America First. R U Sure?

[Darkwind]

You noted correctly. The wall is the most visible and therefore the most scary part of his plans. I note that you didn't answer the premise that the root cause of this kind of immigration is economical, and that Trumps plan inevitably worsens the Mexicans economical situation, creating more people who want to cross.

a wall is scary? why is that? I didn't know a structure that just stands still is capable of such a thing.

In general Europeans don't like the symbolism of walls, we've had some bad experiences with walls. The structure stands still but it represent or a physical barrier between yourself and undesirables ( ghettos), or a barrier between you and a country you deem dangerous ( Berlin wall), there is a reason that a piece of the Berlin wall is at the CIA headquarters. A physical reminder of something the world deemed reprehensible.

Forkup, I'm agreeing with most of what you say, but Europe is building walls or imposing more controls on their borders because of the immigrant crisis. I do feel sorry for border control agents with 2000 miles of border to patrol and most of it just wide open with no fence or wall or anything to stop folks from just wading over. Or walking in. The increase in border personnel and cracking down on employers employing illegals will be just as effective, though, as a "big beautiful 30' high wall."
This map shows how much the refugee crisis is dividing Europe

You are right it is dividing Europe and it will probably lead to a jolt to the right in quite a few European Nations. Something I'm personally opposed to. On the other hand that still won't mean that Europe will embrace Trump. Like I said in my previous post, the way he got elected and his approach to the problems is considered scary.

I'm with you on that, for sure. I hope for the best, but his foreign policy ideas have always worried me. I never realized before that the world had such a lot to say about our President, though, or that they really cared one way or the other most of the time. Now the immigrant ban, of course that would cause comment, but other than that, why is it their business or anything they care about?

There is no immigrant ban. None at all.

 

[OldLady]

a wall is scary? why is that? I didn't know a structure that just stands still is capable of such a thing.

In general Europeans don't like the symbolism of walls, we've had some bad experiences with walls. The structure stands still but it represent or a physical barrier between yourself and undesirables ( ghettos), or a barrier between you and a country you deem dangerous ( Berlin wall), there is a reason that a piece of the Berlin wall is at the CIA headquarters. A physical reminder of something the world deemed reprehensible.

Forkup, I'm agreeing with most of what you say, but Europe is building walls or imposing more controls on their borders because of the immigrant crisis. I do feel sorry for border control agents with 2000 miles of border to patrol and most of it just wide open with no fence or wall or anything to stop folks from just wading over. Or walking in. The increase in border personnel and cracking down on employers employing illegals will be just as effective, though, as a "big beautiful 30' high wall."
This map shows how much the refugee crisis is dividing Europe

You are right it is dividing Europe and it will probably lead to a jolt to the right in quite a few European Nations. Something I'm personally opposed to. On the other hand that still won't mean that Europe will embrace Trump. Like I said in my previous post, the way he got elected and his approach to the problems is considered scary.

I'm with you on that, for sure. I hope for the best, but his foreign policy ideas have always worried me. I never realized before that the world had such a lot to say about our President, though, or that they really cared one way or the other most of the time. Now the immigrant ban, of course that would cause comment, but other than that, why is it their business or anything they care about?

There is no immigrant ban. None at all.

Refugee ban from seven countries. Sorry.

 

[jc456]

In general Europeans don't like the symbolism of walls, we've had some bad experiences with walls. The structure stands still but it represent or a physical barrier between yourself and undesirables ( ghettos), or a barrier between you and a country you deem dangerous ( Berlin wall), there is a reason that a piece of the Berlin wall is at the CIA headquarters. A physical reminder of something the world deemed reprehensible.

Forkup, I'm agreeing with most of what you say, but Europe is building walls or imposing more controls on their borders because of the immigrant crisis. I do feel sorry for border control agents with 2000 miles of border to patrol and most of it just wide open with no fence or wall or anything to stop folks from just wading over. Or walking in. The increase in border personnel and cracking down on employers employing illegals will be just as effective, though, as a "big beautiful 30' high wall."
This map shows how much the refugee crisis is dividing Europe

You are right it is dividing Europe and it will probably lead to a jolt to the right in quite a few European Nations. Something I'm personally opposed to. On the other hand that still won't mean that Europe will embrace Trump. Like I said in my previous post, the way he got elected and his approach to the problems is considered scary.

I'm with you on that, for sure. I hope for the best, but his foreign policy ideas have always worried me. I never realized before that the world had such a lot to say about our President, though, or that they really cared one way or the other most of the time. Now the immigrant ban, of course that would cause comment, but other than that, why is it their business or anything they care about?

There is no immigrant ban. None at all.

Refugee ban from seven countries. Sorry.

no ban, you should look up what the word means.

You should learn what the EO actually stated. It' d be nice for a fking change.

 

[OldLady]

Forkup, I'm agreeing with most of what you say, but Europe is building walls or imposing more controls on their borders because of the immigrant crisis. I do feel sorry for border control agents with 2000 miles of border to patrol and most of it just wide open with no fence or wall or anything to stop folks from just wading over. Or walking in. The increase in border personnel and cracking down on employers employing illegals will be just as effective, though, as a "big beautiful 30' high wall."
This map shows how much the refugee crisis is dividing Europe

You are right it is dividing Europe and it will probably lead to a jolt to the right in quite a few European Nations. Something I'm personally opposed to. On the other hand that still won't mean that Europe will embrace Trump. Like I said in my previous post, the way he got elected and his approach to the problems is considered scary.

I'm with you on that, for sure. I hope for the best, but his foreign policy ideas have always worried me. I never realized before that the world had such a lot to say about our President, though, or that they really cared one way or the other most of the time. Now the immigrant ban, of course that would cause comment, but other than that, why is it their business or anything they care about?

There is no immigrant ban. None at all.

Refugee ban from seven countries. Sorry.

no ban, you should look up what the word means.

You should learn what the EO actually stated. It' d be nice for a fking change.

Don't swear at me, you whippersnapper. I'm not going to recite the whole thing every time I refer to it.

 

[Tom Horn]

I have defended Obama as well. .

Finally admitting it I see.

There's nothing wrong with that, Tom. Unless you're a mindless partisan.

What's wrong with being a mindless partisan?

 

[jc456]

You are right it is dividing Europe and it will probably lead to a jolt to the right in quite a few European Nations. Something I'm personally opposed to. On the other hand that still won't mean that Europe will embrace Trump. Like I said in my previous post, the way he got elected and his approach to the problems is considered scary.

I'm with you on that, for sure. I hope for the best, but his foreign policy ideas have always worried me. I never realized before that the world had such a lot to say about our President, though, or that they really cared one way or the other most of the time. Now the immigrant ban, of course that would cause comment, but other than that, why is it their business or anything they care about?

There is no immigrant ban. None at all.

Refugee ban from seven countries. Sorry.

no ban, you should look up what the word means.

You should learn what the EO actually stated. It' d be nice for a fking change.

Don't swear at me, you whippersnapper. I'm not going to recite the whole thing every time I refer to it.

I no longer have tolerance for stupid. those who continue to press on with stupid get's the fking stupid line from now on. So, you wish not to see the word, then back your batshit crazy posts with facts.

 

[Tom Horn]

Funny you mention China. Isn't that where Ivanka & Trump gets their shit made?

US companies were making their shit in Mexico duty free long before NAFTA was signed. Companies can only seek their cheap labor overseas if Americans opt to buy it. We should not be giving US corps a tax break for taking their factories overseas. Thanks to Republicans their overseas profits are not taxed until they bring them home - so they don't. When we import steel from China to manufacture, it cancels out any freight advantage we might have against Chinese products made from steel. It is really stupid to wall off the US market for just US made goods when the global reaction will be to end our exports. What kind of idiot strives to claim 315 million customers while alienation billions?

I'm under no obligation to decipher this ^^^^^^^^^ horseshit.

And I thought I wrote it so a 5th grader could read it. How low do I need to go for you?

So you wrote it like a 5th grader.....no argument from me on that.

 

[Correll]

1. Jews really were NOT secretly in control of the world.

2. Hispanics are really crossing the border by the millions taking jobs, and raising crime. And muslims really are killing us.

Yes Hispanics are really crossing the border by the millions. They are taking jobs, but mostly jobs that aren't getting filled by American workers, I've seen studies that even give them a net benefit to the US economy. You can probably cite studies that deny it but that's neither here nor there.Can you show a study that confirms that Mexicans coming over are predominantly criminals, which is what he claimed? No Muslims aren't killing people, terrorists are. This is exactly the broad brush that verifies my OP of him demonising large groups of people.

1. The idea that the illegals are only taking jobs Americans don't want it bs. l've done many of those jobs that Americans supposedly don't do. And my co-workers were all Americans.

2. The government is careful to NOT track crime by illegals, so data is spotty. But indications are strong that illegals bring a shit load of crime and drugs with them.

3. I'm sure the gays in Orlando, or the girls of Rotherham are grateful that you are so very careful with the feelings of Muslims, to the point of putting that ahead of the safety of your fellow citizens. How are Belgium jews loving the rise in Muslim population?

1. I said mostly not only and I'm sorry to tell you but anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it. For instance I can imagine someone working in Illinois will have less immigrants going for a job then someone living in New Mexico.
2. Ok so you have by your own admission spotty data that completely verifies."When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best," he said. "They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.".?
3. Hurting anybodies feelings doesn't come into it. ISIS is trying to sell the story of," it us against them." By demonising the entire religion, you are effectively proving them right. There are plenty of Muslims moderate or otherwise that just want to get along. But if you confirm the fears and wariness they have of the west you will push a lot of them in the camp of ISIS.

1. If the AMERICANS of Illinois are doing those jobs, and the AMERICANS of New Mexico are NOT, then it is because the illegals are talking those jobs.

2. We have to make decisions on spotty data all the time. Trump gave you his analysis of the data. It agrees with mine.

3. Discussing the reality of importing a sizable group of Muslims is not demonizing them, it is talking about the truth. And if the truth is all it takes to "push a lot of them in the camp of ISIS" then importing them was/is a huge mistake.

I asked how the jews of Belgium were liking the rise in Muslim population. You didn't answer. What about the gays?

1. Prove it. That simple. You provided anecdotal evidence and try to make a general assumption out of it. You basically are claiming that there are plenty of Americans willing to pick oranges, or garden or do a lot of the low payed menial labour jobs. I live in a country the size of Maryland but I don't presume that my economic reality is the same reality that exist 100 miles away, in fact I know it isn't. In Illinois there might be a high enough unemployment that those kinds of jobs become attractive, while in New Mexico there might be a shortage of labour. Point is if jobs don't get filled the economy hurts.
2. I can only say that that analyses sounds highly unlikely.
3. You seem to blow right past the point here. First of I know, saying that bringing Muslims in causes terrorism is false. Large groups of Muslims came to my country in the seventies, that didn't cause terrorism. Secondly, your argument seems to be that if people become terrorist because I confirm their prejudices, those prejudices were true. One is the result of the other not the other way around. And to answer your question. The Jews don't like it very much, the gays don't really care as far as I can tell. But then again Jews and Muslims have lived together here for 40 years, without it causing major riots. In a stable society, having different or even hostile beliefs doesn't automatically lead to violence.

1. The idea that illegals are mostly migrant farm workers is a lie on many levels.

Where America’s undocumented immigrants work

As you can see, while most illegals do end up in lower skill jobs, there are still vastly more that are professional or management, than are "picking oranges".

AND you can see that that difference in percentage doing the work, does NOT support the idea that American won't or don't do those jobs.


2. Really? You believe that other side that people young enough and desperate enough to cross a desert to get here, are LESS likely to commit crime than older, safer, better off Americans? LOL! The age gap alone makes it absurd.

3.a. Islam as a whole is moving more and more fundie. The immigrants today are not the immigrants of yesteryear.

3b If the people in question are that easy to turn into terrorists, than it was/is a mistake to import them.

3c Major rioting is a low bar for "not bad idea".

Jews leave France in record numbers - CNN.com


"Nearly 8,000 French Jews moved to Israel in the year following the Charlie Hebdo attack, according to the Jewish Agency, which handles Jewish immigration, or aliyah, to Israel.
The number of French Jews moving to Israel has doubled -- and doubled again -- in the past five years.
In 2013, less than 3,300 French Jews moved to Israel. Only two years earlier, that number stood at 1,900."

"Dov Cohen, a French Jew who left Marseille for Ashdod last summer, says he never wore his religious skullcap, or kippa, in public.
"You have to watch out," Cohen says about his life in France. "You have to protect the children because of fights in the metro and on the buses. This pushed us to decide to make aliyah," he says.
"Here there is a feeling of security that no longer exists in France. Twenty years ago, maybe yes. But since the year 2000, there no longer is that feeling of security in France." "


Ban homosexuality, 52% of British Muslims say in poll - CNN.com



"More than half of British Muslims (52%) think homosexuality should not be legal, and nearly half (47%) think it is not appropriate for gay people to teach in schools, according to a new survey of British Muslims.

The results have sparked debate about the integration of the Britain's largest religious minority."

 

[sealybobo]

I'm more concerned about the foreign relations piece and how it effects us if there is a serious military threat. Of course trade deals enter into that, I realize they do. But I don't think Krauthammer is primarily talking about trade, is he?

I'm more concerned about the foreign relations piece and how it effects us if there is a serious military threat.
Who comes to the aid of the top dog?
Also, even if we pissed off the entire EU and we got invaded by Russia AND China (only way we would get messed up) they would STILL come to us. If we fell like that, they would be next.
The entire OP is a biased hack job.
But I will give the hack credit.. the markets crashed just like he said they woul.....
oh wait, nevermind
Boom: Dow hits 20,000 for first time ever

I don't get it. You think if we stop extending financial and military aid to our allies, that they won't go somewhere else (fill in the blank) for it? You think they'll follow us anyway? If we were invaded by Russia it would be AFTER all the EU had fallen, TN. After we were no longer interested in helping them. That's how I see it.

It is becoming amusing that the lengths people will go to in order to justify our being the world police.

If they decide to go their own way, good for them. But they can also pay for their own defense. I wonder how long their vaunted social programs will survive without our largess.

I wanted to stop being the world superpower too and at least right now I still would love to stop spending so much on defense and let the rest of the world take care of themselves. But it's also true that means we give up being the main influencer on world events. So if Russia is invading Crimea, we are just like Australia or Canada. We don't get to bully Russia and make them do what we want. Russia won't care what we think.

And isolationism might cost us jobs and cost companies money. See this is the problem with Republicans. They make us liberals argue anti free trade when the truth is, you'd have to be a god damn fool to be 100% against free trade. What us liberals really wanted was for trade to be properly regulated. Same as we want the energy companies and healthcare giants and Wallstreet properly regulated.

The problem is, republicans are not arguing anti-free trade. They are simply saying in any agreements with other nations, our interests are to be looked to first.

Quite frankly, I think that every nation should be responsible for its own defense, but at the moment, all any of the NATO nations have to do is provide 2% of their GDP toward NATO.

They won't even pay that much and I am tired of carrying them on our backs.

Nothing Trump's done so far has been a deal breaker for me.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I wanted to share this conservative's view on Trump's foreign policy.

Charles Krauthammer: Trump's foreign-policy revolution

• 
  
  
  • By Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post
  • Jan 29, 2017

WASHINGTON — The flurry of bold executive orders and of highly provocative Cabinet nominations (such as a secretary of education who actually believes in school choice) has been encouraging to conservative skeptics of Donald Trump. But it shouldn’t erase the troubling memory of one major element of Trump’s inaugural address.

The foreign policy section has received far less attention than so revolutionary a declaration deserved. It radically redefined the American national interest as understood since World War II.

Trump outlined a world in which foreign relations are collapsed into a zero-sum game. They gain, we lose. As in: “For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of other countries” while depleting our own. And most provocatively this: “The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world.”


JFK’s inaugural pledged to support any friend and oppose any foe to assure the success of liberty. Note that Trump makes no distinction between friend and foe (and no reference to liberty). They’re all out to use, exploit and surpass us.

No more, declared Trump: “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America First.”

Imagine how this resonates abroad. “America First” was the name of the organization led by Charles Lindbergh that bitterly fought FDR before U.S. entry into World War II — right through the Battle of Britain — to keep America neutral between Churchill’s Britain and Hitler’s Reich.

Not that Trump was consciously imitating Lindbergh. I doubt he was even aware of the reference. He just liked the phrase. But I can assure you that in London and in every world capital they are aware of the antecedent and the intimations of a new American isolationism. Trump gave them good reason to think so, going on to note “the right of all nations to put their own interests first.” America included.

Some claim that putting America first is a reassertion of American exceptionalism. On the contrary, it is the antithesis. It makes America no different from all the other countries that define themselves by a particularist blood-and-soil nationalism. What made America exceptional, unique in the world, was defining its own national interest beyond its narrow economic and security needs to encompass the safety and prosperity of a vast array of allies. A free world marked by open trade and mutual defense was President Truman’s vision, shared by every president since.

Until now.

Some have argued that Trump is just dangling a bargaining chip to negotiate better terms of trade or alliance. Or that Trump’s views are so changeable and unstable — telling European newspapers two weeks ago that NATO is obsolete and then saying “NATO is very important to me” — that this is just another unmoored entry on a ledger of confusion.


But both claims are demonstrably wrong. An inaugural address is no off-the-cuff riff. These words are the product of at least three weeks of deliberate crafting for an address that Trump said would express his philosophy. Moreover, to remove any ambiguity, Trump prefaced his “America first” proclamation with: “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.”

Trump’s vision misunderstands the logic underlying the far larger, far-reaching view of Truman. The Marshall Plan sure took wealth away from the American middle class and distributed it abroad. But for a reason. Altruism, in part. But mostly to stabilize Western Europe as a bulwark against an existential global enemy.

We carried many free riders throughout the Cold War. The burden was heavy. But this was not a mindless act of charity; it was an exercise in enlightened self-interest. After all, it was indeed better to subsidize foreign armies — German, South Korean, Turkish and dozens of others — and have them stand with us, rather than stationing even more American troops everywhere around the world at greater risk of both blood and treasure.

We are embarking upon insularity and smallness. Nor is this just theory. Trump’s long-promised but nonetheless abrupt withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the momentous first fruit of his foreign policy doctrine. Last year the prime minister of Singapore told John McCain that if we pulled out of TPP “you’ll be finished in Asia.” He knows the region.

For 70 years, we sustained an international system of open commerce and democratic alliances that has enabled America and the West to grow and thrive. Global leadership is what made America great. We abandon it at our peril.


Charles Krauthammer writes for The Washington Post. Email: [email protected].

Epitaph on the Wall: PROUD TO DIE TAKING A RICH KID'S PLACE

His guillotine-fodder class never has to fight in the interventionist wars their families advocate and profit from.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

For 70 years, we sustained an international system of open commerce and democratic alliances that has enabled America and the West to grow and thrive. Global leadership is what made America great. We abandon it at our peril.

I'll float a theory here that may just be wishful thinking:

Look at how Trump communicates, and what his followers seem to prefer: Very basic communication, simple, straight ahead thoughts, little nuance, very black & white. It may (yes, may) be that he's purposely leaving out nuance for them, but in actuality willing to use it behind closed doors. If that is the case, then these conversations he's having with world leaders may be more nuanced and comprehensive than we know.

An example is the very smart thing that British PM Theresa May did at the press conference after meeting with Trump - she went out of her way to look directly at him and point out that, during their meeting, he said he's "100% behind NATO", even though (a) he has never said that publicly, and (b) he never referred to it afterwards. That moment really boxed him in for future meetings with European leaders.

This is a terribly dangerous game he's playing, pandering to his crowd in public and being more serious behind the scenes. But, looking for a silver lining, I'm guessing he's not being this simplistic when it matters. Uh, hopefully.
.

Strumming the UKulele

How can he be boxed in with weak nations that couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag? You should dismiss what he said to May the same way you dismiss what he said to his fellow Americans.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

And Trump won because the majority of folks want America economics put first for a change. America first is why he won. So, chances are pretty good that is going to be what his policies are. Now see as you don't agree, you should have had a candidate that would have bolstered your views. it's how an election cycle works.

Again not disputing that Trump was duly elected. But he was elected not anointed. And the fact that he was elected, in no way lessens the apprehension even outright fear and loathing he provokes among the populace of long standing allies. And those same feelings will probably have serious long term repercussions.

he was elected for his policies. He is entitled to push his policies. You don't like them win a fking election.

See this is where you lose me. The fact that someone gets elected doesn't make him qualified, right, or even moral. I gave a clear, concise and factual opinion of the effect of a Trump presidency from the standpoint of someone who doesn't live in the US but has ties there. You get stuck on the fact that he was elected so he should be accepted. Like there is no such thing as accountability for one's actions. That was what both the original OP and my reply to it was about. The fact that what Trump says or does has actual consequences on how the world views America and will act accordingly.

No one needs to accept or approve of the president. Where did you get that from? Obama was never liked by the right, some waited and hoped for the best but he soon made it clear he was forwarding a leftist agenda as much as possible.

That pissed off a lot of folks and elected Trump to turn it around. We don't throw elections away because leftists are not happy their agenda is going through the shredder. Trump's supporters are behind him more than ever ...
because he's doing what he said he would do.

The leftists lied when they said he duped us. But lies are all they ever have. The fact they they are howling is proof that good work is being done. What part of that is too big for you to grasp?

It's his rhetoric, impulsiveness, pettiness, belligerency towards criticism, unwillingness to listen to advice he doesn't agree with, his sometimes unbelievable tendency to completely lose sight of the big picture. .

DNC Jonestown

The transnationalist Liberals' big pitcher is full of Kool-Aid.

 

[bripat9643]

And Trump won because the majority of folks want America economics put first for a change. America first is why he won. So, chances are pretty good that is going to be what his policies are. Now see as you don't agree, you should have had a candidate that would have bolstered your views. it's how an election cycle works.

Again not disputing that Trump was duly elected. But he was elected not anointed. And the fact that he was elected, in no way lessens the apprehension even outright fear and loathing he provokes among the populace of long standing allies. And those same feelings will probably have serious long term repercussions.

he was elected for his policies. He is entitled to push his policies. You don't like them win a fking election.

See this is where you lose me. The fact that someone gets elected doesn't make him qualified, right, or even moral. I gave a clear, concise and factual opinion of the effect of a Trump presidency from the standpoint of someone who doesn't live in the US but has ties there. You get stuck on the fact that he was elected so he should be accepted. Like there is no such thing as accountability for one's actions. That was what both the original OP and my reply to it was about. The fact that what Trump says or does has actual consequences on how the world views America and will act accordingly.

No one needs to accept or approve of the president. Where did you get that from? Obama was never liked by the right, some waited and hoped for the best but he soon made it clear he was forwarding a leftist agenda as much as possible.

That pissed off a lot of folks and elected Trump to turn it around. We don't throw elections away because leftists are not happy their agenda is going through the shredder. Trump's supporters are behind him more than ever ...
because he's doing what he said he would do.

The leftists lied when they said he duped us. But lies are all they ever have. The fact they they are howling is proof that good work is being done. What part of that is too big for you to grasp?

It's not that Trump leans right that has the world worried. As you can guess, I lean left and I don't like it when the US chooses a Republican president, but Republican presidents have never been a dealbreaker for its European Allies and the world as a whole. It's his rhetoric, impulsiveness, pettiness, belligerency towards criticism, unwillingness to listen to advice he doesn't agree with, his sometimes unbelievable tendency to completely lose sight of the big picture. All these things are a problem individually let alone put together. Even if you don't believe it's true, believe that that is how it is perceived abroad. And that perception inevitably leads to American interests being hurt. I could answer to your post of Trump proving that he hasn't duped you,but that falls out of what this OP is about in my opinion.

Essentially your problem with Trump is that he tells the left to stuff it. That's exactly why he won the nomination. The last thing we need is another mealy mouthed Republican who allows himself to be cowed by leftwing bullying. I cheer every time Trump makes it clear that he's not interested in what liberals have to say about his decision. He gives me hope that this country isn't doomed to swirl down the socialist toilet bowl.

 

[bripat9643]

a wall is scary? why is that? I didn't know a structure that just stands still is capable of such a thing.

In general Europeans don't like the symbolism of walls, we've had some bad experiences with walls. The structure stands still but it represent or a physical barrier between yourself and undesirables ( ghettos), or a barrier between you and a country you deem dangerous ( Berlin wall), there is a reason that a piece of the Berlin wall is at the CIA headquarters. A physical reminder of something the world deemed reprehensible.

Forkup, I'm agreeing with most of what you say, but Europe is building walls or imposing more controls on their borders because of the immigrant crisis. I do feel sorry for border control agents with 2000 miles of border to patrol and most of it just wide open with no fence or wall or anything to stop folks from just wading over. Or walking in. The increase in border personnel and cracking down on employers employing illegals will be just as effective, though, as a "big beautiful 30' high wall."
This map shows how much the refugee crisis is dividing Europe

You are right it is dividing Europe and it will probably lead to a jolt to the right in quite a few European Nations. Something I'm personally opposed to. On the other hand that still won't mean that Europe will embrace Trump. Like I said in my previous post, the way he got elected and his approach to the problems is considered scary.

I'm with you on that, for sure. I hope for the best, but his foreign policy ideas have always worried me. I never realized before that the world had such a lot to say about our President, though, or that they really cared one way or the other most of the time. Now the immigrant ban, of course that would cause comment, but other than that, why is it their business or anything they care about?

Because the US economy is the economy that leads the way. Because without a stable America the rest of the world becomes less stable. I'll show you a dutch video that is satirical but illuminating.

What has Trump done or proposed that would cause the economy to destabilize? If anything, Obama did much more along that vein. Turning over one sixth of the economy to the government is massively destabilizing. So are attempts to destroy entire industries, and massive floods of government regulation.

 

[Darkwind]

In general Europeans don't like the symbolism of walls, we've had some bad experiences with walls. The structure stands still but it represent or a physical barrier between yourself and undesirables ( ghettos), or a barrier between you and a country you deem dangerous ( Berlin wall), there is a reason that a piece of the Berlin wall is at the CIA headquarters. A physical reminder of something the world deemed reprehensible.

Forkup, I'm agreeing with most of what you say, but Europe is building walls or imposing more controls on their borders because of the immigrant crisis. I do feel sorry for border control agents with 2000 miles of border to patrol and most of it just wide open with no fence or wall or anything to stop folks from just wading over. Or walking in. The increase in border personnel and cracking down on employers employing illegals will be just as effective, though, as a "big beautiful 30' high wall."
This map shows how much the refugee crisis is dividing Europe

You are right it is dividing Europe and it will probably lead to a jolt to the right in quite a few European Nations. Something I'm personally opposed to. On the other hand that still won't mean that Europe will embrace Trump. Like I said in my previous post, the way he got elected and his approach to the problems is considered scary.

I'm with you on that, for sure. I hope for the best, but his foreign policy ideas have always worried me. I never realized before that the world had such a lot to say about our President, though, or that they really cared one way or the other most of the time. Now the immigrant ban, of course that would cause comment, but other than that, why is it their business or anything they care about?

There is no immigrant ban. None at all.

Refugee ban from seven countries. Sorry.

No, they are not banned. A temporary restriction on their status is NOT a ban.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm more concerned about the foreign relations piece and how it effects us if there is a serious military threat.
Who comes to the aid of the top dog?
Also, even if we pissed off the entire EU and we got invaded by Russia AND China (only way we would get messed up) they would STILL come to us. If we fell like that, they would be next.
The entire OP is a biased hack job.
But I will give the hack credit.. the markets crashed just like he said they woul.....
oh wait, nevermind
Boom: Dow hits 20,000 for first time ever

I don't get it. You think if we stop extending financial and military aid to our allies, that they won't go somewhere else (fill in the blank) for it? You think they'll follow us anyway? If we were invaded by Russia it would be AFTER all the EU had fallen, TN. After we were no longer interested in helping them. That's how I see it.

It is becoming amusing that the lengths people will go to in order to justify our being the world police.

If they decide to go their own way, good for them. But they can also pay for their own defense. I wonder how long their vaunted social programs will survive without our largess.

I wanted to stop being the world superpower too and at least right now I still would love to stop spending so much on defense and let the rest of the world take care of themselves. But it's also true that means we give up being the main influencer on world events. So if Russia is invading Crimea, we are just like Australia or Canada. We don't get to bully Russia and make them do what we want. Russia won't care what we think.

And isolationism might cost us jobs and cost companies money. See this is the problem with Republicans. They make us liberals argue anti free trade when the truth is, you'd have to be a god damn fool to be 100% against free trade. What us liberals really wanted was for trade to be properly regulated. Same as we want the energy companies and healthcare giants and Wallstreet properly regulated.

The problem is, republicans are not arguing anti-free trade. They are simply saying in any agreements with other nations, our interests are to be looked to first.

Quite frankly, I think that every nation should be responsible for its own defense, but at the moment, all any of the NATO nations have to do is provide 2% of their GDP toward NATO.

They won't even pay that much and I am tired of carrying them on our backs.

Nothing Trump's done so far has been a deal breaker for me.

Well, he's done a number of things I don't agree with (process-wise). Wait and see.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't get it. You think if we stop extending financial and military aid to our allies, that they won't go somewhere else (fill in the blank) for it? You think they'll follow us anyway? If we were invaded by Russia it would be AFTER all the EU had fallen, TN. After we were no longer interested in helping them. That's how I see it.

It is becoming amusing that the lengths people will go to in order to justify our being the world police.

If they decide to go their own way, good for them. But they can also pay for their own defense. I wonder how long their vaunted social programs will survive without our largess.

I wanted to stop being the world superpower too and at least right now I still would love to stop spending so much on defense and let the rest of the world take care of themselves. But it's also true that means we give up being the main influencer on world events. So if Russia is invading Crimea, we are just like Australia or Canada. We don't get to bully Russia and make them do what we want. Russia won't care what we think.

And isolationism might cost us jobs and cost companies money. See this is the problem with Republicans. They make us liberals argue anti free trade when the truth is, you'd have to be a god damn fool to be 100% against free trade. What us liberals really wanted was for trade to be properly regulated. Same as we want the energy companies and healthcare giants and Wallstreet properly regulated.

The problem is, republicans are not arguing anti-free trade. They are simply saying in any agreements with other nations, our interests are to be looked to first.

Quite frankly, I think that every nation should be responsible for its own defense, but at the moment, all any of the NATO nations have to do is provide 2% of their GDP toward NATO.

They won't even pay that much and I am tired of carrying them on our backs.

Nothing Trump's done so far has been a deal breaker for me.

Well, he's done a number of things I don't agree with (process-wise). Wait and see.

Maybe we need a more conservative court.

 

[jc456]

In general Europeans don't like the symbolism of walls, we've had some bad experiences with walls. The structure stands still but it represent or a physical barrier between yourself and undesirables ( ghettos), or a barrier between you and a country you deem dangerous ( Berlin wall), there is a reason that a piece of the Berlin wall is at the CIA headquarters. A physical reminder of something the world deemed reprehensible.

Forkup, I'm agreeing with most of what you say, but Europe is building walls or imposing more controls on their borders because of the immigrant crisis. I do feel sorry for border control agents with 2000 miles of border to patrol and most of it just wide open with no fence or wall or anything to stop folks from just wading over. Or walking in. The increase in border personnel and cracking down on employers employing illegals will be just as effective, though, as a "big beautiful 30' high wall."
This map shows how much the refugee crisis is dividing Europe

You are right it is dividing Europe and it will probably lead to a jolt to the right in quite a few European Nations. Something I'm personally opposed to. On the other hand that still won't mean that Europe will embrace Trump. Like I said in my previous post, the way he got elected and his approach to the problems is considered scary.

I'm with you on that, for sure. I hope for the best, but his foreign policy ideas have always worried me. I never realized before that the world had such a lot to say about our President, though, or that they really cared one way or the other most of the time. Now the immigrant ban, of course that would cause comment, but other than that, why is it their business or anything they care about?

Because the US economy is the economy that leads the way. Because without a stable America the rest of the world becomes less stable. I'll show you a dutch video that is satirical but illuminating.

What has Trump done or proposed that would cause the economy to destabilize? If anything, Obama did much more along that vein. Turning over one sixth of the economy to the government is massively destabilizing. So are attempts to destroy entire industries, and massive floods of government regulation.

That is the left plan.

 

[forkup]

Yes Hispanics are really crossing the border by the millions. They are taking jobs, but mostly jobs that aren't getting filled by American workers, I've seen studies that even give them a net benefit to the US economy. You can probably cite studies that deny it but that's neither here nor there.Can you show a study that confirms that Mexicans coming over are predominantly criminals, which is what he claimed? No Muslims aren't killing people, terrorists are. This is exactly the broad brush that verifies my OP of him demonising large groups of people.

1. The idea that the illegals are only taking jobs Americans don't want it bs. l've done many of those jobs that Americans supposedly don't do. And my co-workers were all Americans.

2. The government is careful to NOT track crime by illegals, so data is spotty. But indications are strong that illegals bring a shit load of crime and drugs with them.

3. I'm sure the gays in Orlando, or the girls of Rotherham are grateful that you are so very careful with the feelings of Muslims, to the point of putting that ahead of the safety of your fellow citizens. How are Belgium jews loving the rise in Muslim population?

1. I said mostly not only and I'm sorry to tell you but anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it. For instance I can imagine someone working in Illinois will have less immigrants going for a job then someone living in New Mexico.
2. Ok so you have by your own admission spotty data that completely verifies."When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best," he said. "They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.".?
3. Hurting anybodies feelings doesn't come into it. ISIS is trying to sell the story of," it us against them." By demonising the entire religion, you are effectively proving them right. There are plenty of Muslims moderate or otherwise that just want to get along. But if you confirm the fears and wariness they have of the west you will push a lot of them in the camp of ISIS.

1. If the AMERICANS of Illinois are doing those jobs, and the AMERICANS of New Mexico are NOT, then it is because the illegals are talking those jobs.

2. We have to make decisions on spotty data all the time. Trump gave you his analysis of the data. It agrees with mine.

3. Discussing the reality of importing a sizable group of Muslims is not demonizing them, it is talking about the truth. And if the truth is all it takes to "push a lot of them in the camp of ISIS" then importing them was/is a huge mistake.

I asked how the jews of Belgium were liking the rise in Muslim population. You didn't answer. What about the gays?

1. Prove it. That simple. You provided anecdotal evidence and try to make a general assumption out of it. You basically are claiming that there are plenty of Americans willing to pick oranges, or garden or do a lot of the low payed menial labour jobs. I live in a country the size of Maryland but I don't presume that my economic reality is the same reality that exist 100 miles away, in fact I know it isn't. In Illinois there might be a high enough unemployment that those kinds of jobs become attractive, while in New Mexico there might be a shortage of labour. Point is if jobs don't get filled the economy hurts.
2. I can only say that that analyses sounds highly unlikely.
3. You seem to blow right past the point here. First of I know, saying that bringing Muslims in causes terrorism is false. Large groups of Muslims came to my country in the seventies, that didn't cause terrorism. Secondly, your argument seems to be that if people become terrorist because I confirm their prejudices, those prejudices were true. One is the result of the other not the other way around. And to answer your question. The Jews don't like it very much, the gays don't really care as far as I can tell. But then again Jews and Muslims have lived together here for 40 years, without it causing major riots. In a stable society, having different or even hostile beliefs doesn't automatically lead to violence.

1. The idea that illegals are mostly migrant farm workers is a lie on many levels.

Where America’s undocumented immigrants work

As you can see, while most illegals do end up in lower skill jobs, there are still vastly more that are professional or management, than are "picking oranges".

AND you can see that that difference in percentage doing the work, does NOT support the idea that American won't or don't do those jobs.


2. Really? You believe that other side that people young enough and desperate enough to cross a desert to get here, are LESS likely to commit crime than older, safer, better off Americans? LOL! The age gap alone makes it absurd.

3.a. Islam as a whole is moving more and more fundie. The immigrants today are not the immigrants of yesteryear.

View attachment 109840
View attachment 109841

3b If the people in question are that easy to turn into terrorists, than it was/is a mistake to import them.

3c Major rioting is a low bar for "not bad idea".

Jews leave France in record numbers - CNN.com


"Nearly 8,000 French Jews moved to Israel in the year following the Charlie Hebdo attack, according to the Jewish Agency, which handles Jewish immigration, or aliyah, to Israel.
The number of French Jews moving to Israel has doubled -- and doubled again -- in the past five years.
In 2013, less than 3,300 French Jews moved to Israel. Only two years earlier, that number stood at 1,900."

"Dov Cohen, a French Jew who left Marseille for Ashdod last summer, says he never wore his religious skullcap, or kippa, in public.
"You have to watch out," Cohen says about his life in France. "You have to protect the children because of fights in the metro and on the buses. This pushed us to decide to make aliyah," he says.
"Here there is a feeling of security that no longer exists in France. Twenty years ago, maybe yes. But since the year 2000, there no longer is that feeling of security in France." "


Ban homosexuality, 52% of British Muslims say in poll - CNN.com



"More than half of British Muslims (52%) think homosexuality should not be legal, and nearly half (47%) think it is not appropriate for gay people to teach in schools, according to a new survey of British Muslims.

The results have sparked debate about the integration of the Britain's largest religious minority."

Lol, Correll I have to call foul here. I know counting on people to just go by the information you provide is common, it doesn't mean it's not dishonest. I didn't just see your table I also clicked the link you provided and there is another table there.

1,Illegal immigrants are overrepresented in agriculture if you go by their relative number. Your second point that Americans will do those jobs is like I said a claim that is impossible to make. Immigrants Aren't Stealing American Jobs This is a study done by these people.Urban Institute - Wikipedia.
2, I again cry foul because you do this."If you assume that all low-education workers are potential substitutes for each other—the 23-year-old recent arrival from Guatemala with the 53-year-old who proceeded from high school to the Army—then your model will show a less dramatic effect of immigration on wages. You compare 2 similar demographics if you want to compare.
3, a. Define Fundie? Or even better, proof that fundamentalist pose a sufficiently large threat to society that it is warranted to exclude and expel an entire religion from your country? There is a very small number of Muslims that has committed acts of terrorism. These are some odds.How likely are foreign terrorists to kill Americans? The odds may surprise you
If I'm not mistaking and you can correct me if I'm wrong, you strongly favor the second amendment? As the odds prove favoring that is infinitely more dangerous than terrorism. What is the difference?
3,b It's not that easy to turn people to terrorist, just that a certain percentage will turn or prefer them over us, something that will decrease not increase safety.
3,c Your argument seems to be here that people in Europe agree with you. I have 2 things here. I crunched the numbers and Jews going to Israel changed from about 0.35 percent to about 0.9 percent hardly something you would consider a max exodus. And secondly, at best this would be a proof that the same mechanisms that make people turn to Trump exist in Europe to. Something I already confirmed and something that in no way proves that Muslims are a danger. 28 percent of Americans believe the Bible to be literal, more even don't believe in evolution, they believe in much the same things as Muslims in regards to sex, science and a host of other things, things which go against humanist society. Do you consider them a danger? The number of people that believe in something does not necessarily has any bearing on the truth of those beliefs.

 

[charwin95]

Just admit it dude. You've always adored and love Putin.

you're one of those who think Putin is smarter than obummer eh?

Not only that you are racist moron you are a big LIAR. For your stupidity I hate Putin.

No you don't. You love pootin. You love to be pooted on.

I feel sorry for your worthless soul. I will now call you a liar.

Hey everybody. Lets all worry about what tnfartly thinks and says because he's so important.

I hear he didn't even vote so fuck him. He's not worth the shit on the bottom of my shoes.

Are you saying that Ive been talking to a complete moron? Dang............ I just wasted a lot of my time.