Being a small politician will not prepare you for being the big politician.

If this were true then no president in the history of the US has ever been prepared to be president

False. You have 3 exceptions: Lyndon B. Johnson, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. All came from Texas. Everything is bigger in Texas. They're all 3 big politicians.

If this were true then no president in the history of the US has ever been prepared to be president

Yeah, that is true. The only thing that can prepare you for ruling a country is ruling a country.

See how it goes both ways? I call it liberal logic, in which freedom of speech only applies if you say what they want to hear.

Why do you call it liberal, if both sides do it? (Also, Sanders is not liberal - he is socialist).

Edited 3/13/2016 20:27:08

Translation: he brings up inconvenient facts that you cannot refute, so you go straight after his person.

Are you saying that all the footage of maimed cops, blocking ambulances, and textual threats of violence were fabricated by him? Totally doesn't sound like a comspiracy theory.
hes not saying the footage is conspiracy theory hes saying that hes using the footage to promote the conspiracy theory that these are bernie sanders supporters and that bernie paid and supported these people

Yeah, that is true. The only thing that can prepare you for ruling a country is ruling a country.

According to that logic we have to give Barack Obama infinity more years in office until his death because all the other candidates are "unprepared".

Edited 3/13/2016 20:28:02

This is a good thing about kingdoms. But America needs to grow weaker, not stronger, so go republic.

Isn't that too authoritarian? Also doesn't seem a good solution when your country is partially divided among different ideologies. In my opinion gouverments should be gouverned 50% by the parliament and 50% by the monarch in order to have an ideal political functional system.

^lol no. Ask the UK if they want Queen Elizabeth II to have 50% of the power.

Also doesn't seem a good solution when your country is partially divided among different ideologies. In my opinion gouverments should be gouverned 50% by the parliament and 50% by the monarch in order to have an ideal political functional system.

Ideally, yes, this is good. But parliament will corrupt, too, and have the same problems as most republics today. Making it like that lowers the problems by 50%, but not by 100%.

Right... and if Trump says anything close to increasing border security, you people immediately label him as a racist and a xenophobic.

It's not racist to increase border security. What's racist and xenophobic is to say mexicans that come to our country are all rapist, thieves and drug dealers, but some I assume, are good people. That's a xenophobic sentence no? Change mexicans by jews and you've found yourself a new hitler.

Btw, Idk why Sanders should apologize, he hasn't asked his supporters to attack trump. Not like trump who says "beat the crap out of them, I'll pay for any sue", or says "there was blood comming out of her, whatever", and that's over and over, and he never apologizes when he's wrong and spread lies. So ye know, don't be a hippocrite.

Btw, Idk why Sanders should apologize, he hasn't asked his supporters to attack trump.

Well, even if he has, he's not going to say he did unless there's widespread undeniable proof.

Another question for you open border doves: is it xenophobic to deport illegal immigrants?

No, but trying to deport all of them is like trying to fight the drug war. It won't end and will just drain money continuously. Would it not be easier to give some benefits for signing up to become a legal citizen at the border (or in posts within the US) and cracking down on the remaining illegals? Migrants give a good bonus to the economy so it wouldn't hurt us.

@Жұқтыру

Idk, he's pretty honest about these things. He would have already apologized if he was in any sort responsible for it. Btw, there's a judge who ruled the protests anti-trump were defended by the 1st amendment anyway.


@[AOE] JaiBharat909

It's not xenophobic, but it falls probably under the moral issue. What's xenophobic on trump is calling those illegals rapists, drug dealers and thieves, when it's obviously the exception. Most of them are just trying to have better conditions of life.

The two flavors of fascist supporters should quit fighting their battles in the streets like children. You aren't doing a revolution, you're just having a riot that won't affect anything , you doltish brown shirts.

No, but trying to deport all of them is like trying to fight the drug war. It won't end and will just drain money continuously. Would it not be easier to give some benefits for signing up to become a legal citizen at the border (or in posts within the US) and cracking down on the remaining illegals?

Here's what I think is a conservative, common sense, and fair immigration plan.

1) Complete the wall along the southern border and reinforce weak points
2) Increase border patrol by 3 fold
3) Deport all criminal illegal aliens
4) Withhold all federal funding to sanctuary cities
5) Institute an entry-exist visa tracking system
6) Implement a mandatory e-verify system
7) Install sensors, cameras, and drone monitoring of the southern border
8) Put all non-criminal illegal aliens on a road to legalization but never citizenship - they would have to pay back taxes, engage in community service for X amount of hours, and would not receive any welfare benefits or education subsidies until they become legalized
9) Any new illegal immigrants who arrive after the wall is completed would be automatically deported
10) People who arrive here legally cannot use the chain immigration rule to bring in their families
11) Tax all money sent by those holding a visa or green-card to their family at 10%
12) Decrease the # of H1B visas by 50% and reserve them only for business sectors with a legitimate supply shortage of American workers

Edited 3/13/2016 22:00:10

Idk, he's pretty honest about these things. He would have already apologized if he was in any sort responsible for it.

What things? Admitting he was mistaken is easier than admitting you hired mercenaries to "disconvenience" the main candidate.

Here's what I think is a conservative, common sense, and fair immigration plan.

It is conservative, but not common sense nor fair.

I don't think he hired people to attack trump. That's non-sense lol

He definitely could have and is motivated to. However, saying that he definitely did is unfounded propoganda.

1) Complete the wall along the southern border and reinforce weak points

Too much money, and violates the tenth amendment

2) Increase border patrol by 3 fold

Too much money, and is border patrol even constitutional?

3) Deport all criminal illegal aliens

We already do that, we just aren't omnipotent

4) Withhold all federal funding to sanctuary cities

Fine by me

5) Institute an entry-exist visa tracking system

Alright, a bit creepy, but ok

7) Install sensors, cameras, and drone monitoring of the southern border

Over. My. Dead. Body.

8) Put all non-criminal illegal aliens on a road to legalization but never citizenship - they would have to pay back taxes, engage in community service for X amount of hours, and would not receive any welfare benefits or education subsidies until they become legalized

As humans they deserve fair trials and rights. They are born with these rights. The way the government is set up, we give these rights to citizens (though all humans have them, we just don't respect them). As they are humans, they should be given them and be effectively citizens.

9) Any new illegal immigrants who arrive after the wall is completed would be automatically deported

Fair enough

10) People who arrive here legally cannot use the chain immigration rule to bring in their families

Why not?

11) Tax all money sent by those holding a visa or green-card to their family at 10%

Fair enough

12) Decrease the # of H1B visas by 50% and reserve them only for business sectors with a legitimate supply shortage of American workers

If a American engineer can't compete with a Mexican one, why should the government make the person hiring the Mexican one accept the worse one?

I agree with major's point. About the deportation of new illegal immigrants, I also think it's fine, but provided the asylum rules don't change.

If a American engineer can't compete with a Mexican one, why should the government make the person hiring the Mexican one accept the worse one?

I guess the market rules of a liberal economy doesn't work when you put mexicans into the equation.