Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 01, 2016, 03:12:18 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 545
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why are American "liberals" so enamored by protectionism? on: June 29, 2016, 01:39:17 am
Because I'm a pragmatist. Basic economics says that you're going to make your goods where it's cheapest to do so. This is why free trade is awesome and great if you're a third-world country, because developed nations like the United States can't compete with slave labor. It's vastly cheaper to outsource your manufacturing, call center, and most other entry-level/meat-and-potatoes jobs to some godawful country that most Americans can't pronounce, much less identify on a map, than to pay American workers to do the job. Now that makes for good publicity for companies like Discover who run ads like this and proudly proclaim that 100% of their customer service reps are US-based, but tell that to all those people that lost their jobs to somebody in a boiler room in India.

But above all, for me, it's because I've seen first-hand what free trade does to American jobs and American families having lived my entire life in Michigan. The decline in union membership that began during the Reagan administration combined with free trade deals and, to be fair, the intentional mass-exile of white people from Detroit by Coleman Young and his cronies all laid the groundwork for Detroit to become what it is today. NAFTA was the final death punch, as most GM manufacturing left Detroit and Flint and went to Oshawa, Ontario and to Mexico.

But the auto industry is only one example of how free trade has harmed my state. Stryker, the world's largest maker of medical devices, shipped all of its manufacturing from its headquarters in Kalamazoo to Tijuana, Mexico, where wages are 1/5 what they are across the border. Now that fact has turned Tijuana into the medical device capital of the world, conveniently located across the border from San Diego, California, where their products can be shipped to customers across the country. It's turned Tijuana, once a third-world-esque place where a house consisted of two cardboard shipping crates into a fast-developing city with plenty of jobs and industry.

Now that's obviously great for the people of Tijuana, but at whose expense did that come at? Hundreds, if not thousands, of people in Kalamazoo whose jobs were shipped to Mexico. I say that protectionism follows the same logic as locking your doors before you go to bed at night. You put up obstacles and barriers to stop greedy companies from shipping your jobs overseas for the same reason that you lock your doors to keep robbers and burglars out while you're sleeping. Signing trade deals like NAFTA and TPP is like leaving your front door standing open at night and putting a sign over the threshold that says "Free stuff."

Ugh, economics is not a zero sum game. For there to be winners, there don't necessarily have to be losers. Free trade has also created as many jobs, if not more, in the US than it has lost. Though to be fair those without college education probably get a rough deal while those with a college education or those in skilled trades get a better deal with free trade. And while there are areas that have been hurt by free trade, like Michigan, there are many other places in the US it has benefited. On balance, free trade is good for the USA. It may not be as good for the USA as it is for developing countries, but it has made the USA a better place to live for its citizens.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Gays on: June 29, 2016, 01:28:16 am
Gays seem to like Clinton a lot for some reason. I don't understand it, but it's a thing. They were showing a gay pride parade in Santa Ana which was much bigger this year as a show of solidarity to the victims of Orlando. The people were parading around with Clinton posters!

Why are gays so fond of Hillary? Can someone explain?

3  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Multiple people stabbed at Neo-Nazi rally in Sacramento Capitol on: June 29, 2016, 12:43:33 am
Where is the evidence the counter-protesters started the violence? From what I am seeing people from both parties got stabbed.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Team Clinton Spent $26M on Battleground Ads in June. Trump Spent $0 on: June 29, 2016, 12:20:29 am
I love those Ohio and Florida numbers. Hillary going for the kill! And she's not even spending on Pennsylvania. Love it!
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: PPP/Americans United for Change: AZ, IA, NH, OH, PA, WI on: June 28, 2016, 03:24:38 pm
So much for Arizona being lean D....

The rest looks about right, though I'm surprised that Trump is so weak in OH. And no way Clinton is only up 4 in NH.

Yeah, that Ohio number is a killer. Trump could possibly win without Florida or Pennsylvania or Virginia. He has no path without Ohio. I hope Clinton goes for the kill and locks down Ohio like Obama did.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Grand Finale Tuesday results thread (1st polls close @8pm ET) on: June 28, 2016, 10:16:08 am
Bernie actually won Oakland! That is pretty stunning. I called it that Bernie didn't do well in Alameda County solely due to Berkeley. If anything the margin in Berkeley was underwhelming.
7  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is it time to accept that Nativist Nuttery is taking over? on: June 26, 2016, 12:25:21 am
I think what needs to be understood is at no point did Trump or Brexit destroy traditional conventional wisdom on elections and polls. Trump led virtually every single poll from fall last year. Brexit polls showed a close vote with Brexit leading in many polls.

So this does maybe show that the talking points of "X could never happen despite what the polls say, don't worry" should be disregarded, and that would be a big cause for concern if Trump was actually polling with a lead over Hillary or within the MoE, nothing indicates that Trump can win with his current 6+ point trailing.

This is also true. I hadn't been following the Brexit polling closely so I believed it when people said the polling had got it wrong...until I actually looked at the polling. Maybe the leave camp slightly overperformed but within the margin of error. People assumed those who were undecided would go strongly for remain, and that was incorrect. Some people are also assuming a lot of the undecided in the presidential race will go for Hillary, and that would be a bad assumption to make as well.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trumpism on: June 26, 2016, 12:13:27 am
Immigrants are most certainly taking jobs that would otherwise be done by Americans. This is not a lie. Even supporters of immigration must realize this on some level. It's not as if we didn't allow immigration, there wouldn't be super markets or restaurants.

Immigration as a whole is good for America. That doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers. And it's not just the 1% that benefits. It also helps those who work white collar jobs and can get cheaper meals at restaurants, cheaper stays at hotels, cheaper prices at supermarkets etc. Without immigrants the standard of living of most Americans would fall.

I notice you say "white collar".  They have benefitted.  But the losers are the folks that make up blue-collar America.

If immigrants are benefitting at the expense of the established working class, is that really OK?

I think the real question is whether or not America as a whole is benefiting.

Look, with the double whammy of immigration and outsourcing, perhaps some control needs to happen. That doesn't mean you elect a racist (there is a difference between being racist and anti-immigration) who is completely incompetent and unqualified for the job.

Mitt Romney was against any legalization of illegal immigrants but did anyone call him a racist? No, because he did not demonize them like Trump is doing. I would like to think you are a good person, but it is hard to do when you support a racist. Perhaps no one has talked about your issues before, but that doesn't mean you should elect someone completely unqualified to sit in the white house. He is only going to make things worse, for citizens and immigrants alike. Indeed, the whole world will be worse off. Mark my words.

People did call Romney a racist.  They also called his proposals "heartless" and "cruel" and "xenophobic" when it came to immigration.  They also brought up the Mormon Church's history of denying blacks until the late 1970s.

By the way:  I voted for Obama in 2012.  Just to shed some light on things. 

As for this election, I voted for Trump in the primary.  I am not asking anyone else to vote for him, and I am conflicted between my agreement with Trump on a checklist of issues and his persona.  I do wonder, especially on the issue of immigration, if Trump actually realizes that he's right on the issue all around, given his seeming aversion to talk policy details. 

But I find the accusations of racism toward myself, and others like me here, to be incredibly untoward.  If it is racist to speak on the issue of immigration in any other terms than "Let them all come!", and it is racist to specify the problems caused by illegal immigration from Mexico through our porous Southern border, and suggest that solutions need to be implemented that both (A) stop the flow and (B) deter others that might try to crash the border, then Trump is correct on political correctness.  "Racism" becomes the "Trump Card" (no pun intended) to cut off factually-based discussion on issues that involve race, ethnicity, and demography, and suggest solutions opposed by the left.

Your statement, "I think the real question is whether or not America as a whole is benefiting." is a legitimate point, but it, too, begs questions?  Are illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States part of your "America as a whole"?  Are folks who harbor illegal aliens to be regarded as much a part of "America as a whole" as folks who have obeyed the law and followed the rules?  Are resident aliens who are not citizens part of your "America as a whole"?  I agree that they all are, in terms of the Bill of Rights, in that rights extend to "persons" and not "citizens", but there is no enumerated right to enter the United States and there is no enumerated right to citizenship.  It's a policy question, so who comprises the "America as a whole" that should benefit from our immigration policies?  And it's even more relevant if you advocate a policy that rewards those who have broken our laws and disregards those who have kept them.



I am not sure who called Romney a racist. It was probably one of the SJW idiots who are partly responsible for this Trump nonsense by crying wolf. Now that an actual racist is running, people are tuning it out.

You really don't understand my issues with Trump (and his supporters) or you really don't want to. If you want to argue against immigration, that is fine. What is not fine is unfairly demonizing immigrant groups. Calling most Mexican illegal immigrants rapists is not fine, that is racist. You want to increase scrutiny of people coming from the Middle East, fine. What is not fine is saying all Muslims (majority of whom don't even live in the Middle East) can't come into the United States. I did find Romney to be heartless, but I never thought that he was racist. And him coming out against Trump shows that at his core he is a decent person. Donald Trump is not. And if you support a racist like Trump, it's on you to explain why you aren't a racist yourself.

I will reiterate this so maybe you can finally get it. Being against immigration is not racist in and of itself (though many are against immigration for racist reasons, like Trump). If Trump had made his case in a decent manner without demonizing people, he might actually be winning at this point. The Brexit vote shows that there is a lot of support for stopping globalization at this moment of time. I just hope they don't elect a racist and incompetent ass like Trump to make that point to the governing elite. It would be an absolute disaster for this country. It could lead to a civil war on the streets. Is that what you want?

When I say "America as a whole", I mean America as a whole. I am thinking in terms of what is good for sustaining GDP growth and protecting entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare without bankrupting the country. I am thinking of how to best preserve the standard of living for most Americans. I am not thinking about it at an individual level for any person, but for the country as a whole. I am a big picture guy, and I am talking about the big picture when I say that. I do realize that immigration hurts some people and helps some people (and I am excluding immigrants when I am thinking of this). What effect does it have on balance? It is a positive effect, on balance, in my opinion.

9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trumpism on: June 25, 2016, 07:50:19 pm
Immigrants are most certainly taking jobs that would otherwise be done by Americans. This is not a lie. Even supporters of immigration must realize this on some level. It's not as if we didn't allow immigration, there wouldn't be super markets or restaurants.

Immigration as a whole is good for America. That doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers. And it's not just the 1% that benefits. It also helps those who work white collar jobs and can get cheaper meals at restaurants, cheaper stays at hotels, cheaper prices at supermarkets etc. Without immigrants the standard of living of most Americans would fall.

No argument with these statements. However, you fail to distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, and it's a very important distinction. Frankly, I can't understand why people would argue against enforcing our immigration laws. If you don't like those laws, change them. If you'd prefer letting folks come into the country to work, propose a structured way of allowing that to happen. But please, please don't just ignore certain laws that are on the books because, well, "nobody" wants them to be enforced, because somebody thinks them to be a good idea and wants them to be enforced (otherwise they wouldn't be on the books).

There is only one issue there. American immigration policy is very reticent to allow any working class immigrants to come into the US, which is why you have the illegal immigrant situation you see today. It would be better if we could allow these people to come through legal channels but the problem is that it is not politically feasible to do so. People may be ok with a Chinsese businessman or an Indian IT dude coming in, but they balk when you ask if it is ok if a Mexican farmworker comes in as well. How do you fix the immigration system in a rational way that allows people to come in to do jobs no one else will do? And that way one can stop the excesses of illegal immigration while preserving the benefits. I don't see how that is politically possible though in an environment where racists like Trump are wining the nomination of one of the two established parties of America.


I don't know of any country that allows working class immigration (other than the EU's policies). It simply doesn't make sense to bring someone into a country who is, over a lifetime, going to be a using more dollars worth of public services than they will be paying in taxes.

An increasing number of Americans likely would take issue with the Indian H1B tech worker because that person might be taking their job.

Immigration is not charity - it's purely a question of, "What does this person have to offer? What can they do for us?" If they are going to be taking more out of society than they are contributing, it doesn't make sense to ask them to join the society.

Increasing prices due to a lack of working class labor is also a tax.....These workers are providing a benefit that can't be quantified by just looking at the amount of taxes they pay vs the benefits they use.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Grand Finale Tuesday results thread (1st polls close @8pm ET) on: June 25, 2016, 07:45:55 pm
Even if Bernie did better among Anglos than Latinos in the state as a whole, he definitely didn't in the Bay Area and Southern California.

Okay--- this might well be correct, unfortunately we don't have any exit polling data to work off of, so what do you see to make such a definitive statement?

Curious and not argumentative... just working towards the further pursuit of knowledge through data...

Smiley

Hillary doing better in CD-14 and 18 than 17 and 19 for example. CD-13 obviously. In SoCal you have CD-34 vs CD-33. CD-46 as mentioned. CD 29 vs CD 30. Also note that I am not saying that Bernie did better than Hillary among Latinos in the Bay Area and SoCal, just that he didn't do worse. I am saying that it was a tie.

Also, I know we already talked about it. Just astounded Bernie actually ended up winning CD-46.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Grand Finale Tuesday results thread (1st polls close @8pm ET) on: June 25, 2016, 06:46:36 pm
Even if Bernie did better among Anglos than Latinos in the state as a whole, he definitely didn't in the Bay Area and Southern California.
12  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: June 2016 Federal Election on: June 25, 2016, 06:16:26 pm
Leinad/Lumine
13  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: June 2016 Pacific Senate Election VOTING BOOTH on: June 25, 2016, 06:16:05 pm
JoMCaR
14  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is it time to accept that Nativist Nuttery is taking over? on: June 25, 2016, 06:07:29 pm
Brexit really isn't on the same level of crazy as Trump though, not by a long shot.

I agree with this. The political climate is such that a Trump like candidate could win, but not Trump himself. And such a candidate would get a surprising amount of support among certain minority groups, and the Brexit results showed the same thing. If Trump sobers up and tries to mend relations with minority groups while not backing away from his core issues, he may have a chance. I just don't see him being capable of that. That is why Brexit can win and Trump can't.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trumpism on: June 25, 2016, 06:00:16 pm
Immigrants are most certainly taking jobs that would otherwise be done by Americans. This is not a lie. Even supporters of immigration must realize this on some level. It's not as if we didn't allow immigration, there wouldn't be super markets or restaurants.

Immigration as a whole is good for America. That doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers. And it's not just the 1% that benefits. It also helps those who work white collar jobs and can get cheaper meals at restaurants, cheaper stays at hotels, cheaper prices at supermarkets etc. Without immigrants the standard of living of most Americans would fall.

No argument with these statements. However, you fail to distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, and it's a very important distinction. Frankly, I can't understand why people would argue against enforcing our immigration laws. If you don't like those laws, change them. If you'd prefer letting folks come into the country to work, propose a structured way of allowing that to happen. But please, please don't just ignore certain laws that are on the books because, well, "nobody" wants them to be enforced, because somebody thinks them to be a good idea and wants them to be enforced (otherwise they wouldn't be on the books).

There is only one issue there. American immigration policy is very reticent to allow any working class immigrants to come into the US, which is why you have the illegal immigrant situation you see today. It would be better if we could allow these people to come through legal channels but the problem is that it is not politically feasible to do so. People may be ok with a Chinsese businessman or an Indian IT dude coming in, but they balk when you ask if it is ok if a Mexican farmworker comes in as well. How do you fix the immigration system in a rational way that allows people to come in to do jobs no one else will do? And that way one can stop the excesses of illegal immigration while preserving the benefits. I don't see how that is politically possible though in an environment where racists like Trump are wining the nomination of one of the two established parties of America.

Why do you say that it is not politically feasible to create a legal channel to allow working class immigrants to come to the US? And if you're right, does that fact provide enough justification for ignoring the law? If that's what you're suggesting, I must strongly disagree. A good number of the problems we're facing appear to be a result of people wanting to ignore certain laws. You don't like the immigration services policing your city? Well, make it a "sanctuary city". Don't think much of federal drug laws pertaining to marijuana possession and distribution? If you're the President, make it the policy of your administration not to enforce those laws. Don't appreciate the criticism directed towards your presidency that's coming from specific groups? Use the Justice Department and the IRS to punish those groups.

Yes it's sad, but that's where we are...

You don't understand the Republican party or it's base if you don't understand why it won't work. They may make an exception for certain minorities they deem desirable but Mexican laborers do not make that cut. That is why immigration reform that includes a legal path for working class workers is DOA. And we need these workers in certain areas like farmwork or landscaping and other tough jobs that don't pay well. I would obviously rather have these people come in legally but like I said, that is not feasible due to the political landscape. And I am sorry, but I don't want to pay $10 for a pound of strawberries. Of course the real result would be the end of American agriculture, as we end up importing all of our food.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Grand Finale Tuesday results thread (1st polls close @8pm ET) on: June 25, 2016, 05:46:16 pm
So I haven't been following the count that closely lately. Looked at the results by congressional district and CD-46 flipped! That is not a district I would have expected Bernie to do well in, not to mention actually win.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trumpism on: June 25, 2016, 04:54:02 pm
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/06/25/trumps_racial_firebombs_weaken_us.html

Interesting article that I think is relevant here. Trump could have seized the moment to fix the immigration system but he blew it with his idiotic, racist rhetoric. And this is written by a right wing guy.....
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trumpism on: June 25, 2016, 03:54:35 pm
Immigration has not taken away blue collar jobs to the degree that mechanization has. If anything immigrants today are proportionally more likely to be 'job creators' in the form of small business owners than the rest of the population. The mythical immigrant that is too lazy to work and on welfare but still adept enough to take a blue collar job is something that should not be entertained but we know the notion has been cultivated for quite some time.

One point mentioned is accurate many working class people that vote Republicans are not mad that the government helps people they are mad that it does not help them more so than the rest of the population.

The jobs they create are at small businesses which can't provide a living wage. They take up market share that could otherwise go to native businesses which might have been able to.

This is such a ridiculous statement showing you don't understand how a business works. Why would a "native" business be able to pay more than immigrant one? The only way a native business could do that is by raising prices. Which is the point. Without immigrants, everyone's standard of living would go down. The only people it would benefit would be people who flip burgers. It wouldn't even help the skilled working class like plumbers, electricians etc.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trumpism on: June 25, 2016, 03:33:59 pm
Immigrants are most certainly taking jobs that would otherwise be done by Americans. This is not a lie. Even supporters of immigration must realize this on some level. It's not as if we didn't allow immigration, there wouldn't be super markets or restaurants.

Immigration as a whole is good for America. That doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers. And it's not just the 1% that benefits. It also helps those who work white collar jobs and can get cheaper meals at restaurants, cheaper stays at hotels, cheaper prices at supermarkets etc. Without immigrants the standard of living of most Americans would fall.

No argument with these statements. However, you fail to distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, and it's a very important distinction. Frankly, I can't understand why people would argue against enforcing our immigration laws. If you don't like those laws, change them. If you'd prefer letting folks come into the country to work, propose a structured way of allowing that to happen. But please, please don't just ignore certain laws that are on the books because, well, "nobody" wants them to be enforced, because somebody thinks them to be a good idea and wants them to be enforced (otherwise they wouldn't be on the books).

There is only one issue there. American immigration policy is very reticent to allow any working class immigrants to come into the US, which is why you have the illegal immigrant situation you see today. It would be better if we could allow these people to come through legal channels but the problem is that it is not politically feasible to do so. People may be ok with a Chinsese businessman or an Indian IT dude coming in, but they balk when you ask if it is ok if a Mexican farmworker comes in as well. How do you fix the immigration system in a rational way that allows people to come in to do jobs no one else will do? And that way one can stop the excesses of illegal immigration while preserving the benefits. I don't see how that is politically possible though in an environment where racists like Trump are wining the nomination of one of the two established parties of America.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trumpism on: June 25, 2016, 03:06:45 pm
Immigrants are most certainly taking jobs that would otherwise be done by Americans. This is not a lie. Even supporters of immigration must realize this on some level. It's not as if we didn't allow immigration, there wouldn't be super markets or restaurants.

Immigration as a whole is good for America. That doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers. And it's not just the 1% that benefits. It also helps those who work white collar jobs and can get cheaper meals at restaurants, cheaper stays at hotels, cheaper prices at supermarkets etc. Without immigrants the standard of living of most Americans would fall.

I notice you say "white collar".  They have benefitted.  But the losers are the folks that make up blue-collar America.

If immigrants are benefitting at the expense of the established working class, is that really OK?

I think the real question is whether or not America as a whole is benefiting.

Look, with the double whammy of immigration and outsourcing, perhaps some control needs to happen. That doesn't mean you elect a racist (there is a difference between being racist and anti-immigration) who is completely incompetent and unqualified for the job.

Mitt Romney was against any legalization of illegal immigrants but did anyone call him a racist? No, because he did not demonize them like Trump is doing. I would like to think you are a good person, but it is hard to do when you support a racist. Perhaps no one has talked about your issues before, but that doesn't mean you should elect someone completely unqualified to sit in the white house. He is only going to make things worse, for citizens and immigrants alike. Indeed, the whole world will be worse off. Mark my words.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trumpism on: June 25, 2016, 02:36:08 pm
Immigrants are most certainly taking jobs that would otherwise be done by Americans. This is not a lie. Even supporters of immigration must realize this on some level. It's not as if we didn't allow immigration, there wouldn't be super markets or restaurants.

Immigration as a whole is good for America. That doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers. And it's not just the 1% that benefits. It also helps those who work white collar jobs and can get cheaper meals at restaurants, cheaper stays at hotels, cheaper prices at supermarkets etc. Without immigrants the standard of living of most Americans would fall.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Trump ran an openly racist campaign... on: June 25, 2016, 02:28:27 pm
I don't see what could possibly be more racist than calling Mexicans rapists/druggies/criminals, banning Muslims, and not immediately disavowing an endorsement from David Duke.


Donald Trump pointed out that amongst illegal aliens from Mexico (both Mexicans and a number of Central Americans that traveled through Mexico on their way to America with the cooperation of the Mexican Government), there are a disproportionate number of violent criminals.  Many of these folks are members of Trans-National Gangs, such as MS-13, Sur-13, and others.  These violent gangsters enter the US illegally and commit violent felonies in the US; they are responsible for thousands of criminal offenses for which they have not yet been arrested for yet (warrants are still outstanding).  These gangsters engage in human trafficking and they sexually abuse and assault the folks they are trafficking.  This problem is well-documented and not in dispute. 



This is the crux of the issue. The VAST majority of illegal immigrants aren't involved in trasnational gangs but are your farm workers, gardeners and do other jobs other Americans just won't do. Of course the trasnational gangs are a problem, and I support being tough at the border (I would be ok with a wall if done smartly and without the jingoistic "Make Mexico pay for it" BS). Calling all illegal immigrants with the exception of "some" rapists is absolutely racist. Wanting to exclude all Muslims from America is bigoted. I don't know whether you are a racist or not, but you are supporting a racist candidate. What does that say about you?
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Trump ran an openly racist campaign... on: June 25, 2016, 02:47:00 am
If Trump ran a RACIST campaign, he'd lose in a landslide.

Trump is running an American Nationalist campaign, asking Americans to focus their attention on the damages done to this country by our current open borders immigration policy.  That's not racist, and that's why he's come as far as he has in no small measure. 

I grew up in the 1960s.  I've seen folks openly threaten to "burn out" the houses of black families who moved into a neighborhood.  (In the North, mind you, not the South or Border States.)  I know the difference between REAL racism and what passes for it on Atlas.

You are completely deluded. Just because you don't want to cause violence to minorities personally doesn't mean you aren't a racist. If you vote for a politician or support policies that harm and target minorities, you are a racist. If you support someone who says most Mexican immigrants are rapists, you are a racist. If you support someone who wants to ban everyone from an entire religion, then you are a bigot. You want to support Trump, that's fine. Do expect to be called a racist though, because that is exactly what you are.
24  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: United Kingdom Referendum on European Union Membership on: June 24, 2016, 12:33:43 am
Awake already... probably head back to bed shortly but...

So is it just me or does it look like Asian heavy areas didn't vote as much in favor of Remain as one would expect. Looking at Hounslow in particular but also Harrow and Ealing and Brent to a lesser extent. Also Bradford, Leicester and Birmingham results. A breakdown of Birmingham would be nice. Is differential turnout an issue?

You are correct to observe this. And check out Luton and Slough. And Newham. And etc. Minorities in general turned out not to be a heavily Remain block at all. Suspect some Asian demos (which though?) may have been more than 50% Leave.

I am not noticing any difference between national background (Indian vs Pakistani Vs Bangladeshi) or religion. Too bad there is no exit poll.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will the GOP get away with blaming a Brexit-caused Recession on Obama/Hillary? on: June 24, 2016, 12:02:10 am
Unfortunately, yes. Fortunately, even that might not be enough for Trump to win. Ironically, if Trump does win, it will cause further economic collapse across the world.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 545


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines