The Political Discussion Thread

[The Flyattractor]

I would respond to that but when I click the link my security systems go into Extra RED Alert Mode....must be the Rainbow effect.

[Falcon Horus]

That's what the left doesn't understand. While social issues aren't on my front burner, they are front and center for a lot of people.

Social issues, you say, or is it the idea that America was founded on Christianity?

I don't get it. Why are the Republicans this way?

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/07/...movement-know/

And further down the page they are wanting to change the civil rights act.

Straight only!

The USA, well on its way to become the Saudia Arabia of the west -- with their very own Shariah Law in place.

[jelgate]

afraid every time Dr. Carson held a knife? fancy yourself an expert neurosurgeon do you?

This is my fault. I should have been more clear. I was talking about about Carson's comments about getting into fights. I wasn't even thinking about his time as a doctor. In that regard his record as surgeon is quite high IIRC

[Annoyed]

I don't get it. Why are the Republicans this way?

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/07/...movement-know/

And further down the page they are wanting to change the civil rights act.

Oh, that's a fine website. It wants to send you notifications!

[Annoyed]

Cruz, and to an extent Rubio and Bush. Ben Carson did some of that too. Kasich, but I guess he and some of the others were a bit too like Reagan in his message. But Cruz pretty much said the same message as Trump minus the crude white anger...hard to include crude white anger when you aren't entirely white. Rubio made too much sense for republicans these days and Bush was too moderate for you. Kasich was too much like republicans of the 80's and Carson...well people fell asleep every time he spoke. And the only actual businessman running was actually a woman, so nope. So yeah, I can see why Trump was the only one

But that's just it, they weren't offering the same message. Trump was the only one with even close to the right position on illegal immigration as far as I am concerned. The rest of the Republican field was fairly soft on the topic, allowing them to remain in the country, and various forms of amnesty. They wanted cheap labor for their business pals.

[Annoyed]

Social issues, you say, or is it the idea that America was founded on Christianity?

Like it or not, a large percentage (roughly 75%) identify as Christian. ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/187955/pe...down-high.aspx ) And they take those beliefs and values quite seriously. The political left has been looking at these folks with disdain and outright contempt for quite some time now. Is it any wonder a powerful backlash would arise as soon as a "mouthpiece" was found? Pissing 75% of the electorate off doesn't usually play well for long.

[jelgate]

But that's just it, they weren't offering the same message. Trump was the only one with even close to the right position on illegal immigration as far as I am concerned. The rest of the Republican field was fairly soft on the topic, allowing them to remain in the country, and various forms of amnesty. They wanted cheap labor for their business pals.

That's because Trump just said what you wanted to hear no matter how impractical it is

[Gatefan1976]

But that's just it, they weren't offering the same message. Trump was the only one with even close to the right position on illegal immigration as far as I am concerned. The rest of the Republican field was fairly soft on the topic, allowing them to remain in the country, and various forms of amnesty. They wanted cheap labor for their business pals.

What I don't get is how a -single- topic can be the thing that puts you in one camp or another. I can understand your position on Illegal Immigration, but what I don't get is how any one issue will be the defining thing you would cling to, and how that seemingly -forgives- all the bad stuff that trump does. How do you balance a single issue against all the costs that it incurs?

[Gatefan1976]

Like it or not, a large percentage (roughly 75%) identify as Christian. ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/187955/pe...down-high.aspx ) And they take those beliefs and values quite seriously.

I find that claim rather dubious. I'll believe that 75% of the US population -claim- to be Christian, but I doubt less than half of them take those beliefs "quite seriously", and even the ones that do, I doubt would agree on just what Christianity is, it would be divided by sects.

The political left has been looking at these folks with disdain and outright contempt for quite some time now. Is it any wonder a powerful backlash would arise as soon as a "mouthpiece" was found?

I told you, you would not like the left when it acts like the right. Before you rail against that, consider how many people the right, by virtue of their religion, have looked at people with distain and contempt for hundreds to thousands of years.

[Annoyed]

What I don't get is how a -single- topic can be the thing that puts you in one camp or another. I can understand your position on Illegal Immigration, but what I don't get is how any one issue will be the defining thing you would cling to, and how that seemingly -forgives- all the bad stuff that trump does. How do you balance a single issue against all the costs that it incurs?

Because it is a very important issue, with far reaching implications.

Make no mistake, there are definite reasons for various camps pro-illegal positions. As I've said often enough, mainstream Republicans just want a large supply of cheap labor to suppress wage rates.

But the Democrats have a different idea in mind. They operate on the largely correct assumption that in general, illegal immigrants would vote Democratic if given the vote. And you've no doubt noticed that Democrats always advocate amnesty for the millions already here, with a fairly easy path to citizenship (and the voting booth) laid out for them.

Their long term goal is to flip the electorate of the U.S. so far Democratic that they are assured control of Congress, the White House and most statewide offices at the state level. Their goal is one party rule, with the Democratic party being that party. Being that I'm generally on the right side of things, I'm not so fond of that idea.

This is of course, in addition to very real effects on wages and jobs at the lower ends of the economic ladder.

So this is a very high priority issue for me.

[Falcon Horus]

Oh, that's a fine website. It wants to send you notifications!

Which you can block.

Like it or not, a large percentage (roughly 75%) identify as Christian. ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/187955/pe...down-high.aspx ) And they take those beliefs and values quite seriously. The political left has been looking at these folks with disdain and outright contempt for quite some time now. Is it any wonder a powerful backlash would arise as soon as a "mouthpiece" was found? Pissing 75% of the electorate off doesn't usually play well for long.

Here's the catch though -- first amendment states: freedom of and from religion, and the government is prohibited from adopting one religion or pushing for one religion.

Separation of church and state.
Religion has no place in government issues -- yet it's being used to dictate what others can't or cannot do more often than not. Hence why America is heading straight at becoming the Saudia Arabia of the western world.

[jelgate]

Honestly that is a simplistic interpretation. Technically you are correct but it's more difficult than that. I do agree on religion should be separate from government but I also realize that can be hard for a lot of people given the impact religion has on shaping our morals and values

[Falcon Horus]

Honestly that is a simplistic interpretation. Technically you are correct but it's more difficult than that. I do agree on religion should be separate from government but I also realize that can be hard for a lot of people given the impact religion has on shaping our morals and values

It can indeed be hard, but it should not be the driver or the reason to change something or to do something (like make discrimination legal).

[jelgate]

I think that goes back to GF's comment that not everyone takes it seriously

[Gatefan1976]

Because it is a very important issue, with far reaching implications.

Ok, it's important to -you-, I get that, so let's not belabour that point. What do you perceive are the far reaching implications of it? Make a case and I will argue honestly against them, or agree with you. No sarcasm, no stupid stuff, just argument vs argument. Fair?

Make no mistake, there are definite reasons for various camps pro-illegal positions. As I've said often enough, mainstream Republicans just want a large supply of cheap labor to suppress wage rates.

Ok, so they want cheap labour, where is the evidence that the jobs will be filled by citizens if there is no source of cheap labour? ALL evidence points to the contrary, American Citizens will not do the jobs for the pay they are offered. I am sorry to say mate, but the facts, borne out over hundreds of years show this, why do you think ending slavery was a topic that could drive your nation to civil war?

But the Democrats have a different idea in mind. They operate on the largely correct assumption that in general, illegal immigrants would vote Democratic if given the vote. And you've no doubt noticed that Democrats always advocate amnesty for the millions already here, with a fairly easy path to citizenship (and the voting booth) laid out for them.

Again, there is no proof of the assumption that they would vote democrat. They may have more impetus to vote for the party that makes things easier for them, and if one makes it harder, and the other makes it easier, that's going to be clear. As for -citizenship-, I have not really heard much from either party on making -that- easier. I have never heard of the Dems advocating for fast-tracking -citizenship-, just making it easier to become legal residents, but not citizens. Remember, there are multiple steps to becoming and -actual- citizen, with ALL rights thereto.

Their long term goal is to flip the electorate of the U.S. so far Democratic that they are assured control of Congress, the White House and most statewide offices at the state level. Their goal is one party rule, with the Democratic party being that party. Being that I'm generally on the right side of things, I'm not so fond of that idea.

I would argue that's some serious projection. Democrats, and lefties in general -love- to debate issues, to be snowflakes, to be "fair", the right however, not so much. I mean, sure, parties would always love to maintain -power-, that's in the nature of the party system, which is why I would not blame something like gerrymandering on one party more than the other, both abuse the crap out of that system. (which is why I would advocate removing partisan gerrymandering)

This is of course, in addition to very real effects on wages and jobs at the lower ends of the economic ladder.

It's not the illegals holding the price down, even the legal ones will do the jobs for the garbage pay, it is the -companies- that are doing it, especially to primary producers of food stocks.