• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can Dems be any more out of touch? No, they can't.

calamity said:
I disagree. This election was a rejection of status quo.

First to be rejected was Democrats insistence of "Inclusion." People said no to refugees, illegal aliens, BLM, etc. Why? Well, IMO, it was because the D version of "inclusion" excluded the uneducated or lower income white working class. In short, the party of tolerance was intolerant of those who do not tolerate their PC, multiculturalism BS. In the end, excluding these people, making fun of them even, cost them dearly.


Another problem is that the D have become the Political Elite. A class by themselves who surround themselves with highly educated --often rich--liberals. As a result, they no longer have an ear for those less educated folks who do not toe the liberal line (white or black). Like I said, they make fun of these people: whites are rednecks, blacks are Uncle Toms. That cost them dearly too.

.
What was wrong with Hillary? Well, for one, the Clinton's are a political powerhouse. They blocked any and all moderate competitors from gaining a foothold in the party. Hillary is so well connected with the elite that Chelsea Clinton landed a $600,000 salary working as a junior reporter for NBC. Great work if you can find it.

Now the Republicans: Basically they are the same as the Democrats: a party of elites. The big exception being instead of being married to "inclusion" and multiculturalism, they are tied to the religious folks. But, make no mistake, the Party is beholden to the elites: the rich, the intellectuals on the Far Right Religious.


All of a sudden, here comes Trump with his own money. He says, "Screw You!" to all those elites and manages to connect to the forgotten class: the uneducated, the redneck, the Uncle Tom, and anyone else who has had it with PC, multicultural elites and their BS intellectualism.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it interesting to note that rejection or acceptance was pretty evenly split. It is also interesting to note that once Republicans and Democrats are eliminated from the equation, you have Trump winning the independent 48-42. But that is the same six point margin Romney won independents back in 2012, only he won them 51-45. Then too you have the low voter turnout and the increase in third party candidates votes from two percent to five percent.

Whenever an out of power party wins, one can state it was a change election. Getting rid of the status quo. That why I said perhaps. But this election was fought more on personalities of the two candidates and what they did wrong in their personal lives and scandals than on any issues of substance. Both Romney and Trump received the same percentage of the vote 47.2%. Romney more of the establishment candidate also received more votes than Trump in 2012. It was Clinton who really took the fall. As for the status quo Democrats they picked up two senate seats from the Republicans and in the House the Democrats gained 6 seats with six more still to be decided.

A rejection of the status quo would have had the Republicans picking up seats instead of losing them, it was a rejection of Hillary Clinton. Was it an acceptance of Donald Trump? Again perhaps, but then answer the question of how can the agent of change who received less votes than the status quo candidate, the change party lost seats in congress, Trump actually received less votes than Romney. To me it seems more of an election Clinton lost than Trump won. But that means little to nothing unless one is trying to figure out the whys and wherefores. Trump will be the next president. Perhaps that is all that counts in the end.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
What does that have to do with sanctuary cities?

Yours is a plea to emotion. "Think of the children!", oh my...
Click to expand...

Any immigration reform would have to include the "dream children". So what do you think should be done about them?
 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
So you are a illegal alien supporter. As stated by JackF, yours is trying to plea to emotions.

No one that I know is against LEGAL immigration. What many are against is ILLEGAL immigration.

Maybe you should ask the parents who are illegal, why are you putting your child at risk by entering the country illegally?
Click to expand...

I'm a humanist and think the 'dream children' should be allowed to stay.
 
MaggieD said:
I wasn't aware than Chicago was a so-called Sanctuary city until Raum Emanuel's press conference yesterday. But there it is. In a city that is certainly one of the murder capitals of the United States, Mayor Emanuel called a press conference to "invite" illegal immigrants who are drug dealers, rapists, thieves, extortionists, drug dealers, thugs, gang bangers, murderers and more to come to The City of Chicago where they will be safe.

"Chicago always has been a Sanctuary City."

And Democrats wonder why Donald Teump won the election.

What stupid fools.

He COULD have said.



But that would have taken balls. What is WRONG with Democrats? What don't they GET?
Click to expand...

It is not a D problem, it is an ELITE problem, they who are so sure that they are right that they dont need to listen to opposing views, they who tend to be found driving to UTOPIA, they who are sure that they are of a superior class which does not need to listen to the classes under them, they who are poorly educated generally, those who tend to enjoy indulging in their fantasies generally, They who tend to have poor values generally, those who tend to be either lazy or only willing to do the work when they get the rewards which is oft times either a deluxe ego stroke or forcing others to conform to their will (TOLERANCE? OMG NO THEY CANT MANAGE THAT!) , those who have so little self awareness that they dont recognize their own sadism....generally, and if they are aware of their sadism they rationalize it with what most of them hold as a one of their very few core values that gets actually practiced..."The ends justify the means".

Trump, that traitor to the elite class, won because he repudiated the core values and behaviors of the elite.

A week later the elite class STILL has no clue what hit them.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Any immigration reform would have to include the "dream children". So what do you think should be done about them?
Click to expand...
We were discussing sanctuary cities in this thread... until you changed the subject to the poor children, that is.
 
calamity said:
I really do not understand why people are defending illegal aliens.
Click to expand...

I've never understood it either. If you say you're against illegal immigration, they simply act is if the word "illegal" doesn't exist and consider you a racist. It's strange.
 
JC Callender said:
I've never understood it either. If you say you're against illegal immigration, they simply act is if the word "illegal" doesn't exist and consider you a racist. It's strange.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's not like we are against immigration, just illegal immigration. And, it seems about 30% of the Latinos, those who voted for Trump, are smart enough to understand the difference.
 
iguanaman said:
Would you defend your own mother?
Click to expand...

Do you defend illegal aliens? Is your mother an illegal alien, and if not, why do you defend them? Has your mother ever committed a crime, and if so, did you suggest that the crime in general be considered legal and that everyone who opposes it be considered a racist?
 
Napoleon said:
We understand exactly what it is your ilk want to do and we're going to sabotage it.
Click to expand...

I can see it now, illegals acting as colectivos enforcing "social justice" just like they do in Venezuela kind of like modern day "brown shirts".
 
JC Callender said:
Do you defend illegal aliens? Is your mother an illegal alien, and if not, why do you defend them? Has your mother ever committed a crime, and if so, did you suggest that the crime in general be considered legal and that everyone who opposes it be considered a racist?
Click to expand...

A simple yes or no would have been sufficient. Quite a few americans have mothers who are not here legally. I would bet a lot of us have committed crimes and gotten away with them too. I would defend my mother if her only crime was coming here to make a better life for me. Apparently that is too radical for you. I feel sorry for your loved ones though.
 
iguanaman said:
A simple yes or no would have been sufficient. Quite a few americans have mothers who are not here legally. I would bet a lot of us have committed crimes and gotten away with them too. I would defend my mother if her only crime was coming here to make a better life for me. Apparently that is too radical for you. I feel sorry for your loved ones though.
Click to expand...

If my mother was sent back to Mexico, I would go with her and wonder why she didn't come here legally in the first place. Then I would wait in line like everyone else.
 
Mac77 said:
How would california respond if they lost all federal funding?

I dont think the democrats in that state could hold out for very long.
Click to expand...

Considering the results from all the Propositions that were past, the demise of California is mostly assured, whether the Feds withhold funds or not.

But I am truly hoping Trump follows through and cuts off California in whatever way he can, in response to aiding and comforting foreign invaders illegally living in the State.
 
Napoleon said:
We understand exactly what it is your ilk want to do and we're going to sabotage it.
Click to expand...

Just wanting the federal government to follow the current law! We know what your ilk want and that is open border's but that about to come to a screaming halt!
 
Moot said:
Any immigration reform would have to include the "dream children". So what do you think should be done about them?
Click to expand...

Moot said:
California is about the fifth largest economy in the world. I think the US probably needs California, more than California needs the US.
Click to expand...

As you say California has a very large economy.

And a very big state government that costs a lot of money to support.

I think the libs in that staye would freak out if yrump pulls their federal funds
 
Moot said:
Any immigration reform would have to include the "dream children". So what do you think should be done about them?
Click to expand...

iguanaman said:
A simple yes or no would have been sufficient. Quite a few americans have mothers who are not here legally. I would bet a lot of us have committed crimes and gotten away with them too.


I would defend my mother if her only crime was coming here to make a better life for me. Apparently that is too radical for you. I feel sorry for your loved ones though.
Click to expand...

No one is proposing putting her in jail.

Or tying her to a whipping post for a public flogging.

But she is in America illegally and has no right to be here

If she has a clean criminal record - very clean - and has not been working using stolen or fake ID then she might be eligible for a limited amnesty.

My defination of limited amenesty is issuing a green card and a work permit that also includes a lifetime ban on US citizenship and never have the right to vote.
 
late said:
Immigrants do less crime than natives, a lot less.

Oh wait, is this thread one of those goofball Reality Free Zones?

My apologies if you know that was fiction.

The Mythical Connection Between Immigrants and Crime - WSJ
Click to expand...

But 100% of the illegal immigrants who are criminals do crime. These are the ones Trump has vowed to deport first. Trump never said he wanted to deport all immigrants.

Liberals are always conflating immigrants with illegal immigrants. I think it must be their lack of intelligence.
 
LowDown said:
But 100% of the illegal immigrants who are criminals do crime. These are the ones Trump has vowed to deport first.
Click to expand...

I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. It's an amazing investment opportunity, as good as gold...
 
iguanaman said:
A simple yes or no would have been sufficient. Quite a few americans have mothers who are not here legally. I would bet a lot of us have committed crimes and gotten away with them too. I would defend my mother if her only crime was coming here to make a better life for me. Apparently that is too radical for you. I feel sorry for your loved ones though.
Click to expand...

I have a very wide circle of friends and acquaintances, hundreds, I'd guess. Off the top of my head, just a few have broken the law with felonies. A few of THEM stayed in my circle. A few didn't.

DT is not targeting your mother who came here to make her life and yours better. He is targeting people who steal, rape, rob, kill, assault, intimidate, extort others . . . And more, of course.

When he wants to deport anchor babies who have done nothing wrong instead of offering them a path to citizenship, I PERSONALLY will need ponies, crying rooms, meditation seminars, and a good pair of Nikes with poster board and markers. I would feel close to this same if it were your mom who simply came here to make a better life...case by case.

But we must control the spigot. Why loyal Americans don't get that is beyond me.
 
Just curious on one point,
If trump says he is going to deport those illegals that are criminals firs,t how is he going to do that? I ask because supposedly we do not know who illegals are so hence we do not know which are the criminals, something does not add up there logically.
Anyone have an answer to that?
 
Casper said:
Just curious on one point,
If trump says he is going to deport those illegals that are criminals firs,t how is he going to do that? I ask because supposedly we do not know who illegals are so hence we do not know which are the criminals, something does not add up there logically.
Anyone have an answer to that?
Click to expand...

The answer if that he deports all the illegal alien criminals we can identify

Going after the santuary cities will improve tje identification and reporting process

for illegal aliens the future is not good.
 
Mac77 said:
The answer if that he deports all the illegal alien criminals we can identify

Going after the santuary cities will improve tje identification and reporting process

for illegal aliens the future is not good.
Click to expand...
Not sure how he goes about doing that without rounding them all up and that is not going to happen.

Agree

Agree
 
Casper said:
Not sure how he goes about doing that without rounding them all up and that is not going to happen.

Agree

Agree
Click to expand...

We can start by picking them up at the local jails when they are arrested by the police.

But there could be some "rounding up" going on also of known illegal alien felons already turned lose
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom