Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
I would also like to do a bit more role-playing, It's one of the things I like about NationStates, taking care of my virtual citizens in my virtual nation and passing virtual policies, but there's other regions for that I think.
Rateria
We have roleplayed on the Discord before. We also have an official map that we use for that. It would actually be nice if we started up another roleplay.
Miencraft, Skaveria
Governor Moonbeam and California Democrats say we needed the gas tax increase because we need to fix the potholes and the terrible condition of the roads. Perhaps we'd have more money to service our infrastructure if we didn't waste billions every year on the train to nowhere, government services for illegals and welfare? They'll always need a new tax for something. This state government can do nothing right!
The New United States, Rateria
It took Reagan 5 1/2 years to get a summit with Gorbachev, it took Clinton 7 1/2 years to get the Camp David summit and it took Obama 6 1/2 years to get the Iran Deal and relations with Cuba. In the past 50+ years, no president could engage North Korea. Trump has managed to get a historic summit in a year and a half.
Keep America Great!
Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria, Skaveria, Nordsprechline
"No president could engage North Korea" as in "no president was stupid enough to legitimize the North Korean leadership by treating them as equals".
I think NK legitimized themselves by being able to succesfully threaten the US with nuclear weapons.
Miencraft, Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria
I don't get this argument. North Korea, while a totalitarian communist s--thole, is a sovereign state with UN membership. Kim is already treated like a god in his own country. How does meeting with the US president elevate him any further amongst those who he rules over?
Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria, Jadentopian Order
Yeah honestly, dude's regime is awful and runs the country like human rights are just a piece of paper, but I don't see how he's not legitimate. Who else has any legitimate claim to run NK? We can't just pretend countries we disagree with aren't existent.
Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria
Oh, so Trump went to talk with Kim because he's scared? "Oh please mr. Kim, don't attack us! We'll do whatever you want, just don't use your missiles!"
And you think that's good?
Really? You think pictures of Kim shaking hands and signing agreements with the most powerful man in the world won't make him look strong? There are propagandists like you in North Korea, and their Trump is called Kim. They will be feasting on this meeting for months if not years.
Besides which, there's absolutely nothing the United States can gain from such a meeting. Kim is not an idiot, he's not going to get rid of his nukes.
Trump has simply given Kim and his regime more room to breathe, after the stranglehold previous US presidents had them in.
EDIT: By the way, someone should inform Iran that if they really want to make a deal with America, they're gonna need nukes.
Republic Of Minerva
Trump has a big ego, if Kim Jong embarrasses him by not living up to his side of the bargain, I wouldn't put it past Trump to try and kill him.
No. I literally didn't say any of that.
Trump went because like any sane human being, he wants to end the conflict in the region. Continuously insulting each other and threatening war hasn't worked for his administration
...So? The entire western world's policymakers know how awful NK is, who's view of the Kim regime is so wishy washy that they're willing to ignore atrocities? Even in NK everyone's already brainwashed, this won't change anything. The media even tells it's citizens that the USSR still exists.
Except we do stand to gain from this. You're right that Kim isn't an idiot, but that's why he's likely to disarm. He knows the world's most powerful nation won't let them exist with nukes.
The "stranglehold" was just sanctions that pushed NK even closer to China in order to barely scrape by.
Miencraft, Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria
And, what, are we supposed to just ignore him and let him do what he's been doing? The propagandists in North Korea are going to spin every little thing to make Kim look good no matter what happens, and the rest of the world either already knows Kim is a horrendous dictator that needs to be stopped and no amount of hand-shaking will change their minds, or they're blind.
Either way, we can't deal with the Kim problem without, y'know, acknowledging it. Sitting around and pretending he doesn't exist and his country doesn't exist is how you make the problem worse.
Kim not being an idiot and Kim keeping his nukes are two mutually-exclusive states.
Kim's at a summit with the leader of the most powerful nation in the history of the world. Of course he's going to try to play his games to see what he can get, but the only way he'd refuse to get rid of his nukes is if he's an idiot beyond salvation. It doesn't really matter who he's got on his side, if he's got any quantity of brain cells he knows that the only alternative to denuclearizing is his own doom. And if we play our cards right, we can seal his fate from within his own country.
The New United States, Rateria
I agree that this "historic" moment won't change anything. Kim Jong Un isn't interested in peace and is definitely not interested in demilitarization. I suspect this is mostly a publicity stunt that after a while Kim will use to leverage more free aid from the 1st world because he won't liberalize his nation or loosen his grip. Perhaps the only way to convince him to do so is just to stop giving free sh!t to him.
*distant off-key trumpet*
In a rare moment I shill for Trump, it is worth noting that Trudeau is an utter hypocrite. Canada places a tariff of 270% on dairy products from the US, when is it going to abolish that?
Miencraft, Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria
Wow, so much scepticism. Oh well, we've heard it all before. "Trump won't win the primaries; Trump won't win the election; Trump won't cut taxes; Trump won't defeat ISIS; Trump won't pull out of TPP..." Looking forward to all the crow to be eaten when we end the Korean War!
Miencraft, The New United States
"Water is boring" that's bourgeois talk
The liberty movement is totally lost right now. There is zero intellectual leadership, its political arm is a shambles, and it deliberately isolates itself from potential allies - and even other libertarians - by playing the role of edgy contrarians. There's a reason why nobody takes it seriously anymore. For shame!
The New United States
Maybe there aren't any big L Libertarians being vocal right now, but there's plenty of small l libertarians and conservitarians with large followings.
Rateria
Conservatiarians yes, but what small-l libertarians are there that are genuinely leading or affecting change?
That's what you get when you make no effort to speak out against other right wing groups like the alt-right. Many just sat back and watched themselves get grouped in with the alt-right despite being far from it.
Miencraft, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria
Govermentally, none, but socially, almost all the people speaking out against the radical left are small-l libertarians, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan (sometimes), Dave Rubin, Candice Owens and the young conservatives. You gotta realize that libertarians haven't done too good at marketing (ironically), most people under thirty who call themselves conservative or republican are pretty libertarian. Obviously we need to distance ourselves from the Alt-right, but a lot of these younger right-wing organizations aren't really all that right-wing at all. Sure there's some civic nationalism tied up in what they're saying sometimes, but most don't care about gay marriage and want to end the war on drugs.
Republic Of Minerva, Rateria
Post self-deleted by The States Of Balloon.
Oi dildo faggins mate?
Libertarianism's growth was caused by the zeitgeist of 2008-2012. Now, the alt right replaced it. It doesn't help that all of its major intellectual heavyweights have either died or retired like Ron Paul.
Rateria
Right, the smart and successful libertarians are the ones like Candace Owens and Dave Rubin that have allied themselves with the conservative movement and recognized that MAGA has provided us with far more wins than losses. And is the alt-right even a mainstream thing anymore? Steve Bannon is a footnote and most people associated with the label have now distanced themselves from it.
Rateria, Skaveria
A conservative candidate has just won the Colombian presidential election. More good things happening in Latin America every day!
The New United States, Kumquat Cove, Rateria
I think it's incredible that the left is all of a sudden outraged about the mistreatment of children by the feds, all the while they advocate abortion on-demand at any point of pregnancy. All it is is despicable, political opportunism.
Kumquat Cove, The United States Of Patriots
The thing about this immigration thing is this, if you come across the border illegally, you may get forcefully removed. That's part of being a sovereign nation. Now PERSONALLY, I'd like to see our LEGAL immigration process streamlined. For example, I don't like how you have to have a certain amount of money to come here. People come here to make money, that's kind of the point. The only thing it seems to me to be nessisary is a thorough background check. Just to make sure you're not a terrorist or cartel, ect. That being said, as long as we have a welfare state, people will come here not for freeDOM, but for free STUFF. Unfortunately the two things are linked and the welfare issue needs fixing before the border issue. Until then, the immigration process might be difficult. All that being said, deportation is well within the right of a sovereign nation. Think about it this way: say you get pulled over and searched by a police officer, they find some weed or something and you live in a state where that's not a big deal. The cop may just take the weed, confiscate it, basically just undoing the crime. Deportation is the same way, it's not adding any extra punitive measures, it's just undoing the crime.
Don't feel like repeating my views on immigration and abortion. If you want to know my position on immigration, I had a pretty nice discussion with some cool dudes a few weeks back on the RMB. As for abortion, I'll stay out of that one.
Rateria
https://71republic.com/2018/06/20/throw-out-friedman/
I found this when I was scrolling around on Instagram. Thoughts?
Vote in the poll https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=123676
One of the revenue-raising provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge up to drilling and private oil exploration. This is a largely pristine, uninhabited and untouched wilderness that encompasses a large chunk of Alaska. Republicans and the oil lobby have been trying to pass a law opening ANWR up for commercial use for over forty years (Jimmy Carter once gave a speech opposing exploration), and they were finally able to do it in the new tax bill.
I'm curious, what do you all think of this? This is an example of deregulation, but is it a positive to potentially open up one of the last wildernesses in North America, home to so many untouched ecosystems and species, to being ravaged by the energy industry? I want to hear your opinions.
Rateria
Been gone, family issues. Glad to be back
Re: The Safety of Children: The government as self-government (i.e., self-governance -- the individual, the individual's family and the community) yes; the government as the state, never. Statists deliberately confuse and confound the role of the state as the only legitimate form of government. The implication is that if one does not want the state to have the power to implement a positive application of X, the objector desires the deprivation of X. E.g., if you do not want the state to feed people you obviously want everyone to starve. This is patently absurd on its face. The myth/narrative/lie is that if the state doesn't do it that it will not get done --or if it does get done it will not be done well.
The state does two things well --it kills people (or at the very least ruins lives) and breaks things --and a third thing inconsistently (commending those who do well whom ought be emulated). What it fails spectacularly to do is rightly/justly govern the affairs of responsible individuals, self-governing families, and self-regulating communities well and haphazardly if at all. Communities govern themselves better from the consent of locals (individuals and families) than from nameless faceless state (little s) bureaucrats thousands of miles away who have no vested interest in the betterment of said community. Families govern themselves best when they are free to commune, interact, and freely engage their pursuits (good government) without despotic interference from self-proclaimed experts who "now know" best how others should live their lives (bad government).
State run foster care in the US is a nightmare. Over 1/4 suffer abuse while in Foster Care. Unless there is significant intervention those who fall through the cracks mostly end up with a one way ticket to the prison system upon adulthood. Giving people (individuals and family members) enough slack to either learn from their mistakes, grow and develop or hang themselves is more helpful than meddling and micromanaging family affairs that destroys families and stunts emotional growth and maturity. T
Libertarians are not anti-government, they are anti-Statist (despotism masquerading as valid government). They are first advocates of individual self-government (thoughtful self-interest) through Objectivism which includes the Non-Aggression Principle. Allowing the State to wield power that rightly belongs to other spheres of constitutional (little c) government is lawlessness in and of itself. It never ends well. In the 20th Century 100s of millions were murdered by confounding the power of the state with good government.
Most states until recently (before we became more of a police state) would instruct their peace officers to take the keys of a drunk driver, call them a cab (or escort them to a drunk tank (jail cell)) and in many cases issue a warning for whatever violating whatever code fit such reckless behaviour. If a drunk driver caused harm, they were charged with whatever crime they committed--manslaughter, reckless destruction of property, with the drunkenness compounding the sentence or the charge. Driving while impaired is reckless behaviour (failing to negotiate a means of conveyance lawfully) and in some states a was a form of breach of peace. Here, it was a non-criminal misdemeanor (failing to wield a 2 ton mass of metal moving 10s of feet per second responsibly--no different than a being stone drunk and swinging around a sledgehammer near a crowded glass storefront but you arent hitting anyone or anything--yet) in which police did intervene for the safety of the drunkard and the safety of others. Repeat offenders had their car impounded. Impounding one's car and having the Justice of the Peace not allowing it to be returned until the offender sought help in many cases was sufficient enough. The entire "must cite" doctrine introduced into nearly all legislatures (since the court ruled that the primary role of police is not to protect rights but to raise revenue for the state) has been a disaster. With mandated interlock systems that force a convicted drunk diver to blow every 10 minutes into ignition connected breathalizer there is no need to criminalize or jail those charged with DUIs (in which no harm was done).
I know this is a ramble, but I hope it answers your question.
Rateria
This is CK... Long story... Anyone here?
no
>walking through engineering section of library
>while walking, catches a glimpse at a book with the title "Evaluating Reagan" on the spine
>wait, wait? walks back
>actually says "Evaluating Research"
Shows where my mind is.
Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/janus-afscme-public-sector-unions-lose/
"The Supreme Court dealt a blow to organized labor on Wednesday, ruling that public-sector unions cannot charge non-members dues for collective bargaining.
"'States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees,' read the decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito."
w00t
Pevvania, Republic Of Minerva, Kumquat Cove
?????????????????????????????????
Because not being allowed to force people to pay money to a union they don't want to be a part of is bad for organized labor, apparently.
10/10 reviewing, National Review.
Rumor has it that if you say “Aussie Reagan” three times, you’ll summon Pevvania.
Miencraft, Pevvania
Aussie Reagan, Aussie Reagan, Aussie Reagan!
Pevvania, Rateria
This is somewhat difficult, from a natural rights standpoint we agree that the government had no right to claim this land in the first place. However, since the government is the current owner, I would probably be opposed to selling it to anyone who does not have a vested interest in protecting the land. Remember that rights in property derive from homesteading, and one giant government selling land to a couple giant corporations does not constitute legibility in my eyes.
Pevvania, Rateria
I disagree that it is used to justify the travel ban, but this is a welcome decision nonetheless.
The New United States
*materializes from nowhere*
Mr. Venom, tear down this comments section!
Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria, Venomringo
Amazing day for conservatives and libertarians. Kennedy retiring and to be replaced by an originalist, union thugs take a huge hit, the left continue to embarrass themselves and look crazy. Wow!
Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria
Never Trumpers are looking very silly today indeed. Once Kennedy is replaced by a conservative, affirmative action is DEAD and the court will be hard right for a generation. Future Democratic administrations will be totally unable to enact any kind of national progressive agenda. If Obamacare got saved by a 5-4 vote, "Medicare for all" will go down hard and fast, even if Congress passed it unanimously! If the GOP retains the Senate (which it likely will), they'll probably get to replace Sleepy Ginsburg soon after and give us 6-3 to conservatives. No election will protect the left from this.
It's official: Donald Trump has SAVED America. If you consider yourself a supporter of the Constitution and small government, you have absolutely no excuses left not to vote Republican in the midterms and Trump in 2020.
Miencraft, The New United States
Also, while I support abortion rights in principle with reasonable restrictions in practice, I'd imagine the overturning of Roe v Wade would be fantastic for federalism, as liberal states would likely double down on providing abortion access while conservative states would enact the will of their constituents and pass strict laws curtailing it. Overall, it would be a win for the 10th Amendment and probably help us on other issues too.
Miencraft, The New United States
2008-2010 was the high water mark of modern American liberalism. After that, it's been nothing but failure and defeat for them. And as they try to shift to the left they will grow ever further from the American electorate. Their current dark age can't feel any better.
Trump is a liar. He said we would get tired of winning, and in fact, I'm not tired at all. Far from it. Let the Gilded Age 2.0 begin!
The New United States, Rateria
You heard it here folks trump is a liar. We need to impeach him.
Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria
I am sorry to say that I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016. Not because I am libertarian (because I'm not), but because I didn't trust Trump and figured Johnson would probably be a more faithful constitutionalist. I was pretty anti-Trump before the election, but I've been eating my words for the greater part of his presidency. I'm going to happily vote for Trump-Pence in 2020.
#MAGA
Pevvania
My first vote was for Trump, I was eighteen at the time. Legendary first vote if you ask me and I'll probably vote Trump again in 2020 unless something crazy happens or if it looks like he'll win and the Libertarians run McAfee. How crazy would it be if we had a Trump, McAfee, Sanders debate? That is if Sanders is still planning on running again, he's hinted at it a few times.
Pevvania, Rateria
Lol are you thinking of the same Gilded Age I am? Dont know about you but rampant corruption of public officials and wide spread factory/workplace employers abusing workers doesnt seem all that great.
ehhhhh, say what you will about abortion, but there's some things I think need to be federally mandated, and this is one. Women need to have a basic access to abortions for health reasons (rape, incest, etc). Again, say what you will about the issue, but I think first trimester is perfectly reasonable. Look at laws like Iowa's Heartbeat law. Even they know that there needs to be some exceptions. And, even ignoring the exceptions, there's always the case of single women simply not being able to support a child, forcing it into either a life of poverty, or less likely, the adoption system. I'm for state's rights, sure, but this is one of those times I think it's necessary for the fed to do something.
Miencraft, Rateria
The only elections I've voted in that weren't state/local we're the 2016 primaries and the general. Voted for Cruz in the Utah GOP primary and for Johnson in the general election.
Rateria
IÂ’ll miss the midterms. My 18th birthday will be on November 19th. However, I will get to vote in the 2020 general election, which will be nice.
Pevvania
Yes, I had the same view for most of the campaign. Whatever one thinks of Trump as a 2016 presidential candidate - and admittedly, at the time he seemed pretty erratic at best - he's been a damn good president. The only letdown has been spending but I put that down to Congress far more than Trump, who actually proposed a balanced budget.
Most charges of bad working conditions in that era are moot points because they are necessary for industrialising economies and necessitate improvements in income and living standards. Then and now in the developing world, the alternative to these conditions is backbreaking and often deadly agriculture work that pays little, or unemployment which could lead to death. I was being slightly tongue in cheek but the Gilded Age turned the US into an economic superpower.
In terms of political corruption, was that particularly unique to that period of time? Genuine question. What made administrations more liable to corruption then than in other eras?
I agree with you on abortion, but I highly doubt this court would totally leave the door open to unconditional abortion bans. All I'm saying is that de-nationalizing the issue would inspire competition for better abortion policies.
Miencraft, Rateria
He did promise not to sign the next continuing resolution, after signing the last one, so there is hope.
Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria
Hello
The New United States, Kumquat Cove, Rateria
Welcome to Libertatem!
The New United States, Kumquat Cove
I know you're 'Merican in spirit, but are you an American by citizenship? I was just curious, talking about voting and all.
Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria
I'm not exactly sure I disagree with you on the abuses being necessary, but there were absolutely times where the working class was 100% being exploited and put into unreasonable danger. For example, use of the Pinkerton agents to break strikes comes to mind. In addition to unfair anti-labor practices, factory safety, for the vast majority of America, just did not exist, despite factory owners being more than capable of affording even basic measures. On top of that, many wages were just barely considered livable. Not that this was unique to America, however, this type of thing happened in Europe too, most notably in Great Britian.
In terms of uniqueness, it was basically just how blatant and widespread it was. Even the agencies assigned to investigating corruption were corrupt! Look at some incidents like the Tweed Ring and Credit Mobilier affair. Corruption was everywhere from local governments to the office of the President.
As for liability, my personal guess is that it was just the sheer amount of money being tossed around. Huge businesses that controlled their industries were able to spend virtually whatever they wanted to avoid being trust-busted. From the perspective of a law enforcement agent at the time, I'd probably value the blank check I'm being offered to shut up way more than the pride I get from reporting illegal activity. Though, I'm by no means an expert, so I could be dead wrong haha.
Miencraft, Rateria, New Tampa
No, not yet, but I have a pretty straight forward path to a green card once school is over. Once I get a green card (which is permanent residency), I can become a citizen five years after that. In the absence of voting, though, I campaign for candidates and causes, so I like to think that I'm still influencing the votes of quite a few people.
Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Venomringo, New Tampa
THE AMERICAN DREAM
Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria, New Tampa
Just join the democratic party, they'll be happy to help you get all the benefits that citizens can get, with none of the responsibilities!
Pevvania, Rateria, San Carlos Islands
Wait, you're an immigrant? And you support Trump?
...
Words fail me.
Republic Of Minerva
why is tronald dump our president? come on guys
Miencraft, Pevvania
Legal Immigrants don't seem to be happy with the Dems letting people cheat the system.
Miencraft, Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria
Sure, yes, it's all about those damn Democrats cheating the system. It's not at all about stigmatizing immigrants, it's not like he's gonna build a wall to physically stop the Mexican infestation or anything.
You know what, this is a rabbit hole I don't want to go down. It takes a special kind of brain damage for a recent immigrant to support the guy who thinks that anyone who wants to move to the US is either a drug dealer or a rapist, and I'm not a brain surgeon.
Republic Of Minerva
It takes a special kind of nutjob to diagnose someone with brain damage for holding a legitimate political position contrary to yours.
Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria
Well, time for a Clint Eastwood marathon.
They say after they spend an entire paragraph going down that exact same rabbit hole.
Miencraft, Rateria
A lot of illegals aliens bring drugs and contribute to the rape problem, and it certainly doesn't look good on them when their first act in this country is a crime... But I'll tell you, most 'legals' contribute to, and love this country! Because they had to work hard to get here, and we ought to be giving those people our support, and Trump certainly has; so you can't attack him, every time he says something derogatory about immigrants, it's toward the illegals who all need to pack up and go.
Pevvania, Rateria
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auUNoMYDH_k
This is great. xd
I love those two.
He literally never said those things though, the original comments he made at the beginning of his campaign two years ago was that "Mexico was not sending their best people, they bring drugs, they're rapists, and some, I assume are good people." even in that statement he acknowledged that some Mexican immigrants are good people, so the notion that he thinks ALL of them are bad is just wrong, secondly, I never heard him compare immigration to an infestation, and thirdly, a border wall is the right of any sovereign nation to build. They have been since the beginning of civilization. Now, I'm somewhat skeptical of how we're gonna PAY for the thing, but the idea in and of itself isn't unethical or racist in any way.
Rateria
Too late, you're in the hole and you're in deep.
1) In what universe does attempting to stop illegal immigration correspond at all to being anti-immigrant? The entire point of making it harder to get here illegally is to make it better for the people that go through the process and make the country safer for everyone.
Answer: not this universe.
2)
Yeah I'mma need a source on that one fam.
For someone trying to paint the President of the United States as some mindless racist, you sure are making a whole lot of generalizations.
But, hey, at least it's not like you assumed that everyone's going to have a specific political opinion because of their country of origin.
Wait, no, you did that.
Your hypocrisy is astounding. Clean up your act first before you're gonna go around criticizing people for the stuff you're already doing. And for the love of god get some actual goddamn sources because I guarantee Trump never said any of the crap you say he did.
Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria, Skaveria
Well, it looks like mexico is electing a socialist, guess there'll be another influx of immigration to the United States in the near-future.
If they're lucky enough to get out of that hellhole.
It's not like the past governments have been helping us either, there will be no change in the infulux tbh. I hope some of those "socialist" policies keep the trash staying and the upper class fleeing here along with the inevitable brain drain.
Tbh, if the guy was just a centrist even, rather than a socialist, he'd actually be a good choice, he's somewhat nationalist and populist. He's kinda of like a left version of Trump in many ways.
Tbh, this is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of SOME lefties. They used nationalism and populism as insults against Trump, but now they just gloss over it when it's an economic leftist.
News flash: Liberosia dies, comes back next day. All of Libertatem's enemies get sudden boner, immediately gone.
Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria
Yes, I am an immigrant that supports Trump. First of all, he said no such thing. All he has done is point out again and again - correctly - that a significant proportion of the illegal immigrants flowing into the US through the southern border are indeed criminals, drug dealers and rapists. That's not a "stigma", that's a cold hard fact. There are millions of deportable felons among the illegal population and in many border states including California illegals commit crimes such as murder at higher rates than citizens and legal immigrants.
So no, Trump is clearly not against ALL immigrants. Two out of his three wives have been immigrants, who he produced a total of 4 children with, so it's logically impossible for him to "hate" immigrants, unless he hates his wives and hates his daughter who he recruited as a top White House adviser.
It's very convenient that the current leftist talking point, which I hear often enough from the crazy California Democrats, is that Trump is "attacking immigrants" and "attacking our communities". These people live on another planet. Forget that Trump proposed a path to citizenship to 1.8 million "dreamers" in exchange for border security. Forget the innocent young people slaughtered by illegals that sanctuary cities like SF let go. Forget the $60-100 billion in net economic costs from illegal immigration. Trump is attacking immigrant communities!
Give me a break. Equating illegal criminals like MS-13 with legal immigrants like myself is like comparing sex to rape. But leftism has hit, or is rapidly approaching, rock bottom. You people are literally defending MS-13. Your politicians are inciting violence against conservatives. You are denigrating Holocaust victims by comparing our president to Hitler. Your mayors are alerting murderers to ICE raids. Your degenerate policies are poisoning the national discourse and literally killing people. How does it feel to virtue signal now?
And I'm not intellectually shallow enough to judge a leader based on how he relates to my own personal identity. I judge Trump based on his actions and policies and how they relate to the American people as a whole. Even if he had said those things about all immigrants, which he obviously didn't, why would I care when he's cut taxes and regulations, is on the verge of ending the Korean War, will soon have pushed the court firmly to the right and is returning sovereignty to the American people? Trump is not a president for whites or blacks or males or females. He's the president for ALL Americans, and the tireless work he's done to turn this country around from stagnation and decline has made me love this country even more.
You've clearly been thoroughly brainwashed by the liberal media, and for that I am sorry. I suggest wondering outside of your own echo chamber and interacting with people who have different political opinions. Maybe even do some reading - it would do you a world of good.
Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria
Another reason why a conservative justice replacing Kennedy would roll back government: healthcare. The Trump administration is filing an injunction with the DOJ to strike down the ACA's pre-existing conditions rule. If it gets to the Supreme Court while a 5-4 conservative majority is in power, there's a good chance they'll deal another huge blow to Obamacare and help it further unravel.
Medicaid work requirements, too, may soon make their way to the Supreme Court.
If this all goes our way, we may be able to stop socialized medicine before it raises its ugly head again. A leftist president and congress would be powerless in the face of five conservative justices.
Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria, San Carlos Islands
Wanna hear a story about immigrants?
Before she came here, my mother was an ex-Soviet citizen who ended up stateless when the Union fell - fun fact, if you were a Soviet citizen you had to go and reacquire citizenship with whatever independent country you now lived in - and the document she used as a passport was just something that looked like a Soviet passport, issued by some embassy somewhere specifically to get the hell out of the Eastern Bloc. There's a stamp in there from the INS recognizing her as having been granted asylum by the United States.
My mother is the most fervent Trump supporter I know of.
Why? Because she worked her ass off to get here and get where she is now (she didn't even get citizenship here until after I was born, and as a side-note I'm pretty sure she didn't get married until around then either, so I'm technically the bastard son of an American and a citizen of nowhere), and what the left wants to do would undermine every last bit of that. Especially since she lived in the Soviet Union for twenty years. She's seen exactly what happens when the left here does what it wants to do.
She escaped Europe after the demise of Communism and came to the place that killed it, and once she was here she just absolutely embraced being American. Why should she support the left who wants to let in floods of people who don't care about being American? People who just want to be Mexican or Guatemalan somewhere else? Why should an immigrant give a damn about people who want to come here but don't want to be Americans, don't want to follow our laws, don't want to adopt our culture (which is the easiest damn part of being an American, just do what you did back home except now speak English and eat way too much), don't want anything other than to bring the squalor they left with them here?
If anything, I'd argue it's illogical for immigrants to support anyone but Trump. If one guy has to bend over backwards to get through the process legally and integrate into society, but some other idiot can just run across the border to get the same damn thing, that guy's going to be pretty damn mad. He had to work to get where he was but someone else broke our laws getting here and is treated not only as good as him, but better than him, because if that illegal immigrant goes to a sanctuary city, he can commit whatever crime he wants because people are told not to call the police on illegals. If this legal immigrant does something illegal, he's treated like any other citizen and thrown in jail. How's that fair?
Why should an immigrant prefer the left and their prioritization of illegals and foreigners over Americans? An immigrant - one who truly wants to be here - is not a foreigner. They're not going to associate with whatever country they came from anymore, beyond "oh, yeah, I used to live in Germany, and check out these cool Bavarian traditions", they're going to be American, and they're going to see themselves as American. So when these Americans are treated by the left as less than someone whose presence here is literally a crime, why would they support the left? What logic is there in that?
Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria
A
TACO
TRUCK
ON
EVERY
CORNER
I've a very simple solution to ending illegal immigration...and that is legalizing immigration, making it easier for immigrants to become accepted and naturalized US citizens.
Rateria, Jadentopian Order
I think that the only barrier to citizenship should be a thorough background check, that being said, we need to end the welfare state before we open up our borders.
Not necessary. Illegal immigrants are practically barred from getting welfare while they still pay into the system (sales tax and other user fees). Making immigration an easier and streamlined process would first and foremost reduce the amount of immigrants working in black market jobs where they don't pay any taxes. Furthermore employers would not have try to hide their labor force from the IRS (and ICE respectively). The welfare state does need to be reduced, but immigration does not affect it as much as you think.
Any other anarcho-monarchists here
Rateria
Nah I subscribe to a strict diet of libertarian Stalinism.
The New United States, Rateria
I prefer Conservative Trotskyism.
Miencraft, Rateria
I prefer Anarcho-Fascism myself.
Tbh though, that was a joke, but I do mix elements of nationalism and libertarianism in my ideology.
Rateria
That may be true, but a sovereign nation has the right to enforce its borders, a compromise could be to make it easier to legally immigrate, while simultaneously making it harder to illegally immigrate.
The New United States, Rateria
Post self-deleted by Dracolando.
Sure, let's make it harder to illegally immigrate by making it impossible to immigrate illegally. That is, make immigration legal. I'm glad you see it my way, Skav.
Rateria, Jadentopian Order
I personally prefer Corporatist Anarcho-Communism.
Miencraft
Well if we have no borders, we have no state. Makes sense if you're an anarchist I suppose.
Incorrect. If you have no police, courts, or defense you have no state. The US survived with nearly completely open borders up until approximately 1880 (immigration control is a relatively new concept) as a functioning state (or a federation of states, to be more specific.)
Happy 4th of July!
Rateria
"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they are."
-Rousseau
Borders are a flawed metric of sovereignty, as they are merely symbolic of it, which has diminished greatly since the 20th century anyway. Previously, borders were just used as a defensive measure against an invading army and marked the geographical line of where information was restricted to, however, technology has improved to where a wall won't stop a tank and the invention of the radio, TV, and transportation networks have all served as catalysts for a global economy of global information, so "nations" (whatever that means in the modern context) are accountable to a community greater than themselves - the world. Borders are useless and only are used to subjugate "others" into camps known as "illegal" immigrants, which just reinforces systematic racism and settler colonialism. Maybe the days of national sovereignty are over and we should strive for something more interconnected?
Republic Of Minerva, Jadentopian Order
National borders are a part of it as well. Walls around city-states been around for thousands of years. If a nation cannot regulate the people who come into it, it isn't a nation, because there may come a time when restricting immigration has national security concerns rather than just arbitrary demographic control.
It's natural for a group of people, banded together in a nation, to be suspicious of late-comers. Race isn't a part of it, and honestly, making race a part of it is usually a leftist argument against borders, not a Libertarian one. I'd make the same line of argumentation if the problem was illegal Canadians, it's not indicative of racism.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.