How does having Trump as president actually benefit you?

underthelights said:
It is a scare tactic. They're taking our jobs, they're mass murdering, they're taking our women, etc etc etc...
Click to expand...
But they are taking American jobs and murdering people. They also are draining our welfare system, collapsing public education and committing all sorts of violent crime, particularly sexual crimes. That not all the invaders are doing this is not relevant to the problem. Not ALL Germans and Japanese supported Hitler & Tojo yet we killed them just the same.

To argue that there is something immoral or illegal in simply defending our border and removing those people who have entered the country illegally is insane. That so many actually embrace this line of thinking is sad. It is a form of societal & national suicide.
 
lotr10 said:
But they are taking American jobs and murdering people. They also are draining our welfare system, collapsing public education and committing all sorts of violent crime, particularly sexual crimes. That not all the invaders are doing this is not relevant to the problem. Not ALL Germans and Japanese supported Hitler & Tojo yet we killed them just the same.

To argue that there is something immoral or illegal in simply defending our border and removing those people who have entered the country illegally is insane. That so many actually embrace this line of thinking is sad. It is a form of societal & national suicide.
Click to expand...
You just reenforced his entire point. Well done.
 
ProV1 said:
You just reenforced his entire point. Well done.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not acknowledging that he had a point to start with. He's using a tried and true, old school left wing attack on those who express concern. He wants folks to think that we are demonizing a group of people and that demonizing people is wrong and invalidates the argument. My point is that if it's TRUE it's not demonizing anyone but simply laying out the seriousness of the problem.

If ALL of the invaders were hard working, self sufficient people who refused to accept public assistance and whose arrival universally benefited the country there could be a basis for discussing a path way to citizenship. In fact this Pollyannaish take on the invaders is exactly the one you people push. But it's a lie. The majority of the invaders engage in criminality or accept public assistance and don't benefit the country with their arrival. And while it would be nice to consider each invader on a case by case basis, that can never be practically done leaving us with only two solutions:

1) Let all of them stay or

2) Remove them all

I favor #2 why can't you people simply admit you favor #1?
 
lotr10 said:
Mental masturbation at its finest. Your line of reasoning only leads to a comprehensive failure to fix the illegal immigration problem. Of course this is by design as you don't want to stop the invasion or fix the problem. But a couple of points:

* There is very little "thought" required here. We are being invaded so we must seal the border to stop the invasion.

* We know people are "human". But there should be consequences to them if they invade our country. After all those Germans & Japanese that we incinerated in their homes during WW2 were human beings to.

* The long term "human cost" of allowing people to stay in the United States after they illegally invaded this country is much greater then the short term cost of deporting them. The negative impact on our country must be factored in to a greater degree then the negative impact on invaders whose own actions resulted in their problems.

* The reason for the invaders coming to this country is not relevant. Whether they're here to work hard and build a better life or are here to sponge off our welfare programs or they're here to pursue a criminal enterprise is not important. All that matters is that they have invaded this country.

* Those of us who advocate for improving border security know that it involves much more then a "wall". The term "wall" is just a simple way to describe sealing the border. I have never met a single MAGA person who believes that a "wall" is all that's needed. You need to do better then build scarecrows in support of your arguments.

* In addition to a wall we should station army/air force units all along the border. Militarizing the Southern border in response to the invasion is a reasonable and effective way to improve border security.

* We are not obligated, morally or practically, to provide "pathways to citizenship" for those people who INVADE this country. In fact coming to America illegally should be reason to not grant citizenship EVER.

* A rational immigration policy would involve bringing people in from all over the world who meet a set of criteria in which bringing them here is to the benefit of the United States. After all we are well past the time when America needs the worlds "poor, skill less, non English speaking people" and have entered the period of our history where we need their skills, money and commitment to embrace our culture and constitution. If we don't benefit there is no reason to have immigrants enter this country.

* My ancestors came from England, Bavaria and Sicily during a time in our history where they were needed. My ancestors also were committed to the United States and when they arrived here there were no social welfare programs to help them out. It was sink or swim.

* Again there is no complexity involved here - if you invaded this country you will be removed. The moment we lack the means or will to remove invaders the country is lost an the invasion successful.
Click to expand...
Post of the Day! 🍺
 
lotr10 said:
No, I'm not acknowledging that he had a point to start with. He's using a tried and true, old school left wing attack on those who express concern. He wants folks to think that we are demonizing a group of people and that demonizing people is wrong and invalidates the argument. My point is that if it's TRUE it's not demonizing anyone but simply laying out the seriousness of the problem.

If ALL of the invaders were hard working, self sufficient people who refused to accept public assistance and whose arrival universally benefited the country there could be a basis for discussing a path way to citizenship. In fact this Pollyannaish take on the invaders is exactly the one you people push. But it's a lie. The majority of the invaders engage in criminality or accept public assistance and don't benefit the country with their arrival. And while it would be nice to consider each invader on a case by case basis, that can never be practically done leaving us with only two solutions:

1) Let all of them stay or

2) Remove them all

I favor #2 why can't you people simply admit you favor #1?
Click to expand...
Your scare tactics only work on the weak. "Draining our welfare system, collapsing public education and committing all sorts of violent crime, particularly sexual crimes."

If you were creating a list of things that were accountable for any issues associated with your list, immigrants would not be near the top of any of them.
 
lotr10 said:
To argue that there is something immoral or illegal in simply defending our border and removing those people who have entered the country illegally is insane. That so many actually embrace this line of thinking is sad. It is a form of societal & national suicide.
Click to expand...
See if the ivory tower gang can answer these two:

1. How many nations have allowed unfettered immigration, with no penalties if caught, have there been since the USA was founded?

2. Do you have a country if you have no borders?
 
lotr10 said:
Mental masturbation at its finest. Your line of reasoning only leads to a comprehensive failure to fix the illegal immigration problem. Of course this is by design as you don't want to stop the invasion or fix the problem. But a couple of points:

* There is very little "thought" required here. We are being invaded so we must seal the border to stop the invasion.

* We know people are "human". But there should be consequences to them if they invade our country. After all those Germans & Japanese that we incinerated in their homes during WW2 were human beings to.

* The long term "human cost" of allowing people to stay in the United States after they illegally invaded this country is much greater then the short term cost of deporting them. The negative impact on our country must be factored in to a greater degree then the negative impact on invaders whose own actions resulted in their problems.

* The reason for the invaders coming to this country is not relevant. Whether they're here to work hard and build a better life or are here to sponge off our welfare programs or they're here to pursue a criminal enterprise is not important. All that matters is that they have invaded this country.

* Those of us who advocate for improving border security know that it involves much more then a "wall". The term "wall" is just a simple way to describe sealing the border. I have never met a single MAGA person who believes that a "wall" is all that's needed. You need to do better then build scarecrows in support of your arguments.

* In addition to a wall we should station army/air force units all along the border. Militarizing the Southern border in response to the invasion is a reasonable and effective way to improve border security.

* We are not obligated, morally or practically, to provide "pathways to citizenship" for those people who INVADE this country. In fact coming to America illegally should be reason to not grant citizenship EVER.

* A rational immigration policy would involve bringing people in from all over the world who meet a set of criteria in which bringing them here is to the benefit of the United States. After all we are well past the time when America needs the worlds "poor, skill less, non English speaking people" and have entered the period of our history where we need their skills, money and commitment to embrace our culture and constitution. If we don't benefit there is no reason to have immigrants enter this country.

* My ancestors came from England, Bavaria and Sicily during a time in our history where they were needed. My ancestors also were committed to the United States and when they arrived here there were no social welfare programs to help them out. It was sink or swim.

* Again there is no complexity involved here - if you invaded this country you will be removed. The moment we lack the means or will to remove invaders the country is lost an the invasion successful.
Click to expand...
I apologize if this sounds redundant, but your points were repetitive.

  1. "Sealing the border to stop the invasion": Referring to immigration as an "invasion" is a gross oversimplification. It disregards the reasons people migrate, which often stem from violence, poverty, or political instability. Labeling it an "invasion" dehumanizes those seeking refuge. Not to mention, I don't hear uproar on the increased number of light skinned immigrants that are coming from Europe because of the instability in that region. Why is that?
  2. WWII analogy: Your analogy between immigrants and wartime enemies is misleading and offensive, not just to immigrants, but to our men and women who fought and died in WWII. Immigrants are not combatants, and equating them to wartime adversaries disregards the profound context that motivates their migration, such as escaping violence and inhumane living conditions. Be thankful you live in a country where you will enjoy the opportunity to live free. What would you do if you were in their situation? Would you just sit there and take it (probably, you don't seem like a man of action), would you give your life to the cause (unlikely), or would you flea to a place that would potentially offer a better life? What makes you better than these people? The only thing I can think of is the circumstance of your birth, which you had no control over and neither do they.
  3. Human cost of deportation: You fail to consider the long-term humanitarian and economic consequences of mass deportation. Removing millions of people from the country, many of whom have integrated into society and would lead to extensive social upheaval that likely outweighs your perceived benefits. Not to mention, it's not going to be free to round them up. Are you going to volunteer your time to do this? Even if you would, how valuable would you actually be to that cause?
  4. Reason for migration is irrelevant: You dismiss the fundamental human reasons for migration. Many immigrants are fleeing violence, persecution, or poverty, and understanding these motivations is crucial to crafting a compassionate and just policy. Again, what would you do in that situation? Seemingly, sit there and take it...
  5. "Wall" and border security: While strengthening border security is important, the idea of relying solely on a physical barrier is ineffective and outdated. Comprehensive reform, including better technological solutions, human resources, and a focus on root causes, is essential for addressing illegal immigration more effectively.
  6. Militarizing the border: Proposing to militarize the border raises significant ethical concerns. It risks turning the U.S. into a militarized zone, potentially leading to the excessive use of force and human rights violations. This approach is not only impractical but would also damage the nation's reputation on the global stage.
  7. No citizenship for illegal immigrants: Your insistence on denying citizenship to undocumented immigrants ignores the reality that many have lived and worked here for years, contributing meaningfully to society. A rigid approach fails to recognize the integral role these individuals play in communities and the economy.
  8. Rational immigration policy: Your notion of a "rational" immigration policy, which prioritizes highly skilled workers and excludes others, would undermine the diverse and dynamic workforce that has historically strengthened the U.S. By narrowing the focus, you ignore the broad social and economic benefits of a well-rounded immigration system.
  9. Immigration history: While you attempt to compare current immigration with past waves, such a comparison fails to account for the evolving context. Immigrants today contribute in critical sectors, and the absence of welfare programs when your ancestors arrived does not justify denying current immigrants the opportunity to contribute. Although, depending on if your family came post new deal, there were programs put in place to aid them. Not to mention, your ancestors likely (more like undoubtably) benefitted from immigration aid societies, protection from labor unions, ethnic communities mutual aid societies. For example, an Italian aid society would be Società di Mutuo Soccorso. It provided financial assistance to members during times of illness, unemployment, or death, essentially acting as a form of early health insurance and social safety net for Italian immigrants. Your people had help. They didn't just sink or swim. Now incase you want to nitpick between Sicilian and Italian, there are examples of these aid societies for all of the ethnic backgrounds you listed.
  10. "Invaded" and removal: Your call for mass deportations disregards both the practicality and morality of such a policy. The economic, social, and emotional toll of removing millions of undocumented immigrants would be devastating, and ignoring their contributions to society is a grave disservice to the nation. Not to mention, the burden on tax payers to fund this would be astronomical.
Your perspective offers an oversimplified view of a deeply nuanced issue. Addressing the complexities of immigration requires a more balanced and pragmatic approach.
 
The idea of the working class hating immigrants is not new. Most of our immigrant ancestors were hated, too. It is an issue as old as the nation. To suggest your ancestors came at a time when they were "needed" fails to recognize who considered them being there a need. It's not like they were welcomed with open arms. The fact is they were needed just like illegal immigrants are needed today, to drive down labor costs. Their need was to the rich people that financially benefitted from exploiting their cheap labor rather than paying established Americans an inflated rate. Sound familiar? This is why I think there needs to be a solution to the illegal immigration system. I won't get into this, but you can do it in a way that actually benefits society and increases tax revenue when they pay into the system. Anyways, a brief history of Americans and their dislike of immigrants.

Colonial and Early America:
  • 17th and 18th centuries: Although America was largely built by immigrants, tensions existed among groups. For example, English settlers often resented German immigrants in Pennsylvania, accusing them of refusing to assimilate.
  • The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 reflected fears that immigrants (especially from France and Ireland) would bring radical political ideas and undermine the fledgling U.S. government.
19th Century and the idea of people of European decent having Nativism:
  • Irish and German Immigrants (1840s–1850s): The massive influx of Irish Catholics fleeing the Great Famine and Germans seeking better opportunities led to backlash from Protestant Americans. Many feared Catholicism would undermine democracy, and Irish immigrants were often stereotyped as lazy or prone to crime.
    • The Know-Nothing Party (1850s) was a political movement explicitly opposed to Catholic immigrants, calling for stricter immigration laws.
  • Chinese Immigrants (Late 19th Century): Chinese laborers who arrived during the Gold Rush and helped build railroads faced severe discrimination. They were seen as economic threats, leading to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the first federal law to ban immigration based on nationality.
Early 20th Century and Restricting Immigration:
  • Southern and Eastern Europeans: Italians, Jews, Poles, and others faced hostility due to their perceived differences in religion, language, and culture. They were often associated with anarchism and communism during the "Red Scare."
    • The Immigration Act of 1924 established quotas favoring Northern and Western Europeans, effectively limiting immigration from "undesirable" regions.
  • Mexican Immigrants: During the 1930s Great Depression, Mexican Americans and immigrants were scapegoated for unemployment, leading to mass deportations, even of U.S. citizens of Mexican descent.

​

Mid 20th Century Civil Rights
  • Post-WWII Era: While some policies, like the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, helped refugees, nativism persisted. The civil rights era brought greater scrutiny of discriminatory practices, but fears of communism during the Cold War often targeted immigrants.
  • Operation Wetback (1954): A government initiative aimed to deport Mexican laborers, many of whom had entered the U.S. legally under the Bracero Program.
Late 20th and early 21st Centuries: Globalization and Fear of Terrorism
  • Immigration from Latin America and Asia: By the late 20th century, changing immigration laws and global economic shifts brought waves of immigrants from Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East. Economic fears and cultural differences again fueled nativism.
  • Post-9/11 Era: Anti-immigrant sentiment surged after the September 11 attacks, particularly targeting Muslim and Arab communities. Policies like the Patriot Act intensified surveillance of immigrant communities.
  • Modern Anti-Immigrant Movements: In recent decades, debates over undocumented immigration, border security, and the cultural impact of immigrants have led to contentious policies, including family separation at the U.S.-Mexico border and the Muslim travel ban.

​

There are some reoccurring themes here. Look at history, it repeats. You can see the same strategies being used over and over and over. Across history, anti-immigrant sentiment has been driven by:
  1. Economic competition: Immigrants are often blamed for taking jobs or lowering wages.
  2. Cultural fears: Concerns about immigrants’ languages, religions, or customs "threatening" American identity.
  3. Political anxieties: Immigrants have been scapegoated during times of political instability or fear of foreign ideologies.
However, immigrant communities have continually contributed to the growth and diversity of the U.S., often challenging and reshaping notions of what it means to be American. This tension between exclusion and inclusion is a defining feature of U.S. history.
 
lotr10 said:
No, I'm not acknowledging that he had a point to start with. He's using a tried and true, old school left wing attack on those who express concern. He wants folks to think that we are demonizing a group of people and that demonizing people is wrong and invalidates the argument. My point is that if it's TRUE it's not demonizing anyone but simply laying out the seriousness of the problem.

If ALL of the invaders were hard working, self sufficient people who refused to accept public assistance and whose arrival universally benefited the country there could be a basis for discussing a path way to citizenship. In fact this Pollyannaish take on the invaders is exactly the one you people push. But it's a lie. The majority of the invaders engage in criminality or accept public assistance and don't benefit the country with their arrival. And while it would be nice to consider each invader on a case by case basis, that can never be practically done leaving us with only two solutions:

1) Let all of them stay or

2) Remove them all

I favor #2 why can't you people simply admit you favor #1?
Click to expand...
I agree … if your arguments were true … the problem is they are not … you have bought full in on the far right propaganda … the majority does not do what you are saying … every statistical analysis says your wrong … but you guys cling to the few examples of bad behavior by immigrants … most are not causing the trouble you say and are willing to work … if given the chance … that is the main problem … the system does not let them work legally for a year or longer once in the country … fix the system … but NEITHER side wants to … more interested in using it as a political chip.
 
joesports said:
I agree … if your arguments were true … the problem is they are not … you have bought full in on the far right propaganda … the majority does not do what you are saying … every statistical analysis says your wrong … but you guys cling to the few examples of bad behavior by immigrants … most are not causing the trouble you say and are willing to work … if given the chance … that is the main problem … the system does not let them work legally for a year or longer once in the country … fix the system … but NEITHER side wants to … more interested in using it as a political chip.
Click to expand...
The majority does not accept American or State social welfare? Are you sure about that? We're talking about the illegal not legal migrants.

And why the hell should the "system" let invaders work legally in the country? What about illegally invading this country don't you people understand?
 
underthelights said:
I apologize if this sounds redundant, but your points were repetitive.

  1. "Sealing the border to stop the invasion": Referring to immigration as an "invasion" is a gross oversimplification. It disregards the reasons people migrate, which often stem from violence, poverty, or political instability. Labeling it an "invasion" dehumanizes those seeking refuge. Not to mention, I don't hear uproar on the increased number of light skinned immigrants that are coming from Europe because of the instability in that region. Why is that?
  2. WWII analogy: Your analogy between immigrants and wartime enemies is misleading and offensive, not just to immigrants, but to our men and women who fought and died in WWII. Immigrants are not combatants, and equating them to wartime adversaries disregards the profound context that motivates their migration, such as escaping violence and inhumane living conditions. Be thankful you live in a country where you will enjoy the opportunity to live free. What would you do if you were in their situation? Would you just sit there and take it (probably, you don't seem like a man of action), would you give your life to the cause (unlikely), or would you flea to a place that would potentially offer a better life? What makes you better than these people? The only thing I can think of is the circumstance of your birth, which you had no control over and neither do they.
  3. Human cost of deportation: You fail to consider the long-term humanitarian and economic consequences of mass deportation. Removing millions of people from the country, many of whom have integrated into society and would lead to extensive social upheaval that likely outweighs your perceived benefits. Not to mention, it's not going to be free to round them up. Are you going to volunteer your time to do this? Even if you would, how valuable would you actually be to that cause?
  4. Reason for migration is irrelevant: You dismiss the fundamental human reasons for migration. Many immigrants are fleeing violence, persecution, or poverty, and understanding these motivations is crucial to crafting a compassionate and just policy. Again, what would you do in that situation? Seemingly, sit there and take it...
  5. "Wall" and border security: While strengthening border security is important, the idea of relying solely on a physical barrier is ineffective and outdated. Comprehensive reform, including better technological solutions, human resources, and a focus on root causes, is essential for addressing illegal immigration more effectively.
  6. Militarizing the border: Proposing to militarize the border raises significant ethical concerns. It risks turning the U.S. into a militarized zone, potentially leading to the excessive use of force and human rights violations. This approach is not only impractical but would also damage the nation's reputation on the global stage.
  7. No citizenship for illegal immigrants: Your insistence on denying citizenship to undocumented immigrants ignores the reality that many have lived and worked here for years, contributing meaningfully to society. A rigid approach fails to recognize the integral role these individuals play in communities and the economy.
  8. Rational immigration policy: Your notion of a "rational" immigration policy, which prioritizes highly skilled workers and excludes others, would undermine the diverse and dynamic workforce that has historically strengthened the U.S. By narrowing the focus, you ignore the broad social and economic benefits of a well-rounded immigration system.
  9. Immigration history: While you attempt to compare current immigration with past waves, such a comparison fails to account for the evolving context. Immigrants today contribute in critical sectors, and the absence of welfare programs when your ancestors arrived does not justify denying current immigrants the opportunity to contribute. Although, depending on if your family came post new deal, there were programs put in place to aid them. Not to mention, your ancestors likely (more like undoubtably) benefitted from immigration aid societies, protection from labor unions, ethnic communities mutual aid societies. For example, an Italian aid society would be Società di Mutuo Soccorso. It provided financial assistance to members during times of illness, unemployment, or death, essentially acting as a form of early health insurance and social safety net for Italian immigrants. Your people had help. They didn't just sink or swim. Now incase you want to nitpick between Sicilian and Italian, there are examples of these aid societies for all of the ethnic backgrounds you listed.
  10. "Invaded" and removal: Your call for mass deportations disregards both the practicality and morality of such a policy. The economic, social, and emotional toll of removing millions of undocumented immigrants would be devastating, and ignoring their contributions to society is a grave disservice to the nation. Not to mention, the burden on tax payers to fund this would be astronomical.
Your perspective offers an oversimplified view of a deeply nuanced issue. Addressing the complexities of immigration requires a more balanced and pragmatic approach.
Click to expand...
Referring to ILLEGAL migration as IMMIGRATION is a lie and a gross distortion of what is happening. The rest of your screed is poisoned by this astonishing bastardization of the plain meaning of "immigrant".
 
lotr10 said:
The majority does not accept American or State social welfare? Are you sure about that? We're talking about the illegal not legal migrants.

And why the hell should the "system" let invaders work legally in the country? What about illegally invading this country don't you people understand?
Click to expand...

I was talking more about the crimes … but most immigrants … what I call them …. because I am talking about the ones let in at the border (ports of entry) and ask for immunity … but are technically illegal because they came into the country without permission first … but that is the only way to ask for asylum can be asked for … and they are vast majority of the “illegals” … which is the correct process … but a catch 22 … can’t ask for asylum without being in the country … but coming into the country is illegal … the others that sneak over the border, which is a minority of them, have no rights to me … then ones let into the country because they ask for asylum… are different … and yes they should be allowed to work until their court date … which is usually a year or longer.

My problem with your sides argument is you lump all “illegals” into one category and want to treat them the same … and I feel there are several different types of… the ones who follow the correct process for asking for asylum should be treated different than what I call the true illegals … the ones who sneak into the country … all of those should be deported when caught … as well as ones who commit crimes. The ones asking for asylum are no different than the vast majority of our ancestors when they came to this country.
 
Last edited:
I gotta say, I like @underthelights. I don't agree with 94.3% of what he is saying on this thread, but I do like that he tries to support his thinking. I like the long posts because one of my hobbies is trying to better understand the leftist mind.

I've enjoyed reading the thread. I'm not going to wade into the weeds of data and studies to refute him. Lotr10 has that covered - and well.

It's not that I don't like data and studies, but I have had to immerse myself in it in my field and it can make your head hurt. Lol.

I have also served on committees, panels, and had to participate in various meetings where people argue back and forth with dueling studies and data - and I grew to despise that whole process. At this point, when someone asks me to work with others or volunteer for something, the first question I ask is "Will I have to attend any meetings?" If the answer is "A lot of them", I'm out. Lol. In my experience, in any given meeting, when all is said and done, 90% will be said and 10% will be done. If it is a meeting involving dueling data fighters, 100% will be said and nothing will be done. I have never attended a meeting where I thought the important information could not have been given to me in a 1 page summary. :)

So, I will mostly sit this one out.

I would like UTL to answer the questions he was posed a few pages back, but I will distill it down to one: Do you believe that Trump colluded with Putin and Russian agents and that this collusion, to some degree, enabled Trump to win the 2016 election?
 
brian1227 said:
Me for watching this country burn under awful leadership.
Click to expand...
Boy You Are Not Right Leslie Jones GIF by Saturday Night Live
 
If for no other reason, it makes a lot of people I can’t stand, very upset. And I honestly think it’s that way for a lot of people who voted for Trump. The MAGA cultists who suck his peter are just a small % of people who voted for him.
 
IVCguy said:
I gotta say, I like @underthelights. I don't agree with 94.3% of what he is saying on this thread, but I do like that he tries to support his thinking. I like the long posts because one of my hobbies is trying to better understand the leftist mind.

I've enjoyed reading the thread. I'm not going to wade into the weeds of data and studies to refute him. Lotr10 has that covered - and well.

It's not that I don't like data and studies, but I have had to immerse myself in it in my field and it can make your head hurt. Lol.

I have also served on committees, panels, and had to participate in various meetings where people argue back and forth with dueling studies and data - and I grew to despise that whole process. At this point, when someone asks me to work with others or volunteer for something, the first question I ask is "Will I have to attend any meetings?" If the answer is "A lot of them", I'm out. Lol. In my experience, in any given meeting, when all is said and done, 90% will be said and 10% will be done. If it is a meeting involving dueling data fighters, 100% will be said and nothing will be done. I have never attended a meeting where I thought the important information could not have been given to me in a 1 page summary. :)

So, I will mostly sit this one out.

I would like UTL to answer the questions he was posed a few pages back, but I will distill it down to one: Do you believe that Trump colluded with Putin and Russian agents and that this collusion, to some degree, enabled Trump to win the 2016 election?
Click to expand...
We will never know and I surely hope not. I do believe that Russia has great interest in our elections and has tried to interfere in them, just as we do with other countries around the globe. Was Trump and/or the Trump team in on it? I would like to believe our country is strong enough to avoid that. Does Russia benefit from a Trump presidency? That should be an obvious question. Does that work for or against us? I guess that depends on your position.

One thing I strongly dislike about the Republican plan as a whole is the push to privatize things that are publicly funded with our tax dollars. Allow large corporations to take profits taken from our tax dollars takes money out of the communities. It’s like the box store concept of public services. Examples of this that currently exist are prisons and mental heath/mrdd facilities. A more concerning push that is happening currently is the idea of privatizing education while simultaneously attacking public education by putting schools in situations where they cannot succeed. Tax dollars should not go towards huge corporate profits and ceo bonuses.
 
Last edited:
@IVCguy also, I appreciate the fact that we can disagree with minimal derogatory remarks. In the real world, I wholeheartedly agree with your talk about people throwing data sets around. However, we’re on a message board and the likelihood is that we’re not going to develop any action plans from it. It’s just a way to blow off steam and share some ideas. It does give me stuff to research and think on, so I do appreciate it for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top