Donald Trump and US politics

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Here's how I'd do US immigration if I had sole discretion over policy...

1. If the we don't have decent diplomatic relations with the country of origin, we accept no immigrants from that country (except for defectors of significant value to the enemy in time of war). For example, if we are currently or were recently bombing them, we probably lack decent diplomatic relations.

Why?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

2. If a foreign nation won't "track" things we consider severe crimes in an individual's criminal record, we accept no immigrants who have ever been in that country. For example, if murdering homosexuals [edit: or anyone else] is not a crime of any sort in a certain country, then we don't take anyone from there. However, if such a thing is a crime of any severity — even if it's as trivial as a speeding ticket is in the US — and that law is effectively enforced and recorded, then that's okay. To this end, we'd sell the concept of fining-for-profit as a revenue stream for allied nations, allowing them to cover the cost of tracking that the US wants for its own security when accepting immigrants. Remember that the goal here is US security, not legislating our morality onto foreign, sovereign land.

So, if a country doesn't track all murderers, then all immigrants from that country must be considered guilty of murder? What about people fleeing from such a depraved country -- like, using your example, persecuted homosexuals?

If murdering Jews is not a crime in a country, do we refuse all refugees from there (incl. Jews)?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

3. If the immigrant lacks sufficient identification to identify them to the government of their country/countries of origin, we don't accept them. This information is used to obtain the immigrant's criminal record from their home country.

Do you know anyone with Italian blood?

There's a derogatory term for Italians, coming from an early Ellis Island label, "Without Papers." Many Italians -- as well as other immigrants -- entered this country without papers.

We are a country of immigrants, and just because you can't identify yourself via some bureaucratic apparatus, doesn't mean you don't belong here.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

4. If the immigrant has committed a crime the US considers severe, whether the country of origin does or doesn't consider it severe, then we don't accept them. Because all accepted countries of origin investigate and record crimes the US considers severe, the country of origin performs the background check for the US.

No problem with the first-half of what you said; the second half, I already addressed (see 2).

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

5. The immigrant must complete an IQ test with a score higher than the US median. Optionally, if a family is seeking entry, the entire group can be allowed in so long as the group average exceeds the US median. Every new immigrant taken in should make us a smarter and therefore better nation.

And they must have blue eyes and blonde hair.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

6. The IQ test should be in English only, without translation options. English is and should be the official language of the United States. If a passing score on the test is achieved despite unfamiliarity with English, that's cool too — respect to those who wing it.

Wrong: it is the de facto language, the language of our Constitution, but it is nowhere enshrined that the English tongue must be the exclusive language used for official purposes.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

7. The immigrant should pay their own way. There are two main functions detailed above: requesting a criminal record from the immigrant's home country, and administering an IQ test. Whatever that costs, applicants should pay it.

So refugees must pay their own way. Got it. I'm sure glad you aren't the one who opens and closes our door.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

8. Outside of the seven above principles, little or nothing should apply. Believe it or not, I'm against "extreme vetting" or any other vague security measure whose name tests well in focus groups. Currently, legal immigrants waste too much time and money going through a bureaucratic and inefficient process. These needless inefficiencies are not only a waste of taxpayer money, but they make legal immigration more difficult, increasing the appeal of lazier illegal immigration for even those who are qualified to immigrate. Just get the two important questions answered — "are they safe?" and "are we better with or without them?" — and don't waste time and money on the other shit.

You don't see the value of aiding a human life, but only of advancing our own well-being? This country is made up of many men who think and feel like you do. Thankfully, it is also made up of men who aren't selfish, and who see the value in human life beyond self-benefit.

"

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

There's not a way that a more capable, established contractor wouldn't have offered up a more reasonable contract to Puerto Rico.

I'd like to know if the job was PROPERLY offered up for tender.

Yes, a six month bidding process, with a 2 year environmental impact study while the people wait with no power would be so much better.

If Puerto Rico doesn't pay, the company could end up getting almost nothing. According to the NPR article, it looks like Puerto Rico didn't follow the FEMA guidelines that were in place to help make sure the contract rates were reasonable.

Puerto Rico is like a case study in how NOT to run a government.

Oh. So that makes it okay for the Trump connected contractor to further hose Puerto Rico with 10X inflated rates. Alrighty, then.

Are you more concerned that Puerto Rico is possibly getting 'hosed' or more concerned that someone possibly connected to Trump is doing the hosing?

My perspective is that 'fixing' this problem, while allowing the root cause to continue blooming will just result in more of the problem. It might not be a company connected to Trump, but as certain as tomorrow's sunrise, some company will be trying to weasel every dollar they can from Puerto Rico. They will likely end up with another bad contract if they don't use to tools already available to them.

Now ask yourself - how is it that they elected leaders didn't see this bad deal for what it was at the time, and why weren't they more skeptical from the beginning? Is it their first day on the job, or more likely, is someone in the PR government getting some healthy kickbacks from the bad deal?

Widen your skepticism.

"

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The left has been playing this version of Corruption the Gathering, for far longer than the right. Unfortunately for them, Trump knows every card in their deck.

Trump can't even sit at the desk without constant babysitter-like supervision. And you believe he has some kind of overwhelming wisdom over others? Come on.

Wisdom and knowledge aren't the same thing. While some on the left see Trump as a fool, he continues to best them, which must make them even bigger fools.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYJ_H2c5IWc

This never gets old. You can almost see the 'wtf are you on about you fucking loon' zipping about in Hillary's brain.

And you still voted for it. LOL.

It was clear in that piece that 'Cyber' was something Trump was aware of, but it was on the periphery of his knowledge, like the person that updates their antivirus once a year and calls it good. On the flip side, even if he was fully aware of many aspects of the threats, we wouldn't be expecting him to be writing software to protect us would we? Understanding the priority of the problem and ensuring it gets the resources it needs is what we would hope for in any president. The US has not put enough emphasis on protecting itself in this arena, and what little effort they have made, hasn't been inspected or analyzed to show that it was effective.

While Trump's knowledge on this at the time was probably limited, his point was valid.

As for voting for it, notice that there are two candidates on stage. The choice isn't between Trump, Hillary and Julian Assange - it's Trump or Clinton. As for Hillary's computing expertise, we have this evidence:

"

bwam wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

1. If the we don't have decent diplomatic relations with the country of origin, we accept no immigrants from that country (except for defectors of significant value to the enemy in time of war). For example, if we are currently or were recently bombing them, we probably lack decent diplomatic relations.

Why?

Can't rely on the process in #2 or #4 if they hate us. Or rely on them for anything, really.

"

bwam wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

2. If a foreign nation won't "track" things we consider severe crimes in an individual's criminal record, we accept no immigrants who have ever been in that country. For example, if murdering homosexuals [edit: or anyone else] is not a crime of any sort in a certain country, then we don't take anyone from there. However, if such a thing is a crime of any severity — even if it's as trivial as a speeding ticket is in the US — and that law is effectively enforced and recorded, then that's okay. To this end, we'd sell the concept of fining-for-profit as a revenue stream for allied nations, allowing them to cover the cost of tracking that the US wants for its own security when accepting immigrants. Remember that the goal here is US security, not legislating our morality onto foreign, sovereign land.

So, if a country doesn't track all murderers, then all immigrants from that country must be considered guilty of murder? What about people fleeing from such a depraved country -- like, using your example, persecuted homosexuals?

In the case of an ongoing conflict, defectors of significant value to the enemy would be welcome. This would have covered, say, Einstein fleeing Europe ahead of Nazi Germany. However, because the vetting process is mindbogglingly difficult when no official records from the origin nation can be trusted, I'm against the idea of helping refugees through mass migration. It seems more sensible to try to help them where they are than to move them.

"

bwam wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

3. If the immigrant lacks sufficient identification to identify them to the government of their country/countries of origin, we don't accept them. This information is used to obtain the immigrant's criminal record from their home country.

Do you know anyone with Italian blood?

There's a derogatory term for Italians, coming from an early Ellis Island label, "Without Papers." Many Italians -- as well as other immigrants -- entered this country without papers.

We are a country of immigrants, and just because you can't identify yourself via some bureaucratic apparatus, doesn't mean you don't belong here.

The unpunished foolishness of the past is not a justification for foolishness in the future. Knowing what someone did is impossible if they can't demonstrate who they are.

"

bwam wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

5. The immigrant must complete an IQ test with a score higher than the US median. Optionally, if a family is seeking entry, the entire group can be allowed in so long as the group average exceeds the US median. Every new immigrant taken in should make us a smarter and therefore better nation.

And they must have blue eyes and blonde hair.

Contrary to SJW belief, there's nothing racist about IQ tests.

"

bwam wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

6. The IQ test should be in English only, without translation options. English is and should be the official language of the United States. If a passing score on the test is achieved despite unfamiliarity with English, that's cool too — respect to those who wing it.

Wrong: it is the de facto language, the language of our Constitution, but it is nowhere enshrined that the English tongue must be the exclusive language used for official purposes.

We should put that on our collective to-do list.

"

bwam wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

7. The immigrant should pay their own way. There are two main functions detailed above: requesting a criminal record from the immigrant's home country, and administering an IQ test. Whatever that costs, applicants should pay it.

So refugees must pay their own way. Got it. I'm sure glad you aren't the one who opens and closes our door.

Why would we want refugees?

"

bwam wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

8. Outside of the seven above principles, little or nothing should apply. Believe it or not, I'm against "extreme vetting" or any other vague security measure whose name tests well in focus groups. Currently, legal immigrants waste too much time and money going through a bureaucratic and inefficient process. These needless inefficiencies are not only a waste of taxpayer money, but they make legal immigration more difficult, increasing the appeal of lazier illegal immigration for even those who are qualified to immigrate. Just get the two important questions answered — "are they safe?" and "are we better with or without them?" — and don't waste time and money on the other shit.

You don't see the value of aiding a human life, but only of advancing our own well-being? This country is made up of many men who think and feel like you do. Thankfully, it is also made up of men who aren't selfish, and who see the value in human life beyond self-benefit.

There's no problem with you feeling that way. However, there is also no problem with these "many men" like me feeling how we do. That's why there should be charities for people like you to voluntarily give to help people abroad who have problems, instead of a gun pointed to people like me forcing us to comply.

"

One would need to be completely Breitwashed to think Trump is besting anyone.

We're nearing the one-year anniversary of him besting everyone.

"

An existing American citizen. Age 25. Chronically, but not gravely/terminally ill. Draws from the welfare and medical systems to survive. Likely will live to 75 yrs+. Will never in that time be anything other than a financial liability to the country. 130 points of wasted IQ power, only using it enough to be certain of a life of slothdom.

A potential immigrant. Age 25. In perfect to exceptional health. Wants to work for anyone who'd take him for lower than average wage. Will live 75 yrs and will contribute to the economy, faithfully and happily. Poor guy only has a 75 IQ. Clean criminal record.

Which is more qualified to be a citizen?

Your juxtaposition of high IQ with low employability, and vice versa, is hilariously unrealistic. At best, such a situation is an extreme outlier. And when it comes to the most extreme outliers, sorry, but trying to accommodate them is just too much of a drag on the screening process. As I explained in #8, the bulk of immigrants deserve a streamlined, efficient process.