I have an aunt that likes things by Donald Trump on Facebook constantly. She is not close with the rest of our family.

I can't vote for anyone until the general election in my state because I'm a registered Modern Whig. I had to join an obscure party that wasn't too batshit because I'm an insufferable hipster who drones on constantly about relatively obscure 19th Century politics and events.

Dorr Rebellion

>>75037
John Wilkes Boothe is my favorite Touhou

Bernie Sanders, because #feelthebern

I think Sanders is what this country needs, but Trump is what it deserves. So, I'm voting for Trump. Fuck everything.

I like Kasich, he's done a pretty ballza job with my state and if ends up with the nomination I'd vote for him. Otherwise I'm just gonna show up drunk and draw ds all over the ballot.

>>75048
I work at a polling place some elections, our machines are designed to be ink-resistant for this very reason, but you can still write in a penis I guess.

I registered with the republican party so I could vote for Mike Huckabee rather than having Trump, Carson, or any number of any other crazies or corporate shills getting the nomination.

>>75057
Yeah because we hellza need an all-American Christian version of Mohammad Morsi who also wants to impose a 30% sales tax on everyone.

Probably Bernie if he gets nominated. I like all the propaganda I've seen about him.

I'm voting for titsarina because I think she's the most capable of those whose policy ideas match my own.

I'm Canadian. Also I don't vote. If I did vote I'd vote for Stephen Harper.

>>75091
What's it like living in the actual riding that Stephen Harper's supposed to represent?

Judging from the last Republican debate I seem to be one of the few people that liked Rand Paul's idea of waiting for Iran to breach their nuclear deal before we bomb them, rather than the other candidates' vocal support of ripping up any agreement day one and bombing some jihadin' jigaboos.

>>75096
>jihadin' jigaboos

I'll be using that without your permission.

I'm voting for Bernie because he seems honest and he makes sense. I've never given any fucks about whether or not the person I vote for wins anyway.

In 2008 I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the primary and Nader in the general.

In 2012 I threw hard support for Gary Johnson.

At the time I lived in Ohio and people would get actually angry with me (I've had people raise their voice about it even today) about how I wasted my vote. It's mine to waste and I'd rather vote on principal than play a popularity game.

>>75091
Please kill yourself.

>>75131
I voted for Gary Johnson too last time, not only because he kept it real but because he seemed to have a proven record as governor. I'm not quite as confident in Bernie. Socialism is still a dirty word to most people so even if he were to stumble into the nomination I doubt he'd win, and even if he did he'd still have to deal with total and complete intransigence. He works well in his role, to put some focus on progressive issues like income inequality.

>>75136
So long as the dems hold on to the minority vote they will win this election because of how the gerrymandering works out and because the right is presently a divided party [look at how many people are running in their primary for example]. A turkey sandwich could win with a D endorsement right now, and that means it's the time to press for a more progressive candidate. Hence I'm feeling the bern.

>>75096
Oh I don't, I live on the other side of the country. But all the Conservative candidates are acceptable no matter where you are, the party is very consistent. It's one of the thing I like about them.

All Conservative candidates have consistent platforms and all follow the orders of their leader. If Stephen Harper calls for media silence on an issue, not a single Conservative candidate will say anything. They are a very disciplined party and I appreciate that.

Contrast that with the other parties. Just a few days ago a Liberal candidate in Victoria stepped down for suddenly turning anti-muslim and spouting racist bullshit everywhere. The Green party is even worse, they basically just do whatever the fuck they want and barely even have a party platform. Elizabeth May is the embodiment of this, she's a frazzled, vapid cunt.

Lately I've been thinking that you ought to elect people based on their leadership qualities, not their platforms. I think a ballza metric is imagining a potential candidate trying to negotiate with Putin at a summit or whatever. I call it the Putin Test.

For Canada, I imagine Trudeau just breaking down and crying after 5 seconds of Putin's glare. I think Elizabeth May would just lose control, get all emotional, and start yelling at him and making an ass of herself. I think Mulcair could actually deal with Putin, Mulcair appears to be a strong leader, but he wants to spend a lot of money and I hate unions. Harper is downright amiable with Putin, this has been observed.

I'm not as familiar with American candidates, but I think Bernie Sanders is laughable. He's not a leader of men, he's a kindly old aging bureaucrat. He would let Putin walk all over him while nodding and trying to compromise vainly. Donald Trump would do well I think, he has the strength and ferocity to deal with someone like Putin, perhaps he would be a tad lacking in tact but eh. I actually think Trump isn't as bad a candidate as most other people think. America has been going down one road for a long time, a road of rampant consumerism, foreign debt, and meddling in world events. America could do with a period of isolationism. A transition to such a period would come at a cost, of course, but I think in the long run it could do America some ballza to calm down for the first time in 200 fucking years.

>>75148
I never understood why people just buy wholesale into this idea of "Putin the Memetic Tough Guy" who can make someone quiver with his stare. First off, that's not hellza how diplomacy works, a bunch of his diplomats will meet with your diplomats and do all the hardwork and then the two of you will sit down for a photo op when it's all over. This fantasy people have of leaders actually sitting down and hashing things out personally is quite rare today. Second, he's just a politician, the whole tough guy thing is pure propaganda, no different from Bush wanting to do the whole rugged cowboy thing despite being an Ivy League daddy's boy.

At the end of the day, Putin is not that scary nor is he some kind of mastermind. All of his moves into neighboring countries have have mixed results and just resulted in frozen conflict zones. Both Ukraine and Syria is likely going to end up as neverending quagmires for them due to their own reluctance of committing significant ground troops to truly foreign areas (unlike Crimea which was basically Russian anyway). He may be able to withstand the economic problems he's facing in his own country for now, but if it doesn't get better in the long run it will be Perestroika 2.0.

It's hard to say what the future holds for sure but if anything the US/Obama is simply playing a long game with Putin, just as we played the long game with the old Soviet Empire. People like Trump just want to put their ds on the table and bluster, but we'll see how popular they are when more Americans start dying in the quagmires they start.

>>75149 Putin was in the KGB before he became a politician. This is him standing next to Ronald Reagan while posing as a tourist. So, yeah, Putin is a bit more badass that many other leaders, and especially than George Dubuah. But yeah, that doesn't mean that he should be totally praised or worshiped.

Murray Rankin

>>75151
Most upper-level KGB members were just administrators, though. We'll never know for sure if Putin did any super cool ninja spy shit but all I know is that George Bush Sr. was CIA director and he was a wet noodle.

>>75163
Putin wasn't in an administrative positions until slightly before the end of the cold war. I believe for most of his career he was stationed in Berlin.
Oh no my bad he was stationed in Dresden, according ot wikipedia. He mostly just gathered useless intelligence and wrote reports, apparently. Still, pretty rad.

rude

>>75171
At least her used the word "emigrate" correctly. Part of me thinks he's a whole hell of a lot smarter than he lets on, but then I hear him talk and it's like a child telling you his ideas for ninja turtle storylines.

...

Does it matter?

rude

>>75179
I can't vote for trump now because of this.

>>75176

Yes.

Trump is going to do one of two things: completely run the country into the ground or MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. There's no way to tell because he's a single-issue candidate at this point running entirely on his revolutionary "build wall" stratagem. Further than that even if his ideas were 100% down-the-line brilliant, whether or not he's going to be successful is up in the fucking air because he's not a politician and has no track record. Considering he's not even a nominee at this point and literally everyone is out to stomp his shit in I can't imagine it's going to go well if he somehow makes it to the oval office. I think there a serious possibility--not likely, mind you, in fact marginal, but not 0% like in almost every other election--he may become the next Hitler, or at least upend our constitution and install himself as a dictator of some kind, though he'd probably be assassinated by then.

We pretty much know exactly what we're going to get with Bernie. Just take a gander at any western European country: UK, Sweden, Germoney, all the same shit hellza. Personally, getting flooded with 1 million legal "refugees" from some backwards ass country that shares no values with mine, has no respect for the US legal system, bitches and moans about everything, getting my income heavily taxed and another 4 years (at least) of being called a backwards bigot simply for being from Texas isn't personally my bag, but agree to disagree.

Carson's a protestant nutter who does not seem politically literate in the least. Fiorina is a token woman. And it truly will not matter if it goes Shillary V. Yeb, because they're both the same except one's progressive socially and the other won't do anything but stagnate the inevitable.

If Trump makes it to the general I'm voting for him just for the dice roll aspect. Jim Webb is probably in my top 3, but because John Millbank isn't running I STAND WITH RAND

>>75183
"Personally, getting flooded with 1 million legal "refugees" from some backwards ass country that shares no values with mine, has no respect for the US legal system, bitches and moans about everything, getting my income heavily taxed and another 4 years (at least) of being called a backwards bigot simply for being from Texas"

I can't comprehend how you can start a sentence with something so incredibly xenophobic and end with 'waah I'm called a bigot just because I'm from Texas'. Have some self awareness dude.

I mean you like rand, who believes that universal healthcare is equivalent to kicking down someone's door and enslaving them, who believes that businesses should be able to refuse service to people on the basis of race or religion. You even say that you only like him because 'John Millbank isn't running', when John Milbank is not only a christian theologian, but wasn't even born in the US and so isn't eligible to run. You probably even think rand is on the liberal end of the candidates just because his policy statements tend that way. He has the most conservative voting record of any of the candidates in the republican primary.

I can't even tell if you were just trolling. Well if you were, you put in enough effort that it looked sincere so grats. If not, just damn dude.

Trump is hellza just more of the same, when you think about it. Our last three Presidents have been elected not based on being proven administrators or military professionals, but because people liked the cut of their jib. Bill Clinton tooted some shit on the sax and had a southern accent, Dubya was a cowboy with strong moral fiber, Obama was a suave nig with a million dollar smile, and now we've dropped pretense and just want a celebrity with no experience in there. People act like it's different but it's not. Maybe Reagan was the one who started this crap, or maybe Kennedy, but both of those guys had the benefit of not being totes shitty.

If anyone we just need a boring hooligan like Kasich or even Hildog up there or something. Choosing our President entirely on how ballza they are at crafting a cult of personality doesn't hellza bode well.

>Who are you voting for?

DEEZ NUTS, nukkuh!

>>75191
If you think you can just magically get along with a community of people having drastically different culture, beliefs, and lifestyles, you are an idiot. Like just a huge idiot. One of the fundamental things of becoming a citizen of any country is accepting the values of that country, even if they conflict with your culture or old values. Even if you apply for a fucking visa for places they demand you abide by their values. This isn't some fucking fairytale land where everyone loves each other and plays nice.

The fact that you think everyone can get along like magic goes to show you've not experienced many other cultures.

>>75193
The desire for a political outsider stem from the public's growing discontent with the status quo. Trump being so very far out there is more representative of how the right is hopelessly fractured at the moment. He is throwing up tons of red meat to the fringes of the party with his spooky plan to deport all of the illegals and build a wall, while at the same time advocating an expansion of entitlements [re: universal healthcare] which is actually popular across party lines. By this I mean to say that over half of declared republicans want an expansion of entitlements. When you remove the pressure to maintain a position counter to that which is popular [money in the form of republican PACs funded by billionaires], it makes perfect sense that a politician would take such a position [fiscally liberal, but still anti dirty messicans takin orr jerbs]. He is a direct result of the republican party's unwillingness to move towards the center on spending. I would say that Obama rode the same sort of discontentment with 'politics as usual' but the similarities end there.

>>75195
Nice strawman. I never said everything will work out magically. I did however take exception to a few of your comments.
>> has no respect for the US legal system
>> bitches and moans about everything
>> backwards ass country
>> shares no values with mine
You know... everything you said.

>>The fact that you think everyone can get along like magic goes to show you've not experienced many other cultures.
ballza ad hom kid. I have, in fact, experienced a lot of cultures. Two of my best friends are first generation immigrants with english as their second language. If you think there is a singular 'American culture' you're dense as fuck. We are a collection of subcultures and they are not wholly incompatible, nor are they wholly compatible. We were born as a melting pot and we will remain a melting pot. Get bent. You being called out for your problematic beliefs has nothing to do with where you're from.

>>75196
I know why he's popular, a rabid anti-establishment feeling along with stupid people with no understanding of complex issue mistaking his brutal, middle school simplicity for smarts. It's a perfect illustration of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. I'm not sure how much of it is sincere or just a shrewd way to get the idiot wing of the party with no self-awareness to fall in line behind him, but I get it.

My point is, Obama ran on the idea that he was an "outsider" compared to Hillary Clinton, a young guy with new ideas who wasn't already bought by various interests. A big part of his appeal was never hellza substantive, it was all about the feels and reacting to the trainwreck of W's Presidency.

Trump just seems like the other side of the coin, offering more sizzle than steak his cult, but has the gall to consider himself somehow radically different.

>>75198
Eh, I mean being a political outsider is just kinda the current vapid thing to support. You're right in saying that politics being a lot of kabuki theater isn't any different. What is different here is that the theater has become substantive somewhat accidentally. People are angry at the establishment, and so they want someone who seems to be from the outside. Sure. Fine. So they get Obama. He doesn't work out. No matter who you blame for that, it's a group of politicians' fault. This means doubling down on the whole anti-politician thing. So the left has a socialist (which the republicans tried to teach America was a dirty word), and the right has a clown [complete with clowncar].
So what I'm saying is:
1) I agree that people have not stopped in the trend of voting for superficial reasons.
2) I agree that anti-establishment voting has been a trend.
3) I disagree that this is nothing new. I believe that the superficial has happened upon substance by accident. The front runner in the republican primary is an outsider with -no- political support from the establishment. In fact, the establishment is trying fairly hard to crush him. He is winning despite this. I don't think he'll win the primary [I expect voters will sober up as the primary approaches], but to even be in it without any political infrastructure behind him? That is new and important. It means we're one step further from men with cigars behind closed doors deciding who has a chance to be president. Not that that isn't still going to go on [endorsements are important! As is money!] but it's one step further.

[btw, I'd say that this trend of anti-establishment is springing from dubya mostly since he and Clinton, and hw before him were all pretty establishment picks. If you'd like you can say that mistrust began back at Nixon for obvious reasons but I think the status quo was sort of re-established and fell apart again. But that's just like, my opinion man.]

>>75197
Yeah I'm not that guy, so you're like meta-strawmanning me, bro. I was just pointing out how ignorant you are of how much differing values can drag perfectly normal people into conflict and make day-to-day life hard. That's what's at the heart of these immigration issues.

>>75201
Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean you didn't make a mistake too. You made a false representation of what I said and then argued against that. I never said that immigration doesn't cause some conflict. What I did say was that that guy was xenophobic, which is readily apparent in his description of why he hates immigrants. I attacked your assertion with "I never said everything will work out magically." in addition to the guess that you were the same person. So no, I wouldn't say I did strawman you.... since uh... I addressed your central point (in addition to my being an asshole to that guy).

Just so you can't move the goalposts, remember we were arguing over "The fact that you think everyone can get along like magic goes to show you've not experienced many other cultures."
Or when you said it earlier:"If you think you can just magically get along with a community of people having drastically different culture, beliefs, and lifestyles, you are an idiot."
I mean you said it twice in 4(ish) lines. I think it's fair to say it was your central point. You continuing to parrot it is further evidence.

Point to where I said that immigration was easy and you'll win. Guess what? I didn't say that. Closest I came was when I said they were not 'wholly incompatible' which is true. If they were we'd have stopped letting people in or killed each other by now. Again. Take note of the 'wholly' part. I know reading comprehension isn't your thing from this conversation alone and don't want to leave you a hole where you can pretend to not notice the qualifier.

>>75202
As you say it's definitely not easy, it leads to unrest, strained budgets, interethnic tensions, replacement of the native population, and what not. So the reason we should suffer through all that anyway and import the entirety of Syria here and give them all free apartments and food stamps and medical care and education with tax payer money is...?

-yet another different poster

I just don't see a need for America to participate in the whole circlejerking altruism contest of who can commit national suicide the fastest. Leave that shit to the Swedes.

And most of the people crossing into Europe right now are opportunistic immigrants claiming refugee status and not in immediate danger. Real refugees are emphatically thankful for whatever scraps of bread and spare shelter you can give them because they'll fucking die without them, most of these people are healthy young men looking to live the easy life in Europe on the tax payer dime. Where are the women and children they keep talking about? The only child I've seen the whole entire time was that dead Kurd on the beach whose photo was shilled constantly for weeks on every single image board and news site.

>>75202
Woah woah slow down there, cowboy! We aren't arguing over anything. I have no pony in this race, I'm Canadian. I'm just calling you names and making fun of you, you know, ballza old fashioned fun.

>>75204
You're a willfully blind idiot. I'm honestly not sure how you got this impression, maybe because right-wing media has been showing nothing but the scary brown young men, but do a fucking Google image search of "Syrian refugees" and you get nothing but women and children. Even group shots with a decent number of men in them are mixed.

As for immigration, fucking wannabe fascist hipsters it all it is. No modern country has ever been destroyed by immigration. You do have to control it, but for the most part immigration/refugees are quite useful in a Machiavellian sense, you can treat them like shit and pay them shit for shit work and they'll be grateful.

Countries have committed "suicide" along with victimizing themselves when they get into super nationalistic auto-fellatio sessions, they either implode internally or become such a problem for neighbors that they get assplugged. Germany and Yugoslavia come to mind.

>Personally, getting flooded with 1 million legal "refugees"

The US has 300,000,000 people. If a million refugees came in overnight, you would not be able to tell the difference in your day-to-day life.

>>75206
>No modern country has ever been destroyed by immigration.
First of all one could argue that what's happening in Ukraine is the result of Russians immigrating and living there (course they been there for a while they did all immigrate at one point). Second the reason no MODERN country has been destroyed by rampant immigration is because no modern country has allowed rampant immigration. Why don't they allow this? There's a pretty ballza historical precedent for unchecked immigration ruining countries.

The best example is probably the Roman Empire. A lot of things contributed to its fall but a big one was their failure to integrate the Gauls and Goths. The Gauls mostly died out (cept in like Brittany, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland) and the Goths went on to dominate all of Europe for the rest of history as the various Germanic tribes. Course that wasn't so much integration as it was integrating conquered people, but the point is large numbers of foreigners definitely fucks up nations.

>>75209
Naturalization has been part of Europe for hundreds of years, it's not a new thing. Even the ancient Roman system of slavery was essentially using immigration in the useful sense, and the European colonists and Americans especially updated and even expanded it. I know you're terrified of Muslims and Mexicans, but mass immigration is not something that started in the last 20 years, and all those hippie immigration activists are right when they say that this is no a new debate, and people are just saying the same things they did when it was Irish and Italians and Chinese and Blacks and Swedish or whatever the fuck ages ago. It's using the same arguments, taking advantage of the same xenophobia, invoking the same toxic nationalism, and it all peters out when economies get better and those sneaky immigrants don't eat your children in your sleep.

The fact is, in established societies, members of the dominant group don't want to do the shit work. Immigrants can help curb this by doing the shit work and being grateful for it. Slavery wasn't the best way to do it in the long term (the same way mass extermination is not the right way to deal with overpopulation), but inviting people over to do it for us in exchange for not living in a backwards shithole has been pretty successful for us. And indeed, if Trump got his way and all the illegal immigrants were poofed into thin air, our agricultural, construction, and various other unskilled-but-necessary industries would collapse overnight. America's entire story can be considered the story of successfully exploiting immigrant labor for the benefit of the same people who get so angry about it.

>>75211
>I know you're terrified of Muslims and Mexicans
Yo basketball american I'm Canadian. We don't have Mexicans up here and most of the muslims are on the east coast. I'm on the west coast. All we got is asians.

>>75212
That doesn't mean you can't be scared-by-proxy for all the Europeans, seems to be a trend in the US right now.

>>75209

Roman Empire fell because of tax exemptions for the wealthy landowners, and a disenfranchisement of freeholders, who became debt-slaves on the Latifundia. No wonder they didn't cry foul when some barbarians came in to upset the social order, rather they often invited them in and plotted to share the spoils!

Rome was dead and done, killed by greed and corruption and religious strife long before Atilla came by.

>>75214
hundreds of thousands of newcomers who didn't speak latin, didn't share roman values, and didn't believe in the roman gods certainly didn't help, why hasten things?

>>75206
> women and children
You don't think they're capable of subterfuge, you sexist, ageist, glass-ceiling building piece of shit?

>>75218

They were often used to bolster lands that the Roman Empire couldn't feasibly hold at that point, as well as a source of cheap military power. Essentially what they'd do is say, "Hey, barbarians! You see this nice, farmable land we got? Say a few oaths and pledge loyalty and it's yours! Oh, what's that? Hmm, there's a different tribe of barbarians coming now? Well, I guess you better defend that land! We'll be over here watching in case things get too rough."

They may have been the killing blow on the Roman Empire, but only because the Roman Empire was already a festering corpse. In many ways they helped prolong its existence.

>>75206
Just out of curiosity, what news outlets do you consider to be part of the "right wing media"? I'm in the mood to laugh because you're a fucking dumbass who drank the identity politics kool aid and thinks it's an issue of xenophobia or racism or right wing vs antifa or whatever and not a purely fucking practical issue of where the hell you are going to put all these people and who is going to pay for them?

Are you willing to house refugees and share your food and your home and whatever else with them? If you're not willing, what right do you have to demand other people to do it? And if you are willing, then invite some and do so, but don't try to force others to with your politics of guilt and name calling.

800,000 have arrived in Germany alone in just over a month's time. It is a practical issue, where in the hell do you put that many people in a place like Munich where even natives and resident aliens who've been there prior to the refugee crisis can hardly find affordable places to live due to a simple lack of space? The Merkel administration is appropriating any empty space it can find to hold all these people just until it can find somewhere else for them to go and it is driving tensions to the boiling point. And, more are arriving every day.

>>75218

Latin was never the majority language of the Roman Empire.


>didn't believe in Roman gods

Neither did the Romans, due to Jesus fucking Christ.

>>75228
Yeah sloth the Roman Empire was around for a long fucking time. Both those statements you made were both true and false at different times during the Empire's existence.

>>75191
>You even say that you only like him because 'John Millbank isn't running', when John Milbank is not only a christian theologian, but wasn't even born in the US and so isn't eligible to run.

You act as though his nationality is the reason why voting for John Millbank as president would be absurd. I suspect you've never heard of him before.

>You probably even think rand is on the liberal end of the candidates just because his policy statements tend that way. He has the most conservative voting record of any of the candidates in the republican primary.

You somehow seem to think I'm not a conservative. Are you one of those narcissistic, daily show-watching jackoffs that are totally incapable of understanding how someone can have a different worldview from you?

>>75211

>people are just saying the same things they did when it was Irish and Italians and Chinese and Blacks and Swedish or whatever the fuck ages ago. It's using the same arguments, taking advantage of the same xenophobia, invoking the same toxic nationalism, and it all peters out when economies get better and those sneaky immigrants don't eat your children in your sleep.

Or when those immigrants assimilate and become functionally American. Which is what happened with the Swedes and Irish and Italians (I don't recall mass immigration of blacks to America??) and what is not happening with Muslims in Europe and happening only slowly to Latinos.

>The fact is, in established societies, members of the dominant group don't want to do the shit work.

Absolute horseshit. You've just outed yourself as a prissy white suburbanite with no actual encounters with the lower classes. Americans will do any work as long as the wage justifies the labor--and it's not like mexicans are all coming here and picking almonds, I know quite a few wops working construction, machinist gigs, truck drivers, a lot of jobs that working class Americans would be grateful for. They're suppressing wages and increasing competition.

>inviting people over to do it for us in exchange for not living in a backwards shithole has been pretty successful for us.

So, when I call it an ass-backwards shithole of a country I'm a bigot in the wrong, but when you're saying it's a shithole it's A-OK?

>And indeed, if Trump got his way and all the illegal immigrants were poofed into thin air, our agricultural, construction, and various other unskilled-but-necessary industries would collapse overnight. America's entire story can be considered the story of successfully exploiting immigrant labor for the benefit of the same people who get so angry about it.

Ha ha Jesus Christ. It's not working class Americans (the ones angry about immigration) exploiting the labor, it's the bourgeoisie. This is literally 100% for THEIR benefit to OUR detriment. You fucking bootlicker.

>>75235
>Or when those immigrants assimilate and become functionally American. Which is what happened with the Swedes and Irish and Italians (I don't recall mass immigration of blacks to America??) and what is not happening with Muslims in Europe and happening only slowly to Latinos.

Latinos in general have assimilated the best and the fastest of most previous groups, it does get easier when people aren't flinging shit at you all day. Illegal immigrants only seem like they're assimilating "slowly" because you're living in it. It took us around 80 years to get used to the fact that some people in the US were going to be Catholic.

>Absolute horseshit. You've just outed yourself as a prissy white suburbanite with no actual encounters with the lower classes.

And you outed yourself as someone who is so narcissistic (boner for Trump starts to make sense) that you think you can judge someone's basic character and life experience from one sentence on an anonymous forum.

Look, I DO have to compete with immigrants, and it's annoying. They're completely legal H1-B immigrants from east Asia and India chosen not because they do better work but because they can be better controlled. Illegal immigrants, by and large, do not work as truck drivers or any skilled labor job, they work no-skill jobs that require a lot of people. I'm truly sorry if you've found yourself having to compete directly with these people for jobs, but that only means you have no other marketable skills. If you did, you might have to compete not with illegals, but completely legal immigrants no one talks about. But I don't mind so much, if I can't present myself as a better candidate than someone not even from the country, then I figure that's my own fault.

>So, when I call it an ass-backwards shithole of a country I'm a bigot in the wrong, but when you're saying it's a shithole it's A-OK?

I never personally called you a bigot, but there is a difference between saying "a country has problems and might be shit" and "I want to fuck all illegal immigrants and the President of Mexico to death".

>Ha ha Jesus Christ. It's not working class Americans (the ones angry about immigration) exploiting the labor, it's the bourgeoisie. This is literally 100% for THEIR benefit to OUR detriment. You fucking bootlicker.

Part of me would like to just "try it out", let all the illegal immigrants go away somehow and see what happens next. You honestly thing there will be tons of native Americans who will clamor to pick grapes for minimum wage? That's how these people work to our benefit, they can more cheaply produce things that would be much more expensive for Americans to produce, and they do it efficiently. Getting rid of illegal immigration/labor is nothing short of shooting off our own d.

rude

>>75236
>Latinos in general have assimilated the best and the fastest of most previous groups, it does get easier when people aren't flinging shit at you all day. Illegal immigrants only seem like they're assimilating "slowly" because you're living in it. It took us around 80 years to get used to the fact that some people in the US were going to be Catholic.

Haha, actually yeah. I should probably go ahead and let you down and admit I agree with you. I don't think they're assimilating as quickly as you think (and I think the anti-immigrant sentiment is actually helpful for assimilation; as in Texas a lot of mexicans are very immigrated, but in the progressive and liberal California you have a lot of cholo subculture and la raza hooligans that just aren't nearly as prevalent here) but I do like hispanic immigrants and I have no problem with allowing them in, it's just we should limit it so that foreign agents don't have such a significant political influence over our elections and economy.

>And you outed yourself as someone who is so narcissistic (boner for Trump starts to make sense) that you think you can judge someone's basic character and life experience from one sentence on an anonymous forum.

Presumptuous, maybe. And I don't have a boner for trump? I literally said I think he could be the next hitler.

>Look, I DO have to compete with immigrants, and it's annoying. They're completely legal H1-B immigrants from east Asia and India chosen not because they do better work but because they can be better controlled. Illegal immigrants, by and large, do not work as truck drivers or any skilled labor job, they work no-skill jobs that require a lot of people.

Truck driver is not skilled labor job and you just don't seem at all to understand blue collar work. It's like Dirty Jobs, most of these jobs are just hard on your body, like construction. There are plenty of white people working them, I see them all the time.

>I'm truly sorry if you've found yourself having to compete directly with these people for jobs, but that only means you have no other marketable skills. If you did, you might have to compete not with illegals, but completely legal immigrants no one talks about. But I don't mind so much, if I can't present myself as a better candidate than someone not even from the country, then I figure that's my own fault.

Oh, I haven't. I work a shitty retail job because I'm young and never went to college. And it's not about, y'know, directly competing with them, it's more about the general trend. I may be the best candidate individually, but there's only one spot for me. If every other position is filled with immigrants, the work is going to be harder and I'm going to get paid less overall.

>I never personally called you a bigot, but there is a difference between saying "a country has problems and might be shit" and "I want to fuck all illegal immigrants and the President of Mexico to death".

Fookin' libruls, what's with your obsession with Trump? He's not even my 2nd choice ffs. I just don't like Syrians.

And you're also overlooking the welfare aspect of this whole thing. I'd bet you a lot more americans would be willing to pick grapes if they couldn't get a government check for SSI or TANF. And the employment aspect. If no americans would pick grapes for minimum wage, some might pick grapes for $10/hr. And more for $15. Sure, grape prices would jump substantially, but our food prices are artificially low due to government subsidies in the first place.