-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Anyone here vote for Trump?
- Thread starter Areyis
- Start date
- Status
I'm sure most of them are great, hard working people but we have a legal process that let's in over a million immigrants a year. If they want to join our country, that's the way to do it.
But you said it yourself, they were more intolerant of Clinton's actions.
Trump's campaign was very closely and blatantly intertwined with racism and xenophobia. If someone voted for Trump, they were unbothered by that, at least enough to find him fit to be the president of the United States. That may be an uncomfortable fact but it is a fact, and no good comes from denying it.
I voted Brexit. I guess that kind of counts.
I regret it deeply by the way and now I hope Brexit will not happen. The politicians should go to jail for lying to the population.
I regret it deeply by the way and now I hope Brexit will not happen. The politicians should go to jail for lying to the population.
Please continue to be open. I will gladly defend your right to be comfortable sharing who you are if that's what you want to do. Don't let people change that for you ❤️
I'm not so interested in a conversation that I'm going to pretend cars=guns is a tenable position.
You mean you're willing to spend $15 billion of the public's money on a pointless wall.
No one is an "illegal." They're human beings.
[citation needed]
It's pretty self-explanatory. What's not to understand?
Why?
http://www.businessinsider.com/big-...mps-immigration-ban-obamas-2011-policy-2017-2
Just a bit of reading. The reasoning is vastly different, and was in response to an actual threat.
Did you read the article? Trump's bans are preemptive, which is completely different from Obama's approach. It makes sense to monitor someone visiting an unstable or hostile country. What doesn't make sense is to bar people from entry without having any reason beyond their place of birth.
I understand your point, so there's no need to repeat it. Do you think that permanently labeling and acting hostile towards such a large group of people will get us anywhere?
I think it is. It's like calling immigrants "aliens." It feels like it's pushing the meaning of "doesn't belong here", when the whole point of America was that ANYONE can belong here.
It absolutely is. Why else do you think it's a favorite term of anti-immigration activists? Refusing to acknowledge the humanity of a targeted group is always the first step in racist propaganda.
I do say enough is enough. I did last year, when yet another law was passed restricting the rights of blacks everywhere.
Yeah, you've got us all figured out. Give me a break.
If you think this is about American interventionism, you've already lost the plot. This is not about that at all. It's about bigotry, labeling people as lessers simply based on where they were born or their ethnicity.
You and me both brother.
Do you not like technology or something?
Claiming that both are the same is extremely disingenuous, I've been very very critical of Obama's policy in the Middle East, but he's nowhere close to how bad Trump has been.
I think if there's any hope for getting more and better educated voters, the truth needs to be addressed first. There's no need to permanently label anyone anything if they're willing to confront past actions, learn from them, and do better.
Most of what we see now is a flat refusal to acknowledge the manipulation of emotion and information that made people comfortable enough to vote for, aside from anything else, a simpleton with no political or diplomatic experience as their president. Most disheartening about this is more often than not this refusal comes from those closest to these voters, even when they claim to be liberal themselves or at least understand that Trump is an ineffective leader.
I also avoid the term "illegal immigrant" or "alien", and try to use more human phrases such as "undocumented", although that still sounds weird. There's always going to be a dehumanizing stigma to it, but at least we can try our best to avoid it.
If it does it will be miniscule and the amount of time and money and upkeep for said wall is completely not worth it.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work
My comparison was the degree of separation between condoning some action and the eventual bloodshed that follows. You then simplified that to an easier argument so you can dismiss it immediately as "guns=cars". I doubt I'm interested in that sort of conversation either.
Because they are illegal and I believe in the rule of law. I think the radical position to take here is not following federal immigration law and letting anyone and everyone live in the United States as they please. Every country has the right to defends it's borders. If you illegally cross into Mexico from the US you get deported...
tax cuts could happen
obamacare , sure but whats your alternative go back to being a developed country without healthcare as a safety net? the us already spends too much cause it doesnt turn away emergency care for citizens . whats the alternative for quite literally saving the government money
wall? now this is iffy im against illegal immigration but how is an overexpensive wall going to solve anything? Take it from a county with contentious borders. Even we dont think of huge walls . fences / border enforcement etc are way more effective.
I don't blame Trump for all that's going wrong with America right now, because it takes more than one person to incite violence. What's rough is that it really does feel that through his inaction that he condones racism or even sexism. When Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that all women who accused Trump of assault were liars, it only propels these types of people to think that kind of behavior is okay.
Also having someone named Sanders defending Trump is really confusing at times...
Also having someone named Sanders defending Trump is really confusing at times...
No human being is illegal. If I break the speed limit, are you going to call me a fucking illegal? I think not.
As for the rule of law, if you really believe in that, I hope you will support the efforts to hold Donald Trump and his administration responsible for his many constitutional violations.
There are plenty of countries which allow freedom of movement between borders. Besides, law isn't the same thing as morality.
Do you also "believe in" morals, or do you leave those at the door here?
I agree with the truth being addressed. If your issue is that there's a flat refusal to acknowledge the manipulation of emotion and information in the Trump campaign (should really be any campaign, though), then I don't think that's something that will ever be solved in this lifetime, or ever. I have nothing else to say, have a good whatever time it is.
Is there a degree of separation at which point you find it unacceptable? I assume you're not going around killing random people. What if you sell a gun making use of the gun show loophole without really thinking about it to someone and a few days after he uses it to stage a mass shooting? Would you find that acceptable for your conscience? What about voting politicians that allow that loophole to not be closed?
true as has every other county its only now america is trying to be overt about it. for example india till date is "friendly" to both america and russia. Thats how international relationships work. Its called diplomatic relationships and there is a reason diplomatic has the connotation it has.
Yeah, who cares about interventionism? The real issue here is a largely pointless temporary travel ban.
Again, this is blogger politics. Your comment should be sausaged between 10 Ways Sunflower Seeds Can Cure Autism and Kylie's Crazy Outfit! Who Is She Trying To Impress?
This doesn't answer the question. What justification is there for not simply changing immigration law to allow people to immigrate freely to the United States? This would be better both economically and morally for all Americans.
Yes? For one thing, it might protect the lives and freedoms of people of color in America.
I think you need to spend time talking to some Trump voters to see what some of their automatic responses are to the things that are being said about them if you think that's a good idea.
I'm a little confused, thought we were talking about "gun rights". Even that word sounds weird together.
The "gun show loophole" is a bit of misnomer. The "loophole" was the natural state of affairs, and then some large restriction was placed on buying and selling firearms only in the past few decades. But now, people look at the part of gun laws that don't have this new restriction and think "Oh, that must somehow be a loophole. Heck, it's even in the name." But it's not, and never has been. This is why people like me look at the current state of laws and say that enough is enough. Because if one more law is added, anything that remains will become the new loophole. It's an unending spiral into what people really want; A complete disarming of citizens, particularly black males.
Look, we get that you're too cool to care about anyone else and we're all a bunch of fucking millenial hipsters for wanting crazy things like minorities to be treated like human beings and not subject to insane and cruel policies. Are you going to make an actual argument about something, or just keep insulting everyone who disagrees with you?
Of course, the rights aren't for the guns. When a sheriff refuses to allow a black male a permit, because they believe he is a threat, that falls under 'gun rights'. It's not the right of the gun, clearly, but of how they relate to the person. It'd be a bit like saying "Abortion rights? How do abortions have rights? That just sounds so weird." Of course, English is a very imperfect language, so if we wanted to discuss all of its flaws we'd be here all day haha
Shucking and jiving? You were warned once about the unnecessary low quality personal attacks and you proceeded to do it again right after. One more time and you're gone.
That goes for everyone else, too. I'm proud of all the posters in here who are keeping it civil. Please continue to do so. But if I continue to see more personal attacks this thread will be locked.
It is not surprising to me that a bunch of people who support white supremacy would be upset when somebody points out that they support white supremacy.
It doesn't convince me that it actually changes their behavior with regards to white supremacy, though. I suspect they'd go on supporting it either way.
They're just immigrants to me. The illegal part is due to the system being rather convoluted and inefficient. Immigration can cause short term stress on institutions but it's very much worth it in the long run. I say that as someone who lives in a Mexican border state. We should be taking as many people as possible, given the resources and space this country has.
Are you even going to try to respond seriously or just go "LOL MILLENNIALS" in all your posts?
US interventionism is hit or miss. Its actions in Yugoslavia prevented greater atrocities. Its inaction in Rwanda was a catastrophic failure. Its actions in Iraq - same deal.
But bigotry and racism was seen as something that crossed the line (still is by sane people) since it asks the other side to do the impossible, whereas interventionism was usually in response to something that could be changed such as cessation of violence. And you seem to believe that people didn't care when Bush invaded Iraq. I even remember arguing against people who were pro-war and swallowing Bush's propaganda in the leadup to the war - they also used non-arguments like you're doing, because Jon Stewart was on the air at the time.
"Illegal alien" and 'Illegal immigrant" are the terms used in court. In fact, a federal district court judge Andrew Hanen addressed this very issue:
"The Court uses the phrases 'illegal immigrant' and 'illegal alien' interchangeably…The Court also understands that there is a certain segment of the population that finds the phrase 'illegal alien' offensive. The Court uses this term because it is the term used by the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law." See Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012).
"Illegal" is simply a legal term, no one is denying them their humanity. They are still human.
right seriously. ppl do you honestly believe in completely free borders? Countries which allow it are normally within very stable socio economic systems with their neighbors. If you want one on all fronts well you will have to believe in a whole other eco system than what were used to . To me its literally like ppl who say why dont billionare donate all their money cause they are richer than most vs well why dont you also donate all your money till everyone worldwide has the same purchasing parity. Its an untenable moral high ground without a lot of thought into it.Open borders are an untenable high ground. If youre for it you should also be willing to donate your money till youre as poor as the poorest north korean.
Secondly yes an illegal immigrant is just that illegal. Now the question of why they did could we help the refugee situation better should developed countries do much more to help etc are very pertinent questions. And very much worth discussing.
But being against illegal immigration doesnt make you an evil person . Neither does simply voting trump. However if you did vote trump you also have to realize the repercussions and realize how it affects ppl and how it changes the political landscape etc etc
That part was to make you more aware of why exactly I'm against further regulations, something I brought up earlier. I figured I'd be a two parter.
Anyway, to me, it would be very similar to me selling someone a minivan, fully aware of the fact that poor driving, bad luck, or just some temporary distraction or failure could cause death. And then afterwards, the worst fears come into place; The guy got drunk and plowed through a bunch of children at a stop. Or he decided to use it intentionally. Either way, of course I'd feel bad, but that's human nature- Feelings are not an accurate representation of reality. We feel bad at things that aren't our fault in the slightest.
- Status