Will Trump win again???

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The current estimate is 20-25 million illegals. How many SHOULD we let in, before you feel we’ve “made amends”?? 100 million??? Make the entire world “honorary Americans” (7 billion)???

You can’t offer unlimited social benefits (healthcare/welfare/education) to the entire world.

Or does YOUR anesthesia group offer partnerships to 100 Docs, when there’s only enough work for 10????
In the 1920s, most Americans were convinced that further limits on immigration were necessary. “America must be kept American,” President Calvin Coolidge declared in December 1923, following the political winds, and by “American,” he meant white in race, Anglo-Saxon in ethnicity and Protestant in religion. Coolidge endorsed the severe limits Congress placed on the immigration of Slavs, Poles, Italians, Greeks and Eastern European Jews and accepted a ban on immigration from Asia and Africa, as well.
Those racist restrictions were rescinded in 1965. When Lyndon Johnson sat at the feet of the Statue of Liberty and signed legislation that ended the discriminatory quotas, he predicted that the federal government would “never again shadow the gate to the American nation with the twin barriers of prejudice and privilege.” But Johnson could not have imagined a president like Trump.

Trump’s anti-immigrant efforts have featured several classic nativist tropes. He falsely associates immigrants with crime, as when he said during his campaign that Mexicans are “bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” In truth, immigrants commit significantly less crime than the native-born do. He scapegoats entire immigrant religious groups for the actions of one or two criminals, calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” after Syed Rizwan Farook (who was not even an immigrant) and his wife (who was foreign-born) killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif. He perpetuates the notion that immigrants pose a public health threat, as when he wondered in 2018 why we let “all these people from ****hole countries come here.” One of his objections, reportedly, was that Haitians “all have AIDS,” though the White House denies he said that. He’s making it harder for low-income immigrants to come here in ways that would almost certainly reduce immigration from Latin America, Africa and the Caribbean, justifying his proposal on the grounds that he needs to “protect benefits for American citizens.” And he argues that even the U.S.-born children of recent immigrants — if they are part of ethnic, religious or racial minorities — are not real Americans, as he suggested when he tweeted that four congresswomen of color should “go back” to “the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

I have no sympathy for those that live over fly over America that promote the idea of vilifying immigrants when they won’t take the two most basic steps, that is to say: re-educate themselves and move where there are jobs. But to them, immigrants are the problem, so the same folks they say are uneducated, illiterate, lazy and produce no societal good—but most in a single generation will transform not just their lives but those of their entire family, and you know why, they will out work, out hustle, out scrap, our own citizens, and they do it with the worse and least sought after jobs with most minimal of pay. The folks i feel sorry for are own people....

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The current estimate is 20-25 million illegals. How many SHOULD we let in, before you feel we’ve “made amends”?? 100 million??? Make the entire world “honorary Americans” (7 billion)???

You can’t offer unlimited social benefits (healthcare/welfare/education) to the entire world.

Or does YOUR anesthesia group offer partnerships to 100 Docs, when there’s only enough work for 10????

Oh, and my Italian ancestors came here LEGALLY through Ellis Island.
And please stop with the blanket statements about UNlimited benefits, which is entirely incorrect.

Are undocumented immigrants eligible for federal public benefit programs?

Generally no. Undocumented immigrants, including DACA holders, are ineligible to receive most federal public benefits
, including means-tested benefits such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, sometimes referred to as food stamps), regular Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and are prohibited from purchasing unsubsidized health coverage on ACA exchanges.

Undocumented immigrants may be eligible for a handful of benefits that are deemed necessary to protect life or guarantee safety in dire situations, such as emergency Medicaid, access to treatment in hospital emergency rooms, or access to healthcare and nutrition programs under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

Facts, not pithy platitudes....
 
In the 1920s, most Americans were convinced that further limits on immigration were necessary. “America must be kept American,” President Calvin Coolidge declared in December 1923, following the political winds, and by “American,” he meant white in race, Anglo-Saxon in ethnicity and Protestant in religion. Coolidge endorsed the severe limits Congress placed on the immigration of Slavs, Poles, Italians, Greeks and Eastern European Jews and accepted a ban on immigration from Asia and Africa, as well.
Those racist restrictions were rescinded in 1965. When Lyndon Johnson sat at the feet of the Statue of Liberty and signed legislation that ended the discriminatory quotas, he predicted that the federal government would “never again shadow the gate to the American nation with the twin barriers of prejudice and privilege.” But Johnson could not have imagined a president like Trump.

Trump’s anti-immigrant efforts have featured several classic nativist tropes. He falsely associates immigrants with crime, as when he said during his campaign that Mexicans are “bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” In truth, immigrants commit significantly less crime than the native-born do. He scapegoats entire immigrant religious groups for the actions of one or two criminals, calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” after Syed Rizwan Farook (who was not even an immigrant) and his wife (who was foreign-born) killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif. He perpetuates the notion that immigrants pose a public health threat, as when he wondered in 2018 why we let “all these people from ****hole countries come here.” One of his objections, reportedly, was that Haitians “all have AIDS,” though the White House denies he said that. He’s making it harder for low-income immigrants to come here in ways that would almost certainly reduce immigration from Latin America, Africa and the Caribbean, justifying his proposal on the grounds that he needs to “protect benefits for American citizens.” And he argues that even the U.S.-born children of recent immigrants — if they are part of ethnic, religious or racial minorities — are not real Americans, as he suggested when he tweeted that four congresswomen of color should “go back” to “the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

I have no sympathy for those that live over fly over America that promote the idea of vilifying immigrants when they won’t take the two most basic steps, that is to say: re-educate themselves and move where there are jobs. But to them, immigrants are the problem, so the same folks they say are uneducated, illiterate, lazy and produce no societal good—but most in a single generation will transform not just their lives but those of their entire family, and you know why, they will out work, out hustle, out scrap, our own citizens, and they do it with the worse and least sought after jobs with most minimal of pay. The folks i feel sorry for are own people....

Do you HAVE a job, or do you just cut and paste crap professionally???
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Do you HAVE a job, or do you just cut and paste crap professionally???
I run my one consulting firm that employs 8 full time staff. As such, I conduct my own schedule and I have embarked on my holiday leave away from my office.

That said, what’s it to you homie? If you don’t like it, either ignore it all together or shut up and enjoy the enlightenment.
 
Ain’t your “homie”, feel free to ignore my posts in the future, and I’ll be happy to return the favor....

So, when you gonna hire 50 people to share the “fruits” of 8??? Yes, that’s a rhetorical question. We know you’re not....
 
Occasionally you will say intelligent things like this, and then I almost remove you from my ignore list, until you make me bang my head against the wall again.

So I'll humor you. What you said is the biggest and most dividing mistake the democrats have been making, which makes me wonder whether it's not for political gains. They don't want to solve the immigration problem because it wouldn't be in their interest.

I completely understand why they would attack Trump defenders, not voters. There is a huge difference between holding one's nose and voting for Trump, and defending him (i.e. sharing his values). One can be anti-illegal immigration and still humane, still tolerant, still a decent human being. I hope I am like that, although I would support anybody who would shoot people on sight, if caught crossing the border strip. This is national security; no borders, no security.

I'm not sure which of my posts would make you bang your head against the wall. I've more or less been saying the same thing throughout the thread - Trump's platform is reasonable, he's an imperfect tool (read: kind of an ***hole), and the impeachment inquiry is a joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ain’t your “homie”, feel free to ignore my posts in the future, and I’ll be happy to return the favor....

So, when you gonna hire 50 people to share the “fruits” of 8??? Yes, that’s a rhetorical question. We know you’re not....
Hey, I thought my response implied the sardonic commentary - as indeed we are not homie-as I’m sure you are borrowing the term and just causally slumming with its usage, as my community invented it.

That said, as you provoked and started with the sharp elbows, I’ll look forward to our non-communication!

Happy holidays!
 
SPF forums have formally endorsed Buttigieg for president though.
Well that settles it then. :)


I think what this thread needs is another controversial topic: I don't think a gay man can get elected president in America, yet. I think Buttigieg has a bright future in national stage politics ahead of him, but he's not getting inaugurated to the presidency 13 months from now.

1) Polls underestimate Trump's support in large part because many of his supporters find it socially awkward to admit they support him. I would bet money there's something of the reverse going on with Buttigieg, where supporters might find it socially awkward to admit to their friends they don't really support him all that much. I expect that when the voting primaries (not caucuses) actually come around he'll underperform his polls by a significant margin. Or he might do OK in the primaries because Democrat primary voters aren't really representative of the Democrat electorate at large, and it'll be the general election when he underperforms via poor turnout.

2) No Democrat is going to get elected without winning a supermajority of the black vote[1] and turning out large percentage of black voters (that's just electoral math). There's a stereotype, with some roots in reality, that black Americans as a group are generally less supportive of gay rights. While the Mormon church was the primary public target of ire over its support for California's Proposition 8, and deservedly so IMO, a lesser-discussed fact from that election was that black Californians broke 70-30 (the state as a whole went 52-48) in favor of banning gay marriage. Granted, that was a decade ago, and overall attitudes toward LGBT rights have certainly shifted. But there's still some tension in the civil rights movement ... some allies are more uneasy than others.


[1] I understand "the black vote" is not some monolithic thing, but it's undeniable that without good turnout and an 80-20 or better showing, 270 electoral votes are a really really tall order.
 
said:
Trump didn't obstruct Congress. The Democrats did not even try to enforce their subpoenas by going through the judiciary.

Again, you want to make legal comments, take the damn effort and take the LSAT (maybe you could go to the same law school of your hero and idol Jim Jordan, where the average LSAT is in the 45 percentile -might be a bit to heady for you tho) .

Again, to enforce a House subpoena, the house leadership makes a referral to main justice and justice then makes a determination on whether they will enforce it.

By way of specific example:

What happens if someone defies a congressional subpoena?

The longstanding — though unofficial — approach is for subpoenaed individuals or agencies to negotiate terms of compliance, said Lisa Kern Griffin, a professor of constitutional law at Duke University. For example, Congress in the past has worked out compromises with an administration to provide some witness testimony or redacted evidence. This option is basically a non-starter in the Ukraine case, Griffin said, because the Trump administration has said it does not intend to cooperate.

Congress has very limited options to enforce subpoenas in face of defiance, but none are particularly appealing for lawmakers. Congress could pursue criminal contempt by asking the U.S. Attorney for D.C. within the Justice Department to bring criminal charges against a violator. If found guilty, this would be a federal misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $100,000 fine and a maximum one-year sentence in prison.

But this is not a viable option; it’s highly improbable that the Trump Justice Department would bring criminal charges against a member of its own administration.
THANK YOU! Finally I now understand why congress has not yet sought relief in the courts. I presume this is why Eric Holder was found in contempt of congress? I still think they should do it to improve the optics for impeachment, which currently ,as of Today is like 48% and 48%. I mean this is all about the 2020 election, so anything they can do to improve their position is worth it IMO.Thanks again.
 
Hey, I thought my response implied the sardonic commentary - as indeed we are not homie-as I’m sure you are borrowing the term and just causally slumming with its usage, as my community invented it.

That said, as you provoked and started with the sharp elbows, I’ll look forward to our non-communication!

Happy holidays!
That’s a pretty racist point of view.
 
THANK YOU! Finally I now understand why congress has not yet sought relief in the courts. I presume this is why Eric Holder was found in contempt of congress? I still think they should do it to improve the optics for impeachment, which currently ,as of Today is like 48% and 48%. I mean this is all about the 2020 election, so anything they can do to improve their position is worth it IMO.Thanks again.
That’s right — I mean in a basic nutshell — as with anything there are lots of side issues but that’s the core.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top