• 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!

Donald Trump Thinks North Carolina Got It Wrong On Anti-LGBT Bathroom Bill (1 Viewer)

I have. And psychology is still not a science. If it were transgenderism would be classed as a variant of BDD (Body Dysmorphic Disorder).

No, from a research, a psychological, and a biological standpoint, it doesn't meet the criteria. Do you know how transsexuality happens? I've posted about it MANY times. The research shows that it is not a mental disorder, hence having been removed from the DSM. It is a biological inconsistency.
 
Liberals hate anyone that isn't a liberal. Even when you agree with them, they still hate you.

Some conservatives hate anything that isn't conservative, demonstrating a complete lack of objectivity. Read any of your posts see the proof in this.
 
I see you have no argument, but resorting to putting words in my mouth isn't going to make your ideas look any less moronic. And Obama isn't doing his job regarding border security? Are you friggen serious? The Mexicans have a nickname for Obama - "Deporter-in-Chief"..........

No argument? Here's an odd idea but what if, the President just enforced the laws? I know that is a novel idea but it is illegal to enter this country without proper documentation. I know the left screams and cries that we can't deport 11 million people. Why not? Why not, simple make it illegal to hire them. Illegal for them to drive. Illegal to rent housing to them. And dammit, illegal to be here.

What happens if you illegally cross into Mexico? Do they welcome you with open arms? Do they let you stay and work? There are consequences for breaking laws. On one hand the left says there aren't enough jobs in the US but then they fight for people who came here illegally to take jobs to stay. Something doesn't add up.
 
When people like you blame the GOP, and 'feckless wonder' Republicans presidents who did NOTHING for decades to stop the illegal immigrants then you can be taken seriously. Many of the 11 mil you lemmings go on and on about came in during the last Admins. But yeah, let's ignore that huh?

Reagan gave amnesty to illegals. Bush 2 wanted to. But cons and Republicans exclusively blame the Dems for the immigration mess. You guys are soooo easily manipulated by the GOP and con talking heads and lead around by the nose, it's sad.

We've got a candidate now who wants to do something about it. The current president said the fence was already built. Why are they still streaming in?
 
Wanna stop illegal immigration? There's one, and only one, way. Make Mexico as prosperous, stable, and safe as America.

No, there's another way. You actually enforce the law. You build a fence, you protect the border, and you arrest law breakers.
 
Of course, reversing sixty years of looking the other way is going to take some time, and the silly notion of a border fence isn't going to help. Rounding up 11 million people and sending them back to their home countries isn't going to solve the problem, either.

We don't have to round them up. Just like when Georgia passed a law making it illegal to hire an illegal alien... Go figure. All the illegals fled the state. See, while there is a federal law everyone knows it isn't enforced. There was a down side, we figured out that Americans were too lazy to do the jobs left open by the illegals and our crops rotted in the fields.
 
We don't have to round them up. Just like when Georgia passed a law making it illegal to hire an illegal alien... Go figure. All the illegals fled the state. See, while there is a federal law everyone knows it isn't enforced. There was a down side, we figured out that Americans were too lazy to do the jobs left open by the illegals and our crops rotted in the fields.

Exactly. Enforce the law, and the illegals will go home, no wall needed. Only, let's be careful what we wish for. We may find we depend on illegals as much as they depend on us.
 
. Just like when Georgia passed a law making it illegal to hire an illegal alien...

4-5 years ago Texas wanted to pass a law like that. BUT state politicians insisted an 'exception' be put in allowing illegals to work in landscaping and 'household' work. Because as 1 Republican state official said(I'm paraphrasing) 'unless there is that exemption a large portion of the Texas population will be in jail'.

IDK if that law was ever passed, with, or without the exemption.
 
No, there's another way. You actually enforce the law. You build a fence, you protect the border, and you arrest law breakers.

And I described to you precisely why Trump's grand plan won't work.

Concerning the last time we tried amnesty, did you know that Reagan himself opposed the idea of a wall? From this reference:

The law granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants, yet was largely considered unsuccessful because the strict sanctions on employers were stripped out of the bill for passage.

{Co-author of the bill} Simpson says the amnesty provision actually saved the act from being a total loss. "It's not perfect, but 2.9 million people came forward. If you can bring one person out of an exploited relationship, that's good enough for me."

Nowadays, conservative commentators like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh often invoke the former president as a champion of the conservative agenda. Sean Hannity of Fox News even has a regular segment called "What Would Reagan Do?"

Simpson, however, sees a different person in the president he called a "dear friend." Reagan "knew that it was not right for people to be abused," Simpson says. "Anybody who's here illegally is going to be abused in some way, either financially [or] physically. They have no rights."

Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter, agrees. "It was in Ronald Reagan's bones — it was part of his understanding of America — that the country was fundamentally open to those who wanted to join us here."

Reagan said as much himself in a televised debate with Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale in 1984.

"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," he said.

More than 20 years later, the Republican Party has changed its tune. President Obama's call for bipartisanship on the immigration issue was answered by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. A bipartisan effort would be possible, he said, if Obama "would take amnesty off the table and make a real commitment to border and interior security."

But Simpson, a fellow Republican who served in the Senate with McConnell from 1986 to 1997, says calling for tighter borders is a tried-and-true tactic of politicians unwilling to confront the realities of a growing illegal population.

"That's always the palliative that makes people feel good," he says. "You just say, 'Well, we're still dinkin' around with immigration, so since we can't seem to get anything done and our constituents are raising hell — how do we get re-elected?' Well, you just put some more money into the border
."

Robinson says Reagan's own diaries show the president found the idea of a militantly staffed border fence difficult to take. In a private meeting with then-President Jose Lopez Portillo of Mexico in 1979, Reagan wrote that he hoped to discuss how the United States and Mexico could make the border "something other than the location for a fence."

These days, Republicans are also calling for existing laws to be toughened up, which Reagan would have agreed with, Robinson says. In fact, Robinson says, he would have been so upset at the federal government's failure to make good on the 1986 reform that he would have demanded for that law to be fixed first before instituting a new overhaul.

"He, too, would have been right there in saying, 'Fix the borders first.' " Where he would have differed, Robinson says, is his welcoming attitude toward immigrants.

"He was a Californian," Robinson says. "You couldn't live in California ... without encountering over and over and over again good, hard-working, decent people — clearly recent arrivals from Mexico." That the U.S. failed to regain control of the border — making the 1986 law's amnesty provision an incentive for others to come to America illegally — would have infuriated Reagan, Robinson says.

"But I think he would have felt taking those 3 million people and making them Americans was a success."


Calling for a great wall - just like calling for concealed-carry everywhere, or a nationwide ban on abortion - is just a way to get the base fired up. Like the other impossibilities, that 'great wall' simply ain't gonna happen, but it's a great way to get the base fired up and gin up the fundraising. And yes, this same kind of calling-for-extreme-actions-to-rally-the-base happens on the Left, too (e.g. free college, single-payer health care).

So remember, rhetoric and actions are two different things...and that wall ain't gonna happen. You should be glad that it won't, for the same reasons Reagan opposed it. And btw, I was a Reagan Republican - I voted for him.
 
Exactly. Enforce the law, and the illegals will go home, no wall needed. Only, let's be careful what we wish for. We may find we depend on illegals as much as they depend on us.

The wall is to keep them from coming back. I don't understand why you are so opposed to a wall. Do you have locks on your doors at home? Why? We need a wall for the same reason.
 
4-5 years ago Texas wanted to pass a law like that. BUT state politicians insisted an 'exception' be put in allowing illegals to work in landscaping and 'household' work. Because as 1 Republican state official said(I'm paraphrasing) 'unless there is that exemption a large portion of the Texas population will be in jail'.

IDK if that law was ever passed, with, or without the exemption.

Unfortunately, now that the left want to issue work permits to illegals it undermines even Georgia's law because the law only requires them to be legal to work in the USA. A work permit does that.
 
And I described to you precisely why Trump's grand plan won't work.

Concerning the last time we tried amnesty, did you know that Reagan himself opposed the idea of a wall?

Yes, the problem is that last time we granted the amnesty but never finished securing the border. Hopefully we have learned from that mistake. Tell me why do you feel that these 11 million should be allowed to stay here and work? If I break into your house, will you let me live there?
 
The wall is to keep them from coming back. I don't understand why you are so opposed to a wall. Do you have locks on your doors at home? Why? We need a wall for the same reason.

The Great Wall of the U.S. is really pointless - a Great Wall and a militarized border will stop people from coming over, but a wall itself isn't much of a barrier. You can go online and see people going over existing sections in less than a minute, and ladders and ropes are pretty low tech devices proven effective at getting over barriers and lowering people to the other side. So you need lots and lots of troops/agents, sensors, cameras, drones, all of it monitored 24/7, with people on the ground ready to respond to people approaching the border.

I agree with your earlier point about actually enforcing employment rules and cracking down on illegal employers. That would decrease the incentive to cross over, probably sufficiently to all but eliminate the need for a stupid 2,000 mile Great Wall of the U.S. The remaining problem would be people overstaying their work or travel visas which accounts for roughly half of the existing illegal population, something a Great Wall cannot effect much if at all since they entered above board and just stayed.

BTW, your lock on doors reference is actually pretty good. When I grew up, we never, ever locked the doors and the reason was simple - dad figured correctly IMO that someone at all determined to get into the house would do so with or without a locked door - they are not a barrier to any actual criminal, maybe kids. Combine locks with a state of the art security system, cops nearby and you've done some good.
 
The Great Wall of the U.S. is really pointless - a Great Wall and a militarized border will stop people from coming over, but a wall itself isn't much of a barrier. You can go online and see people going over existing sections in less than a minute, and ladders and ropes are pretty low tech devices proven effective at getting over barriers and lowering people to the other side. So you need lots and lots of troops/agents, sensors, cameras, drones, all of it monitored 24/7, with people on the ground ready to respond to people approaching the border.

I agree with your earlier point about actually enforcing employment rules and cracking down on illegal employers. That would decrease the incentive to cross over, probably sufficiently to all but eliminate the need for a stupid 2,000 mile Great Wall of the U.S. The remaining problem would be people overstaying their work or travel visas which accounts for roughly half of the existing illegal population, something a Great Wall cannot effect much if at all since they entered above board and just stayed.

BTW, your lock on doors reference is actually pretty good. When I grew up, we never, ever locked the doors and the reason was simple - dad figured correctly IMO that someone at all determined to get into the house would do so with or without a locked door - they are not a barrier to any actual criminal, maybe kids. Combine locks with a state of the art security system, cops nearby and you've done some good.

The problem is that not everyone sneaking across the pretty much open border is looking for work. Some, like those children that were easily able to get across are coming here in hopes of taking advantage of our social welfare system. Then there are those brining backpacks of drugs across. And of course, what about when people who wish to do harm to us come across? We need border security.

My father died in 2004. He lived in a million dollar estate in Harford County, Maryland. We searched for keys to the house and couldn't find any. After we all thought about it, none of us can ever remember the doors being locked. We wound up calling a locksmith to put new locks on so that we could secure the house.
 
No argument? Here's an odd idea but what if, the President just enforced the laws? I know that is a novel idea but it is illegal to enter this country without proper documentation. I know the left screams and cries that we can't deport 11 million people. Why not? Why not, simple make it illegal to hire them. Illegal for them to drive. Illegal to rent housing to them. And dammit, illegal to be here.

What happens if you illegally cross into Mexico? Do they welcome you with open arms? Do they let you stay and work? There are consequences for breaking laws. On one hand the left says there aren't enough jobs in the US but then they fight for people who came here illegally to take jobs to stay. Something doesn't add up.

Because it is impractical and mathematically over-expensive to militarily hunt down and deport 5% of the US population. Simple as that. Oh, yeah, it's also wrong.
 
Unfortunately, now that the left want to issue work permits to illegals it undermines even Georgia's law because the law only requires them to be legal to work in the USA. A work permit does that.

Yeah, it's all the 'lefts fault'. :roll: Even though the very business friendly Republican Party hasn't lifted a finger to stop illegals coming in because their business buddies and lobbies don't want them to stop it. . And as I pointed out past Republican Presidents have been more 'amnesty' friendly then the Dems.

And as I said even in the very red Texas they don't want to stop all illegals, or arrest all employers who hire illegals.

IMO you really don't give a crap about fixing the immigration problems, you just want to whine and bitch about the 'left', even when it's not all the 'left's' fault.
 
The problem is that not everyone sneaking across the pretty much open border is looking for work. Some, like those children that were easily able to get across are coming here in hopes of taking advantage of our social welfare system. Then there are those brining backpacks of drugs across. And of course, what about when people who wish to do harm to us come across? We need border security.

What does that have to do with the effectiveness (or not) of a wall? As I said, if you militarize the border it will slow people coming across the border with or without a Great Wall. And if the border is secured, drugs will find another way here if there is a sufficient market.

My father died in 2004. He lived in a million dollar estate in Harford County, Maryland. We searched for keys to the house and couldn't find any. After we all thought about it, none of us can ever remember the doors being locked. We wound up calling a locksmith to put new locks on so that we could secure the house.

I guess you agree with my point that locks on the doors without a bunch of extra stuff are mostly for show, and won't thwart anyone committed to breaking into your house. I'm not sure why anyone thinks a wall we might build will be difficult to cross over with a rope and/or ladder or shovels to go under or explosives through the middle of it.
 
Liberals hate anyone that isn't a liberal. Even when you agree with them, they still hate you.

this would be more like me saying that conservatives hate everyone who isn't white hetero christian male. After all, conservatism is antithetical to change and this country for 100 years only allowed this particular demographic to operate freely
 
No argument? Here's an odd idea but what if, the President just enforced the laws? I know that is a novel idea but it is illegal to enter this country without proper documentation. I know the left screams and cries that we can't deport 11 million people. Why not? Why not, simple make it illegal to hire them. Illegal for them to drive. Illegal to rent housing to them. And dammit, illegal to be here.

What happens if you illegally cross into Mexico? Do they welcome you with open arms? Do they let you stay and work? There are consequences for breaking laws. On one hand the left says there aren't enough jobs in the US but then they fight for people who came here illegally to take jobs to stay. Something doesn't add up.

all of those things are illegal, but walmart does it anyway
 
And I described to you precisely why Trump's grand plan won't work.

Concerning the last time we tried amnesty, did you know that Reagan himself opposed the idea of a wall? From this reference:

The law granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants, yet was largely considered unsuccessful because the strict sanctions on employers were stripped out of the bill for passage.

{Co-author of the bill} Simpson says the amnesty provision actually saved the act from being a total loss. "It's not perfect, but 2.9 million people came forward. If you can bring one person out of an exploited relationship, that's good enough for me."

Nowadays, conservative commentators like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh often invoke the former president as a champion of the conservative agenda. Sean Hannity of Fox News even has a regular segment called "What Would Reagan Do?"

Simpson, however, sees a different person in the president he called a "dear friend." Reagan "knew that it was not right for people to be abused," Simpson says. "Anybody who's here illegally is going to be abused in some way, either financially [or] physically. They have no rights."

Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter, agrees. "It was in Ronald Reagan's bones — it was part of his understanding of America — that the country was fundamentally open to those who wanted to join us here."

Reagan said as much himself in a televised debate with Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale in 1984.

"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," he said.

More than 20 years later, the Republican Party has changed its tune. President Obama's call for bipartisanship on the immigration issue was answered by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. A bipartisan effort would be possible, he said, if Obama "would take amnesty off the table and make a real commitment to border and interior security."

But Simpson, a fellow Republican who served in the Senate with McConnell from 1986 to 1997, says calling for tighter borders is a tried-and-true tactic of politicians unwilling to confront the realities of a growing illegal population.

"That's always the palliative that makes people feel good," he says. "You just say, 'Well, we're still dinkin' around with immigration, so since we can't seem to get anything done and our constituents are raising hell — how do we get re-elected?' Well, you just put some more money into the border
."

Robinson says Reagan's own diaries show the president found the idea of a militantly staffed border fence difficult to take. In a private meeting with then-President Jose Lopez Portillo of Mexico in 1979, Reagan wrote that he hoped to discuss how the United States and Mexico could make the border "something other than the location for a fence."

These days, Republicans are also calling for existing laws to be toughened up, which Reagan would have agreed with, Robinson says. In fact, Robinson says, he would have been so upset at the federal government's failure to make good on the 1986 reform that he would have demanded for that law to be fixed first before instituting a new overhaul.

"He, too, would have been right there in saying, 'Fix the borders first.' " Where he would have differed, Robinson says, is his welcoming attitude toward immigrants.

"He was a Californian," Robinson says. "You couldn't live in California ... without encountering over and over and over again good, hard-working, decent people — clearly recent arrivals from Mexico." That the U.S. failed to regain control of the border — making the 1986 law's amnesty provision an incentive for others to come to America illegally — would have infuriated Reagan, Robinson says.

"But I think he would have felt taking those 3 million people and making them Americans was a success."


Calling for a great wall - just like calling for concealed-carry everywhere, or a nationwide ban on abortion - is just a way to get the base fired up. Like the other impossibilities, that 'great wall' simply ain't gonna happen, but it's a great way to get the base fired up and gin up the fundraising. And yes, this same kind of calling-for-extreme-actions-to-rally-the-base happens on the Left, too (e.g. free college, single-payer health care).

So remember, rhetoric and actions are two different things...and that wall ain't gonna happen. You should be glad that it won't, for the same reasons Reagan opposed it. And btw, I was a Reagan Republican - I voted for him.

it's stupid anyway because there's this thing called water and as cuban and syrian refugees have shown, desperate people won't be deterred. You'd have to build a wall all along the coasts and there goes untold billions in beachfront property
 
this would be more like me saying that conservatives hate everyone who isn't white hetero christian male. After all, conservatism is antithetical to change and this country for 100 years only allowed this particular demographic to operate freely

Liberals say it all the time, anyway. Anyone who crticizes Obama is automatically branded a racist.
 
Liberals say it all the time, anyway. Anyone who crticizes Obama is automatically branded a racist.

i criticize obama all the time for not being liberal enough, guess i'm a racist too then
 
Because it is impractical and mathematically over-expensive to militarily hunt down and deport 5% of the US population. Simple as that. Oh, yeah, it's also wrong.

Was it wrong for them to break the law coming into this country? You say that it is impractical and too expensive to deport them. Basically, what you are saying is that you don't think the sovereignty of this nation is worth anything. Why bother to have borders, at all?
 
Yeah, it's all the 'lefts fault'. :roll: Even though the very business friendly Republican Party hasn't lifted a finger to stop illegals coming in because their business buddies and lobbies don't want them to stop it. . And as I pointed out past Republican Presidents have been more 'amnesty' friendly then the Dems.

And as I said even in the very red Texas they don't want to stop all illegals, or arrest all employers who hire illegals.

IMO you really don't give a crap about fixing the immigration problems, you just want to whine and bitch about the 'left', even when it's not all the 'left's' fault.

President Obama is a democrat. His administration is issuing work permits. Of course, the left is the problem.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom