@Lacius Illegal immigrants participate in the economy in the same way as humans participate in the food chain - they're removed from it, but they do eat.
If an illegal immigrant earns money and spends money, he or she is contributing as much to the economy as anyone else.
They are not paying any taxes beyond sales tax which is not uniform across all states
State and local sales taxes are still often times significant, so don't downplay it.
they do not receive any legal protections, and thus can be illegally employed at rates below the minimum wage and are effectively undercutting every legal worker in the country
If Trump cared about this issue as anything more than a political launching board for himself, he would propose policy that deals with the hiring of illegals and immigration reform, rather than policy that deals with deportation, a bullshit wall, etc.
they take advantage of public services without contributing to them and they're often times uninsured.
As we just discussed, illegal immigrants contribute to and are a part of public services, whether it's through taxes, being a part of the economy, functioning as potential vectors for disease without adequate health care, etc. You're failing to see how everyone's tied together.
You don't *want* them to be in that spot and you most certainly don't *want* more of them.
I want a pathway to citizenship and a reform to our legal immigration process. Of course I don't want any of what you just listed.
Are you incapable of acknowledging that Hillary Clinton's views go completely against many peoples entire belief systems? I understand that you like her policy, and that's fine, but it is the complete opposite of what many people want. Thus isn't even a race between individual candidates, it's a race between 2 entirely different philosophies. It's only natural that people will side with whichever one is closer to theirs, even if it has many large difference or if there are issues with the candidate representing it
I acknowledge other people's views. However, I would argue that Clinton's views are conducive to the well-being of the American society as a whole, and Trump's views are not. Otherwise, my views wouldn't be so in alignment with Clinton's. Trump's statements on immigration, Islam, and other things are also pretty deplorable.
You could turn that around on me and say someone is going to believe the opposite, but one of us is right. That's why supporting Trump is idiotic.
The environment exists so that we can use it to the very last molecule and atom, I'm so sick and tired of the "save the planet" movement, I care far more about the well-being of the species than I do about a swamp or a rare plant. This planet is doomed either way - if it won't get hit by an asteroid at some point, it will eventually be engulfed by the sun. Either way, our time here is limited. We should be directing all our efforts to technological progress and leaving Earth as soon as possible, not worry about the environment - the environment's fine. We're not going to kill the planet, the planet has survived life-ending, cataclysmic events far beyond the scope of what humanity can do to it - we can pollute it at worst.
You're an idiot if you think greenhouse gases aren't a serious threat to the environment. Oh, and I am very human-centric. I am not an environmentalist because I have some emotional bond to the whales or something. I am an environmentalist because I have some emotional bond to myself and other humans.
First off, I wasn't advocating him in that post, merely pointing out there were more than the two options to deal with that particular situation. Secondly, both Trump and Clinton are fucking terrible. I do care who wins as I will be angry if either Clinton or Trump wins the election, which they will. That having been said, if I vote for Clinton, IT WILL NOT MAKE HER WIN. If I vote for Trump, IT WILL NOT MAKE HIM WIN. The probability of my vote actually deciding the election is miniscule. The ONLY possible scenario in which my vote swings the election is the scenario in which all of the following happen:
The person I vote for wins
Said person wins my state
Said person wins the election by the margin of my state's electoral votes
Said person wins my state by a margin of my vote
That will not ever happen, thus voting for a person who you think is a genuine piece of shit is the true wasted vote.
You're failing to take into account that if everyone who thinks like you saw their flawed logic, it's less
miniscule. My point still stands about there only actually being two choices if one cares who actually wins, because they are the only candidates who can win.
That, and voting against your own convictions and better judgement makes you partially responsible for any and all negative consequences and terrible legislature if the candidate does win, as you were a cog in the system that put them in power in the first place.
That doesn't change my point above.
I'd rather have an idiot over a criminal as a president.
Clinton hasn't done anything criminal, so if this is why you're not voting for her, welcome to Team Hillary.
I don't care. I don't care how racist Trump is, at least he hasn't done illegal and shady shit.
Nothing illegal or shady? What about his alleged ties to the mafia, the instances of illegal housing discrimination he's participated in, Trump University's arguably predatory and illegal practices, his hiring of illegal immigrants in the past, frivolous lawsuits, alleged marital rape, casino fines, and not paying contractors and other workers?
Do I believe all of these are true or noteworthy? No, but they're more legitimate than any of the Clinton
scandals that have been thrown around here. The fact that you're focusing on Clinton's alleged scandals but not Trump's is some pretty fine special pleading.
I specifically like how Bill Clinton recently stated that "if Hillary becomes president, the Clinton foundation will stop accepting foreign donations and he will resign from its board". So in short, they "totally weren't doing anything wrong", but if she becomes president, they'll stop doing it. Do you know what's the single best way to detect a scam? It's a scam when someone tells you that it's not a scam. They've now put up a banner saying "hey, if you want to have a say regarding the future of the country, you better donate right now", since unlike lobbyist groups, a charity doesn't have to disclose the source of their donations as far as I'm aware. There's a huge influx of money coming their way, that's a guarantee. It doesn't help that the first debate between Trump and Clinton is supposed to be moderated by a long-term donor to the foundation - no impropriety going on there.
Saying something will be stopped because the public finds it controversial doesn't mean there was ever any wrongdoing. For all you know, it's a reassurance.
like a 250 dollar kit back when DDR4 was Intel only
