Amnesty is logical, you can't deport en masse millions of people and it's better than keeping about ten million people as criminals.

Allow illegal immigrants to come clean and be punished with a nice fine.

That's only coddling more people to cross the border. Its an equivalent policy to Merkel and the EU declaring that anyone who reaches continental Europe, won't be deported. A

Amnesty and legalization is not going to stop illegal immigration, it will encourage it en masse. No country or empire has survived when its borders have collapsed, and right now the Southern Border is literally a welcome sign to all of Latin America.

Make it easy and more sensible for people who want to come over to come over, make it harsher for people who don't come over the legal way and give amnesty to those here. Plus it's not like every single person in Latin America wants to live in the US.

No just everyone who's poor.

We have to make the legal immigration system based on 1) Merit and 2) Skills. If people from foreign countries have skills we are severely lacking in (some STEM fields, medical professionals, engineers) we give them favorable status regardless of their country of origin. There's no need to let people immigrate who have no usable skills or skills that we already have a supply glut in.

Once again, pretty expected results, just like in NH.

Trump will win the nomination if it remains a 3 man (or more) race. If it boils down to just him VS Cruz or Rubio he will lose, I think. Trump has underperformed relative to poll numbers so far, and the percentage of Trump supporters haven't gone up for months, despite many candidates dropping out.

Clinton is a likelier nominee than Trump is, at the moment.

Edited 2/21/2016 07:03:37

Amnesty and legalization is not going to stop illegal immigration, it will encourage it en masse.

We have to make the legal immigration system based on 1) Merit and 2) Skills. If people from foreign countries have skills we are severely lacking in (some STEM fields, medical professionals, engineers) we give them favorable status regardless of their country of origin. There's no need to let people immigrate who have no usable skills or skills that we already have a supply glut in.

Very astute points. Immigration is great for America imo, but the people coming in need to be vetted, they need to have skills that are in shortage, they need to be able to speak English to assimilate to society, among other factors.

Wait, Rubio beat Cruz? I thought Cruz was the favourite in this one?

He's lying to millions of voters and promising everything that he knows he can't achieve. He's not going to build a wall, he's not going to deport illegal immigrants, he's not going to bring jobs back from China and Mexico, and he's definitely not going to appoint a Constitutional Originalist to the Supreme Court.

In 60 years the GOP has gone from Senator Taft and Governor Bricker to Bush and Trump. The party is an abject failure.

Yep. lol Took ya long enough. ;-)

^Wct read through all the Trump threads...this was my position since the beginning. You can ask anyone.

Yeah he hates Trump, and always has. Well maybe not when all Trump did was host shows and put his name on buildings, can't speak for him there, but during his run he hates him.

The party is an abject failure.

This has been your position all along? News to me. Just a thread or two ago you were claiming they were the bees' knees in terms of diversity.

Edited 2/22/2016 03:23:03

Its hard for me to pinpoint an exact year-date when the GOP went to hell and basically was taken over by moderates, centrists, and soft-democrats.

The nomination of Goldwater was a brief revolutionary reversal (a counter coup if you will), but the non-conservative wing effectively took over after Reagan's presidency and has continued to pollute the meaning of conservatism ever since. We had some solid conservatives along the way don't get me wrong - Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, John M. Ashbrook, and Henry Cabot Lodge Jr - but in most respects the Republican Party has been an abject failure in upholding conservative policies of the Old Right: namely non-interventionism, fiscal conservatism, economic nationalism, and anti-globalism.

Their level of diversity and their ability to enact conservative policies are two separate issues. One has no impact on the other.

If you're confused about the differences between the Old and New Right check this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Right_(United_States)

Edited 2/22/2016 03:34:46

Their level of diversity and their ability to enact conservative policies are two separate issues. One has no impact on the other.

The phrase 'abject failure' doesn't leave much wiggle room. It pretty much means 'complete failure in all regards'.

If you're confused about the differences between the Old and New Right check this link

I honestly don't give the slightest shit. It's all crap to me.

Edited 2/22/2016 03:56:56

The phrase 'abject failure' doesn't leave much wiggle room. It pretty much means 'complete failure in all regards'.

Well I don't consider promoting diversity part of the fundamental regards of a political party. A political party is supposed to come up with policies consistent to their ideological positions. I could give two cents if the party is all white or all black...what matters to me foremost is whether they are keeping their promises to voters. In that respect they are an abject failure and Trump represents the epitome of that. If they happen to be diverse and are becoming increasingly diverse, that's great news, but if it comes at the expense of them becoming more and more like Democrats then its useless to me.

I honestly don't give the slightest shit. It's all crap to me.

I thought you were a man of knowledge? Learn about it for your own personal growth and development if nothing else. I mean fascism is worse than crap to me, but I still read about it so I can understand the psychology and character of someone who would support such an ideology. Read it...you might be surprised by a thing or two. For example, the Old Right was actually considered party of the ideological left before the New Deal.

Edited 2/22/2016 04:05:56

I thought you were a man of knowledge? Learn about it for your own personal growth and development if nothing else.

What makes you think I don't know about them? I don't give the slightest shit about the difference between them because I *already know* that the differences are irrelevant from my perspective. Learning more nuances between this pile of feces and that pile of feces won't suddenly change my opinion that they are both piles of feces.

Learning more nuances between this pile of feces and that pile of feces won't suddenly change my opinion that they are both piles of feces.

Wow that's pretty closed minded for a progressive.

The point was not to radically alter your perspective, but to perhaps broaden or clarify that perspective. Anyway its your loss, not mine dude. Enjoy the echo chamber.

Learning more nuances between this pile of feces and that pile of feces won't suddenly change my opinion that they are both piles of feces.

Wow that's pretty closed minded for a progressive.

Hardly. And I'm not a 'progressive', whatever that means (hint: it's not very well defined).

Suppose there were two candidates running for an important public office. Both are fascists. One is a Mussolini-style fascist, the other is a neo-fascist. There are other candidates available who are obviously not fascists. Does it really matter the differences between these two candidates' fascism? Are you going to bother to waste your time studying these differences? Or are you just going to say, "I've got better things to do. They're both fascists, nobody should vote for either of them. They should vote for a non-fascist instead."

Enjoy the echo chamber.

Oh, the irony.

Edited 2/22/2016 04:23:23

And I'm not a 'progressive', whatever that means (hint: it's not very well defined).

Its broad, but it is extensively written about. Maybe not as much relative to other ideologies, but it is politically and historically defined. Read about it!! Maybe you'll learn something new ;)

Are you going to bother to waste your time studying these differences?

For historical or academic knowledge? Yes. I don't have to think twice about whether I am voting for Hillary or Bernie (hint its neither), because they're both social-democrats and nobody should vote for either of them. However, that doesn't mean I won't study the candidates, their positions, their voting history, etc, to get a better sense of them as a national leader. That's my fundamental duty as a citizen.

Its broad, but it is extensively written about. Maybe not as much relative to other ideologies, but it is politically and historically defined. Read about it!! Maybe you'll learn something new ;)

Jai, that only makes sense if I haven't already read about it. I have. I've debated so-called progressives. That's how I know it's not well defined.

For historical or academic knowledge? Yes. I don't have to think twice about whether I am voting for Hillary or Bernie (hint its neither), because they're both social-democrats and nobody should vote for either of them. However, that doesn't mean I won't study the candidates, their positions, their voting history, etc, to get a better sense of them as a national leader. That's my fundamental duty as a citizen.

You weren't suggesting to learn about A's Old-Rightism and B's New-Rightism, you were proposing to learn about the historical differences between Old-Rightism and New-Rightism. The latter is a waste of time, from my perspective.

BTW, when are you going to answer my question from https://www.warlight.net/Forum/136739-vote-bernie-2016?Offset=120:

Now I'll requote my second question to you. I hope you'll answer it; otherwise it's likely I'll quickly lose interest in answering your questions in return. Here it is:

You realize that line is just creationist pap, eh?

And by "that line", I'm referring to what you wrote, here:

Second, if you want to know a real fact - Evolution is a theory and not a law (even if it is well evidenced).

For context, this is a good video describing why I call 'that line' creationist pap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIm2H0ksawg

Your phrasing used 'law' instead of 'fact' as most creationists would phrase it, but the essential issue is that it still perpetuates confusion over the word 'theory' as used in a scientific context. As the video so aptly describes, I don't see people writing "Gravity is only a theory" or "Atoms are only a theory". Why do you think that is? It's because it's creationist pap, and they (creationists) only have a problem with evolution, not gravity, nor atomic theory, nor any other scientific theory they (creationists) routinely take for granted.