Forums / Fun! / Memeory Lane

Clinton/Bush damage control, or an intriguing insight into the flaws of primary polling?

I found it pretty interesting myself. Especially the fact that only 16% of people polled say they're actually paying attention to the primary three ring circus right now, and that that number only reaches 60% when the election actually happens.

lisalombs said:

People don’t want Trump to be the nominee to fix anything, they want Trump to be the nominee for the resulting establishment circus that would surely follow.

>tfw they could all instead vote 3rd party and cripple the establishment, ushering in the Sixth/Seventh Party System but instead will vote for a pompous blowhard who is virtually guaranteed to lose
Sometimes, I really hate the GOP electorate.

Freakenstein said:

Bernie’s tangible determination to unwind the shit that the 1980s brought.

I still don't understand this mindset. The president gets to do jackshit. Congress are the ones that actually pass laws and do policy changes. And while it's likely the Senate will go blue again, the House will almost certainly stay red. If Bernie does get elected, I doubt he'll actually ever get to do any of the progressive wet dreams he talks about.

I guess this is a reoccurring problem. Candidates promise the moon, voters vote for them expecting the moon, and then get disillusioned when the moon stays firmly in the night sky. Realistically, unless the candidate is a bipartisan moderate, the only thing you're really voting for is the chance of tipping SCOTUS in your ideological favor--assuming your party controls the Senate.

Bernie Sanders is someone to take seriously on the Democrat side.

If he was the GOP candidate, I'd agree, but if you want the Dem nomination, you need the minority vote, and he's doing terribly with them right now. Until he overcomes that, Hillary will maintain her advantage. It's all well and good leading in a state that's 94% white, but that says very little about the majority of the Democratic voting base.

Bernie Sanders’s policies are moderate changes…

For a liberal? Sure. But for the other half of the population, they're very, very extreme. Free college tuition would either mean bloating out the national debt by trillions more, or totally redoing the tax code and reverting it back to 1950's levels. And while tax reform is something almost everyone likes to flap their gums about, the donkeys and the elephants have very different definitions for what a "reform" would entail.

Citizens United was decided by SCOTUS. If you want to overturn that, you either need a constitutional amendment or Scalia to kick the bucket and get replaced with a liberal. An amendment is impossible--it's more likely the United States Communist Party will win in 2016--and getting a new justice would be a long process in the Senate. Not to mention the fact that a lawsuit would then have to wind its way up the appealite ladder.

Publicly funding PP would have to overrule the Hyde Amendment, which would trigger a very, very bitter fight in Congress that would probably permanently severe any chance at bipartisanship from that point until Sanders leaves office.

We're seeing what energy and corporate policies are doing right now, with half the states rebelliong against the EPA's new rules and lawsuits springing up left and right over them. Materity leave is just about the only policy I could see being "moderate" for both parties.

TL;DR: "moderate changes" are in the eye of the beholder.

""I still don’t understand this mindset. The president gets to do jackshit. Congress are the ones that actually pass laws and do policy changes. And while it’s likely the Senate will go blue again, the House will almost certainly stay red. If Bernie does get elected, I doubt he’ll actually ever get to do any of the progressive wet dreams he talks about.""

This can be the argument for all candidates: They can't do anything, only Congress can do something. So why vote for a president at all? Why even attempt? Just stay home. Yeah, the president's "billing" powers is virtually nil. He can encourage the passing of a bill or deny one completely. What any president can also do is exercise Executive Orders. The Judicial Branch can then see if the Executive Order is unconstitutional or not. So what can do the most good? Awareness of what's going on and tell Congress to stop fucking up. But we can do that every year.

""If he was the GOP candidate, I’d agree, but if you want the Dem nomination, you need the minority vote, and he’s doing terribly with them right now.""

The only thing I see him doing terribly with is the BlackLivesMatter movement. Any minority who reads knows he was and is a civil rights activist.

""It’s all well and good leading in a state that’s 94% white, but that says very little about the majority of the Democratic voting base.""

This is true. One state does not represent the entire demographics. But it is a start.

""Free college tuition would either mean bloating out the national debt by trillions more, or totally redoing the tax code and reverting it back to 1950’s levels""

I like the idea of reverting the tax code back to when it was before the 1980s. Back then, the richest and the rich and the affluent contributed greatly to the taxes and gave the middle class and the poor a break. It was a hoot back then, if you take away the social issues that would make the average Tumblrite have a myocardial infarction.

""And while tax reform is something almost everyone likes to flap their gums about, the donkeys and the elephants have very different definitions for what a “reform” would entail.""

The Elephants would give the rich a break, because they work harder than the average worker, while the bill makers would reap the benefits of the rich putting money in their pockets, while the Donkeys would paw at the ground and pretend it doesn't exist, while reaping the benefits of the rich putting money in their pockets.

""Citizens United was decided by SCOTUS. If you want to overturn that, you either need a constitutional amendment or Scalia to kick the bucket and get replaced with a liberal. An amendment is impossible--it’s more likely the United States Communist Party will win in 2016--and getting a new justice would be a long process in the Senate. Not to mention the fact that a lawsuit would then have to wind its way up the appealite ladder.""

Have you ever thought about the third way to get an amendment to the constitution? The one that hasn't been completed before yet? [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC[/url] I mean, I wouldn't call it impossible, just really difficult.

""Publicly funding PP would have to overrule the Hyde Amendment, which would trigger a very, very bitter fight in Congress that would probably permanently severe any chance at bipartisanship from that point until Sanders leaves office.""

What? Planned Parenthood already has public funding, except for the controversial part which doesn't even constitute a fraction of a percentage of its compound. What do you think it does?

""We’re seeing what energy and corporate policies are doing right now, with half the states rebelliong against the EPA’s new rules and lawsuits springing up left and right over them.""

I'm not sure about the issues of the states' disagreements with the EPA. I will have to read up on it when it's not 1 in the morning.

How are you gonna raise everyones income tax by 10 to 15% and not cause people to bulk at that/make a lot of people very mad and very low income. Average income tax of most of these socially advanced countries ((France, UK, Germany, Greece, Italy, ETC)) Is 45 to 49%. US current income tax is 15 to 35%.

{ >tfw they could all instead vote 3rd party and cripple the establishment, ushering in the Sixth/Seventh Party System but instead will vote for a pompous blowhard who is virtually guaranteed to lose }

If he doesn't get the nomination he'll go third party and they will indeed, that's what he keeps threatening anyway. Has anyone sane stepped up to run third party yet? Rand Paul already declined to run as an independent.

{ Average income tax of most of these socially advanced countries ((France, UK, Germany, Greece, Italy, ETC) }

Gee it's almost like a list of all the economies that are currently collapsing or on the brink.

{ This can be the argument for all candidates: }

No, it can't be the argument for the candidates who are tiptoeing towards a more moderate opinion, as they are showing off their willingness to compromise with a bipartisan Congress. Trump and Sanders are the extremes.

{ So you agree that yes, Bernie Sanders is someone to take seriously on the Democrat side. }

Is Trump someone to take seriously on the GOP side? All signs point to not yet.

{ Would you like to explain to me how ….. are NOT advanced policies? }

I'm not arguing whether or not they're "advanced" policies, I'm arguing that they would not work the same in the massive United States as they do in small European countries with a completely different economic, political, and demographic scene.

TSG hit your "moderate" points pretty much on the head, I have nothing to add.

Further reading:

The populist sentiment fueling both the Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump campaigns

"I like the idea of reverting the tax code back to when it was before the 1980s. Back then, the richest and the rich and the affluent contributed greatly to the taxes and gave the middle class and the poor a break. "

You're livin in a dreamland buddy. The top 1 percent already pay 46% in taxes. Back in 1979 they paid 50%. Unless you're talking about raising their taxes into the 70% which is where it stood pre 1970's you're not gonna see much of an impact.

And the amount of people who go "fuck you" and move to other less insane countries like canada after you bust that tax hike on them would outweigh those who stay and pay that rate.

{ “Hannity won the entire evening with my interview the other night,” Trump said. “He’s not going to win it with Jeb Bush. You think he’s going to win it with Jeb Bush? He’s got $100 million, which means he’s a puppet. You know that, right?” }

The Donald slaying losers left and right.

aaaaaaand Megyn Kelly is taking a "vacation" after the debate controversy.

Hey, conservatives. Remember a few years ago when we complained about how voters elected a president with minimal executive experience because he was good at working a crowd? Remember how we were proven totally right about that? Just something to contemplate.

Nobody elected Obama because he's good at working a crowd. A crowd turned out for Obama because his skin color matched theirs, a crowd that ceased to turn out for any other election since and will definitely not turn out for whatever white person the Dems nominate this year.

The every-4-year voters aren't the people who turn out for the primaries, either. How many people out of the 1000 that get called for the polls will actually vote? How many are saying Trump or Sanders just because those are the names at the center of the circus they're hearing about?

While I have no doubt Obama's skin color played a major role in his victory, it would be a mistake to discount those early speeches of his. That hope and change business, while vapid, was exactly what many Democrats wanted to hear after eight years of Bush, specifics be damned. As for Trump, his success is tied to disenchantment with the political class. Again, he's telling the audience what they want to hear, sans specifics. I can sympathize with Republicans who feel betrayed by the establishment, but it's disheartening that so many are gravitating towards a candidate who can't give substantive answers to any questions when better anti-establishment candidates are out there. Name recognition plays a role, but emotional appeal is at the heart of his current popularity. The similarities between Obama and Trump's appeal makes me a little uneasy.

I am willing to bet the influx of voters who turned out for him did not even hear those early speeches. They only know "hope and change" from bumper stickers.

If you're not hearing about Trump's specific plans it's because you're only reading what the media, who doesn't want him to get elected, is covering. He published a book the first time he was running detailing exactly what he wants to do, which is what his current campaign is running on. Here is an article which lays out just five of his points and his reasoning behind them.

He said in a recent interview that his campaign will start rolling out specifics within the next few weeks (just like every other candidate). We're still really early in campaign season, we haven't heard real specifics from anyone.

I'll hear him out, but judging from his answers in the first debate and elsewhere, which were to get pissy or blame other countries for all our problems, I am skeptical he can make a case for himself.

I read his 4th point. This man is completely insane. Granted, its the type of insanity that boarders on genius, but it's still crazy to get rid of a tax that brings in 1.6 trillion dollars, literally make corporations pay 0 dollars in corporate taxes((word-for-word)), and make taxes between 1 to 15 percent.

A country as large as the united states cannot exist if there isn't enough funds to keep its social programs going. And cutting all taxes in half, as well as getting rid of certain taxes all together, all results in the same thing if you cut someones wages in half, got rid of 2 major alternative sources of income, and then told them to live the same way they'd been living.

"Money itself is a weapon" is a good quote, I will give trump that.

Most people I think are voting for trump for no other reason then that they want the entire establishment to burn down, same reason they're voting for sanders to a small degree, and why the Ron Paul Hype Train was so prevalent for a man who wanted to get rid of police and fire departments.

People are sick of politics and the government system as it is now, and want it to change. They want something different, and so much so after decades of similar policies that they're willing to just vote in someone who will throw wrenches into everything and make radical changes take place, even if they're not in their best interest.

The populist want and Anarchist in the White House, because an Anarchist will burn down the status quo. Everything else that comes after that, is just a secondary concern.

Here is the first result I got for 'Bernie Sanders Specific Plans':

Agenda for America: 12 Steps Forward

1.Rebuilding Our Crumbling Infrastructure
2.Reversing Climate Change
3.Creating Worker Co-ops
4.Growing the Trade Union Movement
5.Raising the Minimum Wage
6.Pay Equity for Women Workers
7.Trade Policies that Benefit American Workers
8.Making College Affordable for All
9.Taking on Wall Street
10.Health Care as a Right for All
11.Protecting the Most Vulnerable Americans
12.Real Tax Reform

Bernie Sanders is very open and immediate in saying his specific plans and ideas, as anyone researching the man will quickly find. Elaboration in link.

Those aren't specific plans though. Those are goals.

Plans involve a "how", all those above are "what's".

"What" I'm solving is a lot different from "How" i'm solving it.

Looks like Fiorina might be in the next 'big boys' debate.

I know absolutely nothing about her other than she worked at HP, so it'll be interesting seeing how she does.

Also,

The latest Rasmussen Reports national survey finds Trump leading at 17 percent among likely GOP primary voters, down from 26 percent before the debate.

Ouch. A nine point drop.

Freakenstein said:

So why vote for a president at all?

SCOTUS, primarily. Since it hasn't been about actual legal interpretation since Marshall was Chief Justice, it's all about making sure your party has the majority.

Have you ever thought about the third way to get an amendment to the constitution?

The states will never call for a constitutional convention because: a) Congress would have to certify it and they would likely refuse to do anything that potentially strips them of some of their power. When the Archivist of the United States officially declared the 27 Amendment ratified, they got pissed that he hadn't first had Congress formally vote on it's ratification--despite the fact that Congress already voted on it back in 1789.

b) the Constitution is basically moot on what a "constitutional convention" actually means. Would it only be for a single amendment? Redoing the whole constitution? Who would appoint the states' delegates? What would the delegates do? It would likely turn into a huge clusterfuck as Bloomberg rallies for an amendment overturning the 2nd, conservatives rally for a balanced budget amendment, Stormfront tries to revoke the 14th amendment, and somewhere in the middle are the calls for the Citizen's United amendment.

What do you think it does?

I was assuming you were referring to fully subsidizing PP, since fed money already funds their non-abortion operations.

lisalombs said:

If he doesn’t get the nomination he’ll go third party and they will indeed…

So he takes his 20% of the GOP vote, splits the ticket, and Clinton/Sanders/Biden walks in. I don't really see how shooting yourself in the foot counts as a "rebellion." Voting for your principles means shit in the first-past-the-post Electoral College nightmare we call an election.

{ I don’t really see how shooting yourself in the foot counts as a “rebellion.” }

That's exactly what makes it a rebellion.

{ Most people I think are voting for trump for no other reason then that they want the entire establishment to burn down }

^^

If it's not Trump, it doesn't matter to his voters who ends up in the White House, Republican or Democrat, it'll end up exactly the same. Both establishment parties have written off Trump and all of his supporters as crazy racists, their concerns are not real concerns, they're racist concerns. Why would those voters cast their ballots for a party that takes their perfectly legitimate concerns and spins them into racism because it would upset the corporate lobbyists to address those issues for real?

It's not Trump's voters who shot themselves in the foot here.

{ A country as large as the united states cannot exist if there isn’t enough funds to keep its social programs going. }

Our social programs are over funded as it stands. Social programs are not life support, you're not supposed to be on them forever, draining the pool for everybody else while never paying into it. Scott Walker set up a worker's rehabilitation program in Wisconsin that educates long term unemployed workers so they can get back into work. The federal government looks at long term unemployed workers, hands them care packages, and says "hey now we can't count you in the unemployment rate anymore, look how low it is, isn't the economy doing great! have another cell phone!"

We also have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. What was the name of that revolution that spurred extreme economic growth and development in first world countries… oh the Industrial Revolution where thousands of manufacturing plants and factories opened up on first world country soil, bringing jobs and income with them. Then the first world countries got greedy and went all hyper-regulation and taxes. Now where are all the factories and jobs? Bringing wealth and development to cheap labor third world countries while we watch ourselves tank.

Your post is working off the assumption that the people are supposed to blindly throw money at the government whenever they ask for more. Trump says the government needs to fix its own out of control, redundant, and wasteful spending of our tax dollars and get a budget in place that works.

The federal government tax-take is at an all time high, never in history has the government been taking so much from the American people, and they still can't figure out how to use it wisely.

{ The federal government collected a record amount of taxes in fiscal year 2014, topping $3 trillion in revenue for the first time in its history, according to Treasury Department numbers released Wednesday that show the influx helped drop the deficit to its lowest level under President Obama. }

Did that sentence sound in your head as positive as the media is spinning it?

1. I don't believe trump will actually make the cuts in government programs to upset the removal of over 40% of the government's revenue. That cost is gonna get shifted onto the middle class, again.

2. Industrial Revolution was a great good, but don't act like it was sunshine and roses. People lost their arms, lost their lives, got paid in what was essentially fun-bucks thst were only good at csrtain corporate stores, were lied to blatantly about what went into the stuff they took as medicine or food and what some of it really did, and got the shit kicked out of them if they didn't keep their heads down and their hands working.

White knighting the system thst drives people to suicide so often that it requires nets be put up to catch people jumping so often, ain't a smart move. It's done a lot of good and it gets a bad rep, but those so called greedy regulations are because these companies and corproations have show then and now, a lack of following basic humane conditions without being forced to by law.

Removing the tax rate doesn't remove the regulations, many of which are extremely redundant and add extra costs that get passed on to the consumer. We have to completely remove (or significantly lower if you want to be more moderate about it) the tax rate to convince businesses to deal with those regulations and stay in the US. We don't have to revert to the 1800s to have successful domestic manufacturing, but we have to be competitive.

Another side effect of our high tax rate on top of the strict regulations is that businesses set up their factories in third world countries where workers don't have rights, it just fuels the abuse.

Trump can't cut those programs, Congress would have to actually sit down together and rework the entire budget. It would be a nightmare but it will be a worse nightmare in 30 years if we keep ignoring it. Electing Trump is kind of like holding the country hostage to make the politicians get serious.

The middle class has already paid for everything, the middle class paid itself out of existence. The income gap has separated us into ludicrous stupid rich, stupid rich, paycheck-to-paycheck poor, and no-paycheck poor.

Drudge PVing WashPost reporting the Justice Department's classified email count has grown from 4 to 60. Will probably be their lead Monday story.

CNN National Security Analyst Unloads On Hillary Over Email Scandal

{ “Seriously, if I had sent a document like this over the open Internet I’d get fired the same day, escorted to the door and gone for good -- and probably charged with mishandling classified information.”

Pressed by the host as to whether he really thought this situation was a “deal breaker” for Clinton’s presidential candidacy, {former CIA operative/current CNN National Security analyst Bob} Baer said, “As a national security employee, a former one, yes.”

“I can’t tell you how bad this is,” he went on. “A lot of things get talked about, a lot of gossip, but having documents like this sent across the Internet, it could be hacked very easily and probably were hacked, is a transgression that I don’t think the president of the United States should be allowed to, you know, have committed.” }

Does anybody in here know a candidate who has addressed illegal/ immigration on our public education system? Everybody seems to be focused on amnestying the ones here and securing the border, but what will they do for public school systems like this:

Philly school district registers 800 students speaking 40 languages from 70 countries

Is it on the taxpayers to make sure those children can be educated? Do we import special teachers to come in and teach in 40 different languages? Do we make them learn English before enrolling and set back their education? These children are counted in our standardized testing and reading and math ranking, which gets compared to the rest of the world who then mock us for having such low scores.

Immigration has been declared the issue of the election, and a lot of people are fully on board for Trump's controversial 6-page immigration policy plan which was released over the weekend.

{ Will the West endure or disappear by the century’s end as another lost civilization? Mass immigration, if it continues, will be more decisive in deciding the fate of the West than Islamist terrorism. For the world is invading the West.

A wild exaggeration? Consider.

Monday’s Washington Post had a front-page story on an “escalating rash of violent attacks against refugees” in Germany, including arson attacks on refugee centers and physical assaults.

Buried in the story was an astonishing statistic. Germany, which took in 174,000 asylum seekers last year, is on schedule to take in 500,000 this year. Yet Germany is smaller than Montana.

How long can a geographically limited and crowded German nation, already experiencing ugly racial conflict, take in half a million Third World people every year without tearing itself apart and changing the character of the nation forever?

Do we think the riots and racial wars will stop if more come? }

I would really like this thread to start discussing what they want to see from candidates on this issue, which goes largely discussed for fear of being unPC.

Immigration surely takes a backseat to basic revisions in taxes that have been fervently disputed and kept at a near standstill in terms of making it so the top top earners pay more and the lowest earners pay less. Beyond that, foreign affairs in terms of how we're addressing ISIS, Russia, and China are all highly volatile and need someone calm and sane addressing them. Frankly the disproportionate focus on immigration by some candidates comes off as highly racist, and although immigration plays a prominent role in economic issues and foreign affairs, it is not a primary role. Personally, I'd prefer other ethical methods of fixing the economy be explored instead of ruining people's lives by deporting them or walling them out of their only haven for hope. The only thing that definitely needs to happen, in terms of immigration, is making it so people who try to swim into the United States aren't going to die in the process, as happens numerous times annually.

The political pundits declare these things based on polls and global current events, not what the voters think.

Immigration does in fact play the primary role in a country where 100% of job growth between ages 16-65 have gone exclusively to both legal and illegal immigrants, as the federal government itself admits. We also have a growing number of corporations who are taking even greater advantage of the drastic influx in illegal immigration by laying off low-skill American workers and replacing them with foreigners. Congress/Senators always have "harsh words" for the companies that do this, yet they don't actually do anything to stop the practice.

USA immigration policy needs to serve citizens of the USA before kindly offering hope to the entire third world. What does our current policy say to the immigrants who took it upon themselves to apply legally, pay thousands in legal fees, and wait their turn, that everyone who broke the law and rushed the border for handouts is going to become a US citizen instead?

I think it says the game's cost and wait should be lowered or people are going to torrent it instead and potentially get a virus in the process, which hurts both the corporation and potentially the person would could've been a customer, if you get my metaphor.

I find it peculiar any political pundit would say that of all issues the United States deals with, the most glaring issue is immigration. There are many more viable choices for issues the government faces such as taxation, inequal wealth distribution, healthcare dilemmas (even after the PPACA they are still rather glaring), ESPECIALLY foreign affairs since it feels as if at any time someone like ISIS/North Korea could do something stupid to the U.S. or China/Russia could take action against the United States we our communications with them have not particularly improved.

It's not the most glaring issue or the most important issue, it's the issue of the election. Hotly debated, most candidates positions are in flip-flopped shambles, the voters from each party have drastically differing opinions, etc.

Those yearly limits and regulations on who can enter are there to protect citizens here, our jobs like I mentioned, our education ranking like I mentioned before that, our crime rate, our economy, it goes on and on. The USA isn't a magical land where the resources to support the whole world are pulled out of an eagle's asshole whenever we run low. That's the sentiment people all over the first world are starting to hold because the protections in place for Americans or Germans or the French are being ignored and declared racist for the benefit of the income elite.

Why do Americans keep referring to their immigration as "An Invasion of the West" when most of these immigrant's aren't "west" of the place they're going into?

Many of the refugees being take in by Europe are from the middle east, wartorn nations east of Europe. Others however are south of europe, not east. Still, there's some justification for refering to it as "the west" at that point.

But the United States immigration is majorly from South America and Mexico, South of the United States. What's more, the United States is west of Europe, so shouldn't any immigration into it that's not from the pacific also be considered "Invading the West"?

The vernacular alone betrays that immigration is a stupid issue. None of these countries have lived in a bubble free of foreign influence on their culture. If they actually emphasized incorporation instead of assimilation or segregation as the only 2 options, things would be different. Too bad nobody wants to give it a shot because of stupid national pride, be it the ones going over or the ones trying to keep them out.

They're old terms, what they actually refer to is Europe (West) and everything else known at the time (East). To early Europeans, the directions matched up. Now we don't even use "East" as a general term and use "West" to mean first world (& this is not an exclusively American term btw).

ah ah ah BGT, assimilation/incorporation is white racism, that's why we're not doing it anymore! Assimilation means abandoning your culture and rejecting who you are. Uncle Toms assimilate, immigrants congregate in "Little Cities" that they turn into replicas of the countries they claim to be fleeing from. Look up Dr. Ronald E. Hall if you want to read some scholarly papers on why assimilation is super racist "white domination".

The changing culture of society as a whole is also extremely important to the immigration debate.

I don't care about a bunch of racists trying to make up an excuse for why people can't be members of a country. That's what they are, even if their intention was to try and fight for those same people, their arguments draw from the same fallacious invisible qualifiers that racist people used to dehumanize minorities, only now they try to dress it up as a physical barrier that cannot be crossed by a society that doesn't practice it.

My problem with assimilation is it hasn't allowed for a celebration of cultural identity, something that's as real as waving a dumb red, white, and blue flag around and chanting the name of ones country to show support for it. You' were just expected to not refer to anything in your life per-immigration, while also being asked constantly where you're from and what it was like, and being actively discouraged from answering, to feign ignorance, or to lie in order for those around you to feel more comfortable.

Now days things as a bit more nuanced then that. Assimilation, the old way, didn't led to a lot of good things. In fact it led to a lot of people getting killed for being the constant "other", and easy to blame when things went bad in a community. This was a long time ago mind you, back then racism wasn't bad, but something you did as just a part of being a proud member of your country.

Integration is acknowledging you're different in terms of origin, but the same in terms of where you are now. You no longer get treated poorly based around where you come from ((most of the time)) and working hard actually does allow you to rise up the ranks, instead of just makes you the butt of a joke for your more native coworkers. You get to keep stuff like your language, contact with your family, and you can even find a few creature comforts from home, because people are willing to learn more about your culture just like you learn about theirs.

But then you got a bunch of people who went through assimilation, and got burned by it. They got burned by it bad, sometimes literally when folks decided to burn them alive. So, they made the choice of saying no to assimilation, and decided to form their own culture within their countires instead. These tiny pockets of independent cultural and social identities found strength in solidarity and kept it up in the face of a changing world. What was a good defenisve strategy before has now unfortunately created a liability. Because now in a culture more willing to allow them to be part of the country and celebrate their heritage, these small pockets see threats around every corner and still think they're living under the oppressive boot of the past. They're the ones you usually read about when you read about people struggling against the privilaged class, despite having the exact same things everyone else has, earned through the exact same means.

That is segregation in the modern times. And unfortunately, some pople would rather just live with segreatation of these cultures, either to keep the mass culture pure or to keep their own subculture pure, and actively discourage mixing. Then you have the folks who want things to be like the old Assimilation days, and want to kick out anyone who doesn't give up everything in their identity and accepts getting third fiddle all the time.

Current politics is between those who want cultural segregation so as not to racially and culturally appropriate and keep their privileges in check, and those who want a total and unconditional assimilation with any who don't agree getting blocked by a literal wall.

{ and those who want a total and unconditional assimilation with any who don’t agree getting blocked by a literal wall. }

The people who want a wall have been very specific about that wall being for criminals, Trump even said he'd put a door right in the middle of the wall for the "good people" who want to come and contribute. Illegal immigrants contribute disproportionately to certain crimes in this country (over 70% of all federal drug offenses were committed by illegal immigrants), those stats are what's making people reject immigration altogether until the government sorts out the process. Instead, these legitimate facts and happenings are called racist when anyone brings them up, which causes even more intense feelings that immigration must be stopped until our federal laws, which regulate how many and who can come through, are being respected.

{ My problem with assimilation is it hasn’t allowed for a celebration of cultural identity }

How so? What systems are in place in the USA that stop immigrants from celebrating their cultural identity? Your next sentence sounds like you're saying the people here who are asking questions and interested in immigrant's pre-immigration life are actually liars who are just looking for more lies so they don't feel uncomfortable?

coughcoughIfeellikewe'reabouttogettoldoffforderailingcough

{ Donald Trump has won his party's trust on top issues more than any other Republican presidential candidate, and now stands as the clear leader in the race for the GOP nomination, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.

According to the poll, 45% say they trust Trump more than any other Republican candidate on the economy -- up 25 points since June, 44% say they trust Trump over the others on illegal immigration -- up 30 points since June -- and 32% trust him most to handle ISIS, no other candidate comes close on any of these issues.

On the economy and illegal immigration, Trump is far and away the top choice even among those Republicans who support someone else for the nomination (33% who say they will most likely vote for someone else say Trump is their most trusted on the economy, 29% say so on illegal immigration). }

Lisa I think you were trying way to hard in seeing an opponent that you lummped in a post stating how the type of people who just scream racism at everything are wrong, and equated it to saying that its racist to do background checks.

It is entirely reasonable to demand a certain amount of assimilation. Yes, we have plenty of subcultures in the US, which is good and healthy, but there also exists a certain something called national identity. When a significant number of citizens feel greater allegiance to the country of their ancestors than to the country in which they permanently reside, it brings up uncomfortable questions about loyalty. Our country works most efficiently when we have a few ground rules we can agree on. Not big racist rules like "give white people special treatment" or "never acknowledge other cultures," but basic stuff like "this country is good and should continue existing" and "we're all going to communicate in the same language, at least in public."

I don't even know what that sentence is trying to say tbh.

but basic stuff like “this country is good

I would hesitate to apply moral labels onto political entities that follow the law of realpolitik.

So Trump supports Affirmative Action, Planned Parenthood, and despises big money in politics?

Yfw when you realize that most of the GOP literally wants a moderate left winger as their nominee

What's the difference between a moderate right and moderate left winger?

The color of their tie. :P

In seriousness, it stops being a question of "what to do " and becomes a question of "how to do it?" Both agree that government is too large, that taxes need to be reformed to help the economy, that immigration needs to be re-evaluated to catch more criminals, etc. It's just that both of them believe in doing it different.

I would argue the true moderates want it done in a fairly similar way. I was getting at, there's not really much of a difference at all when it's a moderate willing to compromise.

Trump represents a kind of social moderate but conservative hardliner on certain issues, it's really not uncommon among the GOP…voters. That's why he's finding lasting success that the career pundits just can't seem to comprehend. My fav morning hobby has turned into browsing news aggregates for disgruntled conservative pundits who are SO SURE "this latest comment" will be the end of his campaign.

Moderate Left (today) would consist of the old classic leftism. while Moderate conservatism consists of a more libertarian ideology. Not even center conservatives would vote Trump if they learned about his ideals from the past and present campaign. Trump is simply using the GOP as a platform to run on in my opinion, because of his non-PC attitude today's progressives would simply turn away from. He's arguably Sanders political twin on many of the issues.

If Trump is "using" the GOP, so is Rand Paul.

He and Sanders are pushing the same drastic policies, just differently. Like taxes, Bernie wants wealth distribution from the rich class to everyone else, Trump wants wealth distribution from corporate profits to the working class.

If Trump isn't using the GOP, then why isn't he backing down the idea of running as a third party candidate? He's now threatening the idea to the press every week at this point. The Republican Party is just a platform he is using to gain momentum. He'll do ANYTHING to get to the white house.

Because no one wants him to? That's an establishment clause and its only purpose is to prevent a moderate third party from forming. I'm not even voting for the guy and I don't think he should stop threatening it. It's an extremely legitimate weapon he's using to ensure they don't try anything tricksy to force him out.

He should do anything to get the White House, I'm pretty tired of voting for empty establishment problems too. At least I believe him when he says he wants to change things.

Black Graphic T said:

Why do Americans keep referring to their immigration as “An Invasion of the West” when most of these immigrant’s aren’t “west” of the place they’re going into?

The "West" is a geographical term referring to the western region of the contiguous United States. i.e. The "Northeast" refers to New England, the "South," to the southeastern portion of the contiguous states, and the "Midwest" refers to the prairie states in the middle. In other words, the western portion of the United States is being overrun by illegal immigrants.

I don’t care about a bunch of racists trying to make up an excuse for why people can’t be members of a country.

Damn racists and their desire for people following laws. Immigration's been the backbone of American culture since it's founding, but if you do not follow the laws that have been passed by our elected representatives, you've committed a crime and should be punished. And instead of sucking on the taxpayer's teat in jail, that punishment should be to leave the country. If you can't follow the laws getting in, what makes me think you're going to follow them once you're here?

The basic fact is, we cannot support all 180,000,000 people living in Central America. The primary purpose of a government is to look after its citizens, not those of another nation. We lack the time, effort, and money to fix every problem in the western hemisphere. There has to be restrictions to ensure that the country's not totally overwhelmed.

Other countries have tried integration before and it never succeeds. If there isn't a strong unification of the people under one culture, ethnic/religious infighting will eventually tear it apart. For a country with the size and complexity of the US, that's a virtual guarantee.

Assimilation is a give and take. When you become an American, you add your contribution to our culture--whether that be a dish, an architectural style, an accent, words or inventions.

The melting pot constantly adds new flavors and colors that everyone--not just those from the ethnic group--can enjoy and cherish.

unusedusername said:

So Trump supports Affirmative Action, Planned Parenthood, and despises big money in politics?

He definitely won't be the nominee, then. Abortion is probably the biggest single issue voting block there is. The entirety of the Evangelical Right will rebel. As will many of the non-evangelical pro-lifers.

{ By 75-22 percent, a large majority of those polled by Gallup say abortion tied to rape or incest should be legal. A CNN/ORC poll finds an even wider margin (83-14), including 76 percent of Republicans approving legal abortion in cases of rape or incest. A new Quinnipiac poll shows 60 percent of women prefer allowing unrestricted abortions for only the first 20 weeks of pregnancy rather than the Supreme Court-prescribed 24 weeks. }

You guys have got to stop thinking that this world is so definitively black and white. The GOP's official stance is a ban after 20 weeks, which is what the majority of the country has always polled in favor of, let alone Republicans.

So you didn't see or hear the first debate when the audience was booing trump for leaning toward a third party run if he won't get the nomination?

Trump is also just the new Herman Cain. The only reason why voters are cheering for trump is because of a few statements. The Interview I posted above showed a good moderate leftist he was on the issues. I also don't think he shouldn't do anything to get the nomination.

Yeah, I heard the Fox-approved audience booing, and I heard the Fox moderators asking blatantly loaded questions they would never dare ask any other candidate. I also saw Trump's poll numbers skyrocket after the first debate, so I guess it doesn't matter all that much.

I think you're underestimating a very large part of the GOP voters here. Immigration/defense hardliners are notorious for being socially apathetic. They couldn't give any less of a damn what Trump says about abortion or gays or legal weed. Almost everyone has gotten to that point where they can no longer compromise on issues that actually effect them in exchange for conservative social policy.

& the candidates are recognizing this, slowly. It's no coincidence that all the sudden everybody is saying "my stance is similar to Trump's, here's my slightly more PC version".

If Trump can't handle simple targeted questions by FOX of all news, then how should we trust him with people like Putin or ISIS? Plus his numbers stayed the same, not skyrocket.

Once Trump stop discussing Immigration, he'll be toast in the primaries.

Edit: To be honest, the GOP is toast in both ways, Independant Candidates usually get Democratic candidates elected, and if Trump does get the nod, the GOP would be shooting themselves in the foot with some moderate leftist being the leader of the party with his opponent potentially saying the same things.

Those were not simple, targeted questions. Simple, targeted questions would be asking about his policies or anything at all that's relevant to politics. They demanded with no prior warning that the guy whip out from his pocket magically appearing evidence that illegal Mexican immigrants are disproportionately criminals, did anybody ask Jeb to whip out proof that expanding the NSA's powers would enable them to catch more terrorists? Did anybody ask any other candidate to do anything else but give generalized non-answers, as typical of a first debate? His obvious poor treatment genuinely upset a lot of the GOP voters who thought Fox was on their side.

His numbers increased an average of 7 points across national polls immediately after the debate. That's a hugely significant number in national polls.

Trump is leading every single candidate on every single issue, not just immigration. I posted the most recent poll in this thread earlier today.

edit: { the GOP would be shooting themselves in the foot with some moderate leftist being the leader of the party with his opponent potentially saying the same things. }

and that's perfectly okay because what the GOP wants is no longer what the GOP voters want. It's not going to be the voters' fault if a Democrat wins the Presidency, it's the GOP's fault for not offering us a candidate we can agree with. They're figuring that out the hard way.

Well, Lisa, the questions to the candidates were based off of his recent statements and actions. Jeb wasn't constantly on the road talking about that expanding the NSA’s powers would enable the government to catch more terrorists recently. Plus generalized statements? It's obviously a shocker now that the media won't put the candidates with the biggest numbers on a pedastle? Trump should've been prepared for that.

Generalized statements, like "we need to simplify the tax system" and "the NSA needs expanded powers to stop terrorism" and "immigration is kinda sorta okaybad they do lots of stuff here oh darn was that the cutoff bell I sure had better obey that time limit sorry maybe next time".

They should have asked him what his solution was, if they wanted to put him on the spot (which is what people were hoping for), not attack his personality while ignoring actual politics altogether. Did he get an actual, serious policy question at all?

Like I'll say again. Trump should've been prepared for the debate. Because it's not like moderators attacked candidates like that before. No no no,because No candidate has been treated unfairly before at any debate. Plus I can't take you serious with "Trump Being Generalized" when Trump himself Generalizes things all the time.

The biggest headline in Trumps Nonexistent Presidency, "Trump Nukes Syria for Assad Calling him a dootyhead."