2020 General Elections

No need to be triggered over a simple conversation.

You said it rose because of the "hypocrisy" which the issue exposed. 

Let me repost exactly what you said:

Important part bolded for emphasis. If you meant something other than what you said, okay. But that's what you said.

As for "abolish ICE", you're grossly oversimplifying the candidates stances. Booker dodged the question, which means he probably wouldn't. And Warren, at least, wants to replace it with... er, something (https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/30/politics/elizabeth-warren-ice-immigration-protests/index.html). Which technically, yes, abolishes ICE. But replacing something is different from just getting rid of something and replacing it with nothing, which seems to be the idea most people have of abolishing it.

My point on highlighting hypocrisy is Dems continue to push the family seperations issue to signal virtue, meanwhile turning around and pushing policy(even moderate catch and release policy) that incentivizes illegal immigrants to bring their children along. 

Its no secret that a large portion of migrant children don't survive that journey. Its no secret that a majority of those children, particularly female children and teens, are raped, sexually assaulted, etc. on that journey. 

Thus the whole, "omg think of the children" is fake AF. If the children were the primary concern they'd be agreeing with deincentivizing illegal immigration by any reasonable means necessary(family seperations excluded). The end of some children getting a better life doesnt justify the means of thousands to tens of thousands of those kids dying along the way. And more that are raped, abused, or assaulted. 

That shit feeds the trafficking industry on top of that. Yes, how virtuous and moral, advocating policy that would feed human trafficking 🤔

Now do you get why I'm saying it's hypocritical? I agree that family seperations were reprehensible. The alternative being pushed by Dems is far moreso reprehensible. Beautiful thing though, family seperations were done away with by EO... So beyond a few hundred kids whose parents aren't in the country anymore, quite a few of which were voluntarily abandoned, the issue is resolved. 

I'm sorry though, i cant see the morality in incentivizing child negligence and extreme endangerment. That shit gets ur kid taken away for anyone, yet we are supposed to pity these parents who make the choice? No, sorry, that's some perverted values right there

The hypocrisy it highlighted was that Dems weren't being moral either. You can, imagine this, not like family seperations, but also see that Dem policy would be far more harmful to those children they claim to care so much about. 

88% of people disapproved child seperations, that should've been a huge blow. It wasn't, it should tell you that the reaction to it and the advocacy it started wasn't reacted to kindly either. Especially since immigration is one of the most important issues to voters right now last I heard 🤔. That and the economy

Lol, they're coming here for safety.... 😂😂😂

No they're coming here for free shit. As Grey pointed out there is a slew of safe countries along the way, but they insist upon here. Should tell  you "safety" isnt what they are after. 

Good on you being willing to put a child in that kind of exigent danger. Might I suggest contacting CPS and letting them know of this heartfelt and believed stance? See how well that flies over once they hear you see no issue in doing that 😂😂

And replace ICE with? An agency that has to follow catch and release policy? Again, yes, lets incentivize illegal immigration. Cause the ends justify the means right? Right?!

Ah, yes, parents put themselves and their children at risk because they want "free stuff". Reminds me of how popular a game Russian roulette is; hundreds of my friends died and hundreds of thousands of Americans across the country and a billion people across the globe and quintillions across the universe and octillions across the multiverse died because they wanted "free stuff" and pulled the trigger one too many times. Yes, we love Russian roulette, don't we? Gotta have our "free stuff" no matter the risks, right? Either you're overstating this drastically or there's a lot more bank robbers in the US than I remember.

The GPI is a good source, but you're using it in a misleading way. I'd say dishonest, but I think you just looked at it, thought, "huh, that fits my narrative", and didn't actually check what the site was. Here is a list of the factors that the US, rank 121, ranks especially badly on that causes it to be shown as not peaceful: incarceration, nuclear and heavy weapons, weapons exports, external conflicts fought. Not great, but not something that makes the US bad to live in (except the incarceration). Let's compare that to Peru, rank 74. Perceptions of criminality 4/5 (higher is worse, the US is 3/5), violent demonstrations 4/5 (US 2/5), homicide 3.3/5 (US 2.7), violent crime 3/5 (the US is 1/5). Or Argentina, rank 66. Perceptions of criminality 4/5, security officers & police 5/5, homicide 3.1/5, violent demonstrations and violent crime both 3/5. You get the idea. Only Chile approaches the US. And the GPI doesn't consider the economic situation of each country.

US isnt even on the list, oh look though, Chile is! Why are they not fleeing to Chile? Its far safer than the US?

"It also doesn't factor in economic situation" 

Or Social programs and the access to them 😏. Or that illegal immigrants abuse TF out of the medical care system by taking advantage of the fact that they can't refuse treatment. Funny, between a choice of a country that's safer, and the one that offers more social programs even to immigrants, and easy access to medical care that can't be denied, wonder why they could possibly be choosing the latter 🤔

As far as incentivization goes, given that for all the Trump admin's policies the number of people crossing the border is the same, "incentives" is probably the wrong way of addressing the issue; the better path is comprehensive reform which would make legal immigration far easier and far more easily regulated, while making illegal immigration harder.

Should I say, isnt even in the top 30, but Chile is! Again, if safety is the concern, why are they not flocking to Chile? 

Might it be because of *gasp* the almighty dollar? And the social programs and benefits the US offers? Nahhhh, couldnt have anything to do with that 

"the number of people crossing the border is the same"

Lol, Trump has ramped up border control and in 2017 apprehensions dropped by half. HALF, in a year where border control was being heavily enforced and prosecuted. But no no, its having no effect on deincentivizing people from coming here

https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2018-03-13/fewer-crossing-border-fewer-deported-immigration-under-trump

P.S. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

That comprehensive reform is going to have to come with ways that deincetivize illegal immigration. Like shit, i wanna see us increase work visas and education visas. It's not like im anti-immigration. Im anti people who cut in line and prevent people who have the respect to follow the laws and come legally from having their turn 

Hrmmmm, 400k to 300k 50% does not make. But even so, it dropped from like 460k to 330k from 14 to 15. So a 100k drop could easily be in the realm of "natural" fluctuation. 

Ok, well. Not sure what that says, that families are still coming knowing full well we're gonna intake, detain, and deport a majority of the time. Like i said, Chile is safer, and for awhile Chile was quite welcoming to migrants. 

Perhaps their recent shift towards a more hardline immigration policy might have to do with these rising numbers. Chiles turning them away, they come here. 

We'll always get Mexican immigrants in droves just cause of vicinity 🤔. But that's vastly economic migrancy. 

And that still fails to establish why the US should be the ones having to foot that burden. Especially when it comes with remittances that send money out of our economy, into others. Not terrible, but when it starts getting up to the tune of say 27billion to Mexico, we can't really be too surprised that income inequality in the US is rising. Money that would be going to citizen laborers, gets sent out. This only hurts working class americans. Upper middle and upper class aren't gonna be too damaged by that money spent on laborer positions, leaving. Especially if it goes hand in hand with depressing wages in general due to increased demand to low skilled positions and a lowering supply of those jobs. 

This whole stance of the world first, America second is farcical. The rest of the world doesnt operate that way, and the more we do, the more we lose. 🤔

Trump will never be re-elected. 

Why do you think he is "winning" on foreign policy?

>South Korea is actually denuclearizing

>The EU has agreed in principle to zero-tariff zero-subsidy trade

>Also in that same deal the EU has agreed to route all future purchasing of natural gas, and some current, through us. Something the EU purchases predominantly from Russia. This is a huge blow to Russias influence in the EU, and their economy. It will weaken their position quite a bit in any negotiations. 

>China is losing. They are running out of soybeans and cant find anyone else to buy from. Meanwhile, the EU again, agreed to replace this loss of purchase from China. How long do you think its gonna be before Jingping comes to the table cause they're running low on food?  I would bet not too long considering we account for 40% of their soybean imports and they rely pretty heavily on soybeans for food to eat such as tofu 🤔

 Hes slam dunking on foreign policy, like no joke. I had zero issues lauding Obama for ramping up oil production to squeeze OPEC. I'm gonna have zero issues lauding Trump for sticking it to our geopolitical foes, and getting at least one of our allies so far to come to the table on a trade deal thats been slow-cooking in the burner as the ultimate goal of US trade since the 50's(The Global-Liberal Agenda). Our allies know this, they were all for the vision too, until they started living high off the hog on favorable trade policies intended to help them *until* they were up to snuff on pushing the pedal to the floor on free trade. 

Wrong.

1. South Korea's nuclearization was never at issue. North Korea's was, and they are not disarming in any respect.

2. The EU has expressed "talk" and nothing more, which in the end will not change the status quo.

3. China is not losing; they are expanding faster than ever in Africa and South Asia, to the exclusion of the US.

Every part of what you said is wrong. 

I get hot and bothered from the first part, the second is like, being told as a kid you're gonna get the new game system thats come out. But instead of the big ticket game, you get like, Mario and Sonic at the Olympics. By no means a bad game, but its no Zelda or Mario 😥

1. Ok so i said South instead of North. Whew lad, you got what I meant. 

2. You do realize agreed to in principle means the general terms are agreed to? Like, they're on board with zero-tariff, zero-subsidy. They laid everything out on the table and went, "let's do this". That's not an official agreement, but that means a hell of alot. You can view it pessimistically if you want, I see it as a massive step in the right direction. 

3. China is losing in the trade war. Let them expand into Africa. They'll get the hate for the exploitation. South Asia? Yeah, China has been getting cheeky with the South China Sea in trying to establish control so they can eventually try to seize control of the vital trade route located there. 

I'll be concerned when they're sporting more than a single Soviet Era Carrier. Tell me, how well do you think the upcoming population growth issues brought by the One Child Policy are going to go over for China economically? It's already only at .5% and it's not going to get better. 

Population growth of course being one if the primary factors in....economic growth 🤔. 

China's about to run head first into a brick wall created by its own population control attempt. Grats, it worked, but too well. 

As for the Carriers, last I checked, one soviet Era Carrier, and one modern one(similar to the Nimitz Class, which is already in the process of being phased out by the US Navy) being developed to be finished at some point in the future. That doesn't really scream "naval prowress". 

Like, 19(10 Nimitz class, 9 others that would classify as AC's in other navies, but we dont cause they're like, just so much smaller 😂 )>2... I'll take those odds 😂

Yeah, little fun fact there. The US Navy only has 10 ships it classifies as an aircraft carrier(Nimitz class). But 9 other "Wasp" class ships that we don't count as carriers. Despite being 45k ton, aircraft carrying, warships 😂. Just not big enough i guess 😂😂

Can just imagine the shit talking with that 😂

"Hey, the ship I command has aircraft too!"

"Shut up Johnson, you have a small ship, get over it!"

"But its not the size of the ship!"

"Your wife tell you that one?" 

😂😂

"But guys! My ship has aircraft too!"

"Be quiet Johnson, you have a small ship, get over it"

"But it's not the size of the ship its-"

"Your wife tell you that one?" 

😂😂😂😂

Oh shit double post, my b, don't know why it wasnt showing up at first 😐

Your country is founded on illegal immigration. Just sayin'

Im sorry, what set of laws was being violated at the time again? Viewing history through the lens of present conditions is a rather obtuse lens to view history through, and ignores that in the future, much of what is thought today, as any other point in history, will be viewed as ignorant and naive. 

Particularly opinions that amount to disgenuine revisionism such as the one you espoused

But by all means, if you truly think that's the case. Then perhaps a debate? 

Resolved: The US was founded on illegal immigration

I'm sure there's no way you'll be easily proven wrong with that resolution 😏

So you claim your peoples invasion of america was legal? Double standards are so easy to maintain, aren't they?

Bump