- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
So I guess Obama was a racist?. he deported many illegals when he was POTUS.
Mueller’s Conference today
- Thread starter Calliecake
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
B/c conservatives can't take the heat from PSer left wingers.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
b/c none of these are good news for the Dem party. If the US economy does not tank by Nov. 2020 Trump will be re-elected.
I wonder if the Trumpists will change their minds if Trump achieves his apparent goal to ruin our democracy and become dictator of the United States.
None of the other issues will matter at all then. Best to get rid of a giant threat than fall for the trinkets he offers (or pretends to offer).
None of the other issues will matter at all then. Best to get rid of a giant threat than fall for the trinkets he offers (or pretends to offer).
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2013
- Messages
- 4,814
Wait, wait, wait........You really think all of those are what Trump wants??? He doesn't care about ANYONE but himself. Also, DEMOCRATS want a secure economic climate for everyone, NOT republicans. Poor republicans vote against their own interests every single time.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2017
- Messages
- 917
I agree - wanting immigration reform that balances a rational view toward our country's well-being with compassion is not at all racist. What I DO find racist is Trump's rhetoric around immigration in which he dehumanizes the people wishing to come here and portrays them all as dangerous "bad apples", while behind the scenes reinforcing or enacting policies that heavily favor only allowing immigration by the already highly-skilled and wealthy. Immigration policy is something I watch closely, as my husband is originally from western Europe (although a US citizen for several years now). Over Trump's tenure in office, he has stepped up penalties on legal immigrants who apply for or receive any form of government assistance during their naturalization process, up to and including refusing them the ability to EVER achieve permanent resident status or deporting them. The trick here is that our laws will not allow anyone who legally immigrates to work at all when they first arrive; they must wait for a work authorization, which can take some time to receive. (It did for my husband.) Because I was a citizen who was working full-time at the time, and because my husband is a highly educated professional who had reasonable savings when he arrived, we managed, but a family unit trying to immigrate would not be able to survive waiting for work authorizations for the adults without public assistance unless they either had US citizens or permanent residents willing and able to house them and completely cover all their expenses for that time period, or were quite wealthy already. See the 'gotcha' there? Here's another new policy from Trump: if a foreign citizen comes here to work on an H1-B visa and wishes to bring their spouse, their spouse is no longer allowed to take a job here. Now, in our current economy, how many couples or families are able to get by on just one income over a longer period of time without some form of assistance (which they can't ask for if they wish at some point to immigrate, for reasons of the policy I mentioned earlier)? Only those already quite wealthy or with the visa holder working in a very high-paying field. Whether it's intentional racism or not, the end result is discrimination against people of non-white ethnic background immigrating here, except for some from some Asian countries and some people coming from wealthier, more privileged families in India, because only those people and people from other mostly-white western countries will be able to meet those requirements. This denies people who may have intelligence, talent, and drive, who simply need some education and opportunity that they couldn't get in their country of origin, from becoming wonderful assets to this country.
As far as your statements about creating employment opportunities and wanting a secure economic climate not being racist - yes, I agree with that as well, but I'm not sure I'm following what point you're trying to make here. If you're trying to say that many conservatives are willing to continue to vote for Trump and other Republicans that are supporting him in order to achieve those ends, while disagreeing with his racist attitudes and the racist attitudes of some of his supporters, I'm sure that is the case as well. I'm quite sure that many, many conservatives are not racist, and find those views abhorrent. Where I disagree with your reasoning is that Republican policies, in this day and age, do not seem to be creating a desirable employment or economic climate for the majority of Americans. Unemployment is low, but most of the jobs available are very low-paying - too low-paying to support families on, particularly near large cities with high COL (conversely where most of those jobs are), while employers have more power than ever to treat employees any way they wish and require employees to give up any hope of work/life balance. Top executives and shareholders who are already very wealthy are getting wealthier while workers' wages are nearly stagnant. This is mostly the work of Republican policies. After 30 or so years of "trickle-down" economics, economic inequality is vast and getting worse. Meanwhile, the Republicans in office have reinforced this by passing major tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations - which increased the deficit, to boot - something which I had always believed to be anathema to conservative beliefs. Deregulation has allowed some industries to become dominated by one or very few huge players, eliminating competition and therefore any semblance of a true "free market" in those industries (as well as allowing industry to wreak damage on the environment). I simply don't see evidence that Republican policies, in recent decades, are working for anyone but the already wealthy and large corporations, to the detriment of pretty much everyone else.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2017
- Messages
- 917
I don't believe anyone thinks that deporting people who are here illegally who have committed further crimes - which are the people that his policies focused on - is at all racist or in any way an unreasonable policy. I personally utterly agreed with it. Trump's policies and Obama's policies concerning immigration, however, are worlds apart.
By the way, thank you, @Dancing Fire, for reminding everyone that Obama - a Democratic president - had policies concerning illegal immigration that were succeeding with some effectiveness! (I believe that I read that he actually deported more people that were here illegally than President Bush before him.) And clearly, as a Democratic president, didn't believe in "open borders - just let them all in willy-nilly!", of which so many liberals are accused.
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 9,786
Wanting better immigration "processes" is not racist, but hiding behind updating immigration "processes" as a way to discriminate against certain individuals with specific religious beliefs or that come from specific countries IS racist.
Wanting to secure a better economic climate for everyone is not racist. Both parties IMHO want to achieve that, but the point is that many people that are extreme conservatives (and indeed many of the population that are not) seem to believe we can go backwards to this Industrial "Golden Age" of full employment, lands of milk and honey were everyone in society has jobs and the economy never struggles. The reality is that we all live in a technology based, consumer driven society these days that has moved on from an Industrial manufacturing society. Jobs of the future will be in Technology, in service industries not in factories, globally not just in the US. The days of giving everyone jobs in factories and manufacturing are over....
The point is that both areas IMOH are steps backwards not forwards - US has massive debts, returning to protection based (ie reducing foreign imports from countries like China) policies seems good on paper and it is probably good short term, (because yes it creates jobs domestically short term), what it will do long term (and this is basic economics 1.10) is set up a similar set of conditions that led to the stock market crashes and GFC in the first place. Trump is about popular politics now, (ie to be seen to be created jobs now) he isn't necessarily thinking about what is going to be best long term for your economy, or what longer term impacts some of his financial and economic decisions will have. It's what I'd call "Popularist politics", meaning some of his decisions seem wonderful to the masses short term but have the potential to set back your economy over a much longer period of time. But he will be gone by then so the general public that don't understand economics get to blame the next lot of leaders for economic conditions actually created by their predecessors.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 7,329
@OboeGal thank you for your thoughtful post. I am happy that your husband was able to come to the US. And I agree Trump's rhetoric is terrible. But policies that require a prospective immigrant not be a burden on taxpayers when coming to the US is no different than most countries around the world. Other countries also require that spouses' occupations be ones which the country is in need, otherwise that person takes jobs citizens could have taken. I recall a PS thread in the past year where a poster (not from the US) was in the emigration process to Australia and was very concerned about Australia not accepting them due to her husband's occupation. There was nary a peep about how dare Australia be so picky. I find it ironic that so many people find the US racist for being concerned about tens of thousands of unskilled people pouring across its borders. If Australia or Canada, or any other country for that matter, had the same issue with 50-100,000 people a month attempting to cross their borders they would have a problem needing to be addressed. And if they didn't address it then their citizens would make them do it. Why is it such a problem when the US finally decides enough is enough? Because Trump said it? No other politician, D or R, has done enough about it for decades. Rs won't require e-verify which is ridiculous. I want our veterans taken care of before I worry about people from other countries who want to come here, especially if they don't have the ability to take care of their own expenses. The US is a very benevolent country with a huge heart but we have citizens who need help first.
@arkieb1 thanks for your post as well. I agree the ridiculous way the administration went about the bans on certain countries did not go well. In fact they are quite amateurish in most everything they try to roll out.
As to the economy there are fundamental differences in how liberals and conservatives think is best to approach it. The massive debts didn't just show up in 2017, they've been there quite awhile. The spending by both parties is out of control and the taxpayers and our kids, and their kids, will foot the bill.
@arkieb1 thanks for your post as well. I agree the ridiculous way the administration went about the bans on certain countries did not go well. In fact they are quite amateurish in most everything they try to roll out.
As to the economy there are fundamental differences in how liberals and conservatives think is best to approach it. The massive debts didn't just show up in 2017, they've been there quite awhile. The spending by both parties is out of control and the taxpayers and our kids, and their kids, will foot the bill.
Last edited:
So, I'm genuinely curious about this. Can you give me a couple of concrete examples of this playing out- when, how, over what issues?
I don't see it myself, but am trying to understand those who do.
This is true. Nurtured and fostered, unfortunately, by those who stand to benefit from the creation of a permanent underclass.There are more, obviously, but Rupert Murdoch stands out as a central player in this.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 14,680
Guns
Liberals: lets ban all guns
Conservatives: No, we will not give up our 2nd amendment rights.
Libs: Ok lets just ban homeland defense rifles and standard capacity magazines for now.
Conservatives: No, We will not give up our 2nd amendment rights.
Libs: conservatives will not compromise!!!!!
When: all the time
Where: both the state and federal levels where the 2nd is under attack.
- Joined
- May 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,041
Please site your sources! Where have seen that liberals are demanding that all guns be banned?
If you truly believe that Liberals are demanding that all guns be banned, then I am sorry to say that you have fallen victim to the NRA propaganda machine. Asking for sticker gun regulations and banning some types of guns is worlds apart from demanding that all guns be banned. But this is how the NRA (and many republicans in their pockets) wants the conversation to go. "They want to take your gun" so no conversations or examinations of the issues contributing to our epidemic of gun violence can happen.
And as to those rights, why is the part about "a well regulated militia" always left out? Because that is how the gun manufacturers and all those in power that profit want it.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 7,329
At the time every able bodied (white) man 18-44 was considered a member of the militia.
Constitution and Bill of Rights (1787–1789)[edit]
The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792[27] clarified whom the militia consists of:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
- Messages
- 9,234
I haven’t heard anyone say ban all guns here.
Liberals have said the following:
Ban AR-15
Ban Large capacity magazines
Ban bump stocks
Register all guns and have a nation wide database.
This is hardly saying banning all guns OR taking away your right to own a gun.
More than half the country is disgusted by the fact that school age children are afraid of being killed in their classrooms.
Every gun discussion ends the same way here. People suggest what was written above and the Republicans say it’s not going to happen. There really isn’t a discussion after someone brings up the fact that the people who are being killed have a right to live their life, more than you have a right to have “fun” shooting an AR-15 and no one needs an AR-15 to defend themselves. None of us are living in a war zone.
When the second amendment was written the only guns were muskets. For some reason this is difficult for some people to grasp.
There is a mass shooting in our country nearly every day. We hardly even notice when they happen now, it’s just another day in America. Doing nothing is not working. Thoughts and prayers are useless. No other county has the number of mass shootings our county has.
Liberals have said the following:
Ban AR-15
Ban Large capacity magazines
Ban bump stocks
Register all guns and have a nation wide database.
This is hardly saying banning all guns OR taking away your right to own a gun.
More than half the country is disgusted by the fact that school age children are afraid of being killed in their classrooms.
Every gun discussion ends the same way here. People suggest what was written above and the Republicans say it’s not going to happen. There really isn’t a discussion after someone brings up the fact that the people who are being killed have a right to live their life, more than you have a right to have “fun” shooting an AR-15 and no one needs an AR-15 to defend themselves. None of us are living in a war zone.
When the second amendment was written the only guns were muskets. For some reason this is difficult for some people to grasp.
There is a mass shooting in our country nearly every day. We hardly even notice when they happen now, it’s just another day in America. Doing nothing is not working. Thoughts and prayers are useless. No other county has the number of mass shootings our county has.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2012
- Messages
- 3,464
So... how is saying “Conservatives will not compromise on gun control” a false liberal statement.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 9,031
Sadly, conservatives apparently don't recognize the right to life after one is born. If one is killed in utero, one would have the attention of the conservative party. They care a lot less about us once we're born.
- Joined
- May 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,041
Thank you Red.
My emphasis was more on the well regulated portion suggesting that they never intended it to be a "free for all".
However, this reference is also a great reminder that things change over time as the norms of our society shift. Just as who is permitted to own a gun has been re-evaluated and changed, we should also continue to re-evaluate regulations that have impacts on public safety. As women, you and I would not have fallen under the definition of a "militia" and yet we can now own guns. We no longer require a person to be white to own a gun and we certainly don't demand that you get rid of any guns that you own when you turn 45.
Even in the definition provided, congress is implicitly referring to military acts in service to our country. "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 7,329
Further investigation into the founders' reasons behind the 2A also include tyranny of government or ruler as in King George. I am thankful I can own firearms so yes I am all for progress.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 14,680
Now im to stupid to think for myself and need the NRA to do it?
That's the number one reason I dont bother talking to liberals.
Anyone who disagrees with them is stupid.
For the record in not a fan of the NRA they are historically to anti-gun for me.
They have been slightly better in recent years.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 14,680
The liberal controlled IL house just recently passed a law requiring people to submit fingerprints to exercise their second amendment rights.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...house-approves-bill-to-fingerprint-gun-owners
Thankfully it died in the senate but it is expected to be raised again.
As far as banning all guns....
Just one example of many out there:
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) - 1995 - 60 Minutes Interview
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them....Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...house-approves-bill-to-fingerprint-gun-owners
Thankfully it died in the senate but it is expected to be raised again.
As far as banning all guns....
Just one example of many out there:
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) - 1995 - 60 Minutes Interview
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them....Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
- Joined
- May 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,041
Don't put words into my mouth! I never said or suggested that you are stupid.
We are all human and susceptible to influence by those that we surround ourselves with, what we read and what we see in the media. No matter how much we try to, we can not deny that our environment has an impact on how we view the world and others that we share it with. Guilty on both sides.
Of coarse, you can think for yourself and you should not be offended when asked what lead you to your conclusion that liberals want to come and take all guns away. I believe that you have been misinformed as to what is the liberal stance on guns and am truly curious as to why you feel this way. Most just want to have an honest discussion based on data on how best to keep everyone in out society safe. Maybe, I am missing something.
- Joined
- May 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,041
Thank you for sharing, and I truly meant no offense to you as a person.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
- Messages
- 9,234
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 14,680
I care about all people.
I just dont see how giving up my rights and the few guns I have left will make anyone any safer.
It will make me less safe.
I have used a firearm to defend myself and my family, thank the Lord I didn't have to fire a shot to do so.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
- Messages
- 9,234
How can anyone be against people being fingerprinted to have a gun ownership? There should also be a national database with everyone in it who owns a gun.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
- Messages
- 9,234
Wouldn’t this also mean that only people in the military (or have served in military) would be eligible to have a gun?
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 9,786
I live in a society that banned guns, what we did won't work for the US because you have way too many guns to ever introduce a whole ban. Tighter restrictions and less access to guns benefits everyone because people that should never have access to guns (not good decent law abiding gun owners) should in theory find it more difficult to get a gun. Reducing the amount of illegal guns on the streets that again are in the hands of people that should not have them again in theory should reduce the amount of gun related crimes.
In Australia, you can still get a gun, I come from a rural community and if I wanted a gun all I'd have to do is apply for a gun license. It's much more difficult to get a gun here, and the types of guns and amount we can own are restricted but it's not impossible to get one if you want one.
Yes you might have to give up a few of your guns and you might have to live with even tighter gun control laws and systems but it's a matter of thinking about it as a way to restrict all the idiots that should never have guns from allowing easy access to them, rather than simply trying to attack your personal rights.
Did You Miss the March 2024 Jewels of the Weeks?
Did You Miss the March 2024 Jewels of the Weeks? - 03/30
300x240.png)