Would you Vote for Trump?

[Underhill]

The number of agents isn't all that significant compared to results (which reflect what the agents actually do).
There are dueling right v left news reports about the extent of the problem....or if it even is a problem.
But I see much room for improvement.
Ref...
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/arti...tics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/
Remember that it shouldn't be about which party is worse.

Ideally it wouldn't be. But when the same party cuts funding then complains because the president has to administrate those cuts.... how else are we supposed to take that? It's complete and utter nonsense.

The reality with immigration is that while people like to complain, the seat of power in this country doesn't want the real problem addressed. That is why every discussion focuses on our border while the real problem would be much easier and cheaper (for the government) to address if they really wanted to.

The real problem is people coming here legally and then staying after their temporary visa expires. But as these people are doing jobs that we need done, and the money they send home is just about the only thing holding Mexico together, nobody really wants to fix it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ideally it wouldn't be. But when the same party cuts funding then complains because the president has to administrate those cuts.... how else are we supposed to take that? It's complete and utter nonsense.

I agree that both parties are bad on this.
But Trump is the darling of neither.

The reality with immigration is that while people like to complain, the seat of power in this country doesn't want the real problem addressed. That is why every discussion focuses on our border while the real problem would be much easier and cheaper (for the government) to address if they really wanted to.
The real problem is people coming here legally and then staying after their temporary visa expires. But as these people are doing jobs that we need done, and the money they send home is just about the only thing holding Mexico together, nobody really wants to fix it.

Still, I favor better border control.
If Mexico is doomed, then a porous borders won't save it.

 

[tytlyf]

The NoCruz delegate count is currently sitting at 1,184 delegates against his 545. The NoKasich movement is sitting at 1,542 against his 147. It's clear the majority of delegates do not want these 2 to be in office.

 

[Revoltingest]

I nominate the ticket of Cruz & Tytlyf.

 

[esmith]

You'd never see the GOP going to war....err?

What political party has had the Presidency when combat troops were sent into combat the majority of the time? I will not count the "minor involvements. Give you a hint, it wasn't Republicans
WWI Democrat
WWII Democrat
Korean War Democrat
Vietnam War Democrat
Gulf War Republican
Afghanistan Republican
Gulf War Republican
Syria Democrat

 

[Underhill]

I agree that both parties are bad on this.
But Trump is the darling of neither.

Still, I favor better border control.
If Mexico is doomed, then a porous borders won't save it.

The point is we don't really have a porous border. The whole idea is a myth. Does stuff get across there? Of course. Drugs cross the border all the time. But these people have tunnels, submarines, speed boats, airplanes, helicopters and an army of mules and profit margins large enough that even if half their shipments are intercepted (they aren't) they still makes hundreds of millions.

Anyone who thinks a wall is going to stop that traffic is dreaming.

A wall will stop a relative handful of poor people who cross to find a job.

 

[Scuba Pete]

All in all, it's just another Trump in the wall...

 

[metis]

Geez, it seems that even Charles Koch and former General Hayden both think that Trump and Cruz are too off the wall for them to support and vote for, and Koch says that Hillary probably would actually be better choice.

 

[Altfish]

What political party has had the Presidency when combat troops were sent into combat the majority of the time? I will not count the "minor involvements. Give you a hint, it wasn't Republicans
WWI Democrat
WWII Democrat
Korean War Democrat
Vietnam War Democrat
Gulf War Republican
Afghanistan Republican
Gulf War Republican
Syria Democrat

I've touched a nerve here, haven't I?
I said nothing about the Democrats and war.
How many of the GOP voted against any of the wars?

 

[esmith]

I've touched a nerve here, haven't I?
I said nothing about the Democrats and war.
How many of the GOP voted against any of the wars?

Changing your tune are we.. Guess I was the one that struck a nerve, seems that facts sometimes trump insinuations

 

[Altfish]

Changing your tune are we.. Guess I was the one that struck a nerve, seems that facts sometimes trump insinuations

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's find detente by noting that both parties have gotten us in, & kept us in these wars.
(Some wars were more justifiable than others.)

 

[Altfish]

Let's find detente by noting that both parties have gotten us in, & kept us in these wars.
(Some wars were more justifiable than others.)

Exactly my point

 

[tytlyf]

What political party has had the Presidency when combat troops were sent into combat the majority of the time? I will not count the "minor involvements. Give you a hint, it wasn't Republicans
WWI Democrat
WWII Democrat
Korean War Democrat
Vietnam War Democrat
Gulf War Republican
Afghanistan Republican
Gulf War Republican
Syria Democrat

Prior to 1960's, DemoKKKrats were conservatives. Additionally, Syria wasn't a war. Republicans love war, they treat troops like they're expendable. The reason republicans love war these days because their special interests include the military manufacturing corporations. Same with the NRA and gun/ammo manufacturers. Common sense laws may hurt profits, that's all they care about. GHWB was right to cancel his lifetime membership with the NRA>

 

[esmith]

Additionally, Syria wasn't a war.

"Wasn't" is past-tense.
I do believe it is still going on
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/politics/obama-special-operations-syria/

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That's a pretty elaborate hypothetical.
What if those gov troops were coerced into serving, & did not want to take part?

Yes, and what if they weren't? Let's answer the question I posed first, please. I said nothing about soldiers being coerced in my hypothetical. Once you have answered my question I would be happy to answer your question about coerced soldiers.

You're painting a very detailed picture you want to see, but it's not what I see.
Our agreement to disagree isn't working.

Actually I'm just describing a very basic, relatively uncontroversial ethical distinction between combatant vs. non-combatant suffering in war. We are all aware that in wars like Vietnam and WWI many soldiers were coerced and were fathers etc. and yet most people, and the Geneva Conventions, are able to recognize that generally speaking, it is even worse for those with guns to kill unarmed civilians, than for those with guns to kill each other because unlike combatants, non-combatants are always victims and everyone (even enemies) should be able to agree on that. I say "most people" because for some reason this seems to cause great moral confusion in your case.

If as you say the picture seems detailed it's just because I'm describing the Salvadoran war, which is relevant since Clinton was talking to Salvadoran women in the wake of that war.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, and what if they weren't? Let's answer the question I posed first, please. I said nothing about soldiers being coerced in my hypothetical. Once you have answered my question I would be happy to answer your question about coerced soldiers.

Actually I'm just describing a very basic, relatively uncontroversial ethical distinction between combatant vs. non-combatant suffering in war. We are all aware that in wars like Vietnam and WWI many soldiers were coerced and were fathers etc. and yet most people, and the Geneva Conventions, are able to recognize that generally speaking, it is even worse for those with guns to kill unarmed civilians, than for those with guns to kill each other because unlike combatants, non-combatants are always victims and everyone (even enemies) should be able to agree on that. I say "most people" because for some reason this seems to cause great moral confusion in your case.

If as you say the picture seems detailed it's just because I'm describing the Salvadoran war, which is relevant since Clinton was talking to Salvadoran women in the wake of that war.

I know you're working hard to convince me that men who die in combat aren't "primary victims" of war.
But we just aren't going to see eye to eye on this.

I understand disliking Trump. I really do too.
But I consider him to have lower risks as Prez.
How do you know you're not the one suffering from "moral confusion".
Perhaps Hil's fans start with the premise that she absolutely must be both right & righteous, lest Trump be considered a reasonable alternative.

 

[tytlyf]

"Wasn't" is past-tense.
I do believe it is still going on
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/politics/obama-special-operations-syria/

How many troops have died in Syria? Do you want tons of troops or not? I bet you'll vote for someone who wants tons of troops. You can't complain about a few troops when you want tens of thousands. Obama is doing the responsible thing.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news.....
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/26/us-unions-donald-trump-us-election-2016
Union leadership worried that members might not toe the line, instead voting for Trump.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I know you're working hard to convince me that men who die in combat aren't "primary victims" of war.

Or, you're working hard to not be convinced. Not sure why you can't acknowledge there might be some distinctions among US troops, Asad's troops, the Nazi SS, ancient Aztec warriors, the Mongols, etc. and instead lump them all together as "men who die in combat" (with a noble ring to it) and then go even further and refuse to acknowledge there might be a further distinction between that group and the unarmed civilians they kill. It must take a lot of effort to do that.

But we just aren't going to see eye to eye on this.

Okay. I guess we'll never know since you refuse to answer a simple question.