Well at least Trumps game is more into Casinos,hotels and entertainment. I would rather have someone who profits from that than another warmonger who profits from war and getting into world affairs we have no business getting into.
Trumps best interests is not more wars since he makes no profits on them unlike clinton and bush.
Sandistanabad sounds like a place where those 300,000 people want me dead anyway.Here's a hypothetical:
You are President and Lord Emperor of the United States and have recently happened upon a forgotten fund of one billion dollars to use in any way you please. You're feeling generous, and want to help the little people in some way. Two groups approach you.
One represents an American student group 30,000 strong, all of which are upper-middle class. Their parents make too much money to receive a free ride through undergrad, and so they have to take out loans instead. They will graduate with significant debt, and it may take them a couple decades to pay it down depending on how good they are at saving their money.
Another represents Sandistanabad, an impoverished war-stricken nation with minimal natural resources in the middle of a record-breaking drought. You can supply potable water, simple housing, and basic staple foods and ensure that 300,000 of their most vulnerable do not die.
Which group do you fund and why?
The Republicans look especially bad considering that Syria and Libya are now virtual paradises, eh?Not to worry. Your boy, the Trumpster, promises boots on the ground in Syria & carpet bombing of ISIS held territory so that the proud tradition of American Exceptionalism & spreading Democracy with the guns of the Neocons will continue.
Of course Afghanistan turned into a cock-up. It was an eyes wide shut Republican plan, remember?
It's certainly true that far fewer immigrants would be illegal if we made it easier to be a legal immigrant. That is a solution exactly like raising the legal definition of theft to anything over $5,000 is a solution to shoplifting. Shoplifting laws are just too hard to navigate. But thanks for playing the race card; certainly none of us expected that. We are laughing in awe of your brilliance.Sanders says that waste and fraud, bad trade deals, and a few other related issues are major problems, but that none of them will end as long as our politicians are owned by Wallstreet. If you want to tackle those issues you have to first tackle the issue of our government being run by corporations. Trump of course does not want to talk about that because he is literally the face of a corporation.
The immigration issue is somewhere that is in full disagreement. Sanders and his supporters simply do not see it as a major problem. We are a nation of immigrants, it has always been that way. The main problem with illegal immigration is that our immigration laws are too hard to navigate. Fewer immigrants would be illegal if we made it easier to be a legal immigrant.
But that is not what the Conservative crowed wants to hear because what they are really trying to say is that there are too many dark skinned people about and the liberal solution to illegal immigration does nothing to solve that.
Sandistanabad sounds like a place where those 300,000 people want me dead anyway.
The Republicans look especially bad considering that Syria and Libya are now virtual paradises, eh?
It's certainly true that far fewer immigrants would be illegal if we made it easier to be a legal immigrant. That is a solution exactly like raising the legal definition of theft to anything over $5,000 is a solution to shoplifting. Shoplifting laws are just too hard to navigate. But thanks for playing the race card; certainly none of us expected that. We are laughing in awe of your brilliance.
Here's a hypothetical:
You are President and Lord Emperor of the United States and have recently happened upon a forgotten fund of one billion dollars to use in any way you please. You're feeling generous, and want to help the little people in some way. Two groups approach you.
One represents an American student group 30,000 strong, all of which are upper-middle class. Their parents make too much money to receive a free ride through undergrad, and so they have to take out loans instead. They will graduate with significant debt, and it may take them a couple decades to pay it down depending on how good they are at saving their money.
Another represents Sandistanabad, an impoverished war-stricken nation with minimal natural resources in the middle of a record-breaking drought. You can supply potable water, simple housing, and basic staple foods and ensure that 300,000 of their most vulnerable do not die.
Which group do you fund and why?
I bet that money can build a wall across Mexico and the change fix up a large part of our crumbling bridges/infrastructure in the US. It would provide jobs here in the US as well.
US military spending is a travesty.
Whether or not Bernie could enact any of his more outlandish schemes, he's the only person I trust in this race to NOT send out troops all over the world. Hillary is as much a warmonger as any of the Republicans.
It's certainly true that far fewer immigrants would be illegal if we made it easier to be a legal immigrant. That is a solution exactly like raising the legal definition of theft to anything over $5,000 is a solution to shoplifting. Shoplifting laws are just too hard to navigate.
But thanks for playing the race card; certainly none of us expected that. We are laughing in awe of your brilliance.
I'd prefer it go to infrastructure investment here at home but the point is taken. Free higher education drives up the price of that higher ed (even though it's free, it's not free), dilutes the quality that can be delivered given the influx of demand on limited resources, and even though it doesn't make the best selling point the student body as a whole is better served with some skin in the game (the same argument was made for mortgage originators and risk retention) so that the resources aren't wasted.
I ask myself why do you believe that immigration is bad? I am willing to bet that someone in your direct family history was an immigrant. So I'm left with two solutions that I can think of:
1. You are racist and think that more dark skinned people is bad.
2. You believe that adding more people floods the job market with out increasing demand.
Number 1 is an opinion, one that I do not like, but ultimately just an opinion.
Number 2 is demonstrably false. People need things to survive. If more people are buying thing to survive demand for those things increase.
So, I'm left to believe that you are either a racist or stupid.
This is one of the worst posts you've ever made. You're either stupid or... stupid.
You're comparing apples to aardvarks.
I see you really have this arguing thing down, but I think I can see a problem with one of your premises. You don't have one.
1. You are racist and think that more dark skinned people is bad.
2. You believe that adding more people floods the job market with out increasing demand.
Number 2 is demonstrably false. People need things to survive. If more people are buying thing to survive demand for those things increase.