be" because I have no means (rather no will) to affirm it absolutely.

Disclaimer: Presented percentages on the proportion of African-Americans are ulterior to the 2008 elections.

[mattsmith48]

No we can't.
Electing Clinton, yes, perhaps.
Electing a woman, no.

I said ''Electing the woman in this context is clearly the right thing to do'' by ''the woman'' I meet Hillary Clinton, were saying the same.


Considering a certain equality of gender in the presidency looks as a good thing at first sight, but advancing the fact that a candidate is of a certain gender to support him/her is not a good thing.
This is actually a debate section btw.[/QUOTE]

I meet its a good thing to finally have one not that her being woman is the only reason you should vote for her

[Bull]

An interesting exchange between VT members in Canada and the UK. The UK and Canada have Queen Elizabeth, and UK has its second female PM. The US has done well with its first president of color and will do well with its first female president. The GOP candidate wants to keep women in their place, rails against an American born judge because his parents were born in Mexico, is married to an immigrant but wants to prohibit certain humans the opportunity to come to this GREAT country, who through legal but immoral means has cheated companies and individuals out of money rightfully owed to them (bankruptcy should not result in windfall profits to the filer) who is a bully, is arrogant, who seems to think that the presidency will carry with it the same dictatorial privilege he has as owner/CEO of his business enterprise. So the bottom line is HILLARY CLINTON DESERVES TO BE OUR FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT, NOT BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN, BUT BECAUSE SHE IS FAR MORE QUALIFIED TO LEAD! IMO

Full disclosure: I am a white male, evangelical Christian, registered republican who will NOT be voting for the GOP nominee for president.

[PlasmaHam]

I have no idea why people depend on race or gender for their election decision. I see absolutely no advantage of having a female president over a male president. Unfortunately, many do. Why don't we talk about agendas and politics instead of the contents of their pants?
mattsmith48 Would you mind explaining why a female president is more "right" than electing a male? Your first post was clearly not referring to just Hillary Clinton but to a woman president in general. If our definition of "right" now refers to giving an unfair advantage to women and minorities, that is just wrong and naive.

[mattsmith48]

I have no idea why people depend on race or gender for their election decision. I see absolutely no advantage of having a female president over a male president. Unfortunately, many do. Why don't we talk about agendas and politics instead of the contents of their pants?
mattsmith48 Would you mind explaining why a female president is more "right" than electing a male? Your first post was clearly not referring to just Hillary Clinton but to a woman president in general. If our definition of "right" now refers to giving an unfair advantage to women and minorities, that is just wrong and naive.

You want to talk about the policies find one party wants to deport 11 millions people, and give a test to another 3 millions, build a giant wall, ban 1/3 of the worlds population from entering the US, criminalize porn and abortion, ban gay mariage and start a war on the environment. The other party want to decriminalize weed, raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour, and have some action against climate change.

[PlasmaHam]

You want to talk about the policies find one party wants to deport 11 millions people, and give a test to another 3 millions, build a giant wall, ban 1/3 of the worlds population from entering the US, criminalize porn and abortion, ban gay mariage and start a war on the environment. The other party want to decriminalize weed, raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour, and have some action against climate change.


I am definitely voting for the first one then. Thank you for reminding me which side has some common sense. (No sarcasm)

You failed to answer my question in regards to your post that clearly stated that having woman president was right, in no context.

[Vlerchan]

Thank you for reminding me which side has some common sense.
I tend to have no issue with governments enforcing the laws on the books.

But given the significant economic costs this would pose - on the level of some regional economies in particular - whether it's advisable to do so is questionable for sure.

---

I have also spent the last 6 months here reuqetsing we discus policies.

... decriminalize weed ...
You don't prioritise this at the level of federal politics though - right?

... raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour ...
Thank God that Clinton seems to be dropping this.

[mattsmith48]

I am definitely voting for the first one then. Thank you for reminding me which side has some common sense. (No sarcasm)

I tend to have no issue with governments enforcing the laws on the books.

But given the significant economic costs this would pose - on the level of some regional economies in particular - whether it's advisable to do so is questionable for sure.
I have also spent the last 6 months here reuqetsing we discus policies.

Just want to point out that this: You want to talk about the policies find one party wants to deport 11 millions people, and give a test to another 3 millions, build a giant wall, ban 1/3 of the worlds population from entering the US, criminalize porn and abortion, ban gay mariage and start a war on the environment. would cost more than free college, $15 an hour, free health care and free college.



You don't prioritise this at the level of federal politics though - right?

Well since its the federal goverment who made it illegal in the 1st place its their job to fix their mistake.

[PlasmaHam]

I tend to have no issue with governments enforcing the laws on the books.

But given the significant economic costs this would pose - on the level of some regional economies in particular - whether it's advisable to do so is questionable for sure.



I agree with you in regards to how these big government plans would actually work economically. I would favor a Libertarian candidate except for the third-party issue. Trump's grand plans are one of my cons of his campaign, but at least there is a slimmer of sense behind them. People do need to realize that there is no way Congress is going to let Trump do these grand plans.

I have also spent the last 6 months here reuqetsing we discus policies.

I totally believe you here. Everyone seems too busy talking about Trump's hair or Clinton's woman-ish that they ignore what is important.

[PlasmaHam]

Just want to point out that this: [I] [B]You want to talk about the policies find one party wants to deport 11 millions people, and give a test to another 3 millions.


People who are here illegally. You can't just commit a crime and expect not to get punished.
build a giant wall, ban 1/3 of the worlds population from entering the US

I don't know how well his wall plan is going to go, but something does need to be done about immigration. As for his Muslim ban, he is actually planning to get rid of that, but he still plans to block immigration from Muslim countries, which makes complete sense.

, criminalize porn and abortion, ban gay mariage and start a war on the environment.

Abortion is a crime against humanity anyway you put it, abortion should be banned. Trump is actually very accepting of gays and the environment is in better shape than you might think.

would cost more than free college, $15 an hour, free health care and free college.


Nothing is free in life, free college and health care will not work in America. I've written a whole report on the subject, I should know.

Higher minimum wage is just asking for workers to be replaced by automation as well as making unemployment worse.

[mattsmith48]

People who are here illegally. You can't just commit a crime and expect not to get punished.

The only crime those people commit is wanting to clean people's houses and pools for cheap and a wall wouldnt stop people from entering the US because of something call a plane.


I don't know how well his wall plan is going to go, but something does need to be done about immigration. As for his Muslim ban, he is actually planning to get rid of that, but he still plans to block immigration from Muslim countries, which makes complete sense.


completly makes sense to ban one 3rd of the world population because a couple are using that religion to commit terrorism.

Abortion is a crime against humanity anyway you put it, abortion should be banned. Gay marriage is a perversion of the human mind, and the environment is in better shape than you might think.


Abortion is not a crime and its not the goverment's job to tell a woman whats right for her. Gay marrige is just about gay people asking to have the same rights than straight people and is in no way a perversion. All live on this planet is in great danger and we need immediate action on this.

Nothing is free in life, free college and health care will not work in America. I've written a whole report on the subject, I should know.

Why wouldnt it work in the US when it works everywhere else?

Higher minimum wage is just asking for workers to be replaced by automation as well as making unemployment worse.

Again why would raising the minimum wage make things worst in US, when every other country with higher minumum wage made thing better?

[Vlerchan]

Well since its the federal goverment who made it illegal in the 1st place its their job to fix their mistake.
Please note the use of the term 'prioritise' in the post you responded to.

I agree with you in regards to how these big government plans would actually work economically.
I'm not just referring to the large government projects being inefficient but rather that removing several million members of the labour force, several million more consumers, will prompt both a sudden reduction in aggregate demand, and have a deleterious supply-side effect.

I'm open to amnesty. If conservatives insist, I also wouldn't mind having illegal immigrants serve a term in the armed-forces reserves. Then, once you have legally integrated the current stock, crack down hard on illegal hiring.

People do need to realize that there is no way Congress is going to let Trump do these grand plans.
I have argued on this forum that the likelihood is that Congress isn't going to let Trump actually be Trump. The sheer lack of them that have turned up to the convention, the fact the leaders like Ryan haven't been able to say one positive thing about him, even when presiding over his coronation, is telling.

Everyone seems too busy talking about Trump's hair or Clinton's woman-ish that they ignore what is important.
Not to mention the distinct lack of interest in policy issues of the actual candidates.

[...] but he still plans to block immigration from Muslim countries, which makes complete sense.
When defeating Jihadism, is dependent on co-operating with these Muslim states and Muslim communities otherwise, I'm sceptical slating them all as potential terrorists is the boon Trump's supporters seem believe it is.

Calling all whites racists, and all men potential rapists, didn't help anti-racists or feminists either.

I've written a whole report on the subject, I should know.
In your report, how did you account for administrative costs accounting for 25% of all healthcare costs in the United States, significantly higher than countries with public healthcare - or market-orientated national insurance. Or address the market failures that plague markets for healthcare, such as information asymmetries (leading to issues of adverse selection, moral hazard, supply-induced demand, etc.), and duplication of resources, amongst others.

The only crime those people commit is wanting to clean people's houses and pools for cheap and a wall wouldnt stop people from entering the US because of something call a plane.
Do you believe there should be restrictions on immigration at all?

Why wouldnt it work in the US when it works everywhere else?
The problem is, a lot of the expensive stuff we do is the legacy of decisions that were made decades ago: Decisions about how many hospitals to build, how much equipment to buy, how to train our doctors and pay our health-care workers. We cannot snap our fingers and transform all that physical plant and human capital into the Dutch health-care system. If you try, the workers who are going to lose jobs or see their pay cut will form a powerful political coalition to fight you -- and the history of such fights suggests that they will win.

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-12/the-public-option-it-s-baaaaaaaack

That's with regards to healthcare. Free healthcare is preferable, no doubt, but not achievable at any sort of pace.

Free college on the other hand, results in an over-supply of people for college degrees, which distorts signalling and prompts a decrease in net welfare. The only people it actually benefits are the typically middle-class kids at the margin.

Again why would raising the minimum wage make things worst in US, when every other country with higher minumum wage made thing better?
Please provide verifiable evidence supporting this claim. Thank you.

[mattsmith48]

Please note the use of the term 'prioritise' in the post you responded to.

Rightnow the US puts millions of people in jail for a long time for small drug crimes, like smoking or selling weed. If you legalise marijuana millions of people who get out of jail and start working, help the economy and pay taxes. Plus it free places in jail for people who commit real crimes like rape, fraud and murder. So yes its a priority not as important as climate change, gun control, or health care but its still a priority.

Do you believe there should be restrictions on immigration at all?

Some restriction yes. You dont want serial killers or rapist freely going from country to country. But if the person just want to have a better live let him in, if you really think your country is the best in the world (like most americans think), you should let as many people enjoy and live in your great country.

Also people like Trump who thinks illegal immigrants steal jobs from americans shouldnt punish those people but the ones who hire them.

The problem is, a lot of the expensive stuff we do is the legacy of decisions that were made decades ago: Decisions about how many hospitals to build, how much equipment to buy, how to train our doctors and pay our health-care workers. We cannot snap our fingers and transform all that physical plant and human capital into the Dutch health-care system. If you try, the workers who are going to lose jobs or see their pay cut will form a powerful political coalition to fight you -- and the history of such fights suggests that they will win.

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-12/the-public-option-it-s-baaaaaaaack[/indent]

That's with regards to healthcare. Free healthcare is preferable, no doubt, but not achievable at any sort of pace.

If you have free health care as a right, I dont see why the equipment, the formation of doctors and nurses or the hospital it self or the way its run is an issue the only thing that change is your not the one who pays.

Free college on the other hand, results in an over-supply of people for college degrees, which distorts signalling and prompts a decrease in net welfare. The only people it actually benefits are the typically middle-class kids at the margin.

Unemployed college or university graduate is already a problem everywhere whether or not college is free because every university as a limit on how many students they are capable to educate in each programs, number that is independent to who pays them. The good thing about free college is, like you said it gives equal oppotunities to everyone, and if you dont have a job in what you studied after you graduate you dont have to worry about having to pay back your loan and if you figure out after a year or two in college its not really what you want to do having free college gives you the chance to change program without worring about cost.

In Denmark, they dont have a minimum wage but they have strong unions so someone who works in a fast food makes $20 an hour, when they start, so because they make a living wage, they dont have to worry about not being able to eat or pay the bills, its alot less stress and they are happier.

[Vlerchan]

So yes its a priority not as important as climate change, gun control, or health care but its still a priority.
It is, I would say, no reason to elect a candidate at a federal level, especially when one considers that it is on issues of domestic policy that presidents tend to be weakest.

But if the person just want to have a better live let him in, if you really think your country is the best in the world (like most americans think), you should let as many people enjoy and live in your great country.
Even if there entrance occurs at the detriment of the native population, where higher levels of immigration is associated with lower social capital and greater levels of civic disengagement. Forgetting to account for the fact that most people are xenophobic, is the reason that the Right are making the come back the Right are making.

Also people like Trump who thinks illegal immigrants steal jobs from americans shouldnt punish those people but the ones who hire them.
Immigrants don't actually steal jobs anyways.

If you have free health care as a right, I dont see why the equipment, the formation of doctors and nurses or the hospital it self or the way its run is an issue the only thing that change is your not the one who pays.
Because when you're entire business formation is directed towards providing for a certain market set-up, the business formation needs to undergo a significant reorientation to cater for significant developments in that market set-up. The healthcare in the United States, and in Europe, aren't interchangeable in terms of what's offered.

For example, I know someone that moved from a British public hospital to a British private hospital. She did so because there's a much bigger investment made there in terms of aftercare and helping people take control of their lives after their illness, as compared to public hospitals, where the focus is on discharging patients as fast as possible.

Unemployed college or university graduate is already a problem everywhere whether or not college is free because every university as a limit on how many students they are capable to educate in each programs, number that is independent to who pays them.
Universities are bounded in the short-run, where land and capital are fixed. In the long-run, universities can expand and adapt to the oversupply. Nonetheless, the point I am making is that free fees distort decision making surrounding human capital investment. Where the aim of colleges is signalling, this undermines their role and otherwise creates difficulties for the actual graduates, both the ones that should be there, and the ones that shouldn't be.

The good thing about free college is, like you said it gives equal oppotunities to everyone[.]
Except it doesn't, because college attendance is broadly dependent on your performance in primary and secondary level education, which is broadly contingent on social background. For that reason, as I said, free fees only benefits those typically middle-class people at the margins. It doesn't create equal opportunities for everyone - if you were interested in that, you would be arguing (like me) that we should be diverting funding from free fees schemes to earlier interventions in education (in particular, interventions at pre-school level), and attempting to level the playing field where it actually matters.

[...] and if you dont have a job in what you studied after you graduate you dont have to worry about having to pay back your loan [...]
I support a system where what you pay back is dependent on income.

It also doesn't seem fair to me that you can place the burden on working people, many of which would not have had the opportunity to go to college, when the virtue of having attended college, is income-raising, regardless. Encouraging people to spend four years of their lives in courses, being examines on skills of no social use, is also a massively wasteful use of government funds, which could certainly be invested better (such as ensuring poor children have the resources to succeed at all in school).

It also knocks on the most damning issue of oversupply.

[...] and if you figure out after a year or two in college its not really what you want to do having free college gives you the chance to change program without worring about cost.
The education in the US, where people don't specialise in their first few years, and get a taster of the entire offerings of the university, seems a much better innovation than allowing people to waste public funds not researching their course-matter before hand.

Like where I go to college, where attendance for economics is about ~20% and in accordance with the class not having a clue what is going on, testing is simplified and college stops being a signal of how good people actually are at a subject.

In Denmark, they dont have a minimum wage but they have strong unions so someone who works in a fast food makes $20 an hour, when they start, so because they make a living wage, they dont have to worry about not being able to eat or pay the bills, its alot less stress and they are happier.
When you take into account the living costs in Denmark, the minimum wage as decided on through collective bargaining is closer to 12 dollars an hour, and that's before you account for their much higher average taxation rate (in contrast, those that work for the minimum wage in the U.S. have an effective taxation rate of ~0%).

In return for employers, Denmark also has incredibly liberal hiring-and-firing laws, and low social insurances taxation on the employer-side.

[Leprous]

It shows to the rest of the world that women in your country as equal opportunities as men espacially in the US where from the outside it seem a very white christian country electing a woman would help their image, and not letting Hitler 2.0 get nukes is a huge plus.

The problem here is, would you vote for Clinton because she would be the first female president or because she has good ideas?

Voting because of the first reason isn't really a great idea either. However in this case it's her or Trump and yeah...you know....Trump...

[mattsmith48]

The problem here is, would you vote for Clinton because she would be the first female president or because she has good ideas?

Voting because of the first reason isn't really a great idea either. However in this case it's her or Trump and yeah...you know....Trump...

I disagree with most of her policies but if I was american I would vote for Hillary Clinton because shes not acting like Hitler like the orange guy in the other party, and she wont start WWIII.

[Leprous]

I disagree with most of her policies but if I was american I would vote for Hillary Clinton because shes not acting like Hitler like the orange guy in the other party, and she wont start WWIII.

Exactly what I said. In this case there's not much of a choice but in a different scenario where it wasn't Hitler you could vote for it wouldn't make sense to vote for someone just because of their gender.

[mattsmith48]

It is, I would say, no reason to elect a candidate at a federal level, especially when one considers that it is on issues of domestic policy that presidents tend to be weakest.

We did it here in Canada rightnow its working pretty well.

Even if there entrance occurs at the detriment of the native population, where higher levels of immigration is associated with lower social capital and greater levels of civic disengagement.

What do you mean by this?

Forgetting to account for the fact that most people are xenophobic, is the reason that the Right are making the come back the Right are making.

We dont have much xenophobia where i come from being a very welcoming country, I think most of the xenophobic people are just miseducated or misinformed. You have to explain to them no mexicans arent rapist and arent stealling jobs they just want a better live, and most muslims arent terrorist the ones that are comming just want to escape from sharia law, dictators and ISIS

Immigrants don't actually steal jobs anyways.

Good we agree on that.

Because when you're entire business formation is directed towards providing for a certain market set-up, the business formation needs to undergo a significant reorientation to cater for significant developments in that market set-up. The healthcare in the United States, and in Europe, aren't interchangeable in terms of what's offered.

For example, I know someone that moved from a British public hospital to a British private hospital. She did so because there's a much bigger investment made there in terms of aftercare and helping people take control of their lives after their illness, as compared to public hospitals, where the focus is on discharging patients as fast as possible.

They will not focus on discharging patients as fast as possible, its just not their job to after you get better

Universities are bounded in the short-run, where land and capital are fixed. In the long-run, universities can expand and adapt to the oversupply. Nonetheless, the point I am making is that free fees distort decision making surrounding human capital investment. Where the aim of colleges is signalling, this undermines their role and otherwise creates difficulties for the actual graduates, both the ones that should be there, and the ones that shouldn't be.


Except it doesn't, because college attendance is broadly dependent on your performance in primary and secondary level education, which is broadly contingent on social background. For that reason, as I said, free fees only benefits those typically middle-class people at the margins. It doesn't create equal opportunities for everyone - if you were interested in that, you would be arguing (like me) that we should be diverting funding from free fees schemes to earlier interventions in education (in particular, interventions at pre-school level), and attempting to level the playing field where it actually matters.

I support a system where what you pay back is dependent on income.

It also doesn't seem fair to me that you can place the burden on working people, many of which would not have had the opportunity to go to college, when the virtue of having attended college, is income-raising, regardless. Encouraging people to spend four years of their lives in courses, being examines on skills of no social use, is also a massively wasteful use of government funds, which could certainly be invested better (such as ensuring poor children have the resources to succeed at all in school).

It also knocks on the most damning issue of oversupply.

The education in the US, where people don't specialise in their first few years, and get a taster of the entire offerings of the university, seems a much better innovation than allowing people to waste public funds not researching their course-matter before hand.

Like where I go to college, where attendance for economics is about ~20% and in accordance with the class not having a clue what is going on, testing is simplified and college stops being a signal of how good people actually are at a subject.

Well of course you dont want an idiot to become a doctor. By equal oportunity I meet your income shouldnt decide whether or not you can go to college or university. Of course you also need to focus on primary and secondary school espacially in the US where its, as seen from the outside, in pretty a bad shape

well actually in the US you would pay for this on cutting the millitary and higher the taxes on the rich people

When you take into account the living costs in Denmark, the minimum wage as decided on through collective bargaining is closer to 12 dollars an hour, and that's before you account for their much higher average taxation rate (in contrast, those that work for the minimum wage in the U.S. have an effective taxation rate of ~0%).

In return for employers, Denmark also has incredibly liberal hiring-and-firing laws, and low social insurances taxation on the employer-side.

Ive never said it was perfect, i said i was better, the higher taxation rate help to pay for free college and health care, If I was living there or if my country was doing the same thing I would be ok with it as long everyone pays there fair share of taxes.

[mattsmith48]

Exactly what I said. In this case there's not much of a choice but in a different scenario where it wasn't Hitler you could vote for it wouldn't make sense to vote for someone just because of their gender.

If Hitler wasnt running I wouldnt vote for her because I dont agree with most of what shes for

[Leprous]

If Hitler wasnt running I wouldnt vote for her because I dont agree with most of what shes for

Exactly

[Faith Collapsing]

I'm really glad to see that Hillary is at the top voted in this poll. I'm not going to name names, but it kinda scared me to see Trump as the second on the last one.

[mattsmith48]

I'm really glad to see that Hillary is at the top voted in this poll. I'm not going to name names, but it kinda scared me to see Trump as the second on the last one.

its scary that he made it this far

[Drewboyy]

The only crime those people commit is wanting to clean people's houses and pools for cheap and a wall wouldnt stop people from entering the US because of something call a plane.

Um one crime that the illegal immigrants commit is literally their presence in America. Just the fact that they are undocumented makes it harder/impossible to make statistics.

And a wall makes it pretty hard for them to get in illegally. They could never take a plane without having a visa or proof of American citizenry.

[Drewboyy]

Ive never said it was perfect, i said i was better, the higher taxation rate help to pay for free college and health care, If I was living there or if my country was doing the same thing I would be ok with it as long everyone pays there fair share of taxes.

If college is free then there is no will try. Why do you think the better colleges- with better grades, and graduate students who do eventually great things cost more? You can come from a trash neighborhood but if you do well in school college becomes free.

[mattsmith48]

Um one crime that the illegal immigrants commit is literally their presence in America. Just the fact that they are undocumented makes it harder/impossible to make statistics.

Why punish people who just want a better live?

And a wall makes it pretty hard for them to get in illegally. They could never take a plane without having a visa or proof of American citizenry.

But when the ones that get in with visa after they are in whats stops them from over staying their visa. Like the british guy, who over stayed his visa, tried to kill trump a few weeks ago if havent tried to kill Trump that he could have stayed years in the US illegally

[mattsmith48]

If college is free then there is no will try. Why do you think the better colleges- with better grades, and graduate students who do eventually great things cost more? You can come from a trash neighborhood but if you do well in school college becomes free.

Your capacity to get an education shouldnt be base on whether or not you can afford it. The number of scholarships big enough that will cover the entire cost for your college or university is extremly limited.

[DriveAlive]

Why punish people who just want a better live?



But when the ones that get in with visa after they are in whats stops them from over staying their visa. Like the british guy, who over stayed his visa, tried to kill trump a few weeks ago if havent tried to kill Trump that he could have stayed years in the US illegally

It is not punishment to require people to immigrate legally. In fact, it is far more humane. As illegals, they are abused by companies and forced to work in worse conditions and for lower wages than citizens. They have no legal retaliation for fear of deportation. In effect, amnesty keeps these people in a form of slavery. If they were made to be citizens, they would be given access to better conditions, wages, and workers rights.

[mattsmith48]

It is not punishment to require people to immigrate legally. In fact, it is far more humane. As illegals, they are abused by companies and forced to work in worse conditions and for lower wages than citizens. They have no legal retaliation for fear of deportation. In effect, amnesty keeps these people in a form of slavery. If they were made to be citizens, they would be given access to better conditions, wages, and workers rights.

Find give them citizenship its alot cheaper and easier then deporting 11 millions people

[Bull]

Business can pay their workers a living wage or tax payers can make up the difference. Really, you want to let business cause you to pay their employees through welfare? That is tax money, money you and I pay to the government. Come on people it is only right that every business, large and small pay their workers a living wage. If they don't you and I will be doing it and letting the business guys off scott free. No way do I want that. We must raise the minimum wage to a living wage and then index it so as GPI goes up so does the living wage.

I also find it interesting that the majority of posters do not live in the USA. American Teens are you that out of tune with the political scene? I would like to see more USA posts (especially from those who will actually be voting in November), not that I do not appreciate those of other countries, I most certainly do. Thank each of you for your input. It is helpful to the discussion.

[DriveAlive]

Find give them citizenship its alot cheaper and easier then deporting 11 millions people

Another benefit of deportation is that it allows us to monitor who is in our country and weed out criminals and those associated with gangs. It also allows those who want to immigrate legally to enter before those who enter illegally. Another issue that people do not talk about is that many women who want to enter legally (especially those with children) are passed up for jobs by young, single men who have entered illegally. Illegal immigration dilutes the already overflowing work pool, preventing women from fairly competing for jobs. Deportations open up the job market for legal immigrants and the marginalized.

[mattsmith48]

Another benefit of deportation is that it allows us to monitor who is in our country and weed out criminals and those associated with gangs. It also allows those who want to immigrate legally to enter before those who enter illegally. Another issue that people do not talk about is that many women who want to enter legally (especially those with children) are passed up for jobs by young, single men who have entered illegally. Illegal immigration dilutes the already overflowing work pool, preventing women from fairly competing for jobs. Deportations open up the job market for legal immigrants and the marginalized.

Most illegal immigrants do jobs people who enter legally or people who were born there dont want to do the only jobs deportation open is the person who does the deporting. The problem is not illegal immigrants taking jobs the problem is the people who hire them. The US is one of the most difficult country to immigrate to, they are the toughest western country on refugees, most people who enter illegally are people who got rejected to immigrate legally for some reason sometime stupid ones.

Im asking again why not just give those 11 millions people citizenship instead of deporting them?

[DriveAlive]

Most illegal immigrants do jobs people who enter legally or people who were born there dont want to do the only jobs deportation open is the person who does the deporting. The problem is not illegal immigrants taking jobs the problem is the people who hire them. The US is one of the most difficult country to immigrate to, they are the toughest western country on refugees, most people who enter illegally are people who got rejected to immigrate legally for some reason sometime stupid ones.

Im asking again why not just give those 11 millions people citizenship instead of deporting them?

I seriously doubt the claim that illegals do the jobs that legal citizens will not do. There have always been undersirable jobs and yet they have always gotten done. Illegal immigration only serves as a wage deflator, preventing legal citizens from getting fair pay.

We should not just give citizenship to illegals because it would:
1. Not allow us to properly vet who is entering our country
2. Be unfair to those who are trying to enter legally
3. Put women and other marginalized groups at the back of the line in the job market
4. Give people no incentive to follow the law in the future

[mattsmith48]

I seriously doubt the claim that illegals do the jobs that legal citizens will not do. There have always been undersirable jobs and yet they have always gotten done. Illegal immigration only serves as a wage deflator, preventing legal citizens from getting fair pay.

We should not just give citizenship to illegals because it would:
1. Not allow us to properly vet who is entering our country
2. Be unfair to those who are trying to enter legally
3. Put women and other marginalized groups at the back of the line in the job market
4. Give people no incentive to follow the law in the future

1. how is giving people who are already in the US, makes it more difficult to knowing who is passing the border?
2. Is it fair to illegal immigrants stopping and preventing them from living a better live?
3. What do you mean by marginalized groups? and I dont see how it takes away jobs from women.
4. Because letting cops get away with murder and presidential candidates get away with fraud is. Those are more serious crimes then crossing a border illegally to clean a few people's house

[DriveAlive]

1. how is giving people who are already in the US, makes it more difficult to knowing who is passing the border?
2. Is it fair to illegal immigrants stopping and preventing them from living a better live?
3. What do you mean by marginalized groups? and I dont see how it takes away jobs from women.
4. Because letting cops get away with murder and presidential candidates get away with fraud is. Those are more serious crimes then crossing a border illegally to clean a few people's house

It is not that simple. The point of border security is allowing in only good people. By not deporting those legally here, it is compromising our border security and allowing criminals who are here illegally to remain.

People can want a better life, but that does not mean we need to compromise our security or the job market by allowing in uncontrolled immigration.

By marginalized groups I mean women and those from other countries than Latin America, as well as the poor minorities already in our country. These legal citizens are all undercut in wages by illegals. Women are especially affected because employers will choose single men over women, especially if those women have children.

[mattsmith48]

It is not that simple. The point of border security is allowing in only good people. By not deporting those legally here, it is compromising our border security and allowing criminals who are here illegally to remain.

People can want a better life, but that does not mean we need to compromise our security or the job market by allowing in uncontrolled immigration.

By marginalized groups I mean women and those from other countries than Latin America, as well as the poor minorities already in our country. These legal citizens are all undercut in wages by illegals. Women are especially affected because employers will choose single men over women, especially if those women have children.

So you really want the US to deport 11 million people?

For the marginalize groups part, illegal immigrants dont take jobs from people from other country who get in legally or women, they do jobs no one else want to do, people who immigrate to the US from Europe are not doing it to clean other people's pool and raise other people's children.

[Vlerchan]

We did it here in Canada rightnow its working pretty well.

Like I said, I am not discussing net welfare here, I am discussing prioritisation.

What do you mean by this?
Social capital refers to communal trust within a population, and civic participation refers to participation in communal life. Immigration is associated with declines in both of those.

We dont have much xenophobia where i come from being a very welcoming country[.]
North Canada is notoriously racist.

Canada, generally speaking, is an outlier though, I agree.

I think most of the xenophobic people are just miseducated or misinformed.
Be that as it may, the last decade has demonstrated, that people prefer to live beside people like them, and are willing to endorse taboo'd political campaigns in order to help make that a reality.

They will not focus on discharging patients as fast as possible, its just not their job to after you get better
No, the focus is on discharging patients as quick as possible. That's the culture, as it was described to me. In this situation, aftercare referred to helping someone who had a stroke, retain the ability to be able to walk, too.

Whatever-the-case - at the moment - hospitals in US are structured in a manner that means a quick transition to public healthcare isn't possible.

Well of course you dont want an idiot to become a doctor.
Not my point - the bigger problem is having too many people, that shouldn't be there, sit medical class, because that has historically that prompted grade inflation, and this serves no-one.

By equal oportunity I meet your income shouldnt decide whether or not you can go to college or university.
With an intelligent loan system, like what persists in Britian, it doesn't.

University tuition fees for undergraduates were abolished in Ireland in 1996.
This paper examines the effect of this reform on the socio-economic gradient
(SES) to determine whether the reform was successful in achieving its objective
of promoting educational equality. It finds that the reform clearly did not have
that effect.

http://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201026.pdf

This is the paper I was referring to in my last posts. Free fees doesn't even the playing field, because the largest - by far - determinant is performance before college-choice is even considered. That free fees is helping low-income students is fiction. The largest beneficiaries are middle-class kids at the margin, which aren't sure if they are able for college, but have an incentive to do it because it's free. If you cared about low-income students, you wouldn't prioritise funding for here.

Of course you also need to focus on primary and secondary school espacially in the US where its, as seen from the outside, in pretty a bad shape
No, you mainly need to focus on this education, because it's what actually matters as to whether one actually attends college or not.

Ive never said it was perfect, i said i was better[.]
OK. Well you actually haven't demonstrated this, other than to tell me what Danish workers earn in inflated terms. On the other hand, the gains that Danish workers make are largely drawn from the lost wages of those that either can't get jobs, or remain interns ('the intern effect').

Furthermore, a higher minimum wage distorts decisions regarding human capital acquisition ('education'), making the prospect of not going to college look more attractive, and fuelling the growing skills gap in Denmark, which itself is a net negative for the economy.

[...] the higher taxation rate help to pay for free college and health care [...]
Poor people in the US can access Medicare.

I also have no idea why you believe it's acceptable to have poor, minimum-wage labour subsidising the college costs of rich middle-class kids.

As illegals, they are abused by companies and forced to work in worse conditions and for lower wages than citizens. They have no legal retaliation for fear of deportation.
One would presume, that if conditions were better at home, illegal immigrants would self-deport. This sort of moralising undermines the agency they actually posses.

I seriously doubt the claim that illegals do the jobs that legal citizens will not do. There have always been undersirable jobs and yet they have always gotten done.
Last year, about a quarter of Biringer Farm’s strawberries and raspberries rotted in the field because it couldn’t find enough workers. Samantha Bond was determined not to let that happen again.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/on-u-s-farms-fewer-hands-for-the-harvest-1439371802

There's considerable labour shortages across the agricultural sector, which just happens to be the sector that illegal immigrants participate in most. When welfare payments get you as close to the prevailing wage in the agricultural sector, and you still get to live in a city, it is an easy choice for citizens to just not apply for these jobs.

From experience, farm work is horrible, and living in a rural area, can be even more so.

---

Edit: I also want to say, that I respect Cruz for holding to his convictions right until the very end; though, just last night was fantastic.

[mattsmith48]

No, the focus is on discharging patients as quick as possible. That's the culture, as it was described to me. In this situation, aftercare referred to helping someone who had a stroke, retain the ability to be able to walk, too.

The hospital's job is when someone as a stroke he gets to the hospital they take care of him do what is necessary to save his live. Rehabilitation is not their job.

Whatever-the-case - at the moment - hospitals in US are structured in a manner that means a quick transition to public healthcare isn't possible

Then change the structured to make the transition easier? The US is the only western country who doesnt have free health care but they are the one who pay the most in health care.

Not my point - the bigger problem is having too many people, that shouldn't be there, sit medical class, because that has historically that prompted grade inflation, and this serves no-one.

Like I said earlier its already a problem in countries who dont have free college

With an intelligent loan system, like what persists in Britian, it doesn't.

University tuition fees for undergraduates were abolished in Ireland in 1996.
This paper examines the effect of this reform on the socio-economic gradient
(SES) to determine whether the reform was successful in achieving its objective
of promoting educational equality. It finds that the reform clearly did not have
that effect.

http://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201026.pdf

This is the paper I was referring to in my last posts. Free fees doesn't even the playing field, because the largest - by far - determinant is performance before college-choice is even considered. That free fees is helping low-income students is fiction. The largest beneficiaries are middle-class kids at the margin, which aren't sure if they are able for college, but have an incentive to do it because it's free. If you cared about low-income students, you wouldn't prioritise funding for here.


No, you mainly need to focus on this education, because it's what actually matters as to whether one actually attends college or not.

Whats the point of focusing on making primary and secondary school at the same level for everyone when some of them wont be able to attend college anyway because they cant afford it. You need to work on both.

OK. Well you actually haven't demonstrated this, other than to tell me what Danish workers earn in inflated terms. On the other hand, the gains that Danish workers make are largely drawn from the lost wages of those that either can't get jobs, or remain interns ('the intern effect').

Furthermore, a higher minimum wage distorts decisions regarding human capital acquisition ('education'), making the prospect of not going to college look more attractive, and fuelling the growing skills gap in Denmark, which itself is a net negative for the economy.

I also have no idea why you believe it's acceptable to have poor, minimum-wage labour subsidising the college costs of rich middle-class kids.

but its not a negative for the economy to having the lower class not making a living wage and having a large portion of the population not being able to go to college? Ill take me as an exemple. I make minimum wage, $10.50 per hour. You cant live with $10.50 an hour, you dont pay taxes, and you can hardly by anything, that doesnt help the economy. You cant pay for college or university when making $10.50 per hour. Here if the household makes less then 60k a year the goverment will give you a loan to help you pay atlease a part of the cost. if the income is more than 60k then you have to figure it out your self, so your parents have to help you or you have to take a loan from a bank, is that acceptable, is it acceptable that my gf is already 50k in debt with another year left. Free College makes college available for everyone, if you rather make minimum wage and you pay taxes to help other kids go to college its, dont complain about it.

Poor people in the US can access Medicare.

I dont see how this is revelant to the claim that if you raise taxes on rich people


Edit: I also want to say, that I respect Cruz for holding to his convictions right until the very end; though, just last night was fantastic.

Finally someone with some common sense in that party

[DriveAlive]

The hospital's job is when someone as a stroke he gets to the hospital they take care of him do what is necessary to save his live. Rehabilitation is not their job.



Then change the structured to make the transition easier? The US is the only western country who doesnt have free health care but they are the one who pay the most in health care.



Like I said earlier its already a problem in countries who dont have free college



Whats the point of focusing on making primary and secondary school at the same level for everyone when some of them wont be able to attend college anyway because they cant afford it. You need to work on both.



but its not a negative for the economy to having the lower class not making a living wage and having a large portion of the population not being able to go to college? Ill take me as an exemple. I make minimum wage, $10.50 per hour. You cant live with $10.50 an hour, you dont pay taxes, and you can hardly by anything, that doesnt help the economy. You cant pay for college or university when making $10.50 per hour. Here if the household makes less then 60k a year the goverment will give you a loan to help you pay atlease a part of the cost. if the income is more than 60k then you have to figure it out your self, so your parents have to help you or you have to take a loan from a bank, is that acceptable, is it acceptable that my gf is already 50k in debt with another year left. Free College makes college available for everyone, if you rather make minimum wage and you pay taxes to help other kids go to college its, dont complain about it.



I dont see how this is revelant to the claim that if you raise taxes on rich people




Finally someone with some common sense in that party

Loses all credibility when he claims that Ted Cruz has common sense :)

[mattsmith48]

Loses all credibility when he claims that Ted Cruz has common sense :)

He as more common sense than Trump, Anyone who tell people not to vote for Hitler as some kind common sense.

[DriveAlive]

He as more common sense than Trump, Anyone who tell people not to vote for Hitler as some kind common sense.

In all seriousness, we dodged a bullet with Cruz because he is by far the worst possible candidate. If you look at his policies, he makes Trump look like a democrat. Also, I highly suspect that Trump is an atheist, while Cruz is an evangelical. I will take a probable atheist any day over an evangelical. I was talking to a devout Catholic the other day and he said that even though Hillary is for "butchering babies in the womb," he would choose her over Cruz because "democrats want to take your way of life, but evangelicals want to take your soul." He was actually dead serious too.

On healthcare, I do not think it should be a single payer system because that lowers overall quality of care and retards medical advances. In addition, there are far too many costs associated with the last 6 months of life that would stress the system. I also do not like having to pay for other people to get healthcare that they could easily afford. I would be paying for Baron Trump to get braces and that seems wrong. However, there needs to be a way for the poor to get healthcare. That is why I am in favor of taking some of the money that would be used for a single payer system and instead investing it in Medicare/Medicaid. That way, the people who need it most can get the best quality care while still preserving the healthcare system for the rest of Americans.

[Vlerchan]

Then change the structured to make the transition easier?
OK. Now go back and read the original post I wrote on the subject and respond to that.

Like I said earlier its already a problem in countries who dont have free college
Murder is a problem in both Ireland and the United States. Does that mean the gun regulations in the United States don't matter?

That's the logic being preached here.

Whats the point of focusing on making primary and secondary school at the same level for everyone when some of them wont be able to attend college anyway because they cant afford it. You need to work on both.
Please return and read the posts I made before. Free college does not affect the demographics entering college. You are better off with an accessible loan system ans reprioritising the cash spent in college for primary and secondary education.

but its not a negative for the economy to having the lower class not making a living wage and having a large portion of the population not being able to go to college?
On the first point there's a complicates relationship between mass impoverishment and growth but such issues can be addressed in manners that don't promote as severe the distortions.

On the second point I do think that we should have more people go to college but free fees doesn't make meaningful gains in this regard.

... that doesnt help the economy.
Nor does taxing firms and rich people that tend to make more productive use of their assets (investment). The point worth discussing is the trade-offs though - not whether some decisions in a vacuum are good or bad. In the case of the minimum wage it creates market distortions that hurt other workers - and the increased welfare of the employed is captured from those that can't find jobs in the new market setting.

You cant pay for college or university when making $10.50 per hour. Here if the household makes less then 60k a year the goverment will give you a loan to help you pay atlease a part of the cost. if the income is more than 60k then you have to figure it out your self, so your parents have to help you or you have to take a loan from a bank, is that acceptable, is it acceptable that my gf is already 50k in debt with another year left.
Yes - it is acceptable on both counts.

Though like I said I prefer the British system.

Free College makes college available for everyone
This is a talking point. Repeating it doesn't make it true. Irish data demonstrates that it didn't alter the demographics that enter college.

... if you rather make minimum wage and you pay taxes to help other kids go to college its, dont complain about it.
Indeed the poor choose to be poor.

You deserve whatever cash they have to spare too so that middle classdom might be pursued cost-free for typically-speaking those lucky enough to have a nice social background.

I dont see how this is revelant to the claim that if you raise taxes on rich people
The original claim I made was that working class Danes are taxes much harder than working class people from the US. You responded that their tax goes to free healthcare. In the US free healthcare is open to the working class and these people aren't taxed for it - in fact: the middle class and rich are.

Denmark isn't a workers paradise - is the point.

[mattsmith48]

In all seriousness, we dodged a bullet with Cruz because he is by far the worst possible candidate. If you look at his policies, he makes Trump look like a democrat. Also, I highly suspect that Trump is an atheist, while Cruz is an evangelical. I will take a probable atheist any day over an evangelical. I was talking to a devout Catholic the other day and he said that even though Hillary is for "butchering babies in the womb," he would choose her over Cruz because "democrats want to take your way of life, but evangelicals want to take your soul." He was actually dead serious too.

On healthcare, I do not think it should be a single payer system because that lowers overall quality of care and retards medical advances. In addition, there are far too many costs associated with the last 6 months of life that would stress the system. I also do not like having to pay for other people to get healthcare that they could easily afford. I would be paying for Baron Trump to get braces and that seems wrong. However, there needs to be a way for the poor to get healthcare. That is why I am in favor of taking some of the money that would be used for a single payer system and instead investing it in Medicare/Medicaid. That way, the people who need it most can get the best quality care while still preserving the healthcare system for the rest of Americans.

Ted Cruz is more predictable than Trump and alot less dangerous. Someone posted earlier, you shouldnt base your vote what gender or skin colour the person his, same goes for religion, as long you dont base your policies on your faith. I highly doubt Trump believe in God because I cant picture Trump thinking someone or something is better then him, but the fact he doesnt believe in God doesnt make him a better person. Btw Trump's VP Mike Pence is evangelical.

For the health care we already had that debate im not starting it again. I would just add that with single payer health care, its the goverment that pays for everyone and more healthy the population is the less expensive it is, so it motivate the goverment to pass strick regulation so what you eat, drink and breath is not gonna make you sick a good example of that is the lead pipe in Flint the people who had let that happen would have been put in jailed and they would have made changing those pipes a priority

[PlasmaHam]

So you really want the US to deport 11 million people?

For the marginalize groups part, illegal immigrants dont take jobs from people from other country who get in legally or women, they do jobs no one else want to do, people who immigrate to the US from Europe are not doing it to clean other people's pool and raise other people's children.

I'm pretty sure there are thousands if not millions of homeless AMERICANS out there who would love to take those jobs that no one but the Mexicans take. But even if what you say about immigrants not stealing jobs is true, there are still economic drain from them.

Illegal immigrants use public welfare and housing that is paid for by the American people. They get poverty support and other benefits. Kids get free public schooling. Illegal immigrants are almost never tax payers, so they basically get all this stuff for free. Colorado is actually now supplying free schooling to illegal adults.

And once they do get an okay job, they don't pay taxes(being unregistered) and a very large amount of money goes back across the border to support family in Mexico. An estimated $23 BILLION goes to Mexico a year from immigrants in the United States. Over $120 BILLION is sent across the world to foreign family from immigrants. Those who claim that the money gained by immigrants supports the local community are very wrong.

[dxcxdzv]

PlasmaHam

Is you report available online (I'd lie if I say that I am not interested in reading it)?
Also in what context did you write it (reasons etc)?

[PlasmaHam]

PlasmaHam

Is you report available online (I'd lie if I say that I am not interested in reading it)?
Also in what context did you write it (reasons etc)?

Sorry, but its not available to read online. I do have a list of resources though.

I was taking a debate/writing class and I needed to write about a controversial issue in American politics. I choose Free College as my subject, as I have a personal interest in the subject and Bernie Sanders was still in the race at that point. I did a few weeks of research on the subject, which is rather hard being that the idea is still pretty new. The purpose of the report was really just to show argumentative abilities, but I still had to support my position with facts.

Resources you might want to check out:

Badat, Saleem. "Free Higher Education - Why Not!" The Pretoria News: 9. Mar 23 2010. ProQuest. Web.

Beaver, William. "Do we Need More College Graduates?" Society 47.4 (2010): 308-11. ProQuest. Web.

Harris, Phillip. Myths of Standarized Tests: Why They Don't Tell You What You Think They Do. Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2011. ProQuest ebrary. Web.

Kelly, Andrew P. "Tuition is Not the Main Obstacle to Student Success." Education Next 16.1 (2016) ProQuest. Web.

Korte, Gregory. "Obama Wants Free Community College." USA TODAY Jan 09 2015. ProQuest. Web.

Neumann, Anna. "Staking a Claim on Learning: What we should Know About Learning in Higher Education and Why." Review of Higher Education 37.2 (2014): 249-67. ProQuest. Web.

Stossel, John. "Don't Go to College!" Tribune - Review / Pittsburgh Tribune - ReviewMay 31 2015. ProQuest. Web.

Weissberg, Robert. "The Lowering of Higher Education in America: Why Financial Aid should be Based on Student Performance, by Jackson Toby." Academic Questions 23.3 (2010): 376-80. ProQuest. Web.

(Sorry, cannot offer a direct link as I went through the local library's ProQuest account, links would just result in a blank page.)

[mattsmith48]

I'm pretty sure there are thousands if not millions of homeless AMERICANS out there who would love to take those jobs that no one but the Mexicans take. But even if what you say about immigrants not stealing jobs is true, there are still economic drain from them.

Illegal immigrants use public welfare and housing that is paid for by the American people. They get poverty support and other benefits. Kids get free public schooling. Illegal immigrants are almost never tax payers, so they basically get all this stuff for free. Colorado is actually now supplying free schooling to illegal adults.

And once they do get an okay job, they don't pay taxes(being unregistered) and a very large amount of money goes back across the border to support family in Mexico. An estimated $23 BILLION goes to Mexico a year from immigrants in the United States. Over $120 BILLION is sent across the world to foreign family from immigrants. Those who claim that the money gained by immigrants supports the local community are very wrong.

Mexicans dont steal jobs, american people purposely give them those job because no one else wants to do them. Even if they were there legally the wouldnt make enough money to pay taxes. You know who else is not paying taxes and sending their money overseas? billionaires. Dont you think thats a bigger problem, then illegal immigrants cleanning other people's houses?

Good on Colorado, helping those people instead of threatening and insulting them.

[Porpoise101]

I think at least allowing illegal immigrants to use education and emergency services is essential. We can't let them become a stupid, segregated underclass. It is immoral, and we should at least afford them some sort of decency while we sort the issues out.

Personally, I feel that we should give many of the Mexicans and Central Americans some sort of refugee status since many are fleeing terrible violence. That way their entrance is open. We already allow Cubans to flee to this country as refugees, so why not the Mexicans? Maybe some restrictions should be put in place on who is allowed, but in general I believe this is the way to go. Also we should work on stemming the flow of immigration at the source, that way people don't need to come and flee to our country. This means helping the Mexican government regain order.

[PlasmaHam]

I think at least allowing illegal immigrants to use education and emergency services is essential. We can't let them become a stupid, segregated underclass. It is immoral, and we should at least afford them some sort of decency while we sort the issues out.


Well, that right there is showing why something needs to be done about illegal immigration. Immigrants know that the US will supply their needs through welfare services, and that is a big reason they come.

My opinion on most policy matters are simple. Ignore the presidency and let the people, either through Congress or the states, figure this out.

[Porpoise101]

Well, that right there is showing why something needs to be done about illegal immigration. Immigrants know that the US will supply their needs through welfare services, and that is a big reason they come.
Another big reason they come is that the social order has been destroyed, unemployment is high, and cartel violence is rampant. Personally, I don't consider EMS like police to be welfare, instead I consider them an integral part of keeping order and safety. Of course something needs to be done about it. My way just differs from yours.

[mattsmith48]

If anyone is interested

http://www.cic.gc.ca/englIsh/immigrate/index.asp

[PlasmaHam]

Another big reason they come is that the social order has been destroyed, unemployment is high, and cartel violence is rampant. Personally, I don't consider EMS like police to be welfare, instead I consider them an integral part of keeping order and safety. Of course something needs to be done about it. My way just differs from yours.

I wasn't referring to the police, or EMS, or other emergency services. I was referring to the numerous government programs set in place to help the poor that the illegal immigrants are abusing.

What is Clinton's plan to deal with illegal immigration? I know she promotes amnesty like Obama, but I don't know how she actually plans to stop it. Would someone please enlighten me?

[Leprous]

I wasn't referring to the police, or EMS, or other emergency services. I was referring to the numerous government programs set in place to help the poor that the illegal immigrants are abusing.

What is Clinton's plan to deal with illegal immigration? I know she promotes amnesty like Obama, but I don't know how she actually plans to stop it. Would someone please enlighten me?

Might I ask you how you can vote for a man who claims the US has a problem with Syrian refugees? You don't. We over here in Belgium actully do. Also the only ones you have are Mexicans. Don't pretend the US has this massive unseen problem.

[DriveAlive]

Might I ask you how you can vote for a man who claims the US has a problem with Syrian refugees? You don't. We over here in Belgium actully do. Also the only ones you have are Mexicans. Don't pretend the US has this massive unseen problem.

We have a problem with people wanting to admit exponentially more Syrian refugees, which would result in us having a problem like you do over there in Belgium.

[Stronk Serb]

I dont say elect her just because shes a woman, I say elect her because she wont start WWIII. With Obama people didnt vote for him because hes black people voted for him because they thought he was the best candidate but the fact you guys elected a black guy is a good thing it shows everyone can do it in this country.

Race, religion, gender and sexual orientation has nothing in politics. It should be done by merit, not things you generally have nothing to do with.

It shows to the rest of the world that women in your country as equal opportunities as men espacially in the US where from the outside it seem a very white christian country electing a woman would help their image, and not letting Hitler 2.0 get nukes is a huge plus.

Because of her incompetence at storing emails, it is believed that the major world powers have access to the launch codes for the US nuclear arsenal. Not to mention the failure in Libya, lying that we Serbs shot at her when she visited Sarajevo. She and her husband caused so much death and countries destroyed around the world, and you could say she supported most foreign US interventions in the last 25 years. Honestly, with this leaked informations and a record of caused deaths, I would rather vote for an amoral businessman who can prove the origin of his wealth that crook who cannot prove how she earned that wealth and has her campaign financed by hedge fund managers.

[mattsmith48]

Anyone watch Trumps speech at his Klan rally last night? After that I how see how people with any decency and common sense can support this guy

[PlasmaHam]

Might I ask you how you can vote for a man who claims the US has a problem with Syrian refugees? You don't. We over here in Belgium actully do. Also the only ones you have are Mexicans. Don't pretend the US has this massive unseen problem.

We don't have a current problem with Syrian refugees, I am talking about Mexicans mainly when I refer to illegal immigrants. The problem is that people want to let more Syrian refugees in, and then we will have a problem.

[Professional Russian]

all im saying is between the supposed klansman(trump) and the lady who's husband got impeached, can't be trusted with classified documents, appearently sucks with computers as mentioned before, and wants to take my guns....yeah im voting for the klansman. the lesser of 2 evils.

[mattsmith48]

all im saying is between the supposed klansman(trump) and the lady who's husband got impeached, can't be trusted with classified documents, appearently sucks with computers as mentioned before, and wants to take my guns....yeah im voting for the klansman. the lesser of 2 evils.

Yeah she cant be trusted with classified documents because she used the wrong email, but Trump can be trusted with nuclear weapons

[Stronk Serb]

Yeah she cant be trusted with classified documents because she used the wrong email, but Trump can be trusted with nuclear weapons

Well, there are speculations of nuclear launch codes being found and stolen among the emails, so yeah, I would rather trust Trump with nuclear weapons.

[dxcxdzv]

Well, there are speculations of nuclear launch codes being found and stolen among the emails, so yeah, I would rather trust Trump with nuclear weapons.
Speculations, lol.

Even if it's true the Gold Codes are changed daily and only a few among the ton provided are true. Plus the president must choose by himself what to launch with the Nuclear Football in presence of officials.
Let's not talk about all the verifications and communications with the Army necessary to valid the order.

It's not like you miraculously get the codes and just have to send an email to the Pentagon to blast the hell out of a country.

[Stronk Serb]

Speculations, lol.

Even if it's true the Gold Codes are changed daily and only a few among the ton provided are true. Plus the president must choose by himself what to launch with the Nuclear Football in presence of officials.
Let's not talk about all the verifications and communications with the Army necessary to valid the order.

It's not like you miraculously get the codes and just have to send an email to the Pentagon to blast the hell out of a country.

Infiltrating a silo is easier. I mean what I read about some silos... floppy disc computers, smoking near the missiles, letting food delivery deliver pizza all the way to the control room... I mean competence level there is pretty lacking but should probably be the highest considering what ordnance they are packing.

[jamie_n5]

I am a Trump man. Hillary is an untrustworthy, conniving, cynical Bitch. She is also dishonest and treated the White House household staff and the Secret Service like crap. If you don't believe me Google for stories about her written by former agents and staff. Also who the hell wants Bill back in the White House.

[Vlerchan]

What is Clinton's plan to deal with illegal immigration?
She wants to offer amnesty to the current stock and then proceed to step up measures to humanely deport those that try to enter afterwards (after processing claims to refugee statues). Democrats have accepted that deporting 11 million people isn't feasible, and it's damage mitigation at this stage. I have no qualms with deporting illegal immigrants and upholding the law, but I agree with the Democrats that it just isn't an option here.

I'm pretty sure there are thousands if not millions of homeless AMERICANS out there who would love to take those jobs that no one but the Mexicans take.
Yes, and homeless people have a hard time getting them for a host of reasons that have nothing to do with immigrants: homelessness being self-reinforcing, generally-speaking.

I do ask though, why you don't like free labour markets?

But even if what you say about immigrants not stealing jobs is true, there are still economic drain from them.
I presume you mean illegal immigrants. This is a questionable claims, and is dependent on the manner in which we define the term 'costs' and 'benefits'.

It's worth noting though that illegal immigrants pay roughly 10 billion in taxes per year (http://www.itep.org/pdf/undocumentedtaxes2015.pdf), and not being able to draw from social insurance, subsidise it for legal immigrants and natives. Furthermore, illegal immigrants are unable to withdraw from federal welfare programmes. Their children can, but having them become an illiterate, maligned underclass seems like it wouldn't help the situation at all.

n estimated $23 BILLION goes to Mexico a year from immigrants in the United States.
Where it's sold for peso's, with people who want to invest in the United States.

Not to mention the failure in Libya[.]
This was much more Europe's fault, as I argued before.

[L]ying that we Serbs shot at her when she visited Sarajev.
She recanted like 8 whole years ago: if you're still offended by this, that's a bigger issue.

Hillary is an untrustworthy, conniving, cynical Bitch. She is also dishonest and treated the White House household staff and the Secret Service like crap. If you don't believe me Google for stories about her written by former agents and staff. Also who the hell wants Bill back in the White House.
We are also starting to get away from policies again.

Is there anything you have to say about Clinton's political positions?

[mattsmith48]

I am a Trump man. Hillary is an untrustworthy, conniving, cynical Bitch. She is also dishonest and treated the White House household staff and the Secret Service like crap. If you don't believe me Google for stories about her written by former agents and staff. Also who the hell wants Bill back in the White House.

The worst thing that could happen with Bill Clinton in the white house again is hes getting blown by an intern. The worst thing that could happen with Donald Trump in the white house is a nuclear war. Hillary might be untrustworthy but atlease she wont start WWIII

[jamie_n5]

Well it looks to me that Putin and Russia have done that today my friend by bombing a US Military Base in Syria. Lets see how our gutless president Oboma reacts to that. Will he tell Russia "Oh we are so sorry for building a base in Syria " Or will he actually grow a pair and do something to defend our country?

[PlasmaHam]

The worst thing that could happen with Bill Clinton in the white house again is hes getting blown by an intern. The worst thing that could happen with Donald Trump in the white house is a nuclear war. Hillary might be untrustworthy but atlease she wont start WWIII

You need to realize that the presidency is not an all powerful position like Obama likes to think it is. There is no way Congress and the cabinet will actually let Trump do WWIII. The idea of WWIII is overblown today.

America does need to stand up through. Obama makes threats all the time yet never actually does anything. The Russians have clearly caught on to this, with all the buzzings and bombings.

[Vlerchan]

Well it looks to me that Putin and Russia have done that today my friend by bombing a US Military Base in Syria. Lets see how our gutless president Oboma reacts to that. Will he tell Russia "Oh we are so sorry for building a base in Syria " Or will he actually grow a pair and do something to defend our country?
Russian airforce's bombed the garrison about a month ago, Russian and American (and British) diplomats seemed to have already closed the issue, and thankfully there won't be an escalation since neither your country, or your country's actual interest, has been affected.

The Russians have clearly caught on to this, with all the buzzings and bombings.
Since Obama isn't going to be president for much longer, and Russia must realise that it's actions at the present will determine how Hawkish his replacement will be, it's probably more arguable to see this as a new normal.

It's a very bad time to posture for the sake of posturing.

---

I agree though that the President is quite weak and Trump will be quite constrained.

[jamie_n5]

Yeah I realize that now. But it was a big story in todays news again and I thought it happened again today. I still think Trump would be strong president and not foolish enough to pose war. The world of terrorism is doing a pretty good job of trying to wage war around the world. Also Trump will have good advisors and people around him.

[mattsmith48]

Well it looks to me that Putin and Russia have done that today my friend by bombing a US Military Base in Syria. Lets see how our gutless president Oboma reacts to that. Will he tell Russia "Oh we are so sorry for building a base in Syria " Or will he actually grow a pair and do something to defend our country?

Putin is smart enough to not start a nuclear weapon because he knows it would be suicide. Im not sure Trump is that smart espacially when he said that countries like South Korea should be able to get nuclear weapons and would be safer if they had it

You need to realize that the presidency is not an all powerful position like Obama likes to think it is. There is no way Congress and the cabinet will actually let Trump do WWIII. The idea of WWIII is overblown today.

Seriously were one plane shoot down by the wrong person away to start WWIII, WWI Started with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, and WWII started with Hitler invading Poland. Shit are alot worst now then it was back then.

[Vlerchan]

Shit are alot worst now then it was back then.
Shit isn't even close.

Also Trump will have good advisors and people around him.
Being as this would shift him to the orthodox and establishment, it seems like political suicide.

[mattsmith48]

Shit isn't even close.


Being as this would shift him to the orthodox and establishment, it seems like political suicide.

US already murder 60 people in syria the other day by accident. What do you think happens if the US or one of his allies accidentally shoot down a russian plane?

[Vlerchan]

US already murder 60 people in syria the other day by accident. What do you think happens if the US or one of his allies accidentally shoot down a russian plane?
Well, what happened when the Turks shot down a Russian plane.

Posturing, and then they made up because of other dominating interests.

---

This also doesn't demonstrate that it was better on the eve of the world wars than it is now.

[PlasmaHam]

Russian airforce's bombed the garrison about a month ago, Russian and American (and British) diplomats seemed to have already closed the issue, and thankfully there won't be an escalation since neither your country, or your country's actual interest, has been affected.

That's great, but it just goes to show how much respect America has lost under the Obama administration. The liberals are so worried about making everyone feel "inclusive" and not hurting feelings that they don't do anything.

[Vlerchan]

The liberals are so worried about making everyone feel "inclusive" and not hurting feelings that they don't do anything.
Would you mind pointing out where liberal-cosmopolitanism came into the United State's dealings with other states?

[mattsmith48]

Well, what happened when the Turks shot down a Russian plane.

Posturing, and then they made up because of other dominating interests.

---

This also doesn't demonstrate that it was better on the eve of the world wars than it is now.

its worst in the way that the country involed have nuclear weapons and being one people shooting the wrong thing away from escalating to a point of no return.

[Vlerchan]

its worst in the way that the country involed have nuclear weapons and being one people shooting the wrong thing away from escalating to a point of no return.
OK, so there's the potential for more damage, and not that we're close to this situation.

Worth examining the case of nuclear-armed India and Pakistan in this case, were both countries have been quite successful in de-esclating disputes on the basis that nuclear weapons are involved. If you think that a state is going to launch it's missiles over an accidental shooting, you've gotten it quite wrong.

[mattsmith48]

OK, so there's the potential for more damage, and not that we're close to this situation.

Worth examining the case of nuclear-armed India and Pakistan in this case, were both countries have been quite successful in de-esclating disputes on the basis that nuclear weapons are involved. If you think that a state is going to launch it's missiles over an accidental shooting, you've gotten it quite wrong.

What about Israel they have nukes too and they're conflicts doesnt seem to end anytime soon.

For the accidental shooting thing it obviously in some situation depends of the context. but other times counties will panic or act to fast before having all the facts before engaging in military action a good example of that would be the US terrorist attacks on Iraq.

[PlasmaHam]

Would you mind pointing out where liberal-cosmopolitanism came into the United State's dealings with other states?

I was just stating my opinion about the general election, that is the point of this whole thread. But it does have some effect. Ignoring the border problem, which Obama is basically doing, gains the Mexican vote. Ignoring the Islamic terrorists and bringing in refugees gets the Islamic vote. On a more domestic subject, ignoring the BLM anti-police rhetoric gets the black vote. They are too afraid of alienating a specific group to actually do anything.

What about Israel they have nukes too and they're conflicts doesnt seem to end anytime soon.


You don't see Israel starting nuclear Armageddon in the Middle East, now do you? Israel has a unique set of problems, and them having or not having nukes is not really affecting it. Israel cannot really use the fact they have nuclear weapons to help end the conflicts there.

[mattsmith48]

I was just stating my opinion about the general election, that is the point of this whole thread. But it does have some effect. Ignoring the border problem, which Obama is basically doing, gains the Mexican vote. Ignoring the Islamic terrorists and bringing in refugees gets the Islamic vote. On a more domestic subject, ignoring the BLM anti-police rhetoric gets the black vote. They are too afraid of alienating a specific group to actually do anything.

You know Obama is the US president who deported the most people right?

You don't see Israel starting nuclear Armageddon in the Middle East, now do you? Israel has a unique set of problems, and them having or not having nukes is not really affecting it. Israel cannot really use the fact they have nuclear weapons to help end the conflicts there.


Im not saying they will but it cant be ruled out, the way its going they will get to a point where they have the choice to surrender or use their nukes.

[PlasmaHam]

Im not saying they will but it cant be ruled out, the way its going they will get to a point where they have the choice to surrender or use their nukes.

The US didn't nuke Vietnam. Israel is fine currently, they aren't even really in a military conflict. A few rockets, but otherwise that is it. Israel has one of the strongest armies in the world, things would have to get extremely bad for them to get those launch codes.

[Leprous]

We don't have a current problem with Syrian refugees, I am talking about Mexicans mainly when I refer to illegal immigrants. The problem is that people want to let more Syrian refugees in, and then we will have a problem.

DriveAlive

Nono you don't understand. Trump said this in his speech. Also Trump said he doesn't know where immigrants come from, but aren't they mostly if not all Mexican?

[Vlerchan]

What about Israel they have nukes too and they're conflicts doesnt seem to end anytime soon.
Yet, Israel aren't using their nuclear weapons, because it's the equivalent to emptying their clip in any given situation. Their proximity to what would probably be the intended targets means that unless it's a time of dire need, don't expect it.

Their current situation is also nowhere near that time of dire need. Worth noting further the number of times they have beaten the rest of the Middle East without need to resort to overwhelming force.

but other times counties will panic or act to fast before having all the facts before engaging in military action a good example of that would be the US terrorist attacks on Iraq.
Regime-change in Iraq had been a pretty open goal of US foreign policy for years before the invasion of Iraq. It wasn't a sudden hot flash that occurred: it was planned and premeditated.

I was just stating my opinion about the general election, that is the point of this whole thread.
I was just asking you back it up, which I'd hope would also be a fundamental part of this thread, too.

Ignoring the border problem, which Obama is basically doing, gains the Mexican vote.
Obama has a much greater record on deportations than his predecessors. I have never understood how people just decided he was ignoring the issue.

Ignoring the Islamic terrorists and bringing in refugees gets the Islamic vote.
The Islamic vote is <1%. His support for allowing more refugees into the country has nothing to do with tempting Muslims into the democratic party.

I am also not sure what you expected him to do with regards to the recent attacks being as these were all self-radicalised, ISIL-sympathisers, but not agents, that are difficult to catch in the system. He is certainly not ignoring it regardless.

On a more domestic subject, ignoring the BLM anti-police rhetoric gets the black vote.
BLM formed in 2013 and the controversy surrounding shootings began around then too.

Obama doesn't need to get elected again, and being as they were never a player in the 2012 elections, any claims that he's supporting BLM for pure political pain, are nonsense. There is no pure political gain for him to make anymore. If you mean he wants to uphold the Democrats good-name, I recall Bill Clinton attacking BLM protesters at a speech not so long ago, and far as I can see, it's not costing the Democrats a vote.

Obama has also defended the work of police on several occasions. This also isn't even a recent thing, here's Obama in 2015:

“Too often, law enforcement gets scapegoated for broader failures of our society and our criminal-justice system,” he said. “You do your job with distinction no matter the challenges you face. But we can’t expect you to contain and control problems that the rest of us aren’t willing to face or do anything about‚ problems ranging from substandard education to a shortage of jobs and opportunity, an absence of drug-treatment programs, and laws that result in it being easier in too many neighborhoods for a young person to purchase a gun than a book.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/obama-police-chief-chicago-scapegoat-black-lives-matter/412717/

Oh, and what-do-you-know.

Nor did Obama shy away from discussing the high rates of crime in black communities—“black-on-black crime” and issues in African American communities that he is sometimes (unconvincingly) accused of overlooking. Chicago, where black communities have seen extremely high violent crime in the last few years, was a natural place to discuss this. “Our divides are not as deep as some would suggest,” he said. “I don’t know anyone in the minority community who doesn’t want strong effective law enforcement.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/obama-police-chief-chicago-scapegoat-black-lives-matter/412717/

The difference is that Obama doesn't prime his rhetoric to blame people.

[Porpoise101]

Also Trump will have good advisors and people around him.
Lol sure man.. Trump has no contacts, no political expertise, and no experience in Washington. He will be either starting from scratch or he will be spoon-fed help from the GOP establishment which control Congress. The only thing that Trump has on the GOP establishment is that he brought new support. He will be a puppet to them. Either that or his ego will prevent him from asking for help and he will do his job very poorly.

[PlasmaHam]

Lol sure man.. Trump has no contacts, no political expertise, and no experience in Washington. He will be either starting from scratch or he will be spoon-fed help from the GOP establishment which control Congress. The only thing that Trump has on the GOP establishment is that he brought new support. He will be a puppet to them. Either that or his ego will prevent him from asking for help and he will do his job very poorly.

Lets hope for the former.

[Jay21]

Hillary Clinton has put the entirety of the country at risk by sharing classified information via her private email server. She let 4 perfectly good Americans die in Benghazi. She has blatantly lied on multitudes of occasions, for example when she said ahe had to duck while taking fire from snipers in Libya. She claims to be a champion for equality, but instead perpetuates hatred against whites and cops through her failure to condemn the attrocities commited under the banner of the BLM movement. Her tenure as Secretary of State has been one of the most ineffective ones in our history.

If Clinton wins, it will be another 4 years of the Obama administration, which, to be put simply, as only made our country worse off than it was before. A vote for Clinton is a vote for a greater racial divide, more attacks from radical Islamic extremist attacks not only abroad but at home too. The only candidate that can bring actual, positive change is Donald J. Trump, so that is who my vote will be going to this November.

[Drewboyy]

Why punish people who just want a better live?



But when the ones that get in with visa after they are in whats stops them from over staying their visa. Like the british guy, who over stayed his visa, tried to kill trump a few weeks ago if havent tried to kill Trump that he could have stayed years in the US illegally

Then that is a crime to overstay the visa, like after robbing a bank how would they find you? Same with every criminal

[jamie_n5]

Lol sure man.. Trump has no contacts, no political expertise, and no experience in Washington. He will be either starting from scratch or he will be spoon-fed help from the GOP establishment which control Congress. The only thing that Trump has on the GOP establishment is that he brought new support. He will be a puppet to them. Either that or his ego will prevent him from asking for help and he will do his job very poorly.

Well I see it as the people of the USA are sick and tired of old career politicians and want a whole new look at government in our country. I hope that the states clean house on all the good ol' boys in congress too.

[Leprous]

Hillary Clinton has put the entirety of the country at risk by sharing classified information via her private email server. She let 4 perfectly good Americans die in Benghazi. She has blatantly lied on multitudes of occasions, for example when she said ahe had to duck while taking fire from snipers in Libya. She claims to be a champion for equality, but instead perpetuates hatred against whites and cops through her failure to condemn the attrocities commited under the banner of the BLM movement. Her tenure as Secretary of State has been one of the most ineffective ones in our history.

If Clinton wins, it will be another 4 years of the Obama administration, which, to be put simply, as only made our country worse off than it was before. A vote for Clinton is a vote for a greater racial divide, more attacks from radical Islamic extremist attacks not only abroad but at home too. The only candidate that can bring actual, positive change is Donald J. Trump, so that is who my vote will be going to this November.

And kicking out all Muslims won't piss them of according to you?

[Drewboyy]

Your capacity to get an education shouldnt be base on whether or not you can afford it. The number of scholarships big enough that will cover the entire cost for your college or university is extremly limited.

Not cover the entire cost? That's why during college students can take out loans, work a job or two to help pay them before they get too big. It's not a world where everyone can have whatever they like

[mattsmith48]

The US didn't nuke Vietnam. Israel is fine currently, they aren't even really in a military conflict. A few rockets, but otherwise that is it. Israel has one of the strongest armies in the world, things would have to get extremely bad for them to get those launch codes.

Why would the US have nuked Vietnam?

[PlasmaHam]

Why would the US have nuked Vietnam?

Because they lost, and you are suggesting that Israel will nuke the Middle East if they lose.

[Jay21]

And kicking out all Muslims won't piss them of according to you?
When did he ever talk about kicking them out? He only ever talked about kicking out illegal immigrants, like the 11 million from Mexico. What Trump wants to do is halt immigration from dangerous countries, like Syria, where there is a known extremist threat.

[Leprous]

When did he ever talk about kicking them out? He only ever talked about kicking out illegal immigrants, like the 11 million from Mexico. What Trump wants to do is halt immigration from dangerous countries, like Syria, where there is a known extremist threat.

Again, what Syrian immigration? I said this before. You guys literally have no problem with them. We have a massive one.

Also he is concidering a Muslim ban so yeah...you know....rip

[Jay21]

I showed you on another post but here is a link to a picture detailing all Syrian immigration in the US between 2012 and 2015: http://8482-presscdn-0-13.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/refugee-map.jpg

And what is wrong with trying to protect the country from potential terrorists? At least he has a plan to potentially solve the problem unlike Hillary.

[Leprous]

I showed you on another post but here is a link to a picture detailing all Syrian immigration in the US between 2012 and 2015: http://8482-presscdn-0-13.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/refugee-map.jpg

And what is wrong with trying to protect the country from potential terrorists? At least he has a plan to potentially solve the problem unlike Hillary.

Ah crap didn't see the picture my bad. What is wrong is that he sees all Muslims as potential terrorists. They are not. Currently they are seen as the go to religion (for reasons of course) but that doesn't mean they all deserve to be punished for what a minority did.

Regarding the picture, from looking at that I still see no massive problem. Here in Belgium there is a town that now has more refugees than natives. I live in a small village and our local campsite has refugees in it. This shows that Trump has no reason to claim there is a problem because well, look at us.

[Jay21]

Ah crap didn't see the picture my bad. What is wrong is that he sees all Muslims as potential terrorists. They are not. Currently they are seen as the go to religion (for reasons of course) but that doesn't mean they all deserve to be punished for what a minority did.

Regarding the picture, from looking at that I still see no massive problem. Here in Belgium there is a town that now has more refugees than natives. I live in a small village and our local campsite has refugees in it. This shows that Trump has no reason to claim there is a problem because well, look at us.
Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists. But the vast majority of labeled terrorist attacks are commited by Muslims. The best way to prevent terrorists from coming in is to limit Muslim immigration. While it may seem cruel, there are still plenty of other countries willing to permit these refugees in, so they can go there instead.

And while there may be no massive problem yet, there would be in a Clinton administration. She has stated that she plans on admitting in another 100,000 immigrants. Considering the recent attacks in Munich, Nice, Paris, Brussels, etc., that seems like a very ignorant and reckless thing to do

[mattsmith48]

Then that is a crime to overstay the visa, like after robbing a bank how would they find you? Same with every criminal

well when you rob a bank there is evidence to help the police catch the guy. When someone overstay his visa, most of the time they will only find him if he commits a real crime.

Hillary Clinton has put the entirety of the country at risk by sharing classified information via her private email server. She let 4 perfectly good Americans die in Benghazi.


Yes cuz she should have flyed to their rescue just like Superman.

She has blatantly lied on multitudes of occasions, for example when she said ahe had to duck while taking fire from snipers in Libya. She claims to be a champion for equality, but instead perpetuates hatred against whites and cops through her failure to condemn the attrocities commited under the banner of the BLM movement. Her tenure as Secretary of State has been one of the most ineffective ones in our history.

You know who else is constently lying and perpetuates hatred. Donald Trump, there is reason people are comparing him to Hitler. When did Hillary instead perpetuates hatred against whites and cops?

If Clinton wins, it will be another 4 years of the Obama administration, which, to be put simply, as only made our country worse off than it was before.

Obama did pretty good in his 8 years considaring the circumstances, with the exception of keeping George Bush's bombing of the Middle East

A vote for Clinton is a vote for a greater racial divide,

Unlike Trump who is bringing people together and hasnt insulted and offended every minorities in the US.

More attacks from radical Islamic extremist attacks not only abroad but at home too.

Because Trump is gonna fix that ''Very, very fast'' problem is he doesnt know how.

The only candidate that can bring actual, positive change is Donald J. Trump, so that is who my vote will be going to this November.


Because everyone being dead is a positive change than.

[Leprous]

Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists. But the vast majority of labeled terrorist attacks are commited by Muslims. The best way to prevent terrorists from coming in is to limit Muslim immigration. While it may seem cruel, there are still plenty of other countries willing to permit these refugees in, so they can go there instead.

And while there may be no massive problem yet, there would be in a Clinton administration. She has stated that she plans on admitting in another 100,000 immigrants. Considering the recent attacks in Munich, Nice, Paris, Brussels, etc., that seems like a very ignorant and reckless thing to do

Limiting is not the same as banning. If they are not willing to go somewhere else, what will happen in that case? Munich hasn't been confirmed to be Muslim terrorism yet.

[mattsmith48]

Because they lost, and you are suggesting that Israel will nuke the Middle East if they lose.

No I said

the way its going they will get to a point where they have the choice to surrender or use their nukes.

If Israel lose one war they are gone they arent a country anymore thats why they only have those two choice if they get close to lose a war

[Jay21]

mattsmith48 So are you going to use an actual argument to back that up or are you just going to regurgitate everything you hear on those biased liberal media news outlets?

[mattsmith48]

Not cover the entire cost? That's why during college students can take out loans, work a job or two to help pay them before they get too big. It's not a world where everyone can have whatever they like

College students should be focusing on studying and on their classes not working 2 jobs so your debt dont get so big you cant pay it until your 40.

During his speech at the Nazi convention last night trump mention something about privatizing the school system just wonder what you think about that?

[jamie_n5]

No I said



If Israel lose one war they are gone they arent a country anymore thats why they only have those two choice if they get close to lose a war

Why are you two non- American citizens sticking your noses so far into American politics?? You can voice your liberal opinions all you want and they don't mean squat here in the USA.

[mattsmith48]

mattsmith48 So are you going to use an actual argument to back that up or are you just going to regurgitate everything you hear on those biased liberal media news outlets?

Your gonna have to tell me what argument im talking about alot of shit on this thing?

[Leprous]

Why are you two non- American citizens sticking your noses so far into American politics?? You can voice your liberal opinions all you want and they don't mean squat here in the USA.

I just told you. We have this right. Just like Trump has the right to talk about other countries. If we didn't reply this debate would be dead. You should be glad you have some enterainment thanks to us. We have the right to give our opinions and so do you.

[Jay21]

Limiting is not the same as banning. If they are not willing to go somewhere else, what will happen in that case? Munich hasn't been confirmed to be Muslim terrorism yet.
If I have understood what Trump has said recently, he has shifted from a total ban on Muslims to a ban on Muslims from potential terrorist countries. How he would determine that however I will admit, I do not know.

If they are unwilling to go elsewhere, then I am sorry to say then that is their fault. If you do not want to go to another, more easily accessible country in Europe or elsewhere, then that is by their own hand.

As for the Munich attack, you are correct that it has not been confirmed yet, so I will withhold from using it until there is more information.

Your gonna have to tell me what argument im talking about alot of shit on this thing?
Haha I noticed :P I am referring to the one where you dissected my post.

[Leprous]

Jay21 Thanks for being the only sane person who respects people for their opinions.

Also potential terrorist countries are like, all of Europe.

[mattsmith48]

well when you rob a bank there is evidence to help the police catch the guy. When someone overstay his visa, most of the time they will only find him if he commits a real crime.




Yes cuz she should have flyed to their rescue just like Superman.



You know who else is constently lying and perpetuates hatred. Donald Trump, there is reason people are comparing him to Hitler. When did Hillary instead perpetuates hatred against whites and cops?



Obama did pretty good in his 8 years considaring the circumstances, with the exception of keeping George Bush's bombing of the Middle East



Unlike Trump who is bringing people together and hasnt insulted and offended every minorities in the US.



Because Trump is gonna fix that ''Very, very fast'' problem is he doesnt know how.



Because everyone being dead is a positive change than.

Jay21 this one? which of these claim is ''regurgitate everything you hear on those biased liberal media news outlets''?

[Cadanance00]

Bernie Sanders. I'll be able to vote next time around.

The winner of the Rethuglican convention: Ted Cruz. Two years from now the only thing people will remember of it is Cruz's not endorsing Thump. Now he owns "vote your conscience" which will be his campaign slogan in 2020.

[Jay21]

Jay21 this one? which of these claim is ''regurgitate everything you hear on those biased liberal media news outlets''?

Yeah that one. I guess all of them, especially your comparison of him to Hitler. It's all the same stuff that liberal news has been saying for months now.

But I can clearly see you have vastly differing opinions than I, and I can respect and understand that. I no longer feel like debating and stuff tonight, I'm awfully tired now haha :P However if you'd like to continue again tomorrow just let me lnow and I'll oblige you.

Goodnight :)

[mattsmith48]

Yeah that one. I guess all of them, especially your comparison of him to Hitler. It's all the same stuff that liberal news has been saying for months now.

But I can clearly see you have vastly differing opinions than I, and I can respect and understand that. I no longer feel like debating and stuff tonight, I'm awfully tired now haha :P However if you'd like to continue again tomorrow just let me lnow and I'll oblige you.

Goodnight :)

I started comparing Trump to Hitler I think right before the 1st debate so they are the liberal news who ever they are, are actually stealing from me.

Sure we can debate about everything you want

[PlasmaHam]

Your gonna have to tell me what argument im talking about alot of shit on this thing?

mattsmith48 your posts have been nothing but anti-Trump rants. You offer nothing new to this debate. All of your posts have been nothing but attacks on Trump's character, something that really doesn't belong in a serious discussion regarding politics. We try to discuss policy and you start calling Trump stupid again.

Everything you seem to say is not your own opinion, but something you grabbed from someplace else. I am honestly getting tired of listening to you, we get your point, you don't like Trump. But this constant complaining makes you look like a child.

[mattsmith48]

mattsmith48 your posts have been nothing but anti-Trump rants. You offer nothing new to this debate. All of your posts have been nothing but attacks on Trump's character, something that really doesn't belong in a serious discussion regarding politics. We try to discuss policy and you start calling Trump stupid again.

Everything you seem to say is not your own opinion, but something you grabbed from someplace else. I am honestly getting tired of listening to you, we get your point, you don't like Trump. But this constant complaining makes you look like a child.

Because Deporting 11 millions people, screening another 3 millions, building a giant wall, and banning an entire religion from entering the US is stupid. He wants to declare a war against an entire religion. He has insulted every minorities in the US without exception. Telling people at his rallies to assault protesters. He believes in conspiracy theories. You want to talk about policies fine what are his policies what is Trump gonna do we dont know, just in speech when he accepted the nomination last night all it was is fear, lies and hatred, all it was foreigners are gonna kill you, Hillary is a traitor, Obama is puting the US in great danger, he as destroyed the economy and hes the worst president ever. He keep stating false stats, He say hes gonna fix the economy, created jobs and defeat ISIS very fast but he doesnt say how hes gonna do that. He said hes gonna have massive tax cuts but he doesnt say how hes gonna pay for them.

So what opinion doesnt seem to be mine and why? like I cant listen to a speech and look at facts and make my own opinion of something

[Vlerchan]

he has blatantly lied on multitudes of occasions, for example when she said ahe had to duck while taking fire from snipers in Libya.
So has Trump (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/pants-fire/), and he's been in politics about 1/20th of the time that Clinton has.

Though worse is his abuse of statistics. Murder, and police-murders in particular, are at historical lows.

She claims to be a champion for equality, but instead perpetuates hatred against whites and cops through her failure to condemn the attrocities commited under the banner of the BLM movement.
The atrocities against cops weren't committed under the banner of the BLM movement as the Dallas and Baton Rouge shooters were neither members of BLM.

And then, of course, yesterday, three police officers murdered in an apparent premeditated ambush in Baton Rouge.
This madness has to stop.
Watching the news from Baton Rouge yesterday, my heart broke. Not just for those officers and their grieving families, but for all of us. We have difficult, painful, essential work ahead of us to repair the bonds between our police and our communities and between and among each other. We need one another to do this work and we need leaders, like the NAACP.

http://time.com/4411058/baton-rouge-shooting-hillary-clinton-transcript/

This was from five days ago, in a speech to black people.

A vote for Clinton is a vote for a greater racial divide, more attacks from radical Islamic extremist attacks not only abroad but at home too. The only candidate that can bring actual, positive change is Donald J. Trump, so that is who my vote will be going to this November.
Trump will almost certainly feed the racial divide and the feeling of racial dis-privileged amongst blacks (true or imagined, is irrelevant).

If the attacks remain of the same style, the odds are that the president isn't going to affect the numbers of them. Like I said earlier, self-radicalised individuals are difficult to stop.

Of course, like Trump himself, you're being very scant on the actual policy here. I would appreciate if you could discuss the policies of the candidates, as opposed to just making blanket statements, on the basis of what I presume is the substance of their personalities, at this stage.

He only ever talked about kicking out illegal immigrants, like the 11 million from Mexico.
On this, I raised earlier in the thread that [1] big government projects tend to be horrifically inefficient, and [2] deporting 11 million people would considerably undermine aggregate demand, and also have a deleterious supply-side effect. How do you respond to these charges?

Considering the recent attacks in Munich, Nice, Paris, Brussels, etc., that seems like a very ignorant and reckless thing to do
Consider further that in all cases these were committed by almost-all second-generation immigrants (Paris, Paris II, Paris III, Brussels), or people that we are sure did so on the back of mental illness (Nice), or we still don't know (Munich). You can also engage in the rigorous vetting of refugees, which is also what makes this situation different than Europe.

Disclaimer: I don't agree with either parties proposals on refugee intake.

---

Because they lost, and you are suggesting that Israel will nuke the Middle East if they lose.
Loss in Vietnam didn't pose an existential threat to the U.S.: a loss in Israel, for Israel, would.

Big difference.

All of your posts have been nothing but attacks on Trump's character, something that really doesn't belong in a serious discussion regarding politics.
In fairness, that's all I tend to read about Clinton, too.

Yes cuz she should have flyed to their rescue just like Superman.

Whilst the case is a twist of partisan bullshit, and several Republicans themselves have more-or-less outright said, it's about undermining Clinton in the polls, it does seem clear that upper-management failures in allocating resources to the base, before hand, aided the attackers.

College students should be focusing on studying and on their classes not working 2 jobs so your debt dont get so big you cant pay it until your 40.
35. Average number of college parties attended per year – 62

http://blog.classesandcareers.com/advisor/42-statistics-for-college-students/

Can also confirm this is the case in Freshman year, and I lived 30 miles from Campus.

Given that college students should be devoted to studying, do you feel it is unethical that they attend parties? Or, perhaps, does life actually exist outside the bubble of college.

The debt-overhang is also supposed to incentivise them to use their time productively.


I have argued since the beginning that the resurgence of populism, manifested in the Trump movement, for example, is the outgrowth of national insecurities surrounding their place in the world.

That this affects the movement at an intellectual level, is no surprise.

[Bull]

Bernie Sanders. I'll be able to vote next time around.

The winner of the Rethuglican convention: Ted Cruz. Two years from now the only thing people will remember of it is Cruz's not endorsing Thump. Now he owns "vote your conscience" which will be his campaign slogan in 2020.

Nice to know that there is at least one Progressive thinker in Texas. :yeah:
And thanks to Senator Cruz, the nation has a rally cry against partisan voting. People who put party before nation really irritate me. In good conscience, I a registered Republican, can not/will not vote for Trump. IMO he would be a disaster for America on the global as well as domestic front. All his yelling about trade is so two-faced: both he and his daughter have clothing lines made outside the USA. Why people believe all his off the wall statements is beyond comprehension. So as the Senator from the Republic of Texas said, I will vote my conscience and vote for Secretary Clinton. BTW, I do not like anything about Ted Cruz other than this one statement. It was both brave and astute of him.

[Vlerchan]

In good conscience, I a registered Republican, can not/will not vote for Trump.
You're not alone here. I know a number of people that will hold their nose and vote Democrat in December - something which has increased since Kaine was announced as vice-president yesterday.

[StoppingTom]

You're not alone here. I know a number of people that will hold their nose and vote Democrat in December - something which has increased since Kaine was announced as vice-president yesterday.

For some reason I've seen a lot of people dumping on Hillary choosing Kaine, saying he's too boring and/or not the right guy. He seems like a perfectly decent choice for VP, I don't agree with some of his beliefs (lmao tom's a fukkin libtard) but he can definitely out-debate Mike Pence. I'm curious though of who people expected the veep to be. Elizabeth Warren? Sanders?

[Vlerchan]

For some reason I've seen a lot of people dumping on Hillary choosing Kaine, saying he's too boring and/or not the right guy.
The Democrat's Liberal-wing is going to be sure to hate the choice.

But it's the median voter that Clinton needs to appeal to, and that's what she's doing.

He seems like a perfectly decent choice for VP, I don't agree with some of his beliefs (lmao tom's a fukkin libtard) but he can definitely out-debate Mike Pence.
What do you disagree with him on?

Pence also seems like a Dolt, though I understand why he was chosen too.

I'm curious though of who people expected the veep to be. Elizabeth Warren? Sanders?
Warren, or a senator with browner skin.

[PlasmaHam]

Warren, or a senator with browner skin.

Ha, Liberals and minorities, they just love them

[Cadanance00]

Nice to know that there is at least one Progressive thinker in Texas. :yeah:
.

Surely there must be more. I think there are, in Austin. *look under bed, behind trees*

[mattsmith48]

35. Average number of college parties attended per year – 62

http://blog.classesandcareers.com/advisor/42-statistics-for-college-students/

Can also confirm this is the case in Freshman year, and I lived 30 miles from Campus.

Given that college students should be devoted to studying, do you feel it is unethical that they attend parties? Or, perhaps, does life actually exist outside the bubble of college.

The debt-overhang is also supposed to incentivise them to use their time productively.


I have argued since the beginning that the resurgence of populism, manifested in the Trump movement, for example, is the outgrowth of national insecurities surrounding their place in the world.

That this affects the movement at an intellectual level, is no surprise.

I never said you should only do study and focus on your school. In fact I think it can be a good for students to have a small part time job, but it should only be to make extra money while your at school not to try to pay off a portion of your debt while your still at school and that should be your main focus. Parties can be a great way to relieve some stress from college there is nothing wrong with it.

[Vlerchan]

I never said you should only do study and focus on your school. In fact I think it can be a good for students to have a small part time job, but it should only be to make extra money while your at school not to try to pay off a portion of your debt while your still at school and that should be your main focus. Parties can be a great way to relieve some stress from college there is nothing wrong with it.
I in fact don't believe that students should attempt to pay of their debts whilst in school, loans should be structured so that money leaves their accounts as they're able (i.e., on finding a full-time job). Nonetheless, so long as we can agree that it is more than possible for students to attend full-time education, and work at the same time, like millions do.

Though, why you're still insistent students just shouldn't have to pay their own way, generally-speaking, is still beyond me.

---

On a personal note, I work full-time four months of the year, and make enough to pay off whatever costs I have heading into the next school year.

More than feasible.

[StoppingTom]

What do you disagree with him on?


It's not a major disagreement (namely because I'm disgustingly left on the topic) but he believes in some restriction in abortion, while I'd essentially like to see Oprah giving free abortions for everybody.

[Vlerchan]

It's not a major disagreement (namely because I'm disgustingly left on the topic) but he believes in some restriction in abortion, while I'd essentially like to see Oprah giving free abortions for everybody.
Well, Kaine has a perfectly pro-choice voting record since he entered the Senate (http://www.vox.com/2016/7/23/12259036/tim-kaine-vice-president-abortion-views-explained).

The understanding I have is that he is opposed to abortion at a personal level, but doesn't feel that the law has a place in controlling woman's bodies.

Though, it doesn't really matter regardless. Domestic issues, in particular domestic social issues: like abortion, are the least likely to undergo change, at a federal level, outside the courts. Not to mention, Roe v Wade.

---

Good choice of issue, by the way. I was afraid you were going to say something like TPP (which, he has unfortunately said he won't support any more - alongside Clinton), or Glass–Steagall.

---

Edit: Reise

Donald Trump has suggested terrorist attacks in France and Germany were their "own fault" and citizens of those "compromised" countries could be subject to "extreme vetting" before entering the United States.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/24/donald-trump-says-french-and-germans-to-face-extreme-vetting-ent/

Guess I won't be seeing you in Harvard Finance 501 then :(.

(Though what's extreme vetting? is one question to be asked here.)

[dxcxdzv]

Good thing I'm not willing to live in Trump's America.

I'll get shit loads of money before I turn 30 Warren Buffett style. Goal for life.
Side note, Buffett-denka has also been refused to Harvard.

(Though what's extreme vetting? is one question to be asked here.)
I guess it's like you speak French or German in an airport and get directly tazzed in the back by a so called guardian of order.

[lyhom]

1. honestly kaine didn't excite me at first, but all the stuff that I've heard about him since the announcement makes me confident that he's a really good choice

2. lmao i just noticed that I misspelled "edition" in the thread title fuck

[mattsmith48]

1. honestly kaine didn't excite me at first, but all the stuff that I've heard about him since the announcement makes me confident that he's a really good choice

2. lmao i just noticed that I misspelled "edition" in the thread title fuck

From what Ive eared Tim Kaine seem average democrat, a conservative who believe climate change is real and who is pro-choice, hes just like Hillary Clinton. Not sure it helps getting the Bernie supporters, could help get the few the non-racist, non-crazy republicans, thats of course if they prove he knows how to use a email.

[Judean Zealot]

I like Kaine, because, like Clinton, he's really a moderate Republican in Democratic clothing.

[PhillyMorrell]

Just want to point out that the US could make history by electing Hilary Clinton and for the 1st time in history the US would do something right before Canada did weve never had an elected woman lead the country

Shouldn't be voting just because she is a woman. We need to vote for the right candidate.

[mattsmith48]

Shouldn't be voting just because she is a woman. We need to vote for the right candidate.

Your right you shouldnt vote for Hillary Clinton because shes a woman you should vote for her cuz shes the best option.

Like I said in later post its more on the US's image internationally that it looks good.

[kevenity]

I'm ready for a new direction of this country. I also am sick and tired of career politicians who are bought and paid for by their private donors. Hillary Clinton is the pinnacle of the establishment. the establishment is run by the elites who want to benefit themselves and their party rather than the interests of the American people. This goes for the Republican side as well. I don't want a corrupt politician who lies her way to the White House. i do agree with many of the social reforms this country has now under the current president but unfortunately that's about it.

[LRSSS02]

Hilary Clinton.

I was a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders. However, he dropped out and I absolutely hate Trump. With all of the recent hate violence and terrorism, Trump is the LAST person we need running this country. I don't care much for Hilary either but I share similar political beliefs with her.

You don't like her enough to spell her name right, but anyway I am a big Trump supporter

[LRSSS02]

I like Kaine, because, like Clinton, he's really a moderate Republican in Democratic clothing.

Don't insult the Republican Party by affiliating Hillary with us.

[mattsmith48]

Don't insult the Republican Party by affiliating Hillary with us.

You mean dont insult Hillary by affilating her to the Republican Party shes just corrupt shes not crazy and racist

[mattsmith48]

I like Kaine, because, like Clinton, he's really a moderate Republican in Democratic clothing.

Democrates are conservatives who are pro-choice and knows climate change is real

[Vlerchan]

Democrates are conservatives who are pro-choice and knows climate change is real
How do you actually define conservative?

---

Clinton is also a Rockefeller Republican.

[mattsmith48]

How do you actually define conservative?

---

Clinton is also a Rockefeller Republican.

Conservatives are basically people who are on the wrong side of almost every issue, who are against change, mostly religious and who will almost always choose money and religion over what people actually want.

[Vlerchan]

Conservatives are basically people who are on the wrong side of almost every issue, who are against change, mostly religious and who will almost always choose money and religion over what people actually want.
The perennial bogeyman, got it.

---

Do you have a more academic definition? Like what the hell is 'change'? What issues, is there themes to their opposition, etc.

[mattsmith48]

The perennial bogeyman, got it.

---

Do you have a more academic definition? Like what the hell is 'change'? What issues, is there themes to their opposition, etc.

There we go fresh from the Internet just for you: Belief in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society, Dislike of change or new ideas in a particular area

[dxcxdzv]

There we go fresh from the Internet just for you: Belief in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society, Dislike of change or new ideas in a particular area
You think all traditional practices are bad?
And what is "in a particular area"?

[mattsmith48]

You think all traditional practices are bad?
And what is "in a particular area"?

He asked me for a ''academic definition'' because mine wasnt good enough or something, I just picked a random one out of the Google. "in a particular area" Im guess is in some situations or policies. All traditional practices arent bad but some are.

[Melodic]

You don't like her enough to spell her name right, but anyway I am a big trump supporter

Well. You don't like Trump enough to capitalize the T in his name.

[dxcxdzv]

He asked me for a ''academic definition'' because mine wasnt good enough or something, I just picked a random one out of the Google. "in a particular area" Im guess is in some situations or policies. All traditional practices arent bad but some are.
So you are agreeing on a vague definition (it is, in my opinion) without fully understanding it?

[Judean Zealot]

Ironic that Mattsmith "likes" a post criticising a poster's grammar.

[mattsmith48]

So you are agreeing on a vague definition (it is, in my opinion) without fully understanding it?

In someway, I do agree with that definition, yes. Im not sure what your looking for here?

[Vlerchan]

He asked me for a ''academic definition'' because mine wasnt good enough or something[.]
I meant 'academic' as in more intelligently-crafted. I just didn't want to come across as too insulting.

In the end though, I would appreciate you supplied something [1] coherent, [2] elaborates on why you seem to find the ideology instinctively noxious.

Surely, you don't find all change good, and all permanence bad.

[mattsmith48]

Surely, you don't find all change good, and all permanence bad.

Obviously no, somethings are good the way they are.

[PlasmaHam]

Obviously no, somethings are good the way they are.

For just personal interest, would you mind explaining what a few of those things might be? I am curious if you care to answer.

[mattsmith48]

For just personal interest, would you mind explaining what a few of those things might be? I am curious if you care to answer.

I dont mind just give me the time to think about it

[PlasmaHam]

I dont mind just give me the time to think about it

Have all the time in the world! If you don't want to answer, I understand and won't hold it against you. I am just curious of your views.

[Leprous]

PlasmaHam I saw you mention you hate it when people use tragic events for their agenda. Isn't that exactly what Trump did with Orlando? Seems a bit hypocritical for a Trump supporter.

[PlasmaHam]

PlasmaHam I saw you mention you hate it when people use tragic events for their agenda. Isn't that exactly what Trump did with Orlando? Seems a bit hypocritical for a Trump supporter.

I'll say it once, and I'll say it again. I am a very reluctant Trump supporter, he is far from my ideal candidate. I am not one of those rabid supporters who try to defend all of his actions. The man is egotistical, and really just rude. His statements during Orlando were unnecessary at the moment, he was just trying to promote his agenda during a time of weakness.

[Leprous]

I'll say it once, and I'll say it again. I am a very reluctant Trump supporter, he is far from my ideal candidate. I am not one of those rabid supporters who try to defend all of his actions. The man is egotistical, and really just rude. His statements during Orlando were unnecessary at the moment, he was just trying to promote his agenda during a time of weakness.

Then how can you still support him?

[mattsmith48]

For just personal interest, would you mind explaining what a few of those things might be? I am curious if you care to answer.

The only thing I can think of that was better and we shouldnt have changed is the climate and Earth's atmosphere

[Leprous]

The only thing I can think of that was better and we shouldnt have changed is the climate and Earth's atmosphere

Yeah like we could stop that in the first place.

[PlasmaHam]

Then how can you still support him?

You are seriously asking this question? Clinton is a proven chronic liar, you think that means that no one will vote for her? Of course not! Everyone has their flaws, I just feel that Trump has less than Clinton.

[Judean Zealot]

You are seriously asking this question? Clinton is a proven chronic liar, you think that means that no one will vote for her? Of course not! Everyone has their flaws, I just feel that Trump has less than Clinton.

Let me rephrase his question: what flaw does Hillary have that Trump doesn't?

[mattsmith48]

Let me rephrase his question: what flaw does Hillary have that Trump doesn't?

She doesnt know how to use a Email?

Yeah like we could stop that in the first place.

Its not a reason not to try

[Leprous]

Its not a reason not to try

Well this ain't the climate thread

[Leprous]

You are seriously asking this question? Clinton is a proven chronic liar, you think that means that no one will vote for her? Of course not! Everyone has their flaws, I just feel that Trump has less than Clinton.

Lol PlasmaHam

"We need to stop illegal immigrants from Syria and Mexico because we don't know where they come from"

"Brussels is a hellhole"

"Belgium is a beautiful city with nice buildings"

"Glad to see the people in Scotland are happy about the brexit"

Yeah he's very smart trust me

[mattsmith48]

Clinton is a proven chronic liar,

Says the guy who support the candidate who keeps contradicting himself sometimes in the same speech

[Vlerchan]

Donald Trump is doing an AMA on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4uxdbn/im_donald_j_trump_and_im_your_next_president_of/). So far his answers have been complete shit - and I mean that in the least I-support-Clinton way possible -, unlike professional politicians, he doesn't seem to have mastered pawning off questions.

He has also outright and explicitly only responded to parts of questions, which is interesting.

r/Donald also literally seems like a cult.

[sqishy]

Donald Trump is doing an AMA on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4uxdbn/im_donald_j_trump_and_im_your_next_president_of/). So far his answers have been complete shit - and I mean that in the least I-support-Clinton way possible -, unlike professional politicians, he doesn't seem to have mastered pawning off questions.

He has also outright and explicitly only responded to parts of questions, which is interesting.

r/Donald also literally seems like a cult.

I can agree to that...

It is a new thing for me to see someone say "MAKE MARS AMERICAN", as well someone wondering what Trump's stance is on the "space industry".

What is a space industry supposed to be exactly?? You may say satellites, but the implications by that post and its responses mean basically anything beyond Earth.

I do worry as I did before, but now on even more angles. Yay...?

[Vlerchan]

It is a new thing for me to see someone say "MAKE MARS AMERICAN", as well someone wondering what Trump's stance is on the "space industry".
Question 2: What role should NASA play in helping to Make America Great Again?

2 - Honestly I think NASA is wonderful! America has always led the world in space exploration.

---

I wish I was making this shit up.

[dxcxdzv]

I wish I could say shit 24 hours a day and still get approved by millions of people.

------

Oh, btw I'm supporting Trumpie.
Why? Because that. This shit literally had to come out soon or later.

ZbM6WbUw7Bs

[Judean Zealot]

I wish I could say shit 24 hours a day and still get approved by millions of people.

------

Oh, btw I'm supporting Trumpie.
Why? Because that. This shit literally had to come out soon or later.

ZbM6WbUw7Bs

I'm going to be ill...

[mattsmith48]

About time they are finally starting to attack Trump at DNC

[sqishy]

Question 2: What role should NASA play in helping to Make America Great Again?

2 - Honestly I think NASA is wonderful! America has always led the world in space exploration.

---

I wish I was making this shit up.

That was said??

[Vlerchan]

That was said??
Yes. He didn't respond at all to the follow up seeking clarification.

Worth remembering that the mod team at r/Donald also vetted all these questions.

[mattsmith48]

Yes. He didn't respond at all to the follow up seeking clarification.

Worth remembering that the mod team at r/Donald also vetted all these questions.

Goes with what I said earlier he doesnt know shit on how to do what he promise and he censor questions he dont like from the public, and hes doing the same with the press.

[sqishy]

Yes. He didn't respond at all to the follow up seeking clarification.

Worth remembering that the mod team at r/Donald also vetted all these questions.

Right then!

[Vlerchan]

I am also so glad to see the comments I made about Trump's connection with Russia beginning to catch on. For example, re. Bloomberg's editorial board (Shapiro) (http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-27/trump-s-putin-flirtation-gets-serious), conservative writer Ross Douthat (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/the-donald-trump-show.html?_r=0), and Megan McArdle (http://www.bloomberg.com/articles/2016-07-27/trump-s-nationalist-appeal-fades-when-he-starts-winking-at-putin) (who in the last hour took her piece down, but it might be back up), for some respectable people jumping on Trump.

Whilst I'm sharing material, Bloomberg's (http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-28/the-independent-s-case-for-clinton) fantastic speech also appeared as an op-ed on Bloomberg this morning.

[mattsmith48]

I am also so glad to see the comments I made about Trump's connection with Russia beginning to catch on. For example, re. Bloomberg's editorial board (Shapiro) (http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-27/trump-s-putin-flirtation-gets-serious), conservative writer Ross Douthat (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/the-donald-trump-show.html?_r=0), and Megan McArdle (http://www.bloomberg.com/articles/2016-07-27/trump-s-nationalist-appeal-fades-when-he-starts-winking-at-putin) (who in the last hour took her piece down, but it might be back up), for some respectable people jumping on Trump.

Whilst I'm sharing material, Bloomberg's (http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-28/the-independent-s-case-for-clinton) fantastic speech also appeared as an op-ed on Bloomberg this morning.

If this Russia thing doesnt hurt him I dont know what will.

[Dalcourt]

If I could vote I'd vote for the Libertarians...Gary Johnson.
I know that those smaller parties don't stand a chance in our political system, but they probably would if people would consider them instead of just dismissed them and always vote for the lesser of two evils provided by the Republicans and Democrats.
Even if I wouldn't be able to make a difference it would be better than selling my soul.

[NatteDroom03]

Clinton all the way. Seriously, if Trump wins, there's something wrong with people.

[Vlerchan]

"I didn't know he was disabled. I didn't know it at all. I had no idea," he said.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSKCN10A00N

Guess who?

---

On an unrelated note Trump has claimed that the gloves are coming off in his race against Clinton.

[Bluebyrd]

I'll just drop this here:

http://i63.tinypic.com/i5btec.jpg

[Flapjack]

Just cast my Hillary vote! She is corrupt and bad but she's no Trump!

[mattsmith48]

I'll just drop this here:

image (http://i63.tinypic.com/i5btec.jpg)

Environment really? I understand that a few people would believe is fear mongering and it would make you agree with him on immigration, foreign and domestic policies but Environment?

[Flapjack]

Environment really? I understand that a few people would believe is fear mongering and it would make you agree with him on immigration, foreign and domestic policies but Environment?
I wouldn't take that seriously buddy:)

[Vlerchan]

Environment really? I understand that a few people would believe is fear mongering and it would make you agree with him on immigration, foreign and domestic policies but Environment?
I'm quite certain The Byrd is a troll, so don't concern yourself too much with it.

[lyhom]

The UK and Canada have Queen Elizabeth, and UK has its second female PM.

not to mention that canada has had one female pm as well, although she only served for a few months because she was serving the rest of the term of her then deeply unpopular predecessor, and the party they represented was so unpopular that they went from 156 seats to only 2 in the next election

[mattsmith48]

not to mention that canada has had one female pm as well, although she only served for a few months because she was serving the rest of the term of her then deeply unpopular predecessor, and the party they represented was so unpopular that they went from 156 seats to only 2 in the next election

Yup lead to 2 liberal PM and 4 straight wins for the liberal party and Canada almost losing Quebec. Billy Canadians never elected a female PM, and Queen Elizabeth doesnt really count neither because shes not elected.

Mimikyu Vlerchan he might be a troll but there is actually people who agree with him on environment.

[dxcxdzv]

Trumpie news!
Buffet-denka is now challenging The Donald on tax returns.

[Bluebyrd]

I'm quite certain The Byrd is a troll, so don't concern yourself too much with it.

I'm not a troll at all. What makes you think that? The fact that my opinions clash with others'?

[Vlerchan]

I'm not a troll at all. What makes you think that? The fact that my opinions clash with others'?
The fact that the opinions expressed are mere memes - or at best shallow caricatures - of actual conservative positions. This is combined with the outright pessimism and - more-so - contrarianism expressed in other threads.

I could be wrong or course. We're getting off topic regardless.

[Bluebyrd]

The fact that the opinions expressed are mere memes - or at best shallow caricatures - of actual conservative positions. This is combined with the outright pessimism and - more-so - contrarianism expressed in other threads.

I could be wrong or course. We're getting off topic regardless.

I seldom post in ROTW.