Should Trump supporters be banned from this forum?

Should Trump supporters be banned from this forum?


  • Total voters
    100
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anarchist? If so, good, then we agree that anarchists and libertarians are not the same thing.

No, I don't call myself an anarchist either. And it makes no difference to me if anarchists and libertarians are the same thing or not.

I guess if you want to label me, just call me a traditional conservative.
 
Congrats, you and Erowe don't believe in the concept of nations. That makes you tools of the one-worlders. It's one of the problems in this so-called movement.

What if one doesn't believe in the concept of nations or world government?
 
This is a divide and conquer tactic. But it's more than that. This whole thing is a smokescreen to cover the fact that this economy has been micromismanaged to death.

It is.

The xenophobes undoubtedly approve. But please, God, somebody tell Rand Paul that the vast majority of the people recently turning xenophobic just want jobs, and the reason they don't have them isn't because of this ten or twenty or even thirty million--otherwise known as three or four or five percent of the people within these borders. Hate to quote Slick Willie, but the fact is, 'It's the economy, stupid!' And the way to trump this distraction is to say flat out that Rand Paul will give us the freedom to fix this economy, and fix it so well that we'll be begging for immigrants again before we know it.
 
This is a divide and conquer tactic. But it's more than that. This whole thing is a smokescreen to cover the fact that this economy has been micromismanaged to death.

It is.

The xenophobes undoubtedly approve. But please, God, somebody tell Rand Paul that the vast majority of the people recently turning xenophobic just want jobs, and the reason they don't have them isn't because of this ten or twenty or even thirty million--otherwise known as three or four or five percent of the people within these borders. Hate to quote Slick Willie, but the fact is, 'It's the economy, stupid!' And the way to trump this distraction is to say flat out that Rand Paul will give us the freedom to fix this economy, and fix it so well that we'll be begging for immigrants again before we know it.

There is nothing xenophobic about wanting less dependents. Ron has preached this ad nauseum.
 
No, I don't call myself an anarchist either. And it makes no difference to me if anarchists and libertarians are the same thing or not.

I guess if you want to label me, just call me a traditional conservative.

Nah, you most certainly aren't that. Traditional conservatives value limited government, amongst other things.
 
This is a divide and conquer tactic. But it's more than that. This whole thing is a smokescreen to cover the fact that this economy has been micromismanaged to death.

It is.

The xenophobes undoubtedly approve. But please, God, somebody tell Rand Paul that the vast majority of the people recently turning xenophobic just want jobs, and the reason they don't have them isn't because of this ten or twenty or even thirty million--otherwise known as three or four or five percent of the people within these borders. Hate to quote Slick Willie, but the fact is, 'It's the economy, stupid!' And the way to trump this distraction is to say flat out that Rand Paul will give us the freedom to fix this economy, and fix it so well that we'll be begging for immigrants again before we know it.

That's bullshit, acptulsa. No one has a fear of people from other countries. What many of us are sick and tired of, however, are the people who do not obey our immigration laws; deciding instead to overrun our borders. No nation can exist like that. Which is the purpose of the elite encouraging it.
 
Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration. If the United States lacked people with particular skills, then the Founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad. But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.

In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/
 
That's bullshit, acptulsa. No one has a fear of people from other countries. What many of us are sick and tired of, however, are the people who do not obey our immigration laws; deciding instead to overrun our borders. No nation can exist like that. Which is the purpose of the elite encouraging it.

Oh, so if we changed the laws so that the immigration that is not legal now were to be legal such that these people wouldn't be breaking laws any more, you'd be for it?
 
You're welcome to be a skeptic of immigration. Just like drugs and every other issue, we can have different views, but keep the government out of it.

Overwhelming, mass immigration, you betcha. Letting people flood our borders as they have been, gives absolutely no chance of them assimilating into our culture and principles. Instead what happens is that they attempt to change us into what they came from.

Apparently, you didn't take the time to read the article. Figures.

Oh, so if we changed the laws so that the immigration that is not legal now were to be legal such that these people wouldn't be breaking laws any more, you'd be for it?

Again, immigration was limited so that those immigrating would not be a burden on our country, they wanted to become AMERICANS and that they would be able to assimilate into our culture/principles.
 
There is nothing xenophobic about wanting less dependents. Ron has preached this ad nauseum.

Rand Paul also preaches that. If you want to get rid of the cockroaches in your house, you don't try in vain to surround the whole foundation in boric acid. You get your kitchen so clean that they starve.

Oh, so if we changed the laws so that the immigration that is not legal now were to be legal such that these people wouldn't be breaking laws any more, you'd be for it?

This nation not only survived, but thrived, at a time when we were advertising abroad for immigrants. Grew into a world superpower on that, in fact.

Clearly we were doing something right then that we are not doing right now. I'm not saying the unlimited immigration was that thing. I don't think it was. I think it was the fact that we didn't regulate our startup businesses right back out of business.

'It's the economy, stupid!'
 
Rand Paul also preaches that. If you want to get rid of the cockroaches in your house, you don't try in vain to surround the whole foundation in boric acid. You get your kitchen so clean that they starve.
[/B]'

When the law specifically says that you can't clean the kitchen, you are out of luck.
 
Again, immigration was limited so that those immigrating would not be a burden on our country, they wanted to become AMERICANS and that they would be able to assimilate into our culture/principles.

If that's your position, then stop lying and claiming that it's not immigration that you oppose, but only illegal immigration.

What you oppose is the immigration itself, which is why you are against legalizing it.
 
Last edited:
When the law specifically says that you can't clean the kitchen, you are out of luck.

Under that circumstance, when you look for what law to change, you change that one.

If the problem is the existence of some big-government program, then the legislation to fix it is legislation that shrinks that existing big-government program, not legislation that grows some other big-government program, like anti-immigration laws, designed to fix the problems of the first one.

That constant cycle of government-based problems coming from government-based solutions to government-based problems is what got us here.
 
Under that circumstance, when you look for what law to change, you change that one.

If the problem is the existence of some big-government program, then the legislation to fix it is legislation that shrinks that existing big-government program, not legislation that grows some other big-government program, like anti-immigration laws, designed to fix the problems of the first one.

That constant cycle of government-based problems coming from government-based solutions to government-based problems is what got us here.

Yes. But it will work this time.
 
No, but you constantly try to lead readers away from Ron and Rand's stances, while claiming to support them. Verses someone who says something positive about Trump because of Trump's stance on an issue.

Which one is more damaging? I say someone like you.

^This needed to be repeated.

I do not see the few people here saying something positive about Trump's policies promoting their own policies by falsely representing them as Rand and Ron's polices.

For all intents and purposes, Ron and Rand are for open borders.

We can have nations without having regimes that regulate immigration. Nations have existed for thousands of years. Your support for a central manager controlling America's demographics is much closer to one-world-government than what I support.

I don't think immigration should be illegal.

I have not seen any evidence that Ron and Rand are being dishonest with their immigration platform as it would appear you and erowe1 are claiming.

If either of you have any evidence that Ron and Rand are being dishonest with their publicly released platforms to the point they desire complete open borders and dissolution of the US as a country then make your case.

I don't think they're being dishonest.
 
Should Trump supporters be banned?

78% of Trump supporters say no. :p
 
Overwhelming, mass immigration, you betcha. Letting people flood our borders as they have been, gives absolutely no chance of them assimilating into our culture and principles.

What is "our culture"? And why is it any of the government's business? Sorry, but if you don't like the way my family has its Sunday dinner at lunch time because that's not the same culture as you, tough. I'll let you live according to your culture and you should let me live according to mine. Using the government to regulate culture is immoral.

Again, immigration was limited so that those immigrating would not be a burden on our country, they wanted to become AMERICANS and that they would be able to assimilate into our culture/principles.
You don't need to keep repeating it. Just don't lie and say that you're not against immigration but only against illegal immigration.

There's that "our culture" line again. Such arrogant elitism.
 
rad writes: "....make out while listening to dubstep, and spread the word of Rand Paul!"

:)

....sounds great!...just please inform people that rand is a conservative republican...please...hasn't the word 'libertarian' been shat upon enough already?...
Yeah we can have a wet t-shirt contest where the contestants wear "Rand is the #1 Conservative Republican" on them. That should get the point across! I think the term libertarian has been destroyed but we can try! I say we go back to the term classical liberalism. Mises wrote a book on it. There are just so many things we could do! We could create an effigy of Trump and make a video of it being burnt to a crisp like burning man. We could try voodoo with Trump looking Chucky dolls and pins. It could be a social media game. Who knows someone might have the lucky touch! We could play Charlie Charlie pencil game and see who Charlie thinks will win the presidency. See which positions on the issues is best to have in order to win. We could have a winter sledding competition. The winner gets a date with the Rand Paul girl (who doesn't know it yet). We could have ball room dancing for old folks playing those old swinging songs of yesteryear.

We could come up with some slogans that stay in the head like a song and it is easy to say so people can think they know something. Remember Hermain Cain and his 999 plan. It just 9 9 9. He said it in such a suave way. Where are Rand's suave, easy to parrot sayings? People we have work to do! Perhaps Rand has something that could be the 3-4-5 right triangle plan. Its just right! We all know it.

Oh yeah I found a helpful website to use to argue Rand's case on the Iran deal: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top