Could be Trump?

[Jack]

How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.

Let's talk about Donald.   Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?

Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?

Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.

Not a supporter of Trump or Clinton, but sure. At worst probably only a sexist pig, but frankly don't care. Would assume a large percentage of independently wealthy men walk around with the knowledge they can have any gold digging slut they want. It's true they can, and some have probably encountered enough gold digging sluts to affect their views of women in general. Trump has probably met more than his fair share, so wouldn't feel out of place in partially blaming women for Trump's attitudes toward women. He plans to repeal the executive order of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act. That act was a huge mistake and sent a message the US has opened its arms to Central American children. This message has caused an alarming influx of unescorted children crossing the boarders, as well as created a market in child trafficking to get them here. It's a crisis and should be addressed. A giant wall seems a bit extreme, but if there is a wall then the labor should offered to illegal immigrants, who can then be in the country legally and stay because they have employment and can get a work visa. It's not like it's some insurmountable task to be in the US legally, and not as if the US doesn't already deport people are here illegally. Proposing to be more active in deporting illegals probably doesn't slap a lot of people in the face. The topic of accepting refugees is a matter of the United Nations, and anyone who realizes that knows that's probably not going to change. However proposing to create a safe zone in Syria to help prevent migration at the source may appeal to citizens of more countries than only the US. There's not overwhelming numbers coming in the US anyway, but he also proposed to create a register of them because there isn't one. Everyone legally living in the US is in a government database and it seems odd the US doesn't have an official list of refugees in the country, so if that's true then maybe there should be one.

[Walkie]

How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.

Let's talk about Donald.   Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?

Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?

Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.

There are no policies based on colour of skin and saying this is an outright lie and you know this. You are a liar FourAceDeal.

Tell me the sexual violence against women (not that he has been accused of - lots of people are wrongly accused) that he has been proven to have been a part of.

You ARE going to do that right? You are not going to talk of facts you do not have at your disposal and simply throw around false allegations.

Sexual violence. Take the stage with your proof (beyond allegations).

No?

As for religion? Yes he has no way of disassociating Muslims from Muslim radical extremists. Not all Muslims are Muslim radical Extremists BUT all Muslim radical Extremists are Muslims. He wants to stop Muslim radical extremists. Difficult position as many people from that area of the world, due to failed states and infrastructure failing, are not able to be vetted.

At least THAT was not a lie. That is something

Breath of fresh air here. Thanks, Al.

I'd be seriously stunned to find that Trump isn't a racist , etc,  but the kind of drums his detractors are banging on to"prove"  their point  are only unconvincing me, TBH.

The kind of view you stated above really needs to be stated explicitly. To suppress a whole side of that argument would only have the effect of inflaming prejudice , not putting it to bed. And leaving everybody feeling uneasy.  So, kudos to Trump for having the balls to state it, and kudos to America for letting him.

I find Trump bloody scarey, nonetheless. He talks one heckova lot of crap, but in some areas, he's also cutting through the crap.  Heck , we  (the world , that is) might even end up having  an intelligent discussion  re.  Islam, not the usual, absurdly polarised,  childish  slanging match .

[Walkie]

oh! P.S. since i really do believe in openly admitting to one's prejudices(where relevant) . i ought to admit that I'm prejucced against the wealthy, especially the self-made wealthy.  For one thing, I find it very  hard to believe that anyone can accumulate so much wealth by being nice   

I really don't think Trump would have cut much ice with your average Brexiter, never mind how much he sucks up to us. He's failed to understand that it's people like himself we were rebelling against primarily, given that  "wealth" and "establishment" are almost synonymous here. 

[Pyraxis]

He plans to repeal the executive order of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act. That act was a huge mistake and sent a message the US has opened its arms to Central American children. This message has caused an alarming influx of unescorted children crossing the boarders, as well as created a market in child trafficking to get them here. It's a crisis and should be addressed.

Disagree. I looked up the act and it applies only to those who were already in the USA on June 15, 2012. It says nothing about how children who arrive after that date will be treated. If extending some mercy to illegal children has come before an increase in child trafficking, I don't think the answer is to deal more harshly with children who are already there. They are still individuals who mostly have no choice in their situation and shouldn't be punished for the crimes of other adult criminals.

[Jack]

He plans to repeal the executive order of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act. That act was a huge mistake and sent a message the US has opened its arms to Central American children. This message has caused an alarming influx of unescorted children crossing the boarders, as well as created a market in child trafficking to get them here. It's a crisis and should be addressed.

Disagree. I looked up the act and it applies only to those who were already in the USA on June 15, 2012. It says nothing about how children who arrive after that date will be treated. If extending some mercy to illegal children has come before an increase in child trafficking, I don't think the answer is to deal more harshly with children who are already there. They are still individuals who mostly have no choice in their situation and shouldn't be punished for the crimes of other adult criminals.

What the act says and how it's been interpreted by Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador are two different things. Two months ago the state department approved to give mexico 75 million dollars to strengthen their southern border.

[Pyraxis]

Definitely they're two different things. That doesn't mean the act was a mistake.

Not sure what the state department helping Mexico fund their southern border has to do with it either.

[Jack]

Definitely they're two different things. That doesn't mean the act was a mistake.

Not sure what the state department helping Mexico fund their southern border has to do with it either.

When actions create bigger problems than they solve, then they're mistakes. The state department is throwing money at the Mexican border to try to stop them there.

[Pyraxis]

I know that under the law, non-citizens are considered non-people, undeserving of basic human rights, but from an ethical standpoint I think that's heinous. Especially when innocents are involved.

Throwing money at the Mexican border may be a mistake, because it seems likely to get lost in corruption. But the original act was not. Providing a legal path for undocumented immigrant children to work prevents them from becoming criminals within the USA borders. Who's to say that it caused more criminal activity than it prevented if that's taken into consideration? Besides, if there is going to be criminal activity, better that it happens outside the border than inside.

[Jack]

I know that under the law, non-citizens are considered non-people, undeserving of basic human rights, but from an ethical standpoint I think that's heinous. Especially when innocents are involved.

Throwing money at the Mexican border may be a mistake, because it seems likely to get lost in corruption. But the original act was not. Providing a legal path for undocumented immigrant children to work prevents them from becoming criminals within the USA borders. Who's to say that it caused more criminal activity than it prevented if that's taken into consideration? Besides, if there is going to be criminal activity, better that it happens outside the border than inside.

That's a valid point, though doesn't negate all the children now in US government care, so the problem isn't only trafficking crime. Though okay, will discuss the act without pointing to the resulting problems. Will talk about crime. All of the potential recipients are of adult age, and the ones who qualified have already reaped the benefit of receiving renewable work visas. If the act were appealed, what they would lose is the exemption from deportation. In past research of crime stats, have found legal non-citizens to be a very low crime demographic because they want to stay, and if they do commit a crime deportation laws make them much less likely to be revolving door criminals in the US penal system than US citizens. The risk of deportation is a deterrent for crime.

[Jack]

I know that under the law, non-citizens are considered non-people, undeserving of basic human rights, but from an ethical standpoint I think that's heinous. Especially when innocents are involved.

Wasn't really sure how to respond to this. Understand legal non-citizens have the same protections of basic human rights under the law as citizens, but wasn't sure how that extended to illegal immigrants. In 1985 UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was extended to include non-citizens including undocumented non-citizens. Though the US has stepped on UN toes in finding a human rights loophole in regard to people under US jurisdiction outside of US territories, and there are no doubt instances of individual failures within the system. Still, within the confines of the US, that ethical standpoint is safe. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/studyguides/noncitizens.html

[Gopher Gary]

Right, who the US elects doesn't affect the UK at all   

Does UK membership not affect other countries of the EU?

Haha, just stay out of our politics you cunt.  Go and sort your own country out.

I thought he only meant Odeon. 

[odeon]

How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.

Let's talk about Donald.   Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?

Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?

Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.

They'll deny everything. They always do. It's how people like Trump get elected in the first place.

[Gopher Gary]

They'll deny everything. They always do. It's how people like Trump get elected in the first place.

Who are you talking about? 

[FourAceDeal]

How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.

Let's talk about Donald.   Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?

Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?

Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.

They'll deny everything. They always do. It's how people like Trump get elected in the first place.

They can't quite bring themselves to openly admit that they agree with the racism/sexism/misogyny and that's why Trump's OK for them.  So they make excuses for it.

It's like stepping back into the 1960s.

[Al Swearegen]

How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.

Let's talk about Donald.   Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?

Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?

Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.

They'll deny everything. They always do. It's how people like Trump get elected in the first place.

They can't quite bring themselves to openly admit that they agree with the racism/sexism/misogyny and that's why Trump's OK for them.  So they make excuses for it.

It's like stepping back into the 1960s.

Its awesome that you know the mind of complete strangers better than they know them, themselves. 

Its almost like you are completely full of shit.

Almost like this is just you using your faux moral / intellectual superiority as a lubricant for your ego stroking. Its a form of masturbation and purely for your own satisfaction.

The truth is the things you disagree with or dislike dont become bigotry just because you are opposed to it. Same with calling people bigots.

Its stupid and morally challenged....ironically