Page 22 of 78

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:57 pm
by manfred
Hi, I am not sure if he really meant that, may be he tried to caricaturise equestrian's stance, or if he tried to make it look everybody here is a fascist. Either way, it's gross. I have changed his membership account so that all future posts have to be moderated before they are published. He does not post a lot, and if he behaves, I will change it back.

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:45 pm
by glitch
idesigner1 wrote:One white woman, a mayor , had very unkind thing to say about Mrs. Obama. Later she apologized. Her exact words were its was shame when black woman was in White House, now it's great Mrs. Trump will be First Lady.

Even on this forum Obama was accused of killing his white grandma in Hawaii lest she spill beans about Obama's real birth place. Find out in old forum of year 2008 . Trump himself admitted that Obama was born in Hawaii after lots of badgering and perhaps under duress or for practical reasons.

Foster's suicide was widely blamed as Clintons conspiracy to silence him. There are books about it.


1. You don't have the "white woman's" name.
2. So what? One person, does not dictate the entire mass majority of people. i severely doubt this woman existed, but if you have the article, lets make one thing clear. Whoever she was, there's no condonement of a racist mayor by conservatives.

3. On this forum people say a lot of stuff, especially you who attempt to shut me up by not backing up anything you say. The Fact that obama couldn't locate his birth certificate was significant. This fact was abundantly clear when he released the information after years. Now as to whether that was conspiracy or whatever, is not indicative to the questions i asked, since the media tended to label any criticism of the man as racism.

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:04 pm
by glitch
So after trying to genuinely engage Hombre and Idesigner, i want the forum to notice How Hombre dishonestly approaches the issue:


Hombre wrote:
glitch wrote:So quick question, is it fair how Trump is treated?

i mean i didn't like Barak Obama for reasons tht were'nt personal, i didn't attack his wife. I ddn't attack his daughters.
As far as we know, no one is attacking Trump trophy wife.



Notice his response, and the thoughtfulness of it. I don't know what your'e talking about so i'm going to ignore it.

Regardless of any of it There are numerous jokes made daily about Trump sleeping with his own daughter, about the First lady being a prostitute.




I didnt like him because he chastised the american people for their faith. He didn't believe america was anything special and he didn't uplift the united states.
Obama believed in using your head first then when needed use of military to project power. Killing of Osama Bin ladin as prime example.
[/quote]

So please notice what he also says right here.Obama is a hero because he got Osama bin Laden... Healso uses his head. All of that is Hombre's opinion.

Regasrdless Obama used quite a bit of drone killing... more than any president.

Obama thought about getting Osama for hours, hours, and then, lets be clear, there's nothing in his actual speeches about bringing Osama to justice. No, he's just awesome. And as you can see, all anyone can say is, well he got Osama Bin Laden.






He treated isreal with the utmost disrespect and he ba
sically told every Arab nation, the United States was wrong for everything, thus when you look at the world, all you see is every Arab nation minimizing history and its all, all the US and Isreal's fault. All of history is US and Isreal's fault. HE basically let Iran have everything they wanted.
Ask Netanyahu for that. Otherwise, it was Obama who signed 10 year $38B aid to Israel.[/quote]

Indeed, this one piece of legislation signed by Obama seems generous despite the fact, Obama agreed to it partially to shut detractors up over giving Iran the ability to make nukes,.

The package represents a major commitment to Israel’s security in the waning months of Mr. Obama’s presidency after years of fractious relations with Mr. Netanyahu over issues like the Iran nuclear agreement. Mr. Netanyahu agreed to several concessions to cement the deal rather than gamble on winning better terms from the next president.




Before his innauguration CNN discussed assasination of a president, going down how many people would have to be killed to get a democrat. Has that ever been done to president before by the news media?
As designer1 had pointed out. It was Trump who during the campaign spoke of "I wonder what 2nd Amendment (refering to gun owners) would say about Hillary (calling for gun control in US)[/quote]

So notice this makes no sense, at all, basically Hombre dodged the question. the answer is no, it would have been labeled racist to discuss killing the president, not to mention wrong. Where as people talked aboutkilling bush and mock executed him, and as i pointed out before Trump was even sworn in CNN broadcasted and talked about killing Trump/



How many people have accused Trump of Incest?
Ha ha ha! Trump just "joking about fornicating his own doughter ivanka - had she not being his daughter".


Would that have been appropriate with Barak Obama?


so, take note here, Trump deserves it because he made a comment about how beautiful his daughter was. He said date her, which is just horrible, and the world needs to think of him as man who would sleep with his own daughter, because he said Date and Hombre like others, wants to make "Date" into "F&%#"

Please Note, the dishonesty and hatred for Trump.

Obama is not fuckedup as Trump - he would never say it - even as a joke


Please note, this is what passes for debate. Trump is a FREAK and disserves ridicule. He deserves unbounded Hatred because he's a freak. No Debate, nothing, just screw trump because i Hombre, hate him. Please Notice the intellectual dishonesty of Hombre, please not that because Trump said something about his daughter that she was beautiful, and if she wasn't my daughter, i would want a woman like her. Please note that's it, because of that, Trump is a freak, and he deserves to be treated like S#lt.

Notice the callous, hatred.

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2017 3:42 am
by idesigner1
If Trump had admitted he screwed his daughter , atleast 35% would tell whole world see the guy is honest after all he is unconventional guy! He is a businessman not your sissy Demo president. :x

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2017 7:22 am
by manfred
I just heard his legislation to abolish "Obama care" has been voted down in the senate. Is that because there were concerns that nothing would be put in its place, or other reasons?

Surely nobody in the US disputes the need for some safety net for medical care, or some universal insurance scheme?

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:08 am
by idesigner1
They wanted to repeal without replace. That didn't work.

Now thy are trying skinny care bill. It's doubtful if that passes

They will try numerous bills hoping one will pass.

They can't come up with anything which pleases majority.

Republican believe ultimately a bill which makes compete all o durance companies will be implemented. When insurance companies can openly loot they won't con
Eye.

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:14 pm
by manfred
I don't get it... surely every civilised country must have a safety net for illness and injury? Even a poor country, like Indonesia has one, OK, it's basic but in an emergency you will get help no matter who you are.. There are many models Trump could study and adapt...

To him, the German system may appeal: It is compulsory to buy medical insurance, and there a number of options available, at various prices. But anyone who cannot afford medical insurance will get the contribution of a basic plan paid for by the government... this does not include things like single room with phone in hospital, or cosmetic surgery (except for victims of an accident), but covers pretty much everything important, including a dentist or optician, which is not free in the UK.

Also, the free plan is provided by one of a number of insurers the individual chooses, and you can also change your doctor or dentist once every three months. (You cannot have multiple GPs though) In most cases, the employer offers a plan and makes a contribution, and the premium is deducted from the wages, and if an employee opts out, he must have an alternative. If you are unemployed you must choose a health insurance when registering, and the government pays this. Similarly for a pensioner.

If you are employed as a civil servant, or anyone employed by central or local government, you get free private health care at a very high standard. Clergymen of some denominations also get this. This is way passed a standard medical insurance, and covers all kind of things, even a holiday, if prescribed by a doctor, or a face lift.

In the UK, everybody has medical insurance automatically, as it is funded effectively by taxation. It is a little less extensive as in Germany, but overall cheaper.

I really don't understand how there could possibly be people in the US who have urgent care refused, when in Russia or China, much less wealthy places, this would never happen.

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 2:15 am
by idesigner1
In US emergency care is free and available to all. But this is very expensive and bleed their system dry.Many poors go there for minor problem.

Then there are their county hospitals they can get free treatment but problem can be drug costs, poor facilities and infrastructure. Only poor people go there and treatment can be of inferior quality.

Seniors and poors can get free treatment covered by Medicare and Medicaid respectively. Some doctors don't accept Medicaid cases.Obama included lots of people on Medicaid. Many states opt out of Obama care This also can create lots of problem. This inclusion of lots in Medicaid made Obama care popular for some segment. It's hard to get rid of any entitlement.

In name of freedom of choice many healthy young people don't buy any insurance.Obama care imposes penalty for not buying insurance. This is opposed by many poor, southern f.cked up whites in name of freedom!! Some can't afford and other don't want to spend money on insurance. Here is the rub they should make it compulsory to subscribe but on other hand there are many just can't afford as they don't have income. They can't qualify for Medicaid either.

Problem is greedy medical establishment and insurance companies. Many US politicians ( especially Repos)work as pimps for them and are well rewarded.Check out their donations from insurance companies. These are the one fight tooth and nail against universal Medicare, single payer. They themselves have best care in the world.

Many Americans think that free enterprise and competing insurance industry will fix everything. Unfortunately when life and death situation is involved. Patient's family will spend all of their saving without shopping or unable to shop.

Mr.Trump and his family never had to face these problem. They were rich and got best insurance. This is the reason he has poor understanding of proble. He doesn't understand intricacies.

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 10:27 am
by manfred
Hi, and thank you for taking the time in emplaning this to me.

It seems to be an odd understanding of "freedom of choice"... in effect if you don't buy insurance you get other people to pay for you, who have no choice in paying at all. So why not, in the name of choice, also make train tickets optional?

Why is insurance not compulsory for everyone? If you do not have enough money, then the government steps in. And this strangle hold insurance companies have on the government is rather odd to me... who actually believes an insurance company has your interest at heart?

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:25 pm
by idesigner1
Yes Manfred like auto insurance everybody need to buy health insurance with very few exceptions.

US spends lot more money to fund their broken medical system than any western country. Sometime twice! Most of the money goes to Medicare and Medicaid plus emergency care system. Lots wasted. Lots of insurance frauds, lots go to inflated bills by insurance companies and labs, doctors, their HMOs and what not. Ofcourse this makes Republican politicians and their two thousand insurance companies very happy. Some insurance companies are on paper only, pay one time and refuse next time. It's a big industry ran by managers, executives, doctors, computer experts, secretaries, lawyers, claim experts. It employs lot more people than hospitals. This is the reason most Americans hate single payer system, if there is one paymaster or government collects more tax and becomes a single payer like Canada , lots of people will lose jobs.By the way this system is called communis system by rank and file America, oh don't feel sorry for them ! They deserve!

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:20 pm
by Equestrian
Fernando wrote:Equestrian: what's the matter with a low birth rate in Europe?


It matters if you care about economic stability and the preservation of western values, culture, and institutions.

The European economy is modeled on the Welfare State, whereby the young generation supports the aging retired generation in the form of entitlements, healthcare, and pensions. The Welfare State relies entirely on the premise that there will be enough new citizens to support the old. But birth rate statistics show that there won't be.

Just to sustain population stability, the fertility rate must be 2.1 children per woman. The fertility rate in Europe is at 1.6, this statistic also includes immigrants which would make native fertility rates even lower.

How does the EU solve this problem? by importing people from Africa and the Muslims world where the fertility rate is above 6.0 children per woman, consequently replacing the native European population.

Please watch the video debate and pay close attention Mo Ansars view on the population replacement of native Europeans.


Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:33 pm
by Hombre
manfred,
as designer1 had pointed out, I like to add that - republicans & their cousin Libertarians, believe in minimum government - blindly believe in magic of free market "to take care of itself". Except here we are talking about precious human life.

True to their belief of free market, Republicans view Healthcare as a privilege much like any another commodity - not a right, as viewed by other industrialized countries. GOP believes Government owes you nothing - the very reason they believe in lower taxes. Pay less - expect & get less (from government).

The mind set of individual care for their own defense & HC was born from 18th century wild-wild-west pioneering era, where individuals were on their own to defend themselves, their properties & yes their own healthcare too. That also explains the gun mentality & the 2nd Amendment (right to bare arms) in US

Therefore, HC is treated yet as another business with its traditional mantra of supply & demand and Profit & lose. it is by far the largest & one of the most profitable industries in US which make up 17% of our GDP at tune of $3300B / year, and employs million and millions of "paper pushers" . You can imagine 25-30% of that spend on enormous executive salaries, corporate profits, bonus & TV & print advertisement of prescription drugs

To summarize. this is where free market had gone amok, where people's lives are treated like automobile and other appliances. Since it is enormously a profitable business the resistance to single payer is great. I do however believe, soon or later we will join the rest of the world with universal HC

In fact, individual mandate had originated by Republicans themselves, and rightfully so. Why should the rest of society pay for young & healthy people's healthcare in case of catastrophic illness, who refuse to buy HC insurance? Now they oppose it as a) because Obama's name is tagged on it. b) Use it as effective sword to sabotage ObamaCare.

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:10 pm
by Equestrian
manfred wrote:And to repeat this again, I was not talking about the streams of people that currently enter Europe. Very few of them really are genuine asylum seekers. And it should be obvious that because there are people abusing the system, it would be wrong to simply close everything down permanently and leave genuine asylum seekers to die. What needs to be done is to deter the false asylum seekers while still finding a way to help the genuine ones. This is difficult, but the the alternative is simply not morally acceptable. We might as well argue because there are people killed on roads every day, we should ban all road traffic.

Your definition of "western civilisation" is based on race, it seems, and not so much on shared values.
To you, immigration by people of the same race as you is little or no problem, but you cannot even bring yourself to say that someone with a different colour skin or a different religion who is in dire need should receive some degree of help, never mind even be allowed to live in your neighbourhood. A Polish economic migrant is OK in the house next door, perhaps, but an Iranian battered wife fleeing for dear life is not.


I argue that what makes a people civilised are its values and its determination to maintain them even in very difficult situations.
You can keep your version of a civilisation, it is not mine, nor, for that matter, even Trump's.

And BTW... you did not answer Fernando.


As there is little substance to your above post, I'd like to draw together some of the threads from our exchange and see if we can come to some conclusions.

I argued that 3rd world immigration rates combined with native low fertility rates will result in the end of Europe as we know it and by extension western civilization. This is supported by works from politicists like Douglas Murray, Mark Steyn, and just basic math. The future of Europe will be fraught with lasting civil unrest and mass scale riots, ultimately culminating into ethnic and border wars.

I proposed that an immediate and indefinite ban on all 3rd world immigration coupled with the deportation of all illegal immigrants is the optimal short term solution to prevent this from happening.

Below are a few of your primary objections (paraphrased in bold), followed by my response.

1. You oppose the immigration ban because it prohibits sanctuary to foreign asylum-seekers. You argue that it is the duty of western nations to take in 3rd world asylum-seekers and to abdicate that duty would be to subvert the values that uphold western civilization.

This is a deeply flawed understanding of western civilization. First, if this kind of global egalitarianism were fundamental to western civilization, then we would be duty-bound to commit to it even if it resulted in the destruction of our civilization. Global egalitarianism is self-defeating, by which the ideal itself condemns western civilization to the inevitable fate of self-destruction, consequently extirpating the only true bastion for asylum-seekers.
With that being said, global egalitarianism is just one of many postmodern schools of thought in the western lexicon of postmodernist drivel, it is by no means the lynchpin of western civilization. Cardinal values of western civilization include things like human rights and individual sovereignty by which law is structured. Republic government, democracy, freedom of association and disassociation, equal opportunity and free-markets are key features that form the framework. None of these things would be compromised were immigration banned.
As moral agents, I contend that all nations are morally obligated to aid refugees if resources allow, but not at the expense of national interests. Housing and citizenizing asylum-seekers or refugees is certainly not an integrate pillar of western civilization nor is it an obligation exclusive to western nations


2. You argue that the high crime rates are due to uncontrolled immigration, immigrant related crimes are perpetrated by those who migrate with malicious intent or those "who came with the purpose to cause upheaval".

Of course, those with malicious intent are prone to commit crimes, this is just redundant. The point I think you're making is that asylum-seekers do not commit crimes at the rate of their economic and illegal counterparts. But this argument amounts to nothing more than credulity and wishful thinking as there is no evidence to corroborate this. Millions of asylum-seekers have immigrated to Europe in just the past ten years and they too espouse the same cultural values as those from the "uncontrolled immigration" pool. It's not the status of the immigrant that is the crime indicator, but rather the place of origin and culture from which the immigrant derives.

Meet Farkhunda Malikzada, she was an observant Muslimah in Kabul. Farkhunda faithfully donned the niqab, dedicated her life to teachings of Muhammed and attained a degree in Islamic studies.

Image

She had been elated by the idea of teaching the precepts of the noble Quran to the next generation of students, that is until she was falsely accused of burning the Quran. A Mohammedan lynch mob quickly descended upon her, savagely beating her to death before running her over with a car and setting her lifeless body on fire. Farkhunda died shrieking "Allahu Ackbar" in unison with her murderers; a macabre chorus befitting the imagery of Dante's Inferno.



Why is this relevant? because Farkhunda had been a champion of Sharia. Had the accusation of Quran burning been leveled at another Muslimah, Farkhunda would have undoubtedly supported the lynch mob. This is the barbaric reality of Islamic culture, asylum-seekers are often the perpetrators up until the point they too become "the VICTIMS of Islam".


If I were to invest the time, I could produce hundreds of reports that would attest to the heinous crimes committed by asylum-seekers in Europe. A highly publicized case comes to mind as the victim was the daughter of an EU official.

Maria Ladenburger was a 19-year-old medical student and migrant home volunteer in Germany. One day she was blissfully bicycling home in her sleepy town of Freiburg when suddenly she was accosted by a Mohammedan asylum-seeker. After brutally raping her, he drowned Ms. Ladenburger in a nearby river.

Image

Throughout this debate, you've been beating the drum of "the plight of the asylum-seeker" in some sort of attempt to appeal to emotions. Now allow me to appeal to your emotions. Thousands upon thousands of these crimes occur each year due to 3rd world immigration, at what point is the cost too much? How many body bags will it take for you to recognize the "plight of the Europen victims"? or are their lives a necessary sacrifice for the egalitarian ideal.


3. You argue that out of those who apply for asylum-seeker status, very few are genuine asylum-seekers. Strict measures must be put in place to ensure that only genuine asylum-seekers are allowed entry.

I applaud the sentiment, but how did you come to this conclusion? again, there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. It's entirely plausible that a majority of those who applied are actually fleeing from some form of persecution, 3rd world migrants come from authoritarian regimes and highly dysfunctional nations. As I see it, the only real way to substantiate your case is to review the EU definition of asylum-seeker and see if it meets your criteria, and then investigate the vetting process.

Be that as it may, even if I were to grant you that very few applicants are genuine asylum-seekers, it does nothing to address the immigration crises. In fact, you haven't contributed anything in this debate that could be considered an alternative solution to the immigrant crises, yet you felt compelled to resort to race related ad hominem attacks.
You argue, in your last post, that because I've shown a disinterest in the "plight of the asylum-seeker", I, therefore, care nothing for brown people.

Perhaps we are debating at cross purposes, but I did not take this debate to be a virtue signaling contest. Appeals to emotions are not legitimate forms of argument and the reason I tend to avoid them. They depreciate the debate, turning it into a narcissistic competition of egos.
However, if I followed your logic, I could easily make the case that you care nothing about white people given the fact that you've shown absolutely no sympathy for European victims of immigrant violence.

But that would be irresponsible of me.

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 10:38 pm
by manfred
However, if I followed your logic, I could easily make the case that you care nothing about white people given the fact that you've shown absolutely no sympathy for European victims of immigrant violence.


You probably could, as you seem to be excellent at twisting what I said.

Let's see where we would get if we follow your line to its logical conclusion... according to you, if even one immigrant/ asylum seeker commits a crime against a local, then the entire nation of his origin should be permanently prevented entry to the country. Somehow "criminal inclination" is liked to place of birth.

So Dr Crippen, a Canadian physician who lived in London, killed his wife. This means no Canadian should be allowed to come to the UK, ever. Right? Would my "sympathy" to this murder be measured in the number of Canadians I kill in response?

Or does this approach of yours of assigning blood guilt only apply to non-white people? Let the white people in but not the others? Much like Goebbels. really.... To him Jews were a disease, to you people with brown skin.

To me "sympathy" to the victims of a crime is not measured in the amount of injustice I would be willing to endorse in revenge.

And for the umpteenth time, I have no problems with immigration controls as such, at all. I also agree that the current influx of people into Europe is a serious problem. But because we are faced with a problem does not mean that we can abandon own principles. We need to find ethically justifiable solutions.

In assessing what to do about Muslims it is fair to take into account the history and teachings of Islam in reaching a decision, but it is also important to accept that you cannot simply judge an individual on the basis of the behaviour of others who in some way share a similarity.

Clearly Islam has a specific age old agenda but that is not to say that absolutely every Muslim shares that. Some people are merely nominal Muslims, others escape a Muslim society. In fact, of you ever meet any Iranians in London, technically they are Muslims, bit often you would not think they could possibly be if you hear them talking about Islam and their experience of it.

Also, consider this: Islam demands that Muslims should not be friends with other people. Why would that be? Clearly close contact may shake loose some of Mohammed's teachings and ideas. If you want Muslims to examine their religion, how will you get anywhere if all you can think of is how to keep them away from you at all costs?

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:39 pm
by Fernando
Equestrian wrote:
Fernando wrote:Equestrian: what's the matter with a low birth rate in Europe?


It matters if you care about economic stability and the preservation of western values, culture, and institutions.

The European economy is modeled on the Welfare State, whereby the young generation supports the aging retired generation in the form of entitlements, healthcare, and pensions. The Welfare State relies entirely on the premise that there will be enough new citizens to support the old. But birth rate statistics show that there won't be.

Just to sustain population stability, the fertility rate must be 2.1 children per woman. The fertility rate in Europe is at 1.6, this statistic also includes immigrants which would make native fertility rates even lower.
I haven't time to watch the video at the moment so I'll just reply a bit to your comment.

I thought I'd corrected myself by adding "or rather, a fall in the European population", by which I meant of the indigenous population. I'm just as fearful as you of our culture being swamped so I was arguing on the hypothesis that this problem didn't exist.

I you allow that, then the population can be estimated decades ahead if you keep a watch on the birth rate and life expectancy. Life assurance companies must work out the figures at least every year.
Then if you are a government and can see beyond the end of your nose (I know that's asking a lot!) you must be able to at least see the rise of robotics and AI (artificial intelligece, not insemination!) and forsee the need for less work to be done by humans.
I really believe that given adequate forsight and planning, Europe and America could both handle a significant fall in the indigenous population without importing third-world immigrants to artificially maintain a stable population and politicians' egos.

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:59 pm
by idesigner1
President Trump and his advisors are pretty inarticulate and dumb about explaining his foreign policy, immigration and repeal of Obama care.

His new immigration policy of stopping sponsored relatives from getting immigration to installing merit base point system is not explained intelligently. Whole argument of " give me your sick" can be dismissed as idealism which is eutopian slogancant that can't be practiced as now health care is bankrupt :help: . Canada and Australia has merit point system. Also in old days there were no terrorist migrating to US. There was no welfare state when Statue of Liberty was installed! In those days only non English speaking Central European took the advantage of that slogan :yuk: !!Did US accepted sick from Asia and Africa!! Now among them ( Southern and Eastern Europeans ) most can speak English and are prosperous !All countries take able bodied immigrants. Refugee class is another category which no country can be forced to accept them in big numbers.

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:28 pm
by manfred
There was no welfare state when Statue of Liberty was installed!


You hit the nail on the head. A country that does not have any significant welfare system can afford to offer free immigration. Once you have a welfare system, things have to be controlled, otherwise not only people who pay for the welfare system get angry if others get it for free, but also it will eventually bankrupt a country.

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 10:18 pm
by Hombre
idesigner1 wrote:President Trump and his advisors are pretty inarticulate and dumb about explaining his foreign policy, immigration and repeal of Obama care.

His new immigration policy of stopping sponsored relatives from getting immigration to installing merit base point system is not explained intelligently. Whole argument of " give me your sick" can be dismissed as idealism which is eutopian slogancant that can't be practiced as now health care is bankrupt :help: . Canada and Australia has merit point system. Also in old days there were no terrorist migrating to US. There was no welfare state when Statue of Liberty was installed! In those days only non English speaking Central European took the advantage of that slogan :yuk: !!Did US accepted sick from Asia and Africa!! Now among them ( Southern and Eastern Europeans ) most can speak English and are prosperous !All countries take able bodied immigrants. Refugee class is another category which no country can be forced to accept them in big numbers.
remind everyone that, Trump's own (3rd) trophy wife herself immigrated to US from non-English speaking Slovenia.

Did this idiot include her family too?.

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 10:38 pm
by sum
I have to say that I fully support Equestrian`s views on immigration. He has given very clear reasons for his concerns and with which I agree. One has to ask whether the current humanitarian response to the immigrants is more important than the preservation of Western religion, culture and values.

sum

Re: PRESIDENT TRUMP

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:18 am
by idesigner1
For quite a while US has stopped accepting refugees in thousands, their are strict criteria. . Some European countries and Canada was taking more refugees . Even Obama didn't accept lots of refugees from Muslim countries.Lots of whetting was going on.

During Cold War days US used to take lots of refugees from iron curtain countries. Unchecked refugee flows and immigration of older dependents and unskilled relative can put big burden on their welfare system. This is the reason Canada and australia has point system and dependent relatives can't get cash benefits for 10 years.Ofcourse dependents can get health benefits.