Yeah, it’s ridiculous. Funny thing is, this morning while driving my son to school, Abigail Spanbergers ad came on, and it had sadder music than a Sarah Mclaughlin puppy commercial, and drew parallels between Dave Brat and Roy Moore. Less in-your-face, but I think I laughed just as hard at how pathetic it was. Now I feel foolish for pouncing on the GOP ad - it just happened to be the first I heard.
Keep forgetting you’re in Texas. You’re right in the middle of it down there.
Ted Cruz is totally gonna quote you here. “A strongman competitor from Texas said…”
The biggest problem seems to be that there is no middle ground on many of these issues, things are too polarized. We have the same stuff going on here in Canada except few people are so outspoken as they are in the US.
@flipcollar - What do you think about this open border/migrant caravan thing happening right now? My take on it is that rather than letting anyone and everyone in they should be more concerned about the conditions in the countries that people are leaving, because in many cases the US and certain European countries were behind the shit that happened there. And I’m not just talking about colonization and slavery, but more recent stuff. Take Haiti for example, they had to pay reparations to France for ENDING slavery, and had to take massive loans from the US to do so. Their debt was only forgiven after the earthquake. Look at El Salvador and Honduras, it’s a mess over there but the thing that set it off was civil wars where the CIA was heavily involved.
I left this thread around 150 posts, and randomly decided to click on it. Holy cow.
so here’s my biggest problem with the Republican attack ads. They’re COMPLETELY misrepresenting the left’s position. Nobody on either side is arguing for ‘open borders’. Nobody is arguing for free migration from Mexico into the US.
So when you ask me what I think about ‘the open border thing’, my response is ‘that’s not a thing’.
I’ve seen people on Facebook who believe that South Americans traveled for 2 months, on foot, to the border, and specifically timed it so they would arrive in the US to illegally vote in a US Senate race. The claim is that thousands of people in a 3rd world country are SO INVESTED in who the next Texas Senator is that they completely uprooted their lives, their families, with the belief that they could swing the election by coming across the border, and finding a way to vote here. I’ve asked some of the people who believe this ‘what is more likely: the thing you’re saying, or a drought left them without food so they moved?’ I was amazed that the overwhelming response was the former. That’s insane.
Hmm. Can you clarify what exactly the Democrats position is then, because that’s what I have been led to believe. They basically have open borders in the EU (not just between countries, but to external migrants) and here in Canada anyone who crosses on foot at any place other than an actual border checkpoint is allowed across, and this is not an exaggeration at all.
What I have been hearing about lately is this “migrant caravan” coming through Mexico, and the Democrats all seem to support letting them in from what I see in the news. What do you know about that?
The people claiming that are out of their minds obviously. Maybe it’s different in the US, partly because of the weather, but here in Canada most immigrants would prefer not to have had to come here in the first place. The problem is that a lot of other countries are fucked up and people can’t live there anymore. Like with this caravan thing, most of them are from El Salvador and Honduras. Those are the two countries with the highest murder rates in the world and aside from some rural communities just about everyone who is earning money legally is getting extorted by the gangs. I know a few people from those two countries, things are not good there.
They all have the right to request asylum. Many have/will request asylum in Mexico. I think the process we have in place won’t change for this particular migration. I think a lot of people will be turned down, and many will be in limbo for a long, long time.
I also think we have very little to fear from this. I do not believe it’s a danger to the US in any real way. There is no evidence to suggest that this presents a danger to the US.
I doubt that ANYONE, outside of maybe the farthest leftists out there, would support a universal welcome of the migrants. If you can find a quote from a prominent democrat who has suggest this should happen, I’d be interested to see it. That would be wholly irresponsible. I think what has been suggested is compassion and consideration, given what these people have gone through.
Hey, I don’t closely follow US politics so maybe nobody over there is actually pushing for that. But look at the EU, Angela Merkel (the German fuhrer, or whatever they call it now) actually did welcome anyone and everyone to Germany, where they also get the highest welfare and refugee benefits. They had to close the border with other EU countries (which is actually against EU law, internal borders are totally open) because over 1 million refugees came in within a few months. There are NGOs, most of them supported by George Soros, that bring migrants in their (the NGOs’) boats to Europe. They were mostly going to Italy until the new government was elected, now they are going to Spain. It’s complete madness. Poland and Hungary are getting shit from the EU and being threatened with sanctions because they refuse to accept refugees - not that any of them are coming there, but the EU wants to send them there. This is one of the reasons why the UK is leaving the EU. Also, the refugees are mostly single men and there has been a massive increase in rapes in some places, even one mass sexual assault at a public event in Germany.
Keep in mind that I’m not saying the same thing will happen in the US because of Latino migrants, the situation in Europe is different. But rather than wasting money and resources on providing for people who illegally cross the border it would make more sense to help fix their home countries. Then again, when you see what the Clintons did to Haiti you realize that this is not the plan at all.
What about sanctuary cities?
What about sanctuary cities?
I wanted to touch on what Flip said as well. It really, really, really isn’t anyone’s position to just let everyone in. No democrat has proposed just ending any vetting process. It’s still extraordinarily hard to become a US Citizen, and it’s never been easy to just walk into the country, unless you count walking on foot with all of your possessions in your hands to escape the cartel ‘easy’.
The Democrat position is that things are generally okay the way they are, with regards to immigration. The GOP position right now on immigration is that a lot of our country’s problems are due to immigrants. I’m not saying that isn’t true, but it’s a highly reoccurring theme in history for a party to blame a country’s problems on immigrants. We had the Vegas shooting, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, the black church in texas, and countless other school shootings by US citizens with guns that were originally legally purchased, and yet despite the hundreds that we’ve killed by ourselves, the immigrants seem to be the scapegoat. There are absolutely bad eggs that come here and commit crimes, and they should be dealt with. But for the party that wants to blame our country’s problems on outsiders, it pays to make people think that the opposing party wants to flood the country with them.
It’s like how deregulation and a free market is a totally defensible position (I don’t necessarily agree with all of it, but that doesn’t mean I’m right, and it’s absolutely a viable stance to take), but Democrats are piling money into ads to convince people that every Republican is a shill for the corporations and wants to hoard all the money for themselves.
We have obviously just come out the other side of dealing with a huge economic recession. Each side has their scapegoat, but both are misrepresenting the other’s stances on purpose, and neither the Dems or GOP will take responsibility for the parts that each of them had in making that nightmare a reality.
What kind of stupid remark is that? Do you not see the conversation we are having or do you just like to bicker about nothing?
Look guys. This isn’t the type of thread where you should be discharging your nuttiness all over someone else. You need to get in there and dig deep. Real deep. Make your delivery, then get out and start calling the other person names.
I agree that the Republicans are going too far and using fear-mongering to win votes. I’m not against immigration, everyone in North America who isn’t Native is either an immigrant or a descendant of immigrants. It just doesn’t make sense to me that there are people opposed to the concept of stopping people from entering the country without either a visa or a passport from another country that allows them to enter. That’s why I’m bringing up the migrant caravan, I just don’t get how it makes sense to let them in if they don’t have visas or anything. Last I heard, you can apply for refugee status from outside the country, which is how most refugees do it. Nobody was swimming across the Atlantic or stowing away on boats to get into Canada.
Also, it seems that there are people opposed to deporting illegal immigrants, which is what the sanctuary city thing is about. If you aren’t legally allowed in the country then why shouldn’t you be deported? I don’t get it. If it involves splitting up families then that is something that should be considered at their deportation hearing.
Honestly, when it comes to deporting illegal immigrants, I really don’t know enough to have an opinion. I don’t want families to be split up, but if they are in fact illegal immigrants, then either change the law, or it’s within your right to deport them. I don’t even know how one can argue against that.
My only beef with the whole situation is not about whether or not an administration is within its rights to deport illegals (by definition, it is), it’s the disproportionate amount of blame we’re placing on them for crime/murder/recessions. I don’t think any good has ever come from dehumanizing a group of people, and I don’t think your qualms with immigration have anything to do with anyone’s race, color, or creed either.
Once again, though. If you’re not going to change the law, or plan to change the circumstances under which someone becomes ‘illegal’, then I don’t know how you can argue against following the law. Laws don’t mean something is morally correct, but you can’t condemn someone for following them.
This is exactly what I’m saying
Another issue related to immigration, which you can’t blame immigrants themselves for, is how here in Canada the Liberal government says that increasing immigration will solve an apparent labor shortage we have here. In reality, there is no labor shortage, there is just an abundance of shitty jobs that pay minimum wage or slightly more and almost nobody wants to do these jobs. However, if you come from a place where jobs are scarce and 10-12 hours of physical labor pays $10 or less, these jobs and wages suddenly seem good.
The Ontario Liberals (when they were still in power) raised the minimum wage from $11 to $14, which in theory sounds good but is too large of a jump too fast. They had planned to raise it to $15 next year but the Conservatives won the election and of course opposed it. Now, you could definitely argue that many of these businesses should be paying their employees more but there are also small businesses that can’t handle a sudden 30% increase in labor costs. There were many businesses that closed as a result, and now if you look at job ads nobody can say there is a labor shortage because there are hardly any jobs.
The Conservatives’ plan isn’t much better, they have an assortment of pro-corporation policies and laws they plan to bring in. They only really have the interests of the upper class and large businesses in mind.
Do you actually know what is meant by ‘sanctuary city’?
If he doesn’t are you going to enlighten him or just be a condescending douche? My money’s on the latter…
I didn’t say anything about homosexuality being “bad” and I think it would be a bad idea to elaborate on it at length given how homophilic people are these days. What I said has to do with what the consequences are for normalizing anything, in this case, homosexuality, for families and societies. Your questions reflect a shallow reading.
In short, two dicks or two vaginas cannot make a baby. I don’t think homosexuality is immoral, much less, sinful. That said, I would not want homosexual children because homosexual children cannot pass on inherited traits.
I find the normalization of homosexuality, though more broadly, cultural Marxism and radical liberalism, are destructive of the family. You ask why you should be uneasy about raising a child today. Because of all of the corrosive influences in the world that undermine and destroy family and tradition.
Corrosive influences, you ask? Almost everything on TV and in mainstream music and the media. The corrupting influence of living in a society that values money and moneymaking over people and life. I’ve probably said enough even if I haven’t been entirely clear. If you’re a committed Californian, I wouldn’t expect any of what I said to make sense.