2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins] Page 30

Started by Kanzler January 31st, 2016 9:29 PM
  • 53965 views
  • 1240 replies

gimmepie

Age 27
Male
Australia
Seen 1 Hour Ago
Posted 7 Hours Ago
24,971 posts
11.1 Years
I don't know if you can call Saudi Arabia and Bahrain terrorist groups, I mean their track records are absolutely awful but they're closer to dictatorships than terrorist cells.

Although she has directly supported terrorist cells in the past in Libya, but that's business as usual for the US State Dept now I guess.

I (and I know this sounds strange given our usual relationship) actually agree with you over her behavior, especially when it comes to, as you said, her apparent self championing of LBGT causes and groups. Her piggybacking and prostituting of minority groups and their struggles really annoys me considering her toxic legacy against poc and the lbgt community. A snake in a wig is still a snake.
A snake in a wig might still be a snake but it's also still safer than a loaded gun and that's what Trump is. Hillary obviously has flaws but she at least knows how to be a politician and isn't going to embaress your country on the international stage.
RPWLA&MVGGaming Journal

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
So there's a really interesting piece from The Atlantic I read. Basically, it says that just by being a major party candidate, Clinton is going to trigger lots of people to a sexist backlash whether she wins or not, and it suggests that, her scandals aside, the anger that people have for her is way higher than is normally warranted of political candidates.

Over the past few years, political scientists have suggested that, counterintuitively, Barack Obamas election may have led to greater acceptance by whites of racist rhetoric. Something similar is now happening with gender. Hillary Clintons candidacy is sparking the kind of sexist backlash that decades of research would predict. If she becomes president, that backlash could convulse American politics for years to come.
It cites several studies about the attitudes men have regarding women in positions of power and/or positions traditionally held by men, which it says are

relevant because the Americans who dislike [Clinton] most are those who most fear emasculation. According to the Public Religion Research Institute, Americans who completely agree that society is becoming too soft and feminine were more than four times as likely to have a very unfavorable view of Clinton as those who completely disagree. And the presidential-primary candidate whose supporters were most likely to believe that America is becoming feminizedmore likely by double digits than supporters of Ted Cruzwas Donald Trump.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/fear-of-a-female-president/497564/

CoffeeDrink

GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD

Male
Lootin' Your Poké's
Seen December 4th, 2016
Posted December 4th, 2016
1,250 posts
9.7 Years
A snake in a wig might still be a snake but it's also still safer than a loaded gun and that's what Trump is. Hillary obviously has flaws but she at least knows how to be a politician and isn't going to embaress your country on the international stage.
We're already the laughing stock of the world. I don't see how much of a difference Trump or Clinton would make. Remember, this is the country that went other the UN to complain about Internet bullies (see: trolls), where most people that are part of the UN wished their only problem was Internet bullies. You see, we aren't ever viewed in a favorable light, and with our two faced stance on what is going down in Syria, it isn't hard to see why.

We like to back terrorists, evidently. Reagan did it, Bush did it, Clinton backed em, Bush Jr did it, Obama does it. It just never seems to end. We back the bad guy, and I hate it. We have people that have denounced duly elected officials and have even backed war criminals over the collective power of the people because, you know, communism.

Besides, a loaded gun by itself isn't inherently dangerous. I have a loaded shotgun under my couch in fact. You don't have to keep an eye on a gun because without people (i.e. power) it can do no damage. Clinton on the other hand, has embezzled millions from their aid foundation. So forgive me if I get confused as to why you'd choose a guaranteed death with a venomous snake over potentially shooting yourself in the foot.

Her foreign policy is a mess. We've seen her lie through her teeth, and she's a duly elected official. You see, the difference I see is a business man and a politician. She has a duty to hold herself up and above that of her opponent. She is supposed to do what is best for the American people, but has failed time and again to do so.

She had the chance, she had the power but has done nothing to better the country or help those under her purview. Clinton has had 3 decades to fix things and she has squandered 3 decades. She lies, she cheats, she steals, she supports bad practices, two faced, sick, scheming, and a shill (some of these are personal opinions).

Sum: I don't think Trump will make us look any worse for wear.

Clinton is a known (everything bad that corruption does insert here take your pick, place your bets, step right up ladies and gentlemen.) and does it under the banner of an elected official. You and I would probably be jailed if those were our emails (that's not the only bad thing she's done).

Loaded guns are safer than venomous snakes, and I'd rather have a gun than deal with a lethal snake. I'd rather play russian roulette than play with an inlaid taipan, and I'd rather shoot myself in the foot than get bit by a cobra.

Although I'm just playing at this point. The analogy is a poor one but I do understand the point you were trying to make. I just think that the rest of the world sees us as the clowns across the sea and we can't do much worse. Some Europeans actually prefer Clinton's opponent, but that could just be a coincidence.

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
We're already the laughing stock of the world. I don't see how much of a difference Trump or Clinton would make. Remember, this is the country that went other the UN to complain about Internet bullies (see: trolls), where most people that are part of the UN wished their only problem was Internet bullies. You see, we aren't ever viewed in a favorable light, and with our two faced stance on what is going down in Syria, it isn't hard to see why.
Actually, most of the world sees the US in a positive light (at least since a certain B. Obama is leading it) AND most of the world is very supportive of the US's actions in Syria! Man, it's as if your entire image of your country is based on a misrepresentation of reality.

We like to back terrorists, evidently. Reagan did it, Bush did it, Clinton backed em, Bush Jr did it, Obama does it. It just never seems to end. We back the bad guy, and I hate it. We have people that have denounced duly elected officials and have even backed war criminals over the collective power of the people because, you know, communism.
Wait, who is the "bad guy" Obama is supporting? I missed that. Funnily enough, when both of the candidates met the Egyptian dictator, only one of them was exceedingly happy to make the acquaintance of a "bad guy"- and his name wasn't Hillary.

Besides, a loaded gun by itself isn't inherently dangerous. I have a loaded shotgun under my couch in fact. You don't have to keep an eye on a gun because without people (i.e. power) it can do no damage. Clinton on the other hand, has embezzled millions from their aid foundation.
No, no. I think you got it wrong again- that was the Donald.

She had the chance, she had the power but has done nothing to better the country or help those under her purview. Clinton has had 3 decades to fix things and she has squandered 3 decades. She lies, she cheats, she steals, she supports bad practices, two faced, sick, scheming, and a shill (some of these are personal opinions).
So would you say that the US is currently worse than it was 30 years ago?

You and I would probably be jailed if those were our emails (that's not the only bad thing she's done).
Actually, you wouldn't- at least, the previous people who did similar things weren't.

Some Europeans actually prefer Clinton's opponent, but that could just be a coincidence.
Yes. Exactly 9% of us. More or less the same amount of people who believe that the moon landings were faked. Probably the same ones as well.

So, in short: you really, really, really, really hate Hillary Clinton and you'd be ready to elect a monkey holding a crossbow if it were her political opponent just because of how much you hate her. At least I'm slightly comforted by the fact that you don't really think Trump is that good.

What I'm worried about is the fact that essentially every claim you have made in your post happens to be exactly 180 wrong. I'm not sure how good a judgement you can have when all your facts are upside-down. I guess that's the reason why people can vote for Trump- complete, utter misinformation that "feels right".

Somewhere_

i don't know where

Age 23
Male
somewhere (duh)
Seen June 5th, 2019
Posted March 17th, 2019
Someone let us know how it goes here; I would watch myself, but since I took a nap and woke up late, I've kinda lost interest rip.
^ yes! ^

I can't watch it either- I got homework. :/

CoffeeDrink

GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD

Male
Lootin' Your Poké's
Seen December 4th, 2016
Posted December 4th, 2016
1,250 posts
9.7 Years
Spoiler:
Actually, most of the world sees the US in a positive light (at least since a certain B. Obama is leading it) AND most of the world is very supportive of the US's actions in Syria! Man, it's as if your entire image of your country is based on a misrepresentation of reality.



Wait, who is the "bad guy" Obama is supporting? I missed that. Funnily enough, when both of the candidates met the Egyptian dictator, only one of them was exceedingly happy to make the acquaintance of a "bad guy"- and his name wasn't Hillary.



No, no. I think you got it wrong again- that was the Donald.



So would you say that the US is currently worse than it was 30 years ago?



Actually, you wouldn't- at least, the previous people who did similar things weren't.



Yes. Exactly 9% of us. More or less the same amount of people who believe that the moon landings were faked. Probably the same ones as well.

So, in short: you really, really, really, really hate Hillary Clinton and you'd be ready to elect a monkey holding a crossbow if it were her political opponent just because of how much you hate her. At least I'm slightly comforted by the fact that you don't really think Trump is that good.

What I'm worried about is the fact that essentially every claim you have made in your post happens to be exactly 180 wrong. I'm not sure how good a judgement you can have when all your facts are upside-down. I guess that's the reason why people can vote for Trump- complete, utter misinformation that "feels right".
In terms of inherent lethality? Live Snakes.

Besides, she kept a private server at her private residence, so regardless of that fact, another politico article contradicts the other. It also doesn't change the fact that she lied about it at least once. Then stated 'my predecessors did it' which isn't true. They did not have private servers at their home or under their direct control. It's also one of those cases where it hasn't happened often, so saying that we could do the same thing and get away with it is a tad hopeful in my opinion.

Further more, attacking Syrian Troops doesn't get an 'Oops, thought they were ISIS' pass from me. Bombing an airbase without all the Intel is idiotic don't you think? So that is what I mean when I say the US is making mistakes. Not working with Russia is another mistake. Confusing ones allies with one's enemies is a bad misstep if you ask me.

There seems to be some disconnect with embezzlement and it's definitions. So, the article you positioned was filled on the basis of a licensing dispute, or more in line with failing to license. Also, if I ate an apple and someone said I didn't and showed someone a picture of my neighbor eating an apple does not negate the former. I don't know where the train stopped with that one, but I'll go with it.

Opinion polls aren't always the best source, but a decent enough basis. But, you know, opinions.

Better or worse off than 30 years ago? Well, on the basis of if my opinion matters? Yes, worse off, but you should also note that what I said does not correlate with 'Clinton breathes oxygen, therefore the US is worse than ever'. Economically, the country is okay but it isn't like it used to be. The dollar value has seen itself plummet, manufacturing positions have moved overseas partly because of terribly laid tax plans (thanks Reagan, great job).

So off the top of my head, has Clinton made the country better, or worse? No, on both. She hasn't made anything better and she couldn't stop Nike moving away if she tried. I'm not gullible enough to lay the blame of 30 years of economic turmoil at the foot of one person. So handing me loaded questions is kind of low. I just note that what she has done (or not done) wouldn't have made much of a difference if she wasn't there. Does that make sense?

It isn't a matter of 'here's how bad Trump is' for me so much as 'What has Clinton done'? Does that make sense? Has she squandered her political position? Yes. Has she used her seat for personal gain? Yes. Has she failed the American people? I'll call letting Americans die as a yes.

You see, for me it's like I hold people who hold office to higher standards. I hold cops to higher standards than I do the average joe. Cops are supposed to know the law and rules of their precinct. Now if all they did was use their position to drink all the donuts and eat all the coffee you'd say that they failed in their duty as well, no?

I feel there is a disconnect with 'here's a character'. Hillary is already elected, albeit in a different seat. She has abused this power multiple times. Which seat has trump held? That's the point I'm trying to make. Hillary, abuse of power, known failure of held power. Trump, dork, has had no obligation to hold to a political seat before.

Making snide remarks about how wrong I am and all 'misconceptiony' or what else makes a total of 0 people that would probably legitimately value your opinion. 'Worrying' about me is downright insulting, when issued with loaded connotations. So, cheers I guess.


Pence is pretty well spoken. More than decent vp nominee

gimmepie

Age 27
Male
Australia
Seen 1 Hour Ago
Posted 7 Hours Ago
24,971 posts
11.1 Years
"What has Clinton done?" is a terrible response when you can also ask the same of Trump. What has Trump done that has benefited anyone ever?

I think a more important questions is "What will Trump/Clinton" do? Clinton will change nothing. She'll continue the moderate-leftist policies of Obama and continue to support equal rights etc etc. Why she's making positive moves doesn't matter because ultimately those are still better for your country than having a lunatic like Trump as your head of state.

Trump will continue to weigh in on things that he doesn't understand - that I doubt he is intelligent enough to even learn to understand and will continue to reinforce negative stigmas and encourage people to take steps back when it comes to social issues. Not to mention he's not going to fix your economy or anything either. If anything he'll blow money on stupid muk.

I'm not saying Clinton is great. She's very much doing the right thing for selfish reasons but I'd rather take no steps forward than two steps back when it comes to politics.
RPWLA&MVGGaming Journal

CoffeeDrink

GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD

Male
Lootin' Your Poké's
Seen December 4th, 2016
Posted December 4th, 2016
1,250 posts
9.7 Years
"What has Clinton done?" is a terrible response when you can also ask the same of Trump. What has Trump done that has benefited anyone ever?

I think a more important questions is "What will Trump/Clinton" do? Clinton will change nothing. She'll continue the moderate-leftist policies of Obama and continue to support equal rights etc etc. Why she's making positive moves doesn't matter because ultimately those are still better for your country than having a lunatic like Trump as your head of state.

Trump will continue to weigh in on things that he doesn't understand - that I doubt he is intelligent enough to even learn to understand and will continue to reinforce negative stigmas and encourage people to take steps back when it comes to social issues. Not to mention he's not going to fix your economy or anything either. If anything he'll blow money on stupid ****.

I'm not saying Clinton is great. She's very much doing the right thing for selfish reasons but I'd rather take no steps forward than two steps back when it comes to politics.
I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe any one person can fix an entire economic downturn that began decades ago, so I don't know why that is even an issue. At best, the vehicle can be steered but the brakes went out a long time ago.

No, I dont believe it's fair to levy the same expectations on a new politician as opposed to a 30+ politician, I think it's ridiculous and I don't feel like delving into it further aside from asking why a two year old didn't take the trash out as opposed to the 33 year old whose job it is in the first place. It's about as ridiculous. You might think differently, but that's your prerogative.

Also, what 'stupid muk' will he attempt to 'blow money' on? Just curious.

gimmepie

Age 27
Male
Australia
Seen 1 Hour Ago
Posted 7 Hours Ago
24,971 posts
11.1 Years
I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe any one person can fix an entire economic downturn that began decades ago, so I don't know why that is even an issue. At best, the vehicle can be steered but the brakes went out a long time ago.

No, I dont believe it's fair to levy the same expectations on a new politician as opposed to a 30+ politician, I think it's ridiculous and I don't feel like delving into it further aside from asking why a two year old didn't take the trash out as opposed to the 33 year old whose job it is in the first place. It's about as ridiculous. You might think differently, but that's your prerogative.

Also, what 'stupid muk' will he attempt to 'blow money' on? Just curious.
Like a wall.
Not that I think that'd ever actually be allowed to happen, but it speaks volumes to his credibility.
RPWLA&MVGGaming Journal

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Age 32
Male
Seen December 15th, 2022
Posted November 23rd, 2022
1,863 posts
6.8 Years
A snake in a wig might still be a snake but it's also still safer than a loaded gun and that's what Trump is. Hillary obviously has flaws but she at least knows how to be a politician and isn't going to embaress your country on the international stage.
Neither of them will embarrass my country ;)

But i would be embarrassed if my head of state pretended they didn't understand basic shorthand for confidential and lied about coming under sniper fire.

The thing is Trump isn't going to win, there's little point calling him out for saying stupid things when we have a dead cert for president who's voting and political record is absolute trash. A candidate who legitimately said she'd nuke Iran if Iran and Israel went to war, regardless of non aggression against the US. A candidate who's own website said all rape victims have the right to be believed despite her calling the legitimate reported rape of Kathy Shelton (12 at the time of the attack) the fantasy of a young girl who "sought out" older men, A twelve year old girl. This doesn't even touch on her awful antics with nefarious individuals and Governments. As someone on the left (the same side of the spectrum Clinton apparently resides on) I cannot overlook any of this, and she cannot be allowed to just sweep it away and continue business as usual.

So there's a really interesting piece from The Atlantic I read. Basically, it says that just by being a major party candidate, Clinton is going to trigger lots of people to a sexist backlash whether she wins or not, and it suggests that, her scandals aside, the anger that people have for her is way higher than is normally warranted of political candidates.

It cites several studies about the attitudes men have regarding women in positions of power and/or positions traditionally held by men, which it says are

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/fear-of-a-female-president/497564/
Would it make you feel better if I told you I'm just as negative about the other President Clinton?

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Age 32
Male
Seen December 15th, 2022
Posted November 23rd, 2022
1,863 posts
6.8 Years
Clinton further clarified that she didn't even want to do the trial, but when you're an attourney, you gotta do what you're hired to do. She even tried to get out of it, but was turned down.

It's best to understand the context of why she did what she did before passing along judgements. It made her sick to defend a rapist, but she was essentially forced to.
I'm not criticizing her for doing her job, no matter how awfully she behaved during it, I'm criticizing her barefaced cheek to claim all victims should be believed when she deliberately misrepresented and in turn, delegitimized the truthful claims of a 12 year old rape victim by painting her as a lustful bunny boiler who was essentially lying.

I would rather lose my job than defend someone I knew was guilty for being a child rapist, anyone with even a shred, a shred of moral decency would.

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Age 32
Male
Seen December 15th, 2022
Posted November 23rd, 2022
1,863 posts
6.8 Years
I dunno, Hands. The ugly truth about being a lawyer is that you're probably going to be hired to defend people you don't like. Murders? Kidnappers? Are you going to lose your job just because you don't like the case or the person, or are you going to do what you were hired to do in the first place? What she said wasn't pretty and I don't agree with it, but for christ's sake, she was a defense attourney, that's the kind of stuff you'd expect from a defense attourney.

You said you're not critizing her for doing her job, but you criticize her for doing her job, anyway... ? Harsh rhetoric falls squarely within the norm of being a lawyer, I don't see what's unusual, there.
They were two separate statements really. My statement about quitting if it was me was about lawyers on a whole, not specifically Clinton. Sorry for any confusion.

There's nothing unusual about the horrible things she said in the trial, that's not my complaint. My complaint is she made the statement that all victims should be believed despite her destroying the words of a child she knew was telling the truth about being raped. Then, instead of standing up and explaining herself, apologizing for the whole mess, offering to do more to ensure no one else had to face what she put that poor kid through she just ran away from it in typical Clinton fashion and deleted the statement from her website. Clinton is incapable of taking any, any responsibility for her actions and words, whenever something comes up she can't explain away with her patented "I misspoke" line or a bizarre lie, she simply pretends it didn't happen or tries to delete it. These are not qualities of a world leader.

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Age 32
Male
Seen December 15th, 2022
Posted November 23rd, 2022
1,863 posts
6.8 Years
I don't get it. Again, you said you aren't criticizing her for doing her job, but you go on and critize her for doing her job anyway as you said here:



She was doing her job as a lawyer. It wasn't a pleasant job, but not everything about being a lawyer is full of roses and sunflowers. The harsh rhetoric in regards of Clinton claiming that the child was fantacizing was literally a part of her job to try and disprove the child's claims, being, y'know Taylor's defense attorney. Plus, if you read the link that I provided, you would find out:





And that was that. Honestly, it makes me sick to my stomach to try and explain this, and I could only imagine how Clinton herself felt. Thinking that she's some heartless soul for doing what she was hired to do is not really the right way to go about with it, even if it was majorly disagreeable to the masses.
I am criticizing her for making that statement after deliberately destroying the credibility of a legitimate rape claim of a twelve year old, I'm not criticizing her simply for doing her job. I'm not really sure how I could be any clearer. What this is like is if I went out fox hunting with my boss because he pressured me into it, then said "NO ONE SHOULD EVER HUNT FOR SPORT OR FUN, EVER" and then when someone inevitably says "Hands didn't you go fox hunting a while back?" and instead of me saying "well yeah, but I wasn't comfortable with it and I really regret doing it. I'm sorry" I just simply delete the post and pretend it never happened.

CoffeeDrink

GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD

Male
Lootin' Your Poké's
Seen December 4th, 2016
Posted December 4th, 2016
1,250 posts
9.7 Years
Like a wall.
Not that I think that'd ever actually be allowed to happen, but it speaks volumes to his credibility.
I would like a further explanation. Further more how, if possible, would the executive pass through checks and balances without anyone speaking up about it? Regardless, who ever said walls don't keep people out is lying. There really is no concrete proof that, hypothetically, if a wall was introduced that it would not have any affect on illegal immigration.

Whoever said walls gone keep people out... I would have sincerely enjoyed watching them try to sneak past the Berlin Wall.

A wall, to me, would be a long term investment. And it would be infinitely cheaper than the failed F-35 project (I nailed that thing right out the gate. Ultimately inferior to the F-22). It'd be cheaper than bailing out car companies anyway. To accurately state "a wall is useless" you need to look at actual border traffic from differing countries and lay down a plan. You don't just go build a wall. You look at how it will function, rules, laws, instances, scenarios and you tie these all together in a little bow.

So, how would someone effectively go about reducing the amount of illegal aliens jumping a fence? Talk to Mexico? Have them change their laws? Our laws? What?

Also, how does saying you want to build a wall worse than wanting to let anyone and everyone in, without the hassle of going "hey, how are you? Are you a felon?" Speak about credibility? Letting as many refugees into the country like that without a planned checking system is mental. Even Bono said himself, and he's supposed to be the help all be all guy. Not to mention we found out she had even more emails than was initially thought. So what about Clinton's credibility? In this race I thought credibility was halfway out the door and limited to what you could nail down. To me, a business a seat of power for your own gain than using your business to do so. You might think the opposite, but we come from different perspectives.

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
I would like a further explanation. Further more how, if possible, would the executive pass through checks and balances without anyone speaking up about it? Regardless, who ever said walls don't keep people out is lying. There really is no concrete proof that, hypothetically, if a wall was introduced that it would not have any affect on illegal immigration.

Whoever said walls gone keep people out... I would have sincerely enjoyed watching them try to sneak past the Berlin Wall.

A wall, to me, would be a long term investment. And it would be infinitely cheaper than the failed F-35 project (I nailed that thing right out the gate. Ultimately inferior to the F-22). It'd be cheaper than bailing out car companies anyway. To accurately state "a wall is useless" you need to look at actual border traffic from differing countries and lay down a plan. You don't just go build a wall. You look at how it will function, rules, laws, instances, scenarios and you tie these all together in a little bow.

So, how would someone effectively go about reducing the amount of illegal aliens jumping a fence? Talk to Mexico? Have them change their laws? Our laws? What?

Also, how does saying you want to build a wall worse than wanting to let anyone and everyone in, without the hassle of going "hey, how are you? Are you a felon?" Speak about credibility? Letting as many refugees into the country like that without a planned checking system is mental. Even Bono said himself, and he's supposed to be the help all be all guy. Not to mention we found out she had even more emails than was initially thought. So what about Clinton's credibility? In this race I thought credibility was halfway out the door and limited to what you could nail down. To me, a business a seat of power for your own gain than using your business to do so. You might think the opposite, but we come from different perspectives.
I know! I know the answer to that one! Building a wall would be mostly pointless (and certainly not value for money) because...

Second, the wall with Mexico is going to do little to help. Not least because the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico has dropped by 8% since 2010 (they are leaving back to their country!) and, consequently, the arrivals from Mexico have fallen by a whooping 80%. No, the problem is that more than half of the illegal immigrants come to the US legally, crossing the border through the official checkpoints with valid visas... and then simply stay once they run out. So having a 100-km tall border wall wouldn't change a single thing to the majority of illegal immigrants who never needed to climb over it to get in in the first place. That's a good waste of billions of dollars! Source.

CoffeeDrink

GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD

Male
Lootin' Your Poké's
Seen December 4th, 2016
Posted December 4th, 2016
1,250 posts
9.7 Years
You failed to mention that the DOJ itself is looking to appeal against the Obama administration's DAPA and DACA initiative, due to the majority of the states disagree with the DAPA/DACA, which negates legal or illegal status.

Again, immigration is still an issue according to 26 states in the union. I also stated that a wall would potentially be cheaper than dumping billions into a worthless plane project, a project that the Obama administration wisely cancelled, after they determined the thing was a money sink. So frivolous purchases? I call waiting six years to cancel something frivolous. Besides, there are several things that need to be rewritten in regards to immigration laws.

My question still remains unanswered. How does a wall not keep someone out? What other items besides a wall would be fielded? How will someone go beyond the checks and balances?

People keep bringing up the wall and that's about it. Now, I'm not saying that the wall will be built, but I am saying immigration as a whole needs to be reworked and Clinton seems to be vehemently against such a thing.

I still say throwing cash at failures a waste of money (not gonna bring up cars or banks again). And again, given the scenario, there isn't a like thing. So whether it would work or not is still up for debate. And again, a wall would be deemed as a long term project and investment. Results wouldn't show for at least a few years. I don't know why I should even have to argue that point...

Despite what you may believe, a wall just doesn't 'happen' and it goes through many challenges to even be realised just like any other major project.

It might not even happen anyway, so shouting about walls seems silly. I'm for immigration reform, wall or no. Clinton is not.

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Age 32
Male
Seen December 15th, 2022
Posted November 23rd, 2022
1,863 posts
6.8 Years
Whoever said walls gone keep people out... I would have sincerely enjoyed watching them try to sneak past the Berlin Wall.
There's a fairly big logistical difference between running a wall through one city and running a wall across an entire border with another country. On top of that, people often managed to "jump the wall" back into West Berlin. Walls do not really work.

Nah

Age 30
she/her, they/them
Seen 6 Hours Ago
Posted 6 Hours Ago
15,645 posts
9.5 Years
I think an issue with The Wall of Trump, regardless of its cost and/or effectiveness, is the message it sends to other countries. What would this make them think of the US? I doubt anything positive. Especially when the last time a wall was made to separate people/divide a place was the Berlin Wall and it's not like people were terribly fond of that one.
Nah ンン
“No, I... I have to be strong. Everyone expects me to."

CoffeeDrink

GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD

Male
Lootin' Your Poké's
Seen December 4th, 2016
Posted December 4th, 2016
1,250 posts
9.7 Years
Not necessarily true. The Israeli people placed a wall recently. Walls are meant to divide, so by the very nature of the thing it's doing what it's supposed to. Not to mention all the prison constructs around the world to prevent from prisoners getting out and people getting in without direct means.

I still argue for reform, but not necessarily in the form of a wall. Again, it may or may not happen despite fears and seems to be one of the biggest issues for some regardless whether or not such a thing will come to pass.

Also, border barriers are not really a new thing. There are at least 20 walls in current use and more being built. The Indo-Bangladeshi wall is anti immigration in purpose and about as large as US' proposed wall. The China-Korea wall is under construction as I type this. We know that NK is pretty oppressive and refuses to let people go so what would be the purpose of that wall (they list it as anti-illegal immigration)? Walls aren't new and there are real world examples of walls just as long as what has been proposed, some are under construction and others have been proposed.

gimmepie

Age 27
Male
Australia
Seen 1 Hour Ago
Posted 7 Hours Ago
24,971 posts
11.1 Years
Not necessarily true. The Israeli people placed a wall recently. Walls are meant to divide, so by the very nature of the thing it's doing what it's supposed to. Not to mention all the prison constructs around the world to prevent from prisoners getting out and people getting in without direct means.

I still argue for reform, but not necessarily in the form of a wall. Again, it may or may not happen despite fears and seems to be one of the biggest issues for some regardless whether or not such a thing will come to pass.

Also, border barriers are not really a new thing. There are at least 20 walls in current use and more being built. The Indo-Bangladeshi wall is anti immigration in purpose and about as large as US' proposed wall. The China-Korea wall is under construction as I type this. We know that NK is pretty oppressive and refuses to let people go so what would be the purpose of that wall (they list it as anti-illegal immigration)? Walls aren't new and there are real world examples of walls just as long as what has been proposed, some are under construction and others have been proposed.
Ivysaur can probably provide a few better sources but a bit of quick googling gave me this. Whilst some of this evidence is certainly anecdotal, I don't think the US needs to make it any harder to get in if even half of it is true.

https://www.quora.com/How-hard-is-it-to-legally-immigrate-into-the-USA
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/121114/5-hardest-countries-getting-citizenship.asp
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-24/legal-immigration-usa/50895150/1
http://www.davidbreston.com/blog/2015/10/is-it-hard-to-immigrate-to-the-us/
http://reason.com/assets/db/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad.jpg

Aside from that, common sense says that if you want less illegal immigrants from Mexico then you need laxer immigration laws. The best way to stop anyone from jumping the border is to stop making it an enormous financial burden and time-consuming task. Then people will do the paperwork and come in legally instead of resorting to the extreme.

You might notice that there's a lot of European countries with laxer immigration laws that also have lower crime rates too, so don't try that argument either. Especially with Canada next door.

Personally, I agree that stringent immigration control is important. But I dislike how a lot of countries go about it.
RPWLA&MVGGaming Journal