When Trump Becomes President, Then What ?

[HenryBHough]

When Trump is elected Jammie-Jake won't be able to unbutton his Dr. Dentons fast enough to save 'em.

 

[boilermaker55]

Which then makes the case in point of all the anti-government people that post on here had better grow up and learn that the "anarchist" , the south, got their asses kicked and get over it.

Yeah, GENOCIDE was a step up for them.

Don't you love people's justification for genocide?

They fought a war. They lost. But you can use the propagandists word if you choose. And yeah, modern society is a VERY big step up for them. Go live in a teepee for a year. You;ll see.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Propaganda words? You mean calling genocide genocide is propaganda? Of course, the US were the good guys, getting rid of the evil native americans, yeah, I got it. You're wrong, but I understand your desire to pretend it didn't happen and then if you do acknowledge it to pretend it was just a war.

Just like Iraq was a war. Who gives a feck about the Iraqis right? Oh, unless it serves your purpose, like with the Kurds.

How about this for "propaganda", right from Washington

"I would recommend, that some post in the center of the Indian Country, should be occupied with all expedition, with a sufficient quantity of provisions whence parties should be detached to lay waste all the settlements around, with instructions to do it in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed.

But you will not by any means listen to any overture of peace before the total ruinment of their settlements is effected."

December 29th U.S. Cavalry Massacre More than 150 Lakota Native Americans Including Women and Children Near Wounded Knee Creek

Or this

"On this day in history, 1890, the Seventh Cavalry opened fire on a Lakota Native American encampment with four rapid fire Hotchkiss guns, killing 150-300 of the group, including women and children. Along with the dead Lakota, around 25 of the cavalry troops themselves were killed with another 39 wounded, largely due to friendly fire, particularly from the Hotchkiss guns."

I could go on all day and show it's genocide.

Sometimes people on here claim the US HAD to go into Iraq in 2003 to rid the Iraqis of Saddam, because he killed lots of Iraqi people. Like these people gave a damn about the Iraqi people. Similar people call for the atomic bombing of Iraq.

All you are doing is pointing to one or 2 incidents. There were thousands of incidents of Indians committing genocide against settlers, but oh, that wouldn't be politically correct to talk about, is that it ?

Here's a little EDUCATION FOR YOU about American Indians and "genocide", since that's what you seem to like to talk about >>

The overwhelming majority of contacts between White Europeans and American Indians were peaceful. The great majority of 19th century American Indians lived their entire lives many miles away from White settlements, and never laid eyes on a white person.

The genocide that you speak of is true, but it was relatively small in number, and is exaggerated due to the dime store novel industry, which made a fortune selling books to Easteners about the wild west. It was only the warring and violence books that sold the most copies. The ones about peace, trading, intermarriage, etc, didn't sell well. Consequently, people thought that the violence was all there was, due to the prevelance of it in the books they read.

As for genocide against American Indian tribes, they suffered that far more from other rival tribes, for hundreds of years, before a single European ship arrived in the "New World"

The Indians fought vicious wars among themselves, read about the Beaver Wars of the 17th Century, wars initiated by the Iroquois over control of the fur trade and which had the Great Lakes country in an uproar for over 50 years.

Note that the Sioux were hard pressed by the Chippewas who along with their allies the Ottawa and Potawatomi (the Three Fires alliance) were the eventual victors of the Beaver Wars. In their quest to control the furs of the upper Great Lakes, the Chippewas drove the Sioux out of the Great Lakes country; many of the Sioux on the Great Plains had been woodland dwellers previously.

As for their later years on the plains, the Sioux being quite a large and numerous nation, i.e. powerful, was in the business of encroaching on others, rather than being encroached upon — until these White people turned up. The Sioux had pretty stable alliances with the Arapho and the Cheyenne. They also had a list of stable enemies, like the Crow and the Pawnee, who in turn were allied with the US Army in the Indians wars of the 1870s, to the extent that Pawnee warriors even wore US Army uniforms and boots, along with their beads & feathers.

No charge for the tutoring.

No, I doubt there were any incidences of "Indians" (why would Indians go to America and kill Americans? We're talking about Native Americans here, not Indians) committing genocide. If you understood what genocide was, then you'd realise why this is the case.

What you're talking about are attacks from Native Americans on settlers. Er... hardly surprising really, seeing as these settlers were taking their land, attacking their people and so on.

The genocide was small in number? Hmm. A question, how many Native Americans are still living their traditional life?

The answer is zero.

How many Native Americans died at the hands of the settlers? A lot is the answer. They lost EVERYTHING. Those who were left were stuck on reservations and told to rot away.

 

[frigidweirdo]

.Sometimes people on here claim the US HAD to go into Iraq in 2003 to rid the Iraqis of Saddam, because he killed lots of Iraqi people. Like these people gave a damn about the Iraqi people. Similar people call for the atomic bombing of Iraq.

Now, in 2015, the rise of ISIS, the enormous wealth they have accumulated, and territory, and their specific ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons, shows very clearly why the US military needs to be in Iraq, and absolutely never should have been withdrawn in 2011, one of the biggest blunders of the past 10 years.

ISIS would never have existed has the US not gone into Iraq.

The biggest blunder wasn't leaving, it was going in. The second biggest blunder was putting Bremer in charge of Iraq. The third biggest blunder was getting rid of the Iraqi police and armed forces, giving insurgents a healthy supply of unemployed people to carry out their bidding.

I mean, the whole thing was a mess right from the start to the end, and continues to be a mess.

And through it all, all I see is the big wigs on the right thinking they did the right thing, why? Because they've got people fearing these evil people blah blah blah.

Just as the Cold War had everyone fearing the nukes of the Soviets, that disappeared and the right didn't know where to turn. They couldn't be tough on anything much. So they made sure they have this instability. ISIS is playing into their hands.

 

[boilermaker55]

The treaties were lies and the reservations were changed quite frequently when there was something of "value" to the whites. So, move your asses once more Natives.
Great thoughts isn't it protectionist.
And tell us what white settlers are still living in the 1600's?
Got an answer!

Propaganda words? You mean calling genocide genocide is propaganda? Of course, the US were the good guys, getting rid of the evil native americans, yeah, I got it. You're wrong, but I understand your desire to pretend it didn't happen and then if you do acknowledge it to pretend it was just a war.

Just like Iraq was a war. Who gives a feck about the Iraqis right? Oh, unless it serves your purpose, like with the Kurds.

How about this for "propaganda", right from Washington

"I would recommend, that some post in the center of the Indian Country, should be occupied with all expedition, with a sufficient quantity of provisions whence parties should be detached to lay waste all the settlements around, with instructions to do it in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed.

But you will not by any means listen to any overture of peace before the total ruinment of their settlements is effected."

December 29th U.S. Cavalry Massacre More than 150 Lakota Native Americans Including Women and Children Near Wounded Knee Creek

Or this

"On this day in history, 1890, the Seventh Cavalry opened fire on a Lakota Native American encampment with four rapid fire Hotchkiss guns, killing 150-300 of the group, including women and children. Along with the dead Lakota, around 25 of the cavalry troops themselves were killed with another 39 wounded, largely due to friendly fire, particularly from the Hotchkiss guns."

I could go on all day and show it's genocide.

Sometimes people on here claim the US HAD to go into Iraq in 2003 to rid the Iraqis of Saddam, because he killed lots of Iraqi people. Like these people gave a damn about the Iraqi people. Similar people call for the atomic bombing of Iraq.

All you are doing is pointing to one or 2 incidents. There were thousands of incidents of Indians committing genocide against settlers, but oh, that wouldn't be politically correct to talk about, is that it ?

Here's a little EDUCATION FOR YOU about American Indians and "genocide", since that's what you seem to like to talk about >>

The overwhelming majority of contacts between White Europeans and American Indians were peaceful. The great majority of 19th century American Indians lived their entire lives many miles away from White settlements, and never laid eyes on a white person.

The genocide that you speak of is true, but it was relatively small in number, and is exaggerated due to the dime store novel industry, which made a fortune selling books to Easteners about the wild west. It was only the warring and violence books that sold the most copies. The ones about peace, trading, intermarriage, etc, didn't sell well. Consequently, people thought that the violence was all there was, due to the prevelance of it in the books they read.

As for genocide against American Indian tribes, they suffered that far more from other rival tribes, for hundreds of years, before a single European ship arrived in the "New World"

The Indians fought vicious wars among themselves, read about the Beaver Wars of the 17th Century, wars initiated by the Iroquois over control of the fur trade and which had the Great Lakes country in an uproar for over 50 years.

Note that the Sioux were hard pressed by the Chippewas who along with their allies the Ottawa and Potawatomi (the Three Fires alliance) were the eventual victors of the Beaver Wars. In their quest to control the furs of the upper Great Lakes, the Chippewas drove the Sioux out of the Great Lakes country; many of the Sioux on the Great Plains had been woodland dwellers previously.

As for their later years on the plains, the Sioux being quite a large and numerous nation, i.e. powerful, was in the business of encroaching on others, rather than being encroached upon — until these White people turned up. The Sioux had pretty stable alliances with the Arapho and the Cheyenne. They also had a list of stable enemies, like the Crow and the Pawnee, who in turn were allied with the US Army in the Indians wars of the 1870s, to the extent that Pawnee warriors even wore US Army uniforms and boots, along with their beads & feathers.

No charge for the tutoring.

No, I doubt there were any incidences of "Indians" (why would Indians go to America and kill Americans? We're talking about Native Americans here, not Indians) committing genocide. If you understood what genocide was, then you'd realise why this is the case.

What you're talking about are attacks from Native Americans on settlers. Er... hardly surprising really, seeing as these settlers were taking their land, attacking their people and so on.

The genocide was small in number? Hmm. A question, how many Native Americans are still living their traditional life?

The answer is zero.

How many Native Americans died at the hands of the settlers? A lot is the answer. They lost EVERYTHING. Those who were left were stuck on reservations and told to rot away.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The treaties were lies and the reservations were changed quite frequently when there was something of "value" to the whites. So, move your asses once more Natives.
Great thoughts isn't it protectionist.
And tell us what white settlers are still living in the 1600's?
Got an answer!

Propaganda words? You mean calling genocide genocide is propaganda? Of course, the US were the good guys, getting rid of the evil native americans, yeah, I got it. You're wrong, but I understand your desire to pretend it didn't happen and then if you do acknowledge it to pretend it was just a war.

Just like Iraq was a war. Who gives a feck about the Iraqis right? Oh, unless it serves your purpose, like with the Kurds.

How about this for "propaganda", right from Washington

"I would recommend, that some post in the center of the Indian Country, should be occupied with all expedition, with a sufficient quantity of provisions whence parties should be detached to lay waste all the settlements around, with instructions to do it in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed.

But you will not by any means listen to any overture of peace before the total ruinment of their settlements is effected."

December 29th U.S. Cavalry Massacre More than 150 Lakota Native Americans Including Women and Children Near Wounded Knee Creek

Or this

"On this day in history, 1890, the Seventh Cavalry opened fire on a Lakota Native American encampment with four rapid fire Hotchkiss guns, killing 150-300 of the group, including women and children. Along with the dead Lakota, around 25 of the cavalry troops themselves were killed with another 39 wounded, largely due to friendly fire, particularly from the Hotchkiss guns."

I could go on all day and show it's genocide.

Sometimes people on here claim the US HAD to go into Iraq in 2003 to rid the Iraqis of Saddam, because he killed lots of Iraqi people. Like these people gave a damn about the Iraqi people. Similar people call for the atomic bombing of Iraq.

All you are doing is pointing to one or 2 incidents. There were thousands of incidents of Indians committing genocide against settlers, but oh, that wouldn't be politically correct to talk about, is that it ?

Here's a little EDUCATION FOR YOU about American Indians and "genocide", since that's what you seem to like to talk about >>

The overwhelming majority of contacts between White Europeans and American Indians were peaceful. The great majority of 19th century American Indians lived their entire lives many miles away from White settlements, and never laid eyes on a white person.

The genocide that you speak of is true, but it was relatively small in number, and is exaggerated due to the dime store novel industry, which made a fortune selling books to Easteners about the wild west. It was only the warring and violence books that sold the most copies. The ones about peace, trading, intermarriage, etc, didn't sell well. Consequently, people thought that the violence was all there was, due to the prevelance of it in the books they read.

As for genocide against American Indian tribes, they suffered that far more from other rival tribes, for hundreds of years, before a single European ship arrived in the "New World"

The Indians fought vicious wars among themselves, read about the Beaver Wars of the 17th Century, wars initiated by the Iroquois over control of the fur trade and which had the Great Lakes country in an uproar for over 50 years.

Note that the Sioux were hard pressed by the Chippewas who along with their allies the Ottawa and Potawatomi (the Three Fires alliance) were the eventual victors of the Beaver Wars. In their quest to control the furs of the upper Great Lakes, the Chippewas drove the Sioux out of the Great Lakes country; many of the Sioux on the Great Plains had been woodland dwellers previously.

As for their later years on the plains, the Sioux being quite a large and numerous nation, i.e. powerful, was in the business of encroaching on others, rather than being encroached upon — until these White people turned up. The Sioux had pretty stable alliances with the Arapho and the Cheyenne. They also had a list of stable enemies, like the Crow and the Pawnee, who in turn were allied with the US Army in the Indians wars of the 1870s, to the extent that Pawnee warriors even wore US Army uniforms and boots, along with their beads & feathers.

No charge for the tutoring.

No, I doubt there were any incidences of "Indians" (why would Indians go to America and kill Americans? We're talking about Native Americans here, not Indians) committing genocide. If you understood what genocide was, then you'd realise why this is the case.

What you're talking about are attacks from Native Americans on settlers. Er... hardly surprising really, seeing as these settlers were taking their land, attacking their people and so on.

The genocide was small in number? Hmm. A question, how many Native Americans are still living their traditional life?

The answer is zero.

How many Native Americans died at the hands of the settlers? A lot is the answer. They lost EVERYTHING. Those who were left were stuck on reservations and told to rot away.

Any sacred mountain with a treat involved, hey let's stick the presidents's faces on this one.

 

[Billy000]

How can you people be so naive and buy into this bullshit?

 

[protectionist]

No, I doubt there were any incidences of "Indians" (why would Indians go to America and kill Americans? We're talking about Native Americans here, not Indians) committing genocide. If you understood what genocide was, then you'd realise why this is the case.

What you're talking about are attacks from Native Americans on settlers. Er... hardly surprising really, seeing as these settlers were taking their land, attacking their people and so on.

The genocide was small in number? Hmm. A question, how many Native Americans are still living their traditional life?

The answer is zero.

How many Native Americans died at the hands of the settlers? A lot is the answer. They lost EVERYTHING. Those who were left were stuck on reservations and told to rot away.

"Native American" is a false expression. The correct term is American Indian. Anyone born in the USA is a 'native American.

While we're at it the term "African American" to describe Black people, is also wrong. The correct word is Black or Negro. I've known 4 guys who were born in Africa and immigrated to the US, and became US citizens. They were from Tanzania, Botswana, South Africa, and Rhodesia (now called Zimbabwe). All 4 are White.

As for the American Indians, having been in a constant state of warfare with other Indian tribes, they viewed the European settlers as just another tribe to be at war against. I have often been challenged by liberals who say if I was so OK with Europeans immigrating here in the 1800s, then why am I so against Mexicans et al from immigrating here now ? The answer of population and resources. when the Europeans arrived here lon ago, land and resources were plentiful. That is far from the case now, with our population more than 10 times the its optimum size relative to its resource base.

Lastly, how many Native Americans are still living their traditional life? you ask. Zero. I just made that very point a few posts ago. They live with modern conveniences, that they got from the Europeans, and none would go back to living in a teepee. Thanks to the European settlers, they don't have to.

 

[protectionist]

The treaties were lies and the reservations were changed quite frequently when there was something of "value" to the whites. So, move your asses once more Natives.
Great thoughts isn't it protectionist.
And tell us what white settlers are still living in the 1600's?
Got an answer!

Propaganda words? You mean calling genocide genocide is propaganda? Of course, the US were the good guys, getting rid of the evil native americans, yeah, I got it. You're wrong, but I understand your desire to pretend it didn't happen and then if you do acknowledge it to pretend it was just a war.

Just like Iraq was a war. Who gives a feck about the Iraqis right? Oh, unless it serves your purpose, like with the Kurds.

How about this for "propaganda", right from Washington

"I would recommend, that some post in the center of the Indian Country, should be occupied with all expedition, with a sufficient quantity of provisions whence parties should be detached to lay waste all the settlements around, with instructions to do it in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed.

But you will not by any means listen to any overture of peace before the total ruinment of their settlements is effected."

December 29th U.S. Cavalry Massacre More than 150 Lakota Native Americans Including Women and Children Near Wounded Knee Creek

Or this

"On this day in history, 1890, the Seventh Cavalry opened fire on a Lakota Native American encampment with four rapid fire Hotchkiss guns, killing 150-300 of the group, including women and children. Along with the dead Lakota, around 25 of the cavalry troops themselves were killed with another 39 wounded, largely due to friendly fire, particularly from the Hotchkiss guns."

I could go on all day and show it's genocide.

Sometimes people on here claim the US HAD to go into Iraq in 2003 to rid the Iraqis of Saddam, because he killed lots of Iraqi people. Like these people gave a damn about the Iraqi people. Similar people call for the atomic bombing of Iraq.

All you are doing is pointing to one or 2 incidents. There were thousands of incidents of Indians committing genocide against settlers, but oh, that wouldn't be politically correct to talk about, is that it ?

Here's a little EDUCATION FOR YOU about American Indians and "genocide", since that's what you seem to like to talk about >>

The overwhelming majority of contacts between White Europeans and American Indians were peaceful. The great majority of 19th century American Indians lived their entire lives many miles away from White settlements, and never laid eyes on a white person.

The genocide that you speak of is true, but it was relatively small in number, and is exaggerated due to the dime store novel industry, which made a fortune selling books to Easteners about the wild west. It was only the warring and violence books that sold the most copies. The ones about peace, trading, intermarriage, etc, didn't sell well. Consequently, people thought that the violence was all there was, due to the prevelance of it in the books they read.

As for genocide against American Indian tribes, they suffered that far more from other rival tribes, for hundreds of years, before a single European ship arrived in the "New World"

The Indians fought vicious wars among themselves, read about the Beaver Wars of the 17th Century, wars initiated by the Iroquois over control of the fur trade and which had the Great Lakes country in an uproar for over 50 years.

Note that the Sioux were hard pressed by the Chippewas who along with their allies the Ottawa and Potawatomi (the Three Fires alliance) were the eventual victors of the Beaver Wars. In their quest to control the furs of the upper Great Lakes, the Chippewas drove the Sioux out of the Great Lakes country; many of the Sioux on the Great Plains had been woodland dwellers previously.

As for their later years on the plains, the Sioux being quite a large and numerous nation, i.e. powerful, was in the business of encroaching on others, rather than being encroached upon — until these White people turned up. The Sioux had pretty stable alliances with the Arapho and the Cheyenne. They also had a list of stable enemies, like the Crow and the Pawnee, who in turn were allied with the US Army in the Indians wars of the 1870s, to the extent that Pawnee warriors even wore US Army uniforms and boots, along with their beads & feathers.

No charge for the tutoring.

No, I doubt there were any incidences of "Indians" (why would Indians go to America and kill Americans? We're talking about Native Americans here, not Indians) committing genocide. If you understood what genocide was, then you'd realise why this is the case.

What you're talking about are attacks from Native Americans on settlers. Er... hardly surprising really, seeing as these settlers were taking their land, attacking their people and so on.

The genocide was small in number? Hmm. A question, how many Native Americans are still living their traditional life?

The answer is zero.

How many Native Americans died at the hands of the settlers? A lot is the answer. They lost EVERYTHING. Those who were left were stuck on reservations and told to rot away.

I can't even figure out what this mess is talking about. LOL.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How can you people be so naive and buy into this bullshit?

What "bullshit" did we buy exactly?

 

[Billy000]

How can you people be so naive and buy into this bullshit?

What "bullshit" did we buy exactly?

Well we can start with making Mexico build a wall.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"Native American" is a false expression. The correct term is American Indian. Anyone born in the USA is a 'native American.

While we're at it the term "African American" to describe Black people, is also wrong. The correct word is Black or Negro. I've known 4 guys who were born in Africa and immigrated to the US, and became US citizens. They were from Tanzania, Botswana, South Africa, and Rhodesia (now called Zimbabwe). All 4 are White.

As for the American Indians, having been in a constant state of warfare with other Indian tribes, they viewed the European settlers as just another tribe to be at war against. I have often been challenged by liberals who say if I was so OK with Europeans immigrating here in the 1800s, then why am I so against Mexicans et al from immigrating here now ? The answer of population and resources. when the Europeans arrived here lon ago, land and resources were plentiful. That is far from the case now, with our population more than 10 times the its optimum size relative to its resource base.

Lastly, how many Native Americans are still living their traditional life? you ask. Zero. I just made that very point a few posts ago. They live with modern conveniences, that they got from the Europeans, and none would go back to living in a teepee. Thanks to the European settlers, they don't have to.

How can they be "American Indian" when they're not from INDIA? You know why Indian was used right? It was a false expression to express something they believed to be the case but which we know simply isn't the case. The world has got bigger since then.

There is a lot of mix up in names and things. One US reporter arrived in the UK once and was waiting for some black British person to turn up. The American reporter asked what this guy looked like as he'd never seen him. "Black" said the British reporter. "You mean African American?" The US reporter said. "No, he's British, not American, and he's black, not African"

The point about Native Americans is that they don't live the traditional life because they were forced from this. Sure, they'd have probably changed anyway, but they didn't have a choice, they got moved from their land and put into places they didn't want to live and they have the govt pounding on them.

I see EXACTLY the same arguments for the Tibetans and Uighers in China, the Chinese govt claims to be making their life better, but they've taken away their identity.

How would you like your identity to be stolen from you? Oh, you've never had to think about it, so you don't care if it happens to others.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How can you people be so naive and buy into this bullshit?

What "bullshit" did we buy exactly?

Well we can start with making Mexico build a wall.

You can't MAKE other countries do things, unless you invade them. Are you going to invade Mexico? No. Why? Not enough oil, that's why not. So don't bother talking about things that are never going to happen.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How can you people be so naive and buy into this bullshit?

What "bullshit" did we buy exactly?

Well we can start with making Mexico build a wall.

You can't MAKE other countries do things, unless you invade them. Are you going to invade Mexico? No. Why? Not enough oil, that's why not. So don't bother talking about things that are never going to happen.

 

[Billy000]

How can you people be so naive and buy into this bullshit?

What "bullshit" did we buy exactly?

Well we can start with making Mexico build a wall.

You can't MAKE other countries do things, unless you invade them. Are you going to invade Mexico? No. Why? Not enough oil, that's why not. So don't bother talking about things that are never going to happen.

You're confused. I was giving you examples of people being naive. Believing Mexico would build a wall is one of them.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How can you people be so naive and buy into this bullshit?

What "bullshit" did we buy exactly?

Well we can start with making Mexico build a wall.

You can't MAKE other countries do things, unless you invade them. Are you going to invade Mexico? No. Why? Not enough oil, that's why not. So don't bother talking about things that are never going to happen.

You're confused. I was giving you examples of people being naive. Believing Mexico would build a wall is one of them.

If we threaten to blow them off the face of the planet they may.

 

[candycorn]

Fast foward to late January 2017. Donald Trump is now president of the United States. The Congress is even more Republican than it was before. The Cabinet is filled with the 16 other members of the Republican presidential candidates. So what will happen then ? Here's some thoughts about it (Top 10) >>>

1. Obama and Hillary Clinton will be arrested for treason (if Hillary isn't already in jail by that time)

2. Mayors and top city officials of sanctuary cities will be arrested, convicted and imprisoned.

3. Mexican border double fence will begin construction, Mexico paying for it entirely.

4. A mass deportation program of illegal aliens will begin (Operation Wetback II) entirely paid for by the 4 top immigrant remittance receiving countries (Mexico, China, India, Phillipines)

5. Illegal aliens released by ICE, now will be rounded up, arrested and deported.

6. Birthright citizenship will be abolished, retroactive to 1995.

7. The Secure Communities Program dismantled by Obama, will be reinstated.

8. Employer violators of IRCA will be arrested by the thousands.

9. Tariffs will be placed on imports from China, Mexico, and some other countries.

10. The Iran nuclear deal will be abolished.

Planes will have to look out for flying pigs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Matthew, why would be blow Mexico off the face of the earth?

We get cheap oil and cheap energy from Mexico.

All we have do is regulate the immigration problem.

Business: death penalty on all business in which the knowingly hiring of immigrants happens; place managers and owners in prison for no less than five years; fine the dividends plus interest of all stock holders for the number of years in which the practice occurred.

Border: place sensors and drones along the border and bring home our troops to patrol the border; authorize them to seize anyone within a fifty mile who cannot document his status.

Illegals: accept no mass round up and deportation will happen. Work for a better solution, and, no, anchor babies are untouchable.

 

[candycorn]

How can you people be so naive and buy into this bullshit?

What "bullshit" did we buy exactly?

Well we can start with making Mexico build a wall.

You can't MAKE other countries do things, unless you invade them. Are you going to invade Mexico? No. Why? Not enough oil, that's why not. So don't bother talking about things that are never going to happen.

You're confused. I was giving you examples of people being naive. Believing Mexico would build a wall is one of them.

Just so you know Billy...some of us got it. Nice.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How can you people be so naive and buy into this bullshit?

What "bullshit" did we buy exactly?

Well we can start with making Mexico build a wall.

You can't MAKE other countries do things, unless you invade them. Are you going to invade Mexico? No. Why? Not enough oil, that's why not. So don't bother talking about things that are never going to happen.

You're confused. I was giving you examples of people being naive. Believing Mexico would build a wall is one of them.

Got you.