Wasn't much destroying when all you could do last time was throw silly, spelling mistakes ridden, one-liners at me, was it? ;)

Arguments like this are why Trump is winning in America.

Arguments like this^ is Trump fuel.

Its not nationalistic to want your laws to be followed or for immigrants to come into your country legally. If that is the threshold for nationalism than refusing to drink any soft drink except Coca Cola should be labeled fascistic.

I'm not really advocating for breaking any laws, just ridding them. Also, yes, you are probably a patriot if you drink only American sodas since they are American.

How is it fair if these people are coming in illegally?

How they come in is totally irrelevant. The American and the Mexican, with the same qualifications, are both given a job offer. The Mexican wins, fairly (unless it was something like, "positive action" - where minority skinhues get more jobs - I'm very against, that, though).

Governments weren't founded to protect folk. They were founded to establish order.

I only said they were founded to help folk. As a mean to an ends. Probably the first ones were made for order and to shield folk.

Countries work for their own self interest. You talk about competition so much but you don't realize that it is international competition between countries working for themselves that drives change, innovation, and economic growth.

I wouldn't say international - just worldwide. With access to more competition, rather than say, taxes on foreign goods, that is what will drive "change, innovation, and economic growth". Furthermore, that's not what's important. Everyone knows that West German "efficiency socialism" is what really makes economies, "change, innovation, and economic growth". But who cares, just as long as we live a good life, I'm fine with not changing, innovating, or growing.

This is a stupid question. Both of them already do. Illegal aliens that are arrested and sentenced for deporation by the federal government get due process and a day in court. Legal immigrants "on the path" to citizenship would get due process if they were residing in the US. If these legal immigrants were still waiting for citizenship (say they are applying from a foreign country) they would get the due process given to them in their native country.

No question is stupid, so again, curb your hostility before I don't. Also, you were not clear, you said that legal immigrants would get all rights and human rights except voting, but said nothing of illegal immigrants.

There were two parts to the sentence. One part said I am not a communist. Second part said I am not a rabid globalist like you are. The "like you are" referred only to the second quality of him being a rabid globalist.

Ok, then why did you even talk about communism, then? It's irrelevant to your point if I'm not one.

He's not. He's said multiple times that he likes competition. However he does believe in world wide wealth distribution

Defending wealth distribution doesn't make you a communist nor a socialist for instance.

I am definitely not for wealth respreading, tell me how you think I am.

(Also, wealth respreading is practically the meaning of high socialism.)

Жұқтыру just got accused of being a communist... Really, you trump supporters are really bad at arguing:


It's funny how you just assume everyone here is a Trump supporter. Especially since Jai has gone out of his way SEVERAL times to say how much he doesn't like Trump.

It's typical, anyone who dares advocate for any action against illegal immigration is immediately a xenophopic, bigoted, Trump supporter.

- Step one: say something that is a total non-sense.
- Step two: when someone answer you with facts, keep denying what they say.
- Step three: when the argument is clearly lost, just attack personally the person in order to maker it's arguments non-valid, by calling her a communist or defender of ISIS.

Step one: Say something is total non-sense.
Step two: When someone answers you with facts, keep denying what they say.
Step three: When the argument is clearly lost, just attack the other person in order to make their arguments invalid, by calling them a xenophobe or a racist.

Really, it's the same rhetoric every time. Funny thing, most of these folks don't even know what xenophobia or racism really is, or they wouldn't call everyone racists when it's clearly not the case.

Wasn't much destroying when all you could do last time was throw silly, spelling mistakes ridden, one-liners at me, was it? ;)

Well, it wasn't really like that. Just a bunch of your trump minions friends come to protect you and insult me. But sure, convince yourself that you won that argument.

No. Its an obvious fact that some coming into the US through the Southern borders are dangerous people. Drug mules from Mexico are highly documented, for an example. If he was xenophobic he would be saying 'All foreigners are bad people, obviously the problem here isn't Mexicans, but the crime some of them bring in. Besides, Trump spoke out recently about accepting skilled foreign labour into the US, but of course you don't mention that.

- Some of the people who come are dangerous, but it's not close to be the majority like Trump implied. Plus this crime problem that come from the southern border enter in the major problem of the war on drugs really. There's drugs comming to the us ilegally because the US has a very bad drug policy. The hole war in Mexico is a consequence of american drug policies.
- About you saying Trump isn't xenophobic; Right, so if you say a black man is inferior, it's not racism because you said nothing about asians? Your argument here is just stupid lol.

No, but all that race baiting language from Sanders such as 'white people don't know what its like to live in a ghetto or be poor' has fed the BLM war rhetoric and made the current situation as it is. Of course he isn't the only one responsible. Besides, everyone was leaping on Trump to disavow David Duke, now nobody asks Sanders to disavow violent BLM protesters. No peaceful political discussion should be interrupted, whether from silent or violent protesting, no?

- I agree the words used by Sanders weren't the best for this moment, but the general idea is right, blacks do still suffer of racial discrimination in the america of today, and most whites will never know that in their lives.
- BLM is in my eyes just a consequence of the systematic racial discrimination in the US. It's not Sanders fault, as the movement was born out of the Ferguson events. Don't ask him to apologize for white cops killing black men, it's not his job.
- The right to protest is secured on the first amendment. Trump has the right to speak all the bullshit he wants, and anyone has the right to protest against it. The protests just escalated when supporters of both sides started to throw insults at each other. The police failed to prevent a violent outcome of the situation. But still, the protesters have the right to protest, the first amendment guarantee their right to do so. But I guess you Trump supporters just know the second amendment am I right?

It is absolutely hilarious, after our last discussion on abusing the context of quotes that you did it again.

- I am sorry if I don't know every quote of trump to the letter, but even with the exact quote what I said is still right as Жұқтыру said. The problem is that the hippotetical is really becoming the reality, and it's unacceptable to have a presidential candidate saying that.

"there was blood comming out of her, whatever"
How does that, in any way incite violence?

-It's incite misogyny and the superiority of men over women. As said before, it's unacceptable to have a presidential candidate saying this kind of things.

Edited 3/14/2016 01:05:31

I agree the words used by Sanders weren't the best for this moment, but the general idea is right, blacks do still suffer of racial discrimination in the america of today, and most whites will never know that in their lives.

Yeah, try telling it to these folk. I told them the valid basis behind "White privilege", that folk love folk that are like them, that look like them, so on, and since whiteskins are the majority, it's harder, for example, to get jobs if you are a minority skinhue. And then someone arrogantly says "there is no proven connection between hiring practices and skin hue" (and I show them a study of it, that did support it).

It's better if you're whiteskin in America, it's better if you're blackskin in Nigeria, denying this is ridiculous in my opinion.

@Eklipse {TJC}

I'm not sure if Jai is still against trump... I know he writed a few things against him, but then he started to defend more and more his rethoric. But again, maybe I'm wrong at this.

Really, it's the same rhetoric every time. Funny thing, most of these folks don't even know what xenophobia or racism really is, or they wouldn't call everyone racists when it's clearly not the case.

I believe that trump is xenophobic and a bit of a racist as well. His supporters are just pissed off at the system, but if you really believe mexicans are inferiors (aka most drug mules/rapists/thieves) and that muslims are all potential terrorists, I sure as hell will call you xenophobic and islamophobe, cause that's what you are.

[This last part isn't directed at anyone, before people start saying I insulted them]


@Жұқтыру

I think these folks will never admit there is a racial problem in the us, and that maybe, just maybe, BLM is born out of a legitimate problem.

Edited 3/14/2016 01:14:37

I believe that trump is xenophobic and a bit of a racist as well. His supporters are just pissed off at the system, but if you really believe mexicans are inferiors (aka most drug mules/rapists/thieves) and that muslims are all potential terrorists, I sure as hell will call you xenophobic and islamophobe, cause that's what you are.

I don't think he himself is - he just noticeably panders to those who are.

Well, again it's not the point if he's a racist or not really. The thing is that his image is the one of a xenophobic and islamophobic white rich man. Images are more important then individuals themselves.

Edited 3/14/2016 01:20:10

-It's incite misogyny and the superiority of men over women. As said before, it's unacceptable to have a presidential candidate saying this kind of things.

I like Donald Trump's lack of self-censor, but that should be irrelevant. Charisma should have nothing to do with it, only policy. And what you are saying, "inciting misogyny" and "the superiority of men over women" - that's stretching it. What it is, though, is quite rude and a cheap shot - insulting a woman over problems that only women have.

I'm not sure if Jai is still against trump... I know he writed a few things against him, but then he started to defend more and more his rethoric. But again, maybe I'm wrong at this.

Go and read these if you still aren't sure.

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/133891-8-reasons-vote-trump?Offset=0

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/139290-chris-christie-endorses-trump?Offset=20

And please specify what part of Trump's rhetoric am I defending.

Bernie Sanders; Trump is a Pathological lier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5V2_r2m-Q8

- Some of the people who come are dangerous, but it's not close to be the majority like Trump implied.

Except... he never said nor implied a majority.

There's drugs comming to the us ilegally because the US has a very bad drug policy. The hole war in Mexico is a consequence of american drug policies.

Ah, so its America's problem that Mexico has drug problems. Just like its Trump's problem when Bernie supporters violently try to suppress his rallies. Or just like its the Police's fault that there were criminals harassing Trump's supporters in Chicago. Its due to a variety of reasons, ineffective policies from the Mexican government to suppress drug, and a weak border so that drug mules can enter unfettered.

The right to protest is secured on the first amendment. Trump has the right to speak all the bullshit he wants, and anyone has the right to protest against it. The protests just escalated when supporters of both sides started to throw insults at each other. The police failed to prevent a violent outcome of the situation. But still, the protesters have the right to protest, the first amendment guarantee their right to do so. But I guess you Trump supporters just know the second amendment am I right?

They have the right to protest yes, in fact most Trump rallies have small groups of protestors outside, and that is perfectly fine. What they don't have the right to, however, is disrupt the rally. These so called 'protestors' try to shout Trump down when he is expressing his opinion in his private event, or try to completely shut down a peaceful political rally, as seen in Chicago. This was not a mere protest, this was a suppression of free speech. Not to mention all the violence and abuse from Bernie supporters during the event, with Police officers and Trump supporters suffering personal abuse.

I am sorry if I don't know every quote of trump to the letter,

[/quote]

Well, then you're obviously the one to blame when you start making flawed observations from your incomplete knowledge.

It's incite misogyny and the superiority of men over women. As said before, it's unacceptable to have a presidential candidate saying this kind of things.

No it does not and I don't see how it does. Besides, its rather amusing that we have a Brazilian saying whats acceptable or unacceptable an American Presidential candidate should do.

Edited 3/14/2016 01:33:26

just maybe, BLM is born out of a legitimate problem.

They're born from a legitimate problem, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement (In general) tends to behave very idiotically and is often as racist as the people they claim to oppose.

BLM is creating more problems then they are fixing.

it's harder, for example, to get jobs if you are a minority skinhue.

No it's not. Not anymore. Now we have affirmative action and enforced diversity requirements that tell businesses they must hire so many of "X" group regardless of if there's a more qualified candidate.

Except... he never said nor implied a majority.

He definitely implified it, or at best, mispoke.

"Mexicans are killers and rapists, and some, I suppose, are good folk."

Ah, so its America's problem that Mexico has drug problems.

I'm pretty sure what TeamGuns is advocating is less American intervention in Mexico, and tuning down the war on drugs. Furthermore, it wouldn't even be a problem if drugs were legalised.

Just like its Trump's problem when Bernie supporters violently try to suppress his rallies.

Yes - first of all, "violently supressing his rallies" is a great overstatement. The 1989 Bucharest rally was "violently supressed". The Jewish voice in Germany in 1938 were "violently supressed". The independence activists in Kenya in the 1950s were "violently supressed". This is far from it. Second, yes, it's his problem. What, are you encouraging some police country in which it's illegal to speak out against someone you like?

Or just like its the Police's fault that there were criminals harassing Trump's supporters in Chicago.

Yes...whose else fault is it, other than the crimers themselves? Really?

What they don't have the right to, however, is disrupt the rally.

They have the right to do anything that isn't illegal, so yes, peacefully disrupting a rally is very much a righteous thing to do.

These so called 'protestors' try to shout Trump down when he is expressing his opinion in his private event, or try to completely shut down a peaceful political rally, as seen in Chicago.

Stop whining. It's their right to speak out against what they don't like, even insult. Now, what they can't legally do is spread misinformation, which is a shameful cutting of the freedom of speech.

Its due to a variety of reasons, ineffective policies from the Mexican government to suppress drug, and a weak border so that drug mules can enter unfettered.

Really, folk have researched this stuff, in depth. It's almost unanimously accepted that the American war on drugs was a total failure, achieving the opposite of intent.

Besides, its rather amusing that we have a Brazilian saying whats acceptable or unacceptable an American Presidential candidate should do.

What is that supposed to mean? You criticise TeamGuns for some ridiculous oneliners, look at this, eh?

No it's not. Not anymore. Now we have affirmative action and enforced diversity requirements that tell businesses they must hire so many of "X" group regardless of if there's a more qualified candidate.

I'm not sure on the specificities, but I'm pretty sure affirmative action requires a nonproportional quota, meaning that if the blackskin population is 20%, 10% of who you hire must be blackskin. That said, I am definitely for getting rid of affirmative action, not for stepping it up.

Edited 3/14/2016 01:49:11

@Pulsey

Except... he never said nor implied a majority.

Now you don't know your quote my friend.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. 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.”

The world "some", implies that only a minority is good.


The drug war in mexico is a consequence of drug policies in the us... Mexico is a supplier because the United States is the demand. If you just legalized drugs all of the mexican drug cartels would need to find other occupations no? If the mexican government isn't able to stop the cartels, it's because they're too rich and too strong for it. And they've tried to go the hard way, it has only caused more deaths and pain to the mexican people. Plus, the US intervenes directly in the mexican war on drugs, so it's right to say the US failed there too.


About the Chicago incident, as I said there is a right to protest. Wether it's 5 people or 50 thousand, it's their right to protest against trump. Things escaladated because of both sides, blaming this on exclusively on the anti-trump protesters is pathetic.

Well, then you're obviously the one to blame when you start making flawed observations from your incomplete knowledge.

And yet, my incomplete knowlage of a quote was right. It's a bad argument when you misquote trump in the beginning of your comment.

No it does not and I don't see how it does. Besides, its rather amusing that we have a Brazilian saying whats acceptable or unacceptable an American Presidential candidate should do.

Was waiting for the xenophobic comment. For this I will answer: it's a shame that a brazilian must lecture you about your own country.

Edited 3/14/2016 01:51:35

The world "some", implies that only a minority is good.

Really??? 'Some' implies a plurality, it doesn't imply a majority at all. If you want to suggest a majority, that would be 'most.' I know English isn't your first language, but you are obviosuly cherry-picking and stretching definitions to fit your confirmation bias.

If you just legalized drugs all of the mexican drug cartels would need to find other occupations no?

Legalizing drugs? How about legalizing murder so that assassins would be out of jobs?

If the mexican government isn't able to stop the cartels, it's because they're too rich and too strong for it. And they've tried to go the hard way, it has only caused more deaths and pain to the mexican people. Plus, the US intervenes directly in the mexican war on drugs, so it's right to say the US failed there too.

Mexico's drug war is Mexico's problem. Trump proposes a wall and stricter border control to stem the inflow of drugs into America, he doesn't propose intervening in Mexico war against drug cartels.

About the Chicago incident, as I said there is a right to protest. Wether it's 5 people or 50 thousand, it's their right to protest against trump. Things escaladated because of both sides, blaming this on exclusively on the anti-trump protesters is pathetic.

No, it esclataed because Bernie supporters planted themselves inside the arean, determined to 'shout Trump down' when he took to the stage. When you shout someone down you aren't just protesting, you are suppressing their right to express their opinion. When you grab Trump supporting signs from Trump supporters and rip them apart, you are tramping on their right to express their support. Of course the situation escalated because of both sides, but it is obvious the anti-Trump protestors instigated it.

Was waiting for the xenophobic comment. For this I will answer: it's a shame that a brazilian must lecture you about your own country.

HAHAHA! I'm not American! For someone who throws out the 'xenophobic' insult so loosely, you really don't know what it means.

Edited 3/14/2016 02:06:39

Hmmm I did assume you were american by your statements about trump. I don't use my time to check wether people are something they pretend to be or not. Arguing that a brazilian can't possibly argue about the american politics is xenophobic lol. And also wrong, cause I'm actually french.

Full definition of some:
1) being an unknown, undetermined, or unspecified unit or thing <some person knocked>
2)a : being one, a part, or an unspecified number of something (as a class or group) named or implied <some gems are hard>
b : being of an unspecified amount or number <give me some water> <have some apples>
3): remarkable, striking <that was some party>
4): being at least one —used to indicate that a logical proposition is asserted only of a subclass or certain members of the class denoted by the term which it modifies

I think some is really more of a minority then a majority, but read this definition as you like. I don't need to have english as my first language to read a dictionary. And I speak 4 languages, forgive me if I mix them a bit.

Legalizing drugs? How about legalizing murder so that assassins would be out of jobs?

=> Ignorant statement

Mexico's drug war is Mexico's problem. Trump proposes a wall and stricter border control to stem the inflow of drugs into America, he doesn't propose intervening in Mexico war against drug cartels.

=> It won't fix the drugs problem in america. In fact it might solve mexico's problem to some extent. The reality is that as much as there's demand, there's supply. Conservatives brag about knowing well economics, and yet they fail to recognize that it's impossible to eliminate drugs because of the most important law of the economy.

Of course the situation escalated because of both sides, but it is obvious the anti-Trump protestors instigated it.

Not sure if it was caused by both sides then huh? If the situation escalated because of both sides it's because both contributed for it to begin in the first place.

'Some' implies a plurality, it doesn't imply a majority at all. 'Some' implies a plurality, it doesn't imply a majority at all.

It definitely does not implify that, in this context. He said Mexicans are killers, and some are good. Now, if he just had left it had Mexicans are killers and rapists, I would have defended him for the same grounds, but he clearly is implifying that most of them are.

Legalizing drugs? How about legalizing murder so that assassins would be out of jobs?

Again with your one liners that you hate. Ok, legalising drugs doesn't legalise forcefully inconveniencing anyone. Legalising murder very much does.

Mexico's drug war is Mexico's problem.

I agree, America should get out of Mexico, and stop the war on drugs.

Trump proposes a wall and stricter border control to stem the inflow of drugs into America, he doesn't propose intervening in Mexico war against drug cartels.

You know, there's a grounds why the American government would do such a stupid thing. They profit, too, from the drug trade. It's not as if tunnels don't work (they do), or boats around. Heck, might even grow cocaine addiction since the Colombian sea trade grows bigger as a proportion.

When you shout someone down you aren't just protesting, you are suppressing their right to express their opinion.

Shut up.

If I tell you this, am I triggering you? Am I taking away your right of speech? Should we illegalise this word? Maybe we will ban saying "shut up", too, and instead, everyone, like when Poland invaded Czechslovakia, will say the fine for saying it, instead: "4 Zloty.". Frankly, you're as bad as some of these low socialists. "Oh my gosh, saying anything against my opinion triggers me and needs to be stopped."

When you grab Trump supporting signs from Trump supporters and rip them apart, you are tramping on their right to express their support.

The right is that you aren't killed or in any way other way silenced (unable to spread your word). That's clearly not what's happening here.

I'm not American! For someone who throws out the 'xenophobic' insult so loosely, you really don't know what it means.

Americans and Aoterkans, both racist against a same foe.

If you just legalized drugs all of the mexican drug cartels would need to find other occupations no?

Okay let's say we

1) Legalize or decriminalize all drugs.

Also let's assume that Bernie Sanders gets his wish and

2) Health care is made single-payer and universal

If individuals use

3) Dangerous drugs and get into serious medical situations

Then wouldn't American taxpayers in effect and indirectly be

4) Subsidizing drug use by subsidizing the medical treatment of drug users

1) Legalize or decriminalize all drugs.

Also let's assume that Bernie Sanders gets his wish and

2) Health care is made single-payer and universal

If individuals use

3) Dangerous drugs and get into serious medical situations

Then wouldn't American taxpayers in effect and indirectly be

4) Subsidizing drug use by subsidizing the medical treatment of drug users

The wrong link is made in step 3. Drug usage lowers with legalisation 9 times of 10.