Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

In summary, the top contenders for the 2016 US Presidential Election are Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders. The major issues that are being discussed are the lack of qualifications of the contenders, their stances on jailing all of the other candidates, and the stances of each candidate on various issues.
  • #771
axmls said:
I don't know that anyone believes Gary Johnson would be a perfect president or that he was a perfect governor. He did have high approval as a republican in a blue state. He did face opposition from the 60% democratic legislature. But he does have a record of cutting taxes and left office with a surplus (from what I can find), and he's a lot more honest than two other candidates who shall remain unnamed

Besides. A couple billion of debt is nothing compared to a nearly useless $20 billion wall.
I'd love to see a libertarian-ish candidate win. A serious one. Johnson is not, governor or no. His description of the immigration issue is incoherent, delusional, even compared to Trump/Hillary. It sounds as if he is going to add "smoke up" at the end of every sentence.

Sen Paul was a serious candidate.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #772
axmls said:
...

The debt has risen under most (all?) presidents. ...

The debt did not just rise, it doubled under Obama. Given the spending proposals he and Pelosi raised, if not for the GOP takeover in Congress a 250% increase was likely.

Johnson could well make the debt worse. He explicitly states he wants open borders. That doesn't work with a large welfare state. While recent history shows as President he can unilaterally have an open border, he can *not* unilaterally shut down the welfare state. A Congress run by existing parties that can gather super majorities really does not need a 3rd party President for much of anything.
 
  • #774
mheslep said:
So says, Jordan Chariton, a political reporter for "The Young Turks" news show. Ever seen Young Turks?
No.
 
  • #776
IMO, the whole thing is a sad joke.
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
  • #777
Evo said:
IMO, the whole thing is a sad joke.
Exactly my thoughts, the US is out of good options now and it seems most of the world will be laughing at this sad joke soon. :frown:
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #778
Evo said:
Question for those that would vote for Trump just to thumb their nose at established government without regard for the consequences, how do you feel about his VP pick?
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/18/mike...ng-over-bernie-sanders-voters-commentary.html
Trump was never going to win the far left of the country that burns American flags and thinks Trump is literally Hitler. He relies on "silent majority" type voters that are working class and care only about getting a job. I could see Pence being a solid pick for these types, especially if they're religious. I consider myself an independent and sympathetic to both Trump and Sanders based solely on my personal interest in how they view trade. Supporting the middle class is what matters to me.

Some of the topics brought up in that article like gay marriage and LGBT rights are totally frivolous. While I care about equality, these are not front and center issues that should be deciding people's votes.
 
  • #779
Evo said:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/18/mike...ng-over-bernie-sanders-voters-commentary.html
Who the heck is Jordan Chariton?

He doesn't seem to like either candidate very much

http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-...-may-cost-democrats-more-than-the-presidency/

Becky Ruis, and Sanders supporters like her, doesn’t give a fig about helping Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump.

Why would they — what has the Democratic Party asking for her vote done for her and her family?

[did they jh] Jail bankers responsible for her plight? No.

[did they jh] Respond to an epic financial disaster — similar in scale to the Great Depression— and reinstate Glass-Steagall and take the keys to the car away from Wall Street? Nope.
With a Democratic President and Democratic House and Senate, [did they jh] bailout the millions of displaced homeowners and laid off workers with direct financial relief, or expand special government-funded jobs, like rebuilding our roads and bridges?

A bailout happened: for bankers, who responded by showering themselves with millions in bonuses.

[did they jh] Create special job programs for minority communities with ungodly unemployment rates? Infuse low-income communities with free educational programs, like say public college?

Ha!

...

Sure, the pundits warn of the looming epic disaster of a President Trump. What they can’t grasp — for Becky, and millions like her, they’re already living a quiet disaster.

One where personal growth and fulfillment has long been tossed aside; in its place — never-ending survival mode.

Fortunately for wealthy Democratic lawmakers, survival is something they don’t currently have to worry about.

They can continue to rest on their collective laurels, thinking changing demographics alone will guarantee the party presidential victories.

But, aside from the consistent polls showing Bernie Sanders as http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html, they might want to rethink a Clinton nomination.

Or fall into survival mode as a party in the years to come.

When the millions of young voters across colors rejecting its brand of neoliberalism, and “pragmatism,” go in a different direction.

Like a revolution.

i may like him more than i expected.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #781
Trump said that he might not come to the aid of NATO allies.

In January 1950 Secretary of State Dean Atcheson remarked in a public statement that South Korea was not vital to our national security. In June 1950 North Korea invaded South Korea. Where they emboldened by his remark?

How do you think Putin might be taking Trump's remark?
 
  • #782
gleem said:
How do you think Putin might be taking Trump's remark?

A harbinger of reason ?

I was raised to fear the Hammer and Sickle, as i suppose Russian kids were raised to fear NATO.
Putin is not that much younger than me and as NATO missiles creep ever closer to the Russian border I'm not surprised it makes him nervous because those people who play chess with continents appear to be surrounding one another's oil resources with them.

Russian missiles in Venezuela? http://slide.mil.news.sina.com.cn/slide_8_300_22538.html#p=1
MissilesVenezuela.jpg


It's unwise to try and corner somebody in his own back yard.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/opinions/nato-summit-responds-to-russia-brzezinski/index.html <(note author jh)
...
All this means that the alliance today is confronted by Russia's ability to suddenly seize limited swaths of territory along its periphery, including that of the Baltic states and Poland. Indeed, Moscow could potentially complete such aggression before the alliance's political authorities can determine and agree on what had transpired. NATO would then have to decide whether or not it would be worth the costs and risks of reversing that loss of territory.
To counter such a contingency, NATO members agreed at Friday's summit to deploy battalion level forces to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to deter Russian aggression. "[T]hese battalions will be robust and they will be multinational," NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said. "They make clear that an attack on one ally will be considered an attack on the whole alliance."

But battalions -- 800 to 1,000 troops -- are small units compared with the divisions of airborne, mechanized, and tank units deployed in Russia's Western Military District and their supporting air and naval forces.
If these NATO battalions are to effectively deter a threat of that magnitude, therefore, they need to be able to survive for a limited amount of time amid an aggressive attack. In addition, they must have sufficient lethality to impose high costs on an aggressor -- even if the expectation is not to defeat that adversary. Finally, the alliance must demonstrate readiness to quickly reinforce these battalions.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/06/patrick-j-buchanan/natos-anti-russian-aggression/
Lest we forget, while it was Khrushchev who backed down in the Cuban missile crisis, President Eisenhower did nothing to halt the crushing of the Hungarian rebels, Kennedy accepted the Berlin Wall, and Lyndon Johnson refused to lift a finger to save the Czechs when their “Prague Spring” was snuffed out by Warsaw Pact tank armies.

Even Reagan’s response to the crushing of Solidarity was with words not military action.

None of these presidents was an appeaser, but all respected the geostrategic reality that any military challenge to Moscow on the other side of NATO’s Red Line in Germany carried the risk of a calamitous war for causes not justifying such a risk.

Yet we are today risking a collision with Russia in the Baltic States and Ukraine, where no vital U.S. interest has ever existed and where our adversary enjoys military superiority.

As Les Gelb writes in The National Interest, “the West’s limp hand” in the Baltic and “Russia’s military superiority over NATO on its Western borders,” is “painfully evident to all.” “If NATO ups the military ante, Moscow can readily trump it..."
Komsomolskaia Pravda: “Let’s take the bull by the horns straight away. We received hundreds of frankly disturbing calls. The situation in our country is extremely difficult. They tried to crush us with sanctions. NATO is already touching our borders, the are creating a system for anti-missile defence. In the foreign media, there is an unprecedented demonization of our country.

I'm worried about the world's dominant males starting a shootout.
imho Cruz showed his lack of judgement last night, the thought of him as CIC really worried me ..

What ever happened to Detente ?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/patrick-j-buchanan/the-evil-of-nato/
Nixon’s great achievement was to split China off from Moscow. President Reagan’s great achievement was to preside over the conversion of the “evil empire” into a country where he was cheered in Red Square.

What our Greatest Generation presidents accomplished, our Baby Boomer presidents appear to have booted away.

Good fences make good neighbors. Expansionism is disrespecting the fences.Not wanting to seem trite here,
but find "Bedford Incident" on Netflix and see if you think its message is relevant today.
http://www.fandango.com/thebedfordincident_92966/plotsummary
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
  • #783
jim hardy said:
Who the heck is Jordan Chariton?

He doesn't seem to like either candidate very much
Thats enough to get votes at this point.
 
  • #784
gleem said:
Trump said that he might not come to the aid of NATO allies.
Specifically, Trump said, per the NYT:
if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing if those nations have “fulfilled their obligations to us.”

“If they fulfill their obligations to us,” he added, “the answer is yes.”

gleem said:
In January 1950 Secretary of State Dean Atcheson remarked in a public statement that South Korea was not vital to our national security. In June 1950 North Korea invaded South Korea. Where they emboldened by his remark?
One can keep going with that line, back to consequences of G. Washington's "entangling alliances" address, and http://www.theamericanconservative.com/repository/she-goes-not-abroad-in-search-of-monsters-to-destroy/:
She [America] well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom

gleem said:
How do you think Putin might be taking Trump's remark?

Which draws attention to some other sides of the issue.

First, what might be the response of the NATO allies to the remark, given only four of the members aside from the US meet the 2% of GDP target on defense spending expected of member states?

Second, given how the US tears itself apart in deciding to take military action abroad, I can see some possible benefits to military morale if action was not based entirely on unilateral support of a treaty by the US, that all of the NATO allies were meeting their obligations before the fact.

BTW, I don't recall much concern on the left for appearing weak or divisive when Obama, with then Sec State Clinton, canceled the planned US missile defense system for eastern Europe in 2009. Obama had stated he supported the missile defense proposal in the campaign of 2008.

September[/PLAIN] 2008:
...
00:01:09 Obama: The russians are playing a game when they pretend that this missile shield is directed against all their -- bill: it's ridiculous.
00:01:16 Host: It's a defensive thing.
00:01:17 Obama: It's a defensi thing.
00:01:19 Host: you are going to keep it there then.
00:01:21 Obama: Given what has happened in georgia, I think we have to send a clear signal that poland and other countries in that region are not going to be subject to intimidation and aggression.
00:01:32 Host: I want to get this on the record.
00:01:34 Host: You are elected president you keep the missile shield in poland.
00:01:37 Obama: I believe it's appropriate.
...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes jim hardy
  • #785
mheslep said:
BTW, I don't recall much concern on the left for appearing weak or divisive when Obama, with then Sec State Clinton, canceled the planned US missile defense system for eastern Europe in 2009. Obama had stated he supported the missile defense proposal in the campaign of 2008.

Does anybody truly believe a candidate can or will do all the things that they promise. This is just the typical candidates item on his/her "to do list" until they get all the facts and they are sitting in the "seat" and are listening to their advisers who probably know a lot more about these things than the candidate.
 
  • #786
gleem said:
Does anybody truly believe a candidate can or will do all the things that they promise. This is just the typical candidates item on his/her "to do list" until they get all the facts and they are sitting in the "seat" and are listening to their advisers who probably know a lot more about these things than the candidate.

Do you think it appropriate, then, if everyone quoted your post in response to any controversial statement by a politician?
 
  • Like
Likes Jaeusm
  • #787
I hadn't seen any media mention of it and maybe it isn't even relevant, but here is the party platform adopted at the RNC:

https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/
 
  • Like
Likes Dembadon
  • #788
Jon Stewart on Sean "Lumpy" Hannity and Trump.
 
  • #789
  • Like
Likes gfd43tg
  • #790
Wow.

I watched Thom Hartmann this morning to get the left's take on Trump's speech

http://www.thomhartmann.com/

He started by reading from his own book, about protectionism.

Trump is on the verge of triggering a "Mass Movement" a la Eric Hoffer's "True Believer"
and Hartmann understands why.

Mass movements can go bad

but I'm optimistic about this one.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #791
New Hampshire delegate and former US Senator Gordon Humphrey has quite the republican party over Trump and the party's support for Trump. He commented that "Trump is a 'malevolent man' who should not be leader."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-senator-quits-republican-party-173119377.html

New Clinton VP pick Kaine tried to shame Congress into action on ISIS
https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-vp-pick-kaine-tried-000000696.html

Obama reacts to Trump's GOP convention speech: CNN vets the claims
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/22/p...trump-fact-check-crime-immigration/index.html
 
  • #792
Left, right, east, west, north, top, whatever... do I have to pick a side these days? Or will someone else now gladly pick it for me? I prefer to be 'nice'. Are there any 'nice wings'?
I think what's really sad is that any candidates who would actually make decent promises and then also keep them once they are voted to an office are also usually the first ones booted out of the nominating process. I think we call them 'kooks'. I guess that's one I missed above - kooks. Is this what it has come to? That we believe those who lie to us (mainly because they have enough money to make their lies appear believable) and we dismiss those who have great ideas and look like nice folks because the rich ones who lie to us have also convinced us that they are kooks. As if building a wall between Mexico and the US isn't kooky. Or arguing over and going to war over who gets to own and control property belonging to another sovereign country. Hmmm...
 
  • #793
Astronuc said:
Obama reacts to Trump's GOP convention speech: CNN vets the claims
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/22/p...trump-fact-check-crime-immigration/index.html
I dunno, Astro, think i'd vet Obama and CNN on that one.

From the CNN piece
It is, of course, very difficult to check the total number of people who have tried to cross the border in any given year. The number of apprehensions gives us a good idea, but it also assumes that border patrol's resources and effectiveness have remained somewhat constant over the years. There is also no way to know how many people crossing the border illegally eluded arrest or how aggressive Border Patrol agents are with apprehensions at any given time.

Inappropriate source deleted by moderator. Not a mainstream source.

Edit-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>>>>Okay then , how about this source ?<<<<


The article deleted by moderator related a statement made by Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol council, which is the Border Patrol Agents' Union

to the effect they are ordered to stand down ,
so to use rate of apprehensions as a statistic is disingenuous.

Here is part of his March testimony before the Subcommittee on National Security
You can read the whole thing at
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-23-Judd-Testimony-NBPC.pdf

BorderPatrolBrandon.jpg


So - Which news sources are to be believed ?
Information flows like water from a spring,
it is collected and distributed to myriad agencies for processing, analysis, and release to public
and passes through a lot of hands on its way to us.
So, i always look information from the field folks closest to the source, like Border Patrol agents, for it's been through the fewest hands.
Like the old cowboy says, "Always drink upstream from the herd."

I deem that CNN article propaganda, deceit with intent, and believe the poor reporter did as he was ordered but put his caveat (what i bolded) in there to salvage some sense of integrity..
That's my opinion on what news sources to believe.

Next - Which politicians to believe?
Here's a narrative by different politician. Pick whomever you think is closer to the source.

End Edit -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/114-60_98487.pdf
Mr. GOWDY
. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Virginia. The Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.
Chairman GOODLATTE
. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Record numbers of unaccompanied alien minors and adults traveling with minors are again surging across our southern border, overwhelming Federal and state resources, creating a border security nightmare,
and ensuring record profits for the criminal organizations that control the drug and human smuggling and trafficking business along
the border. More than 152,000 unaccompanied minors and families are projected to illegally cross our southwest border this year.
Some estimates project the number to top 177,000, the population of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. This would surpass the previous high
mark in 2014 by nearly 30 percent. These minors, more than two-thirds of whom are between the
ages of 15 to 17, travel thousands of miles from Central America through dangerous desert areas controlled by Mexican drug cartels,
and arrive at our southern border with tried and tested instructions from the smugglers leading them. ‘‘Find the first Border Patrol agent and claim asylum.’’ This narrative is repeated thousands of times over, and there is little doubt that with every successful entry and reunification, it encourages thousands more to illegally
enter and further degrades our border security. We saw a similar surge of mass illegal immigration by unaccompanied minors and adults from Central America in 2014. Tragically, many were killed, assaulted, kidnapped, and extorted during their journey by the criminal elements that operate with impunity
south of our border. This surge will undoubtedly produce similar victims.
Despite these tragic consequences of non-enforcement, there are no lessons learned by this Administration.
A leaked DHS intelligence report shows the Obama administration’s lax immigration policies are fueling this current surge. During July through September 2015, customs and border protections agents interviewed 345 family units apprehended at the border. Nearly 70 percent said they had heard that if they came to the United States, they would be released, or receive some sort of immigration relief, such as asylum. Additionally, nearly 60 percent said it was the U.S. immigration policies that influenced their decision to come here. The unresponsiveness by President Obama to this clearly foreseeable crisis is truly shocking.
His instructions to Federal law enforcement agencies? Standdown. In some Border Patrol sectors, agents report that they are
not allowed to initiate removal proceedings against criminal aliens who do not have a felony conviction. Aliens convicted of misdemeanors, and those who have pending felony charges, get a free pass. Agents also report that they are not authorized to initiate removal proceedings against adult aliens after apprehension at the
border if no detention space is available. This is outrageous. Such aliens are supposedly the Obama administration’s number one priority for removal. And such a policy is a beacon call for foreign nationals to cross our border undetected, including those who would do us harm.

When you give up apprehending, the rate of apprehensions goes down.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.

The term was popularised in United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Several other people have been listed as originators of the quote, and it is often erroneously attributed to Twain himself.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
 
Last edited:
  • #794
jim hardy said:
Which politicians are to be believed ?
That does seem to be the problem of the day, or perhaps one of them.
 
  • #795
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-france-others-hit-terror-may-face-more-040738960--election.html
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is asserting that countries like France that he says are compromised by terrorism may be subjected to the "extreme vetting" he proposes as a deterrent to attacks in the U.S.

When asked if his proposal might lead to a point when not a lot of people from overseas are allowed into the U.S., Trump said, "Maybe we get to that point" and added: "We have to be smart and we have to be vigilant and we have to be strong."
Seriously?!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #796
Astronuc said:
Seriously?!
how's "lackadaisy" working out over there ?
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and mheslep
  • #797
Transcript:

CHUCK TODD:

You could get to the point where you're not allowing a lot of people to come into this country from a lot of places.

DONALD TRUMP:

Maybe we get to that point. Chuck, look what's happening. Look at what just took place in Afghanistan, where they blow up a whole shopping center with people, they have no idea how many people were even killed. Happened today. So we have to be smart and we have to be vigilant and we have to be strong. We can't be the stupid people--
...
DONALD TRUMP:

--that they're from an area, and if a person can't prove what they have to be able to prove, they're not coming into this country.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-july-24-2016-n615706

US immigration lulls in the past:
http://www.susps.org/images/chart1.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes jim hardy
  • #798
The man behind Clinton's servers and email.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...enter-of-hillary-clinton-s-email-scandal.html

Bryan Pagliano didn’t just set up the now infamous “homebrew” server in the basement of Clinton’s New York home, which she used for official business while serving as Secretary of State. Pagliano has been the former secretary’s go-to IT guy for the past several years. He’s also the only person in the entire investigation of Clinton’s email who got an immunity deal, protecting him from possible criminal prosecution. That was Pagliano’s demand for telling FBI investigators about Clinton’s unorthodox system—a system that he apparently knows more about than anyone else.

Pagliano also had an unusual employment arrangement. He was pulling down a six-figure salary (~$140K, stated later in the article) at the State Department, which put him at the high-end of the pay scale for what appeared to be an ordinary tech support job. But Pagliano was also being paid on the side in cash by the Clinton family, something his immediate supervisors didn’t know.

. . .it turns out, there was more than one server, and Clinton used multiple devices. When the email story broke last year, Clinton said she used a private server for “convenience,” so that she wouldn’t have to carry different devices for her personal and private accounts.
Seems a lot wrong here.
 
  • #799
Green Party's Jill Stein Wants To Be 'Plan B' For Bernie Sanders Supporters
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/48725...ts-to-be-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters

Today the biggest third party in the U.S. is the Libertarian Party, which has taken a new prominence as it courts Republicans who have refused to fall in line behind the party's nominee, Donald Trump. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee in 2012 and again this year, amassed 1.27 million votes in the last presidential election.

On the other end of the spectrum is the Green Party. The party traces its history to 1984. Its platform focuses on environmental issues and "social justice, peace and non-violence, local and regional self-management and grassroots democracy." In 2000, 2.8 million people voted for Ralph Nader as the Green Party presidential candidate — leading to accusations of "spoiling" the election for Al Gore, a charge Nader has rejected.

It seems 2000 was another year of bad choices.
 
  • #800
Leonard Pitts commentary on the RNC.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4146950-155/leonard-pitts-battle-between-left-and
Last week's Republican conclave in Cleveland came across less as a nominating convention than as a four-day nervous breakdown, a moment of fracture and bipolarity from a party that no longer has any clear idea what it stands for or what it is. Everywhere you turned there was something that made you embarrassed for them, something so disconnected from fact, logic or decency as to suggest those things no longer have much meaning for the party faithful.
Let's see if the DNC can do better.

The US certainly had plenty of domestic terrorism during the 60s.
Did Florida Gov. Rick Scott really say he could remember "when terrorism was something that happened in foreign countries" — as if four little girls were never blown to pieces in a Birmingham church, and an NAACP lawyer and his wife were never killed by a bomb in Scott's own state?
After coming to the US in 1966, in the middle of the Civil Rights movement, I remember learning about the assassination of Medgar Evers in 1963.
In the early morning of June 12, 1963, just hours after President John F. Kennedy's nationally televised Civil Rights Address, Evers pulled into his driveway after returning from a meeting with NAACP lawyers. Emerging from his car and carrying NAACP T-shirts that read "Jim Crow Must Go", Evers was struck in the back with a bullet fired from an Enfield 1917 rifle; the bullet ripped through his heart. He staggered 30 feet (9.1 meters) before collapsing. He was taken to the local hospital in Jackson, Mississippi where he was initially refused entry because of his race.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medgar_Evers#Assassination

I watched Martin Luther King marching in the South. Then he too was assassinated in 1968. It was certainly dangerous for African-Americans, who were insisting on and asserting their Constitutional rights. And that was only 50 years ago.
 
Last edited:
  • #801
mheslep said:
Transcript:...
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-july-24-2016-n615706

US immigration lulls in the past:
chart1.gif

This doesn't really say much. The world population is ~6 times higher now than it was in, say, 1850, and the American population is ~25 times higher. It's also easier now to get to America than it's ever been just in terms of transportation. This is exactly what one would expect, even including the understandable drop in immigration during the Great Depression and the largest war in human history. In fact, the amount of immigration as a percentage of the American population could be at a low point.
 
  • #802
axmls said:
This doesn't really say much. The world population is ~6 times higher now than it was in, say, 1850, and the American population is ~25 times higher. It's also easier now to get to America than it's ever been just in terms of transportation. This is exactly what one would expect, even including the understandable drop in immigration during the Great Depression and the largest war in human history. In fact, the amount of immigration as a percentage of the American population could be at a low point.
The graph shows that US immigration can be cut dramatically, as the cuts shown were largely an act of will, i.e. they were brought about largely by changes to US immigration law and policy at the time. With respect to legal immigration into the US, set by quotas: total US population, world population, and air travel are irrelevant.

1917
Added to the exclusion list were illiterates, persons of psychopathic inferiority, men as well as women entering for immoral purposes, alcoholics, stowaways, and vagrants.

1921
The first quantitative immigration law was adopted. It set temporary annual quotas according to nationality. A book review of Not Like Us: Immigrants and Minorities in America, 1890-1924, which discusses this period is available here.

1924
The first permanent immigration quota law established a preference quota system, nonquota status, and consular control system. It also established the Border Patrol.

1929
The annual quotas of the 1924 Act were made permanent.
...
1952
The multiple laws which governed immigration and naturalization to that time were brought into one comprehensive statute. It (1) reaffirmed the national origins quota system, (2) limited immigration from the Eastern Hemisphere while leaving the Western Hemisphere unrestricted, (3) established preferences for skilled workers and relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens; and (4) tightened security and screening standards and procedures.
http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws
 
  • Like
Likes jim hardy
  • #803
Astronuc said:
Leonard Pitts commentary on the RNC.
who comments:
...so disconnected from fact, logic or decency...
and then goes on to say in a major newspaper, with police officers being assassinated in the streets and with mass terror attacks in Orlando and San Bernardino, that calls for "law and order" are actually unsubtle, recycled racism. The bit about the GOP's platform will 'commit it to support "conversion therapy"' in the GOP platform is factually untrue, it's not in there, and his comparison of ISIS like attacks on gays to the GOP platform is evil. Pitts has gone beyond being a race agitator to being out-there delusional.
 
  • #804
mheslep said:
who comments:

and then goes on to say in a major newspaper, with police officers being assassinated in the streets and with mass terror attacks in Orlando and San Bernardino, that calls for "law and order" are actually unsubtle, recycled racism. The bit about the GOP's platform will 'commit it to support "conversion therapy"' in the GOP platform is factually untrue, it's not in there, and his comparison of ISIS like attacks on gays to the GOP platform is evil. Pitts has gone beyond being a race agitator to being out-there delusional.

No offense to Atronuc personally but he continues to post "click bait" articles, that are often from questionable sources, soley because they fit his narrative. It's sad that so many otherwise intelligent people on here are completey brainwashed by the media and fail to form opinions based on actual facts. There are others on here doing the same thing... it's not just him. But they're living in a fantasy world.

The reality is that trump's speech was pretty darn good, his children showed amazingly well, giuliani brought down the house, christie was on point, pence was better than anyone expected, and cruz's nonsense was unifying. oh, and no--literally no--protest nonsense.

It helped, not at all hurt, that RIGHT after trump's speech, the next day, the media made a big to-do about the "darkness" of trump's vision AS people were dying from terror in germany.

But of course all of this went right over the heads of liberals.

The DNC leaks + Clinton hiring DWS as she resigns in shame... and she was just booed off the stage!

The DNC is looking like a complete disaster in comparison.

The only two people on here that seem to possesses the ability to look at all sides and form an objective opinion based on facts are Jim Hardy and Russ Watters. And the funny thing is, one seems to be leaning towards Trump and the other is not at all a "Trump fan" (based on my observations, I certainly don't know either of them personally).
 
  • #805
and now we have a DNC spreadsheet showing plans to reward big donors with federal appointments...

I'd say the DNC is not doing much better! :D
 

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
35
Views
875
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
340
Views
28K
Replies
13
Views
1K
Back
Top