It's also an obvious truth that some Americans are Christian extremists, murderers, rapists, neonazis, and many other horrible things. His point was, though, that saying "some" illegal immigrants are good folk, when they're clearly by far in majority is quite xenophobic.

Xenophobic is defined as 'having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries.' Quite obviously this is not the case, I have already stated he supports high skilled foreign workers and also supports legal immigration. A xenophobic would not. The problem he has here isn't against people of other countries, its against people who come into the country illegally and also against the crime that such people bring.

And whats wrong with using 'some'?. I don't doubt that the majority of illegals are good folk, the word 'some' just suggests a plurality. You used the word 'some' when you describe particular Americans as Christian extremists, murderers etc, although peaceful folk are obviously the far in majority too.

I don't see how it's taken out of context. He's asking them to beat up folk who want to heckle him - unless throwing a tomato will somehow critically injure him, and it really is in self-defence.

Your comment shows your obvious bias, that you are more interested in criticising Trump instead of the anti-Trump protestors. You focus not on the provacation, but the response. If you go into an arena of peaceful political discussion and you throw a tomato at someone, you don't really deserve much sympathy. Trump doesn't advocate violence against people who disagree with him, his rhetoric is against people that make an active attempt to disrupt a private and peaceful political rally. Protestors actively disturbing peaceful rallies and stopping free, peaceful speech is the problem.

Жұқтыру just got accused of being a communist... Really, you trump supporters are really bad at arguing:

No I accused him of being a "rabid globalist". You two really need to learn how to read. Second, I'm not a Trump supporter so avoid using that straw-man to bolster your argument.

Жұқтыру just got accused of being a communist... Really, you trump supporters are really bad at arguing:

And you haven't even responded to my argument at all...

Your line of thinking is dangerous if not completely unreasonable. You're asking the US 1) not to enforce our immigration laws 2) give illegal immigrants special treatment even though they've broken the law 3) to risk American security by having open borders 4) to call the rule of law an "awful thing".

1/3) Yes, I absolutely support open borders. In an ideal world, we would all live without countries or polities, but that's far from going to happen. And sure, someone can bring in a gun and shoot some folk (I don't know why they would specifically go to America, but whatever), but someone can also put a video online, an idea. Mashriqar propoganda, for example. And as Stalin said, "An idea is much more dangerous than a gun. Why should I give my folk ideas if I'm against giving them guns?".

2/4) I'm against these laws.

About 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. Should we let every single one of them into America?

Yes. Immigration in bulk, good news.

How much wage competition should we force onto Americans?

I just now told you, the point isn't winning. Americans need to get over their lazy sofas and work for less, if they want to earn money. Otherwise might as well set up 50,000$/year minimum wage and illegalise firing folk. It's competition which comes of freedom which drives it all. Jobs are never stolen from Americans by Mexicans or anybody else. Americans are just too spoiled to compete as well as Mexicans or other folk.

Dude do you not understand the idea of national sovereignty?

I understand it. It's an awful, counter-productive system that all countries will keep on saying it is good since that is what is good for the oligarchies running these countries. I would greatly support the EU project, were it not for its ridiculous desks and socialism. Schengen zone is a wonderful thing.

I am not a communist and nor am I rabid globalist like you are.

I do not think I am communit, not rabid, but yes, I am a globalist. I am very anti-patriotism/nationalism. Tell me, how many more wars and folk killed have been started by nationalism than globalism? How much more centrist teaching has come of patriotism, to the point of forgetting the second bloodiest war in the last 200 years is not the First World War? And tell me, why does cultural supremacy and nationalism come hand-in-hand?

You essentially want American policy to redistribute wealth worldwide. I.e. make American poorer to make the world richer.

No Americans will be made poorer. I am for giving folk as many opportunities as possible, though. If one fellow can't keep up with another, that's capitalism, for you.

That's insane. I wouldn't tell the UK, Russia, China, India, or any other country to subvert and sabotage their own economies to help the world and neither should the US.

What is a government? Why were governments founded? They were founded to help folk. That's all there is to it (also, it doesn't "subvert and sabotage" their economies).

You've convinced me you have a miscommunication problem. I said they would get all the rights as citizens, including the right to a fair trial. The only thing they wouldn't get is the right to vote. How is that a violation of human rights??!!!

The only thing he is denying them is voting, unless you're saying citizens don't get a trial. Work on reading comprehension.

I wasn't talking about legal immigrants, so you both can curb your hostility. Would illegal immigrants "on the path" to legalisation and illegal immigrants "on the path" to being deported get their human rights? It sounds like you are not for it (note, I wasn't sure of your meaning, that's why I said "it sounds like" - meantime, you go barging in claiming as if I say you are for committing human rights abuses).

Edited 3/14/2016 00:30:04

Xenophobic is defined as 'having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries.' Quite obviously this is not the case, I have already stated he supports high skilled foreign workers and also supports legal immigration. A xenophobic would not. The problem he has here isn't against people of other countries, its against people who come into the country illegally and also against the crime that such people bring.

And whats wrong with using 'some'?. I don't doubt that the majority of illegals are good folk, the word 'some' just suggests a plurality. You used the word 'some' when you describe particular Americans as Christian extremists, murderers etc, although peaceful folk are obviously the far in majority too.

He is implifying that the majority of Mexicans are these crimers. Also, my example was wrong, I mixed myself up. Better:

"Americans are neonazis, Christian extremists, muderders, and some, I suppose, are good folk. I'm friends with many Americans."

Your comment shows your obvious bias, that you are more interested in criticising Trump instead of the anti-Trump protestors. You focus not on the provacation, but the response. If you go into an arena of peaceful political discussion and you throw a tomato at someone, you don't really deserve much sympathy.

I don't see how you're defending this. I'm somehow biased since I don't think folk who throw potatoes should be stoned? I'm not for throwing tomatoes in such a setting, but I'm definitely not for stoning folk. But you are?

Protestors actively disturbing peaceful rallies and stopping free, peaceful speech is the problem.

Protesting is the absolute purest form of free speech there is. Silencing protestors, as you say for, is cutting away free speech. What if I said we need to arrest Donald Trump since he has said some bad things about Obama? In Belarus, it is to arrest somebody if they insult the president, be lucky it's not done as policy in America.

No I accused him of being a "rabid globalist". You two really need to learn how to read.

Maybe you should learn how to write. I am not a communist and nor am I rabid globalist like you are.. Seeing this as implying me as communist is definitely a valid outlook (maybe I'm wrong, though, I'm not native English nor is TeamGuns, so right me, then).

@Pulsey, I believe Жұқтыру answered that for me. Plus, those are long texts needed to be writen everytime you say something wrong, I'm glad someone is helping me at it.


@[AOE] JaiBharat909

I am not a communist and nor am I rabid globalist like you are.

=> http://snag.gy/CCMIt.jpg

No I accused him of being a "rabid globalist". You two really need to learn how to read. Second, I'm not a Trump supporter so avoid using that straw-man to bolster your argument.

Funny how you you can lie about having called him a communist, when the comment with you calling him one is still there...

Edited 3/14/2016 00:42:50

How is X a commie for supporting the free market?

About 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. Should we let every single one of them into America?

Yes. Immigration in bulk, good news.

Arguments like this are why Trump is winning in America.

Tell me, how many more wars and folk killed have been started by nationalism than globalism?

Its not nationalistic to want your laws to be followed or for immigrants to come into your country legally. If that is the threshold for nationalism than refusing to drink any soft drink except Coca Cola should be labeled fascistic.

Jobs are never stolen from Americans by Mexicans or anybody else. Americans are just too spoiled to compete as well as Mexicans or other folk.

How is it fair if these people are coming in illegally?

What is a government? Why were governments founded? They were founded to help folk. That's all there is to it (also, it doesn't "subvert and sabotage" their economies).

Governments weren't founded to protect folk. They were founded to establish order. Countries work for their own self interest. You talk about competition so much but you don't realize that it is international competition between countries working for themselves that drives change, innovation, and economic growth.

Would illegal immigrants "on the path" to legalisation and illegal immigrants "on the path" to being deported get their human rights?

This is a stupid question. Both of them already do. Illegal aliens that are arrested and sentenced for deporation by the federal government get due process and a day in court. Legal immigrants "on the path" to citizenship would get due process if they were residing in the US. If these legal immigrants were still waiting for citizenship (say they are applying from a foreign country) they would get the due process given to them in their native country.

Funny how you you can lie about having called him a communist, when the comment with you calling him one is still there...

There were two parts to the sentence. One part said I am not a communist. Second part said I am not a rabid globalist like you are. The "like you are" referred only to the second quality of him being a rabid globalist.

How is X a commie for supporting the free market?

He's not. He's said multiple times that he likes competition. However he does believe in world wide wealth distribution...so I'm not sure what to call that (quasi-globalist redistributism??).

Edited 3/14/2016 00:46:21

@Pulsey, I believe Жұқтыру answered that for me. Plus, those are long texts needed to be writen everytime you say something wrong, I'm glad someone is helping me at it.

He only answered half my post. But if you don't want to be embarrassed like last time, I understand. However, don't go around labelling people bad at arguing when all you do is just ignore good arguments, and cherry pick other ones. I wouldn't have started this if you didn't say that.

Edited 3/14/2016 00:45:16

Defending wealth distribution doesn't make you a communist nor a socialist for instance. You need more to be called socialist, and calling someone communist in this case is just ignorance about the word communism.

Hmmmm, I hate to do it, but I'll read again that long post so I can destroy you... I really thought Жұқтыру answering it would be enough for you. Too bad ye like my attention :(

Edited 3/14/2016 00:47:43

Wasn't much destroying when all you could do last time was throw silly, spelling mistakes ridden, one-liners at me, was it? ;)

Arguments like this are why Trump is winning in America.

Arguments like this^ is Trump fuel.

Its not nationalistic to want your laws to be followed or for immigrants to come into your country legally. If that is the threshold for nationalism than refusing to drink any soft drink except Coca Cola should be labeled fascistic.

I'm not really advocating for breaking any laws, just ridding them. Also, yes, you are probably a patriot if you drink only American sodas since they are American.

How is it fair if these people are coming in illegally?

How they come in is totally irrelevant. The American and the Mexican, with the same qualifications, are both given a job offer. The Mexican wins, fairly (unless it was something like, "positive action" - where minority skinhues get more jobs - I'm very against, that, though).

Governments weren't founded to protect folk. They were founded to establish order.

I only said they were founded to help folk. As a mean to an ends. Probably the first ones were made for order and to shield folk.

Countries work for their own self interest. You talk about competition so much but you don't realize that it is international competition between countries working for themselves that drives change, innovation, and economic growth.

I wouldn't say international - just worldwide. With access to more competition, rather than say, taxes on foreign goods, that is what will drive "change, innovation, and economic growth". Furthermore, that's not what's important. Everyone knows that West German "efficiency socialism" is what really makes economies, "change, innovation, and economic growth". But who cares, just as long as we live a good life, I'm fine with not changing, innovating, or growing.

This is a stupid question. Both of them already do. Illegal aliens that are arrested and sentenced for deporation by the federal government get due process and a day in court. Legal immigrants "on the path" to citizenship would get due process if they were residing in the US. If these legal immigrants were still waiting for citizenship (say they are applying from a foreign country) they would get the due process given to them in their native country.

No question is stupid, so again, curb your hostility before I don't. Also, you were not clear, you said that legal immigrants would get all rights and human rights except voting, but said nothing of illegal immigrants.

There were two parts to the sentence. One part said I am not a communist. Second part said I am not a rabid globalist like you are. The "like you are" referred only to the second quality of him being a rabid globalist.

Ok, then why did you even talk about communism, then? It's irrelevant to your point if I'm not one.

He's not. He's said multiple times that he likes competition. However he does believe in world wide wealth distribution

Defending wealth distribution doesn't make you a communist nor a socialist for instance.

I am definitely not for wealth respreading, tell me how you think I am.

(Also, wealth respreading is practically the meaning of high socialism.)

Жұқтыру just got accused of being a communist... Really, you trump supporters are really bad at arguing:


It's funny how you just assume everyone here is a Trump supporter. Especially since Jai has gone out of his way SEVERAL times to say how much he doesn't like Trump.

It's typical, anyone who dares advocate for any action against illegal immigration is immediately a xenophopic, bigoted, Trump supporter.

- Step one: say something that is a total non-sense.
- Step two: when someone answer you with facts, keep denying what they say.
- Step three: when the argument is clearly lost, just attack personally the person in order to maker it's arguments non-valid, by calling her a communist or defender of ISIS.

Step one: Say something is total non-sense.
Step two: When someone answers you with facts, keep denying what they say.
Step three: When the argument is clearly lost, just attack the other person in order to make their arguments invalid, by calling them a xenophobe or a racist.

Really, it's the same rhetoric every time. Funny thing, most of these folks don't even know what xenophobia or racism really is, or they wouldn't call everyone racists when it's clearly not the case.

Wasn't much destroying when all you could do last time was throw silly, spelling mistakes ridden, one-liners at me, was it? ;)

Well, it wasn't really like that. Just a bunch of your trump minions friends come to protect you and insult me. But sure, convince yourself that you won that argument.

No. Its an obvious fact that some coming into the US through the Southern borders are dangerous people. Drug mules from Mexico are highly documented, for an example. If he was xenophobic he would be saying 'All foreigners are bad people, obviously the problem here isn't Mexicans, but the crime some of them bring in. Besides, Trump spoke out recently about accepting skilled foreign labour into the US, but of course you don't mention that.

- Some of the people who come are dangerous, but it's not close to be the majority like Trump implied. Plus this crime problem that come from the southern border enter in the major problem of the war on drugs really. There's drugs comming to the us ilegally because the US has a very bad drug policy. The hole war in Mexico is a consequence of american drug policies.
- About you saying Trump isn't xenophobic; Right, so if you say a black man is inferior, it's not racism because you said nothing about asians? Your argument here is just stupid lol.

No, but all that race baiting language from Sanders such as 'white people don't know what its like to live in a ghetto or be poor' has fed the BLM war rhetoric and made the current situation as it is. Of course he isn't the only one responsible. Besides, everyone was leaping on Trump to disavow David Duke, now nobody asks Sanders to disavow violent BLM protesters. No peaceful political discussion should be interrupted, whether from silent or violent protesting, no?

- I agree the words used by Sanders weren't the best for this moment, but the general idea is right, blacks do still suffer of racial discrimination in the america of today, and most whites will never know that in their lives.
- BLM is in my eyes just a consequence of the systematic racial discrimination in the US. It's not Sanders fault, as the movement was born out of the Ferguson events. Don't ask him to apologize for white cops killing black men, it's not his job.
- The right to protest is secured on the first amendment. Trump has the right to speak all the bullshit he wants, and anyone has the right to protest against it. The protests just escalated when supporters of both sides started to throw insults at each other. The police failed to prevent a violent outcome of the situation. But still, the protesters have the right to protest, the first amendment guarantee their right to do so. But I guess you Trump supporters just know the second amendment am I right?

It is absolutely hilarious, after our last discussion on abusing the context of quotes that you did it again.

- I am sorry if I don't know every quote of trump to the letter, but even with the exact quote what I said is still right as Жұқтыру said. The problem is that the hippotetical is really becoming the reality, and it's unacceptable to have a presidential candidate saying that.

"there was blood comming out of her, whatever"
How does that, in any way incite violence?

-It's incite misogyny and the superiority of men over women. As said before, it's unacceptable to have a presidential candidate saying this kind of things.

Edited 3/14/2016 01:05:31

I agree the words used by Sanders weren't the best for this moment, but the general idea is right, blacks do still suffer of racial discrimination in the america of today, and most whites will never know that in their lives.

Yeah, try telling it to these folk. I told them the valid basis behind "White privilege", that folk love folk that are like them, that look like them, so on, and since whiteskins are the majority, it's harder, for example, to get jobs if you are a minority skinhue. And then someone arrogantly says "there is no proven connection between hiring practices and skin hue" (and I show them a study of it, that did support it).

It's better if you're whiteskin in America, it's better if you're blackskin in Nigeria, denying this is ridiculous in my opinion.

@Eklipse {TJC}

I'm not sure if Jai is still against trump... I know he writed a few things against him, but then he started to defend more and more his rethoric. But again, maybe I'm wrong at this.

Really, it's the same rhetoric every time. Funny thing, most of these folks don't even know what xenophobia or racism really is, or they wouldn't call everyone racists when it's clearly not the case.

I believe that trump is xenophobic and a bit of a racist as well. His supporters are just pissed off at the system, but if you really believe mexicans are inferiors (aka most drug mules/rapists/thieves) and that muslims are all potential terrorists, I sure as hell will call you xenophobic and islamophobe, cause that's what you are.

[This last part isn't directed at anyone, before people start saying I insulted them]


@Жұқтыру

I think these folks will never admit there is a racial problem in the us, and that maybe, just maybe, BLM is born out of a legitimate problem.

Edited 3/14/2016 01:14:37

I believe that trump is xenophobic and a bit of a racist as well. His supporters are just pissed off at the system, but if you really believe mexicans are inferiors (aka most drug mules/rapists/thieves) and that muslims are all potential terrorists, I sure as hell will call you xenophobic and islamophobe, cause that's what you are.

I don't think he himself is - he just noticeably panders to those who are.

Well, again it's not the point if he's a racist or not really. The thing is that his image is the one of a xenophobic and islamophobic white rich man. Images are more important then individuals themselves.

Edited 3/14/2016 01:20:10

-It's incite misogyny and the superiority of men over women. As said before, it's unacceptable to have a presidential candidate saying this kind of things.

I like Donald Trump's lack of self-censor, but that should be irrelevant. Charisma should have nothing to do with it, only policy. And what you are saying, "inciting misogyny" and "the superiority of men over women" - that's stretching it. What it is, though, is quite rude and a cheap shot - insulting a woman over problems that only women have.

I'm not sure if Jai is still against trump... I know he writed a few things against him, but then he started to defend more and more his rethoric. But again, maybe I'm wrong at this.

Go and read these if you still aren't sure.

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/133891-8-reasons-vote-trump?Offset=0

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/139290-chris-christie-endorses-trump?Offset=20

And please specify what part of Trump's rhetoric am I defending.