Trump Administration Predictions

[Steve R.]

At the approximate 3 minute mark to the video below, Greg Gutfeld made significant points concerning how the Democrats are immorally abusing the rule of law that endorses illegal actions over legal.

Democrats destroyed the appeal of legal immigration: Greg Gutfeld | Fox News Video

‘The Five’ co-hosts discuss how Democrats are reacting to I.C.E. efforts to deport illegal migrants.

www.foxnews.com

As a quick editorial comment. Tarlov mentioned due process, she did not seem to realize that due process for an illegal immigrant is immediate deportation.
Additionally, one needs to consider that immigration is not simply about jobs, but also about culture, national identity, and providing unjustified welfare to people who are not entitled to it.

 

[RogerCooper]

I'm not sure HOW I had you pegged as liberal minded - do not mind being wrong.

People are entitled to fair treatment from their government. People are entitled not have their persons or property harmed by others.

They are not entitled to have a right over the behavior of other people, unless those people are directly harming them. To make such claim would violating the rights of others.

Let's consider some examples.

1. Someone loses their job because a foreign product is cheaper. Unfortunate, but they don't have a right to dictate what other people buy.

2. Someone is harassed by the police because of their skin color. That is government action and they have a right to equal treatment from their government.

This is libertarian (or neo-liberal) thinking.

 

[NauticalGent]

Ive been an avid follower of Ron Paul since 2008, I am very familiar with the Libertarian party.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Thank you, Pat. You understood exactly what Thales750 did not, apparently.

Thales750 chooses to understand what he agrees with. Everything else is stupid or propaganda.

Pat, stop calling yourself a "libertarian" unless you are willing to prioritize liberty.

Libertarians aren't inherently stupid. I really like the concept of open borders but that presumes that everyone is honest and no one who isn't a citizen would even think of stealing from our welfare state. Since not everyone is honest, we can't rely on people who just walked across our border in violation of our laws to refrain from taking whatever they can get. When people are willing to violate our immigration laws for their own personal gain, they then continue on with identity theft and follow that up with collecting whatever benefits they can.

Laws are necessary to protect us from people who would do us harm in some way. Libertarians simply prefer fewer laws than all our current politicians.

That is not what freedom means. If a foreign government oppresses there own citizens, that does not justify the US government oppressing its citizens.

Why would we copy such laws? I didn't say to copy every single stupid and oppressive law that the worst of the world's governments can conceive of? Is that what you think I said because if so, you really need to have your head examined. I said - when they have laws that restrict our people financially in their country, we should really consider applying similar laws to their people in our country. Sort of tit for tat. Clearly if they shoot our people on sight, we would not reciprocate unless they are sneaking across our border. I really am OK with that as a policy. If you're going to over dramatize, try to at least be somewhat rational.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Let those who have settled in >a year and working , if able bodied, to stay

Why would you ever reward millions of law breakers? this has been tried before and always failed. Congress refuses to do its job of securing the border. Without LAWS that secure the border so the Dems can't open it again, amnesty should be off the table. PERIOD. Without LAWS that prevent illegals from sucking off the teat of our welfare system, amnesty should be off the table. PERIOD.

 

[Isaac]

Why would you ever reward millions of law breakers?

so that I could arrive at a doable, practical, feasible way of deciding how to do a large sweep while causing as little collateral damage, damage to our economy, and upset to families as possible.

 

[moke123]

so that I could arrive at a doable, practical, feasible way of deciding how to do a large sweep while causing as little collateral damage, damage to our economy, and upset to families as possible.

Understandably, that sounds a little bit personal.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

1. Someone loses their job because a foreign product is cheaper. Unfortunate, but they don't have a right to dictate what other people buy.

2. Someone is harassed by the police because of their skin color. That is government action and they have a right to equal treatment from their government.

This is libertarian (or neo-liberal) thinking.

The problem is that many Libs do not behave according to #1 and many Libs use #2 as an excuse to go from the specific to the general by claiming that ALL police should be defunded.

If I were you, I would clearly avoid the logical extreme that goes with #2 for libs.

 

[RogerCooper]

Ive been an avid follower of Ron Paul since 2008, I am very familiar with the Libertarian party.

I met Ron Paul back in 1990's.

Ron Paul (and his son Rand) have some problems. They want the government to force pregnant women to continue their pregnancies. Rand Paul was apologist for Putin, even travelling to Moscow to meet the mass murderer. They both have a strange obsession with gold. I do appreciate that Rand Paul is one of the few Republican senators willing to stand up to Trump.

Unfortunately Libertarian Party was taken over by alt-right clique (the Von Mises Caucus) during off-year convention. The people who invited Donald Trump to the Libertarian convention (where he was booed by the delegates). Those guys are out now and possibly facing criminal charges for looting the party's treasury. Many state parties have collapsed or disaffiliated themselves from the national party. And in my experience, a majority of the members now are only interested protecting their own liberties and have no interest in the liberty of others.

You should take a look at Reason Magazine to get a sense of what libertarians are talking about.

 

[Isaac]

Understandably, that sounds a little bit personal.

I'm honestly not sure what that means.
Or did you mean to say "impersonal", as I was being kind of practicable about it?

Actually now that I think about it, that viewpoint is pretty common and is basically the definition of the dreamers, just with other numbers inserted

 

[Isaac]

The problem is that many Libs do not behave according to #1 and many Libs use #2 as an excuse to go from the specific to the general by claiming that ALL police should be defunded.

If I were you, I would clearly avoid the logical extreme that goes with #2 for libs.

I'm all for accountability for police if someone got harassed because of their skin color, but if in actuality it's because of something they did or some obnoxious or suspicious way they behaved despite their skin color, I'm not for conflating the two.

As long as there's accountability every time someone gets harassed because of the blue color of their uniform, then I'm all for accountability