Your link doesn't refute my post, and you're also using racial slurs against whites, racist.
https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Programs
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
The Illegal Immigration Non-Crisis in the USA
- Thread starter cots
- Start date
- Views 29,926
- Replies 460
- Likes 9
https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Programs
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,757
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,587
- Country
I made the point that I'm against the practice of nation building. And your quote doesn't refute my argument that civil war would've led to the same collapse in Libya regardless of Western intervention.
"White trash" only refers to a certain subsection of white people, not all of them in general, and I think you're very much aware of that.
I appreciate the fact that you provided a source, and it seems the point you were making is correct. But while you like to lay the blame for high welfare usage on individual immigrants and workers, I lay the blame where it rightfully belongs: on businesses and corporations that prioritize profits over people. Almost nowhere in this country will a full-time, minimum wage job provide enough income to live off of. As a result, you can have a full-time job and still be forced to rely on government assistance. Because of this, both citizens and non-citizens recognize that the system is rigged against them, and a lot of people simply give up trying.
If you had made your above statement about "the N word" referring to "only a certain subsection of black people", you would agree that it's racist. Using a racial slur against any member of a group is racist.
I'm glad you now understand that they are a net drain on our society. We have enough poor people here already, let's take care of them first.
The intervention crippled almost any ability the Libyan national army had to form a cohesive response and emboldened the fundamentalist factions that made up the vast majority of the (foreign backed + armed) 'rebellion'.
It wasn't a fucking civil war - it was a regime change operation fought via proxy.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,757
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,587
- Country
The N-word comes from a time when all black people in this country were slaves, perhaps you'd have a point if there was ever a similar period of history for the entire white population. There are slurs that reference the entire Irish and Italian populations that I'll not be using.
We have the resources to take care of everybody, but as it stands now we choose to be bootlickers for the ultra-wealthy instead. It's simply a matter of priorities. In addition, we've always been a melting pot of immigration, it's one of our biggest strengths.
Last edited by Xzi,
The term white trash is racist because
-it assumes there are no other forms of trash, only in the white population (white inferiority)
-it assumes white people are usually and uniquely not trashy, just a subsection of them (white superiority)
-it assumes there are no other forms of trash, only in the white population (white inferiority)
-it assumes white people are usually and uniquely not trashy, just a subsection of them (white superiority)
Sure it would. Had Hillary been in office, she would've done so much better than Trump, with the peoples' actual interest at heart. I think the nay-sayers about her really need to do their reaserch about her prior to just bandwagon-clinging to what they've read in the media. She has in office experience, actually cares, and her husband did a LOT to help America financially in his time and was a pretty good president! The ones who say otherwise, and the ones (like the dude above) who say how they prefer trump over Hillary are fucking morons who know absolutely nothing about politics and ride the Trumpdick that the media shares around. I bet they know absolutely nothing about US politics, nor the accomplishments of the officials, nor what they even stood for. It's clear that the person you're replying to is politically-retarded. Anyone who believes that Trump is better than Hillary are morons who know nothing of politics, and just follow the "build that wall" bandwagon mentality.
Also, Trump totally took the wall idea from Arrested Development. Calling it now.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,757
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,587
- Country
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. Even without US assistance, the rebels had enough manpower and resources to continue on fighting for months, if not years. And Gaddafi did threaten his own people. Regardless of the mistranslation there's no guarantee that he would've been careful or selective about which ones he killed.
If it's an example of both white inferiority and white superiority at the same time, doesn't it balance itself out?
The illegal aliens are coming here for better lives, better opportunities. It's pragmatic - they don't really care if they have to break a couple of laws in the meantime. I think everyone understands that, and respects it to a certain extent. Who can blame them?
Where the respect can often get lost is when it's framed dishonestly and weasly. Year after year, millions after millions of illegal immigration, then all of a sudden it's now "seeking asylum", then even much more newer absurd claims like it's somehow related to climate change. Please, spare us. Passing through multiple countries to then start claiming asylum... Breaking the law to come to a better land - hey, I get it. Breaking the law, then being deceptive in the motivation for breaking the law - that's when people like me want the big, beautiful Wall to go up ASAP.
Where the respect can often get lost is when it's framed dishonestly and weasly. Year after year, millions after millions of illegal immigration, then all of a sudden it's now "seeking asylum", then even much more newer absurd claims like it's somehow related to climate change. Please, spare us. Passing through multiple countries to then start claiming asylum... Breaking the law to come to a better land - hey, I get it. Breaking the law, then being deceptive in the motivation for breaking the law - that's when people like me want the big, beautiful Wall to go up ASAP.
@Haloman800:
Change your signature picture please? Maybe? How do you think that we could hold a discussion with someone sporting a "I think the other side should be locked up in jail" message all the time?
Its a little trolly, but mostly not current, not topical, not representative of your person, and basically a reminder that democracy is being highjacked by memes, with every post that you make.
Here is why that meme is so catastrophic. It circumvents separation of power.NO political candidate EVER should run on a platform of 'I'm honestly thinking about sending my opponent to jail if I win (which he could)', no police action EVER should be made because of public sentiment. No judicial decision EVER should be influenced by a popularity campaign. And the factual content of the claim/chant is freaking low, doesnt know anything about political immunity, while holding an office, and is making an elefant out of a moskito. While at the same time hinting at conspiracy theory tropes - that some of us try to prevent from propagating, by holding some edgy discussions here as well.
In a sense you are ruining everything. Stop ruining everything, please? Stop holding an opinion that the far right knows best, and societies should be managed in an authoritarian fashion.
Please?
So you trigger every intelligent human being into not wanting to take part in any conversation with you, and then you win? Then you can spew your viewpoint and recruit more people in a videogames forum to your political camp? How does this work?
Change your signature picture please? Maybe? How do you think that we could hold a discussion with someone sporting a "I think the other side should be locked up in jail" message all the time?
Its a little trolly, but mostly not current, not topical, not representative of your person, and basically a reminder that democracy is being highjacked by memes, with every post that you make.
Here is why that meme is so catastrophic. It circumvents separation of power.NO political candidate EVER should run on a platform of 'I'm honestly thinking about sending my opponent to jail if I win (which he could)', no police action EVER should be made because of public sentiment. No judicial decision EVER should be influenced by a popularity campaign. And the factual content of the claim/chant is freaking low, doesnt know anything about political immunity, while holding an office, and is making an elefant out of a moskito. While at the same time hinting at conspiracy theory tropes - that some of us try to prevent from propagating, by holding some edgy discussions here as well.
In a sense you are ruining everything. Stop ruining everything, please? Stop holding an opinion that the far right knows best, and societies should be managed in an authoritarian fashion.
Please?
So you trigger every intelligent human being into not wanting to take part in any conversation with you, and then you win? Then you can spew your viewpoint and recruit more people in a videogames forum to your political camp? How does this work?
Last edited by notimp,
D
Deleted-401606
Guest
The coverage was beyond negative. There are youtube videos of CNN and other left leaning networks with the hosts getting visibly upset at Trump winning the election. The rigged polls that had Clinton up 8 points are also concerning.
It's beyond common sense that the left is brainwashing youth. Every single university pushes a liberal narrative and all of your favorite celebrities are democrats. I am not sure why people here like to pretend they are enlightened when they have the same beliefs as celebrities and rappers. Thinking outside of the box does not mean nodding your head up and down at everything your favorite celebrities say.
Is caring about others than yourself and your inner circle a terrible and evil leftist agenda? For me that's what socialism is about. Spreading resources more evenly than pure capitalism would (free schools and healthcare for example), increasing trust in society, keeping critical services such as water distribution in state hands, investing in infrastructure, keeping an open journalism landscape where any accusation or argument can be neutralized with "fake news".
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,757
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,587
- Country
Some of it. I specifically remember examples of "left-wing" networks giving him and his rallies tons of coverage with no commentary whatsoever. And whether negative or neutral, they gave Trump far more free air time than any other candidate in the Republican or Democratic primaries.
Yet Republicans are the only ones willing to elect presidents whose qualifications begin and end at being in movies/reality TV. Democrats reject vapid 'celebrity' candidates like Marianne Williamson. Ironic, isn't it?
Last edited by Xzi,
D
Deleted-401606
Guest
The entertainment industry pushes a liberal agenda and people that are obsessed with video games and other forms of entertainment usually fall for the trap. There is a reason people become more conservative as they start getting older, people eventually realize that the world isn't Disneyland. I don't know of your particular situation, but a good percentage of the liberals that cry about open borders and other "free" things are usually upper middle class white folk that live in bubbles where they don't have to deal with any of the problems caused as a result of these measures. In other words, rich white people like to virtue signal to feel better about themselves, but the reality is that they don't live anywhere near illegal immigrants or even minorities for that matter. I hope that you don't belong to said group of people and you actually can back up your words.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,757
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,587
- Country
There is a reason for that, yes. Without guarding against it, the natural tendency is to become more self-centered as you grow older, less concerned with what's being done to the country at large. As a result, conservatives usually end up fleecing themselves with presidents like GWB and Trump who only help the already-rich to grow richer. Liberals believe that a rising tide raises all ships, and it's hard to find flaws in that logic. When the people at the bottom have more money in their pockets, the corporations at the top see increased profits from increased spending.
I don't see how living in certain places has anything to do with being consistent about one's virtues. Should people instead be acting upon tribalism and their worst instincts 24/7?
I've lived in shitty neighborhoods and I've lived in nice neighborhoods. People are people wherever you go. You either choose to see the best qualities in everyone, or the worst qualities in everyone. It's easy to pretend that whatever race/ethnic group you belong to has fewer flaws than the others, but at the end of the day you're only fooling (and making a fool of) yourself.
I don't want to refer to studies, but the quite common conclusion that increased equality raises trust and quality of life for all citizens I consider to be true. Whether you are white and middle-class or immigrant doing cleaning jobs. An increase in for example minimum wage which back in 2009 was set to 7.25$ would benefit the nation as a whole. Same goes for increasing tax on stock earnings and lowering it for work. How to deal with labour outside of tax system (illegal)? Perhaps to stop illegalise people would be a start.
[emoji410][emoji409]
[emoji410][emoji409]
I’m well aware of Hilary’s positions. Politicians sometimes never do what they promise. So we have no idea how a Hilary presidency will be like. All we can do is speculate with hints of things she’s said, and wars she’s signed and agreed on in the past.
Last edited by SG854,
She has been very consistent on the issue of Iran. To say "we would have gone to war" is to ignore the evidence and make up your own. I'd criticize you for speculating, but it's less speculation and more imagination. You're just making stuff up.
Yes you are. We can, based on her comments on the Iran Nuclear Deal between 2016-now, say with a very reasonable degree of certainty that Hillary Clinton would not have pulled out of the deal. There is also literally zero indication that she would have gone to war with Russia. You're talking out of your ass.
Considering Iran hasn't attacked Israel in the manner you're describing, I'm not sure how this is relevant to your comments that we "would have gone to war with Iran by now."
You've been doing this a lot since I first called you out for not knowing what you're talking about. If you're going to say "Hillary would have gone to war with Iran and Russia" and then criticize me because "you don't know what the future holds" and "all we can do is speculate" when I point out what she more likely would have done, that makes you a hypocrite.
In other words, you said Hillary would have done X. I said Hillary actually wouldn't have done X. Your rebuttal was "We can't say if Hillary would or wouldn't have done X."
Your mental gymnastics are getting boring.
Similar threads
-
Xdqwerty
what are you looking at? -
The Real Jdbye
*is birb*
-
-
@
The Real Jdbye:
if i was female i would be a lesbian cause the lesbian flag has all my favorite colors in it
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
