Donald Trump the president of the united states of america is absolutely right

Tommy Monk wrote:Entering another country illegally is the criminal part...

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:we all agree on the need to better secure the border and punish employers who chose to hire illegal immigrants, we are a generous and welcoming people in the united states but those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law.
We simply cannot allow people to pour into the united states, undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently diligently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country

And yet by his policies on this, it shows he is wrong in applying the above view in practice. As the policies he has implemented conflict with the constitution and utterly fail in making the US any safer. Its also based off a poor guilt by association, not even looking at the root cause of crime itself. Its blaming all illegal immigrants for crime, which is clearly incorrect. To base a policy, this is some how going to make the US safer. The comprehension to build a wall thousands of miles long, will be utterly ineffective also. It will be impossible to monitor the entire length of this wall, let alone man it. People will simple tunnel under.

Ever heard of the "Great Escape"

If Trump really wanted to tackle crime and make the US safer. He would tackle poverty, not only within the US, but the Central American countries. Make life better in all countries, where then people would have no need to leave the problems they face.

So is he right?

No, but because the view offered fails completely to tackle the claims made on security, safety etc. Its poorly trying to push a problem away, when the nation already has a crime problem.

can I just clarify that you understand what the term illegal means?
if you are an ILLEGAL immigrant you have committed a crime. you have entered the country ILLEGALLY

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Entering another country illegally is the criminal part...

What you are attempting to say, is animal species cannot migrate, as its criminal.
That any animal seeking to better their chances of survival or a better quality of life. Cannot enter any land claimed by those who are takers. Its like claiming the Elephants residing in one land, are going to attempt to deny anyone else sharing the land they also live in. Even though they only claimed to own it through force of might. Even better though. Is that you yourself being here, would not even be living here. If not for such migrations to these lands.

Hypocrisy much?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Cheap paid models from his Miss Universe contingent...

Getting their boobs out for the Trump foundation...

Anybody can get selective with the photo's they choose..


Nice deflection there, though, boyz...

Take the heat off poor li'l Deano making such a prat of himself over the past couple of days...

now didn't sassy say something about doxing?
but that is besides the point of course, can you string a sentence together about the actual original post, or do you have wait until monday when a teacher will be able to help you?

have you ever held an original opinion of your very own?

come on you must have a view on what I posted on the very first post in this thread

The Devil, You Know wrote:in the words of the guvenator
I'll be back.
Perhaps some more of the sheeple  will give an opinion on what was said in the OP by then.

The Devil, You Know wrote:
have you got stuck in a groove, you seem to be repeating yourself.
have I broken you?????????


OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh NOOOOOOOOOOOO

nicko wrote:
Dyk,Brain?

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Entering another country illegally is the criminal part...

What you are attempting to say, is animal species cannot migrate, as its criminal.
That any animal seeking to better their chances of survival or a better quality of life. Cannot enter any land claimed by those who are takers. Its like claiming the Elephants residing in one land, are going to attempt to deny anyone else sharing the land they also live in. Even though they only claimed to own it through force of might. Even better though. Is that you yourself being here, would not even be living here. If not for such migrations to these lands.

Hypocrisy much?

Ben Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

can I just clarify that you understand what the term illegal means?
if you are an ILLEGAL immigrant you have committed a crime. you have entered the country ILLEGALLY

It's actually a bit more complicated than that. Many people who are here "illegally" actually entered the country legally (like on a visa) and then overstayed. That's not a crime. Entering the country unlawfully is a misdemeanor, but merely being in the country without proper authorization is a civil violation and not subject to any kind of criminal penalty:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence.html

The punishment for the misdemeanor of improper entry is no more than six months in jail and a $250 fine.

I was totally clear in my opinion on your deceptive OP. And my invitation for you to eat a bag of dicks couldn't possibly have been more clear

Ben Reilly wrote:Oh, and the red stripe was from me, too. I'm not a big fan of people lying to me.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


What you are attempting to say, is animal species cannot migrate, as its criminal.
That any animal seeking to better their chances of survival or a better quality of life. Cannot enter any land claimed by those who are takers. Its like claiming the Elephants residing in one land, are going to attempt to deny anyone else sharing the land they also live in. Even though they only claimed to own it through force of might. Even better though. Is that you yourself being here, would not even be living here. If not for such migrations to these lands.

Hypocrisy much?

in oz they ship them to a different country


And to make both Devil_breath's original lying b/s post and Tommy's idiotic nonsense even more irrelevent --

In both the USA and Australia, those "illegal immigrants" who have actually entered the country illegally, make up less than 5% of the total --  over 95% have entered on legal visas and then overstayed their welcome, . In Oz, the great majority travel in on regular flights.

Neither Tommy nor Deano seems to have the faintest clue about what they're writing about..
With  both of them, their opinions seem to be pure unsubstantiated reactionary garbage...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


What you are attempting to say, is animal species cannot migrate, as its criminal.
That any animal seeking to better their chances of survival or a better quality of life. Cannot enter any land claimed by those who are takers. Its like claiming the Elephants residing in one land, are going to attempt to deny anyone else sharing the land they also live in. Even though they only claimed to own it through force of might. Even better though. Is that you yourself being here, would not even be living here. If not for such migrations to these lands.

Hypocrisy much?

And to make both Devil_breath's original lying b/s post and Tommy's idiotic nonsense even more irrelevent --

In both the USA and Australia, those "illegal immigrants" who have actually entered the country illegally, make up less than 5% of the total --  over 95% have entered on legal visas and then overstayed their welcome, . In Oz, the great majority travel in on regular flights.

Neither Tommy nor Deano seems to have the faintest clue about what they're writing about..
With  both of them, their opinions seem to be pure unsubstantiated reactionary garbage...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

now didn't sassy say something about doxing?
but that is besides the point of course, can you string a sentence together about the actual original post, or do you have wait until monday when a teacher will be able to help you?

have you ever held an original opinion of your very own?

come on you must have a view on what I posted on the very first post in this thread

First  off  fuck_brain,  I'm not "dox'ing" you, as many on here already know who you are  !

Secondly --  I have commented on your idiotic and fallacious o/p a couple of times above  --  you're simply too stupid and thick to realise it..

Thirdly --  as far as "independent" thinking and discussion on my part goes,  I'm already outdoing both you and  your new spamming BFF and fellow troll 'No-Independent Thoughts', on here on a daily basis.  So I'm goodmthere, thanks..        

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:in the words of the guvenator
I'll be back.
Perhaps some more of the sheeple  will give an opinion on what was said in the OP by then.

The true "sheeple" on Newsfix are your faithful floptard foot_soldiers,  DYKhead...

I haven't seen them commenting on your poorly presented o/p here,  yet..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
have you got stuck in a groove, you seem to be repeating yourself.
have I broken you?????????


OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh NOOOOOOOOOOOO

THE ONLY THING that you have broken on here this week is your own already weak and disreputable reputation,  DYKbrain...

nicko wrote:Dyk,Brain?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

It's actually a bit more complicated than that. Many people who are here "illegally" actually entered the country legally (like on a visa) and then overstayed. That's not a crime. Entering the country unlawfully is a misdemeanor, but merely being in the country without proper authorization is a civil violation and not subject to any kind of criminal penalty:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence.html

The punishment for the misdemeanor of improper entry is no more than six months in jail and a $250 fine.

I was totally clear in my opinion on your deceptive OP. And my invitation for you to eat a bag of dicks couldn't possibly have been more clear

so you are saying all those mexicans that truck over the border all have visa's and just overstayed?

thank heavens you cleared that up.
an illegal immigrant is illegal. the clue is in the name.
someone who overstays a visa can also be deported.

Equal rights for women?

Freedom of Speech?

Civil Rights?

Democracy?

DNC lawyers have just responded to a class-action lawsuit over their primary being rigged, arguing that maintaining a fair and balanced primary was merely a “political promise.”

The lawyers argued that “Courts have uniformly rejected attempts to litigate on the basis of purported political promises, including ‘statements of principle and intent in the political realm.”

Essentially, the DNC’s promise to remain neutral and fair during the primary is a political promise similar to “policy proposals made in campaign platforms that aren’t fulfilled when in office.”

What’s worse is that the DNC’s lawyers claimed that Bernie Sanders’ supporters were aware that the DNC and chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz were biased against their candidate, an argument that has never been substantiated.

Freedom of religions and beliefs?

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
so you are saying all those mexicans that truck over the border all have visa's and just overstayed?

thank heavens you cleared that up.
an illegal immigrant is illegal. the clue is in the name.
someone who overstays a visa can also be deported.

Oh my, what Ben is trying to further expand on my point and over how the view made by Trump is ultimately wrong. Is that the majority come into country through legal means, thus rendering building a wall redundant. When it already is redundant, as it will be ineffective in stopping people crossing into the US anyway. Its going to have to be 2,000 miles long. Its going to be a waste of 26 billion pounds in cost to build, due to the fact its as stated not getting to the root core problem. Of people suffering in their own countries looking towards one that claims to stand for Liberty, the irony. On top of that it will be impossible to constantly monitor, let alone the annual cost ( no doubt at least 4-5 billion) in manpower and maintenance to maintain. Let alone as already stated, that it will be ineffective from preventing people from entering the US. And the Israeli one with the West Bank is 600 miles long and costs over a billion each year to maintain. Where even there the Palestinians built tunnels. Now Israel has a very genuine case due to a real security threat on its borders and even then is ineffective in stopping terrorist attacks. If fails to stop the rearmament of Hamas either. Where also over 250,000 illegal foreign workers and African migrants are residing in Israel.

Original Quill wrote:

Ah yes, beautiful, blond Trump supporters...







Make America white again.  Dude, notice anything else common to every one of them?  They're all old and white.  And even those will begin to drop out when they see Republicans fucking with their Social Security and Medicare.

But you provide me with an illustration that soo confirms my point about RW's.  They are so, so superficial.  It's not only that they have no original thought, but they go in for symbolic, cliched-thinking: jingles, catch-phrases, big tits and bleached blond hair.

Even though Rachael Maddow is a gay woman, she comes from the Bay Area (Castro Valley), she's Oxford/Stanford educated, gives us original thought and is brilliant in her business of providing relevant, cutting, news.

Who needs a Barbie doll?

Benjamin button wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
that's better at least you have started to say what you mean. so do you think the quote is wrong and the person who wrote it an idiot/fool/bigot or any other term you might like to choose?

Nice try, The DYK. You found this language in the 2008 Democratic Party platform, and now you're trying to get the evil stupid lefties to condemn it.

Of course, like any fundamentally dishonest and dishonorable person, you omitted a lot of context from the passage, and that omission makes your version of the passage look a lot more hard-nosed than it actually is. So let's go ahead and discuss the actual language put forth by the Democratic Party in 2008, before Obama took office (not after he left, as your headline implies):

We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. The American people are a welcoming and generous people, but those who enter our country's borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law. We need to secure our borders, and support additional personnel, infrastructure, and technology on the border and at our ports of entry. We need additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better technology and real-time intelligence. We need to dismantle human smuggling organizations, combating the crime associated with this trade. We also need to do more to promote economic development in migrant-sending nations, to reduce incentives to come to the United States illegally. And we need to crack down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants. It's a problem when we only enforce our laws against the immigrants themselves, with raids that are ineffective, tear apart families, and leave people detained without adequate access to counsel. We realize that employers need a method to verify whether their employees are legally eligible to work in the United States, and we will ensure that our system is accurate, fair to legal workers, safeguards people's privacy, and cannot be used to discriminate against workers.

We must also improve the legal immigration system, and make our nation's naturalization process fair and accessible to the thousands of legal permanent residents who are eager to become full Americans. We should fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy that hampers family reunification, the cornerstone of our immigration policy for years. Given the importance of both keeping families together and supporting American businesses, we will increase the number of immigration visas for family members of people living here and for immigrants who meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill, as long as appropriate labor market protections and standards are in place. We will fight discrimination against Americans who have always played by our immigration rules but are sometimes treated as if they had not.

For the millions living here illegally but otherwise playing by the rules, we must require them to come out of the shadows and get right with the law. We support a system that requires undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens. They are our neighbors, and we can help them become full tax-paying, law-abiding, productive members of society.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=78283

The Devil, You Know wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:in the words of the guvenator
I'll be back.
Perhaps some more of the sheeple  will give an opinion on what was said in the OP by then.

The true "sheeple" on Newsfix are your faithful floptard foot_soldiers,  DYKhead...

I haven't seen them commenting on your poorly presented o/p here,  yet..

poorly presented, do you mean it is something from an idiot or just poor grammar?

Well tommy, eddie and syl said they agree with what was said.
quill doesn't and was sort of uncomplimentary about it. Ben seems unable to make up his mind, you seem to be on the side of those who think the person who said it was a fool or worse. Ddge also seems to be on the nay side although its always hard with him as he does tend to let his mind stray all over the place.
have I missed anyone out, if so I do apologise.


But we are getting there slowly.

what exactly dont you like about what was said. do not be scared to tell me your true feeling as I wont be offended. after all we are all supposed to tell the truth here aren't we.

eddie wrote:Okay. I've read the OP a couple of times and I can't see what is wrong with what was said...unless I'm completely misunderstanding the topic.
Isn't Trump saying that he doesn't want illegal immigrants entering unlawfully and then illegally 'jumping the queue' in front of other immigrants who're waiting their turn, patiently?

Or have I missed the point.

TDYK wrote:
do you have a problem with the elderly, or are they called seniors over there?

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
so you are saying all those mexicans that truck over the border all have visa's and just overstayed?

thank heavens you cleared that up.
an illegal immigrant is illegal. the clue is in the name.
someone who overstays a visa can also be deported.

Oh my, what Ben is trying to further expand on my point and over how the view made by Trump is ultimately wrong. Is that the majority come into country through legal means, thus rendering building a wall redundant. When it already is redundant, as it will be ineffective in stopping people crossing into the US anyway. Its going to have to be 2,000 miles long. Its going to be a waste of 26 billion pounds in cost to build, due to the fact its as stated not getting to the root core problem. Of people suffering in their own countries looking towards one that claims to stand for Liberty, the irony. On top of that it will be impossible to constantly monitor, let alone the annual cost ( no doubt at least 4-5 billion) in manpower and maintenance to maintain. Let alone as already stated, that it will be ineffective from preventing people from entering the US. And the Israeli one with the West Bank is 600 miles long and costs over a billion each year to maintain. Where even there the Palestinians built tunnels. Now Israel has a very genuine case due to a real security threat on its borders and even then is ineffective in stopping terrorist attacks. If fails to stop the rearmament of Hamas either. Where also over 250,000 illegal foreign workers and African migrants are residing in Israel.


Who says you need to be seeking asylum, when the country is not classified as a war zone?
You see you are using misdirection again off legality, not understanding why people are drawn there.
Are you saying Mexico is not in poverty with near 50% of its populace?
You see, again you go off a law that claims people are illegal, for wanting to better their life and off a view, they should wait decades in the hope of a better life. I ask you, would, you wait decades and then never have hope you will be accepted, when you have mouths to feed?
So spare the misdirection and answer the points on whether Trump was right?

As seen you are avoiding, because you clearly now his views are wrong and ineffective

So try again

The claim based off securing the borders to this problem is wrong and false.
Its not tackling the root cause of the problem, people being drawn there, fleeing from poverty and oppression.
Attempting to push the problem away, is simply not going to happen, building walls, or placing the entire US army on the border with Mexico. People will continually be drawn there and continually gain entry in vast numbers.

So again as I stated before, your view on legality, is irrelevant and fails to understand the problem here.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Ah yes, beautiful, blond Trump supporters...







Make America white again.  Dude, notice anything else common to every one of them?  They're all old and white.  And even those will begin to drop out when they see Republicans fucking with their Social Security and Medicare.

But you provide me with an illustration that soo confirms my point about RW's.  They are so, so superficial.  It's not only that they have no original thought, but they go in for symbolic, cliched-thinking: jingles, catch-phrases, big tits and bleached blond hair.

Even though Rachael Maddow is a gay woman, she comes from the Bay Area (Castro Valley), she's Oxford/Stanford educated, gives us original thought and is brilliant in her business of providing relevant, cutting, news.

Who needs a Barbie doll?

do you have a problem with the elderly, or are they called seniors over there?

OQ wrote:
Trump is the last gasp of a dying American brand: older, whiter America

OQ wrote:
Who needs a Barbie doll?

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

TDYK wrote:
do you have a problem with the elderly, or are they called seniors over there?

Both "elderly" and "seniors" are used synonymously, here.

I can't tell if Original Quill is poking fun at elderly people or not, either.  Those ladies look terrific for their age, though.  Perhaps he should have looked up a few Liberals, the same age, for comparison.  

I should probably help him find a few...
Ah, yes, here we go.  I typed in "Liberal Elderly Hillary Supporter" and these were the top two results:

This lady seems to be 70... going on 19, in her grand daughter's clothes.


And, below, we have Nancy Pelosi.  She is an elderly woman who seems to have aged in quite a peculiar way...

IT wrote:What are you saying?  That you are discriminate against "older" people because you don't like "old white America"?
Wow.  That's pretty disrespectful and insulting.  The Seniors have lived before you and helped build the nation that you currently enjoy.  Have some respect for your elders.  Geez.

OQ wrote:
Why is it "discrimination" for you?  Why not reality?

OQ wrote:
You began this concern by touting the big tits and blond hair of the Trump supporters.

IT wrote:The reality is that you feel that the elderly don't matter and their opinions should count less, if at all, than someone younger.  That's called "age discrimination".  Shame.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Equal rights for women?

Unless you're a Republican woman, or one that happens to be the daughter of our President, or a pro-life woman.

Freedom of Speech?

Hahahaha!  

Civil Rights?

Democrats fought against and voted against civil rights.  I've outlined this and provided sources, numerous times in these threads.

Democracy?

Again...  

DNC lawyers have just responded to a class-action lawsuit over their primary being rigged, arguing that maintaining a fair and balanced primary was merely a “political promise.”

The lawyers argued that “Courts have uniformly rejected attempts to litigate on the basis of purported political promises, including ‘statements of principle and intent in the political realm.”

Essentially, the DNC’s promise to remain neutral and fair during the primary is a political promise similar to “policy proposals made in campaign platforms that aren’t fulfilled when in office.”

What’s worse is that the DNC’s lawyers claimed that Bernie Sanders’ supporters were aware that the DNC and chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz were biased against their candidate, an argument that has never been substantiated.

http://thepoliticalinsider.com/dnc-rigged-stole-election-from-bernie-sanders/

Yeah, the Democratic party loves democracy soooooo much that they made a farce out of it.  The DNC's own attorney is arguing in court that maintaining a fair and balanced primary was merely a “political promise.”  Just a promise... that they had no intention of keeping.  The Democratic Primary wasn't a democratic event, as it was "promised" to be.  So much for democracy within the Liberal ranks, huh?

Freedom of religions and beliefs?

LOL!  Yeah, so long as you're not Christian or Jewish.

So, in summary...

eddie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
poorly presented, do you mean it is something from an idiot or just poor grammar?

Well tommy, eddie and syl said they agree with what was said.
quill doesn't and was sort of uncomplimentary about it. Ben seems unable to make up his mind, you seem to be on the side of those who think the person who said it was a fool or worse. Ddge also seems to be on the nay side although its always hard with him as he does tend to let his mind stray all over the place.
have I missed anyone out, if so I do apologise.


But we are getting there slowly.

what exactly dont you like about what was said. do not be scared to tell me your true feeling as I wont be offended. after all we are all supposed to tell the truth here aren't we.

I never said I agreed I was trying to make sense of what it was you were all debating if I'm honest.

Thorin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Oh my, what Ben is trying to further expand on my point and over how the view made by Trump is ultimately wrong. Is that the majority come into country through legal means, thus rendering building a wall redundant. When it already is redundant, as it will be ineffective in stopping people crossing into the US anyway. Its going to have to be 2,000 miles long. Its going to be a waste of 26 billion pounds in cost to build, due to the fact its as stated not getting to the root core problem. Of people suffering in their own countries looking towards one that claims to stand for Liberty, the irony. On top of that it will be impossible to constantly monitor, let alone the annual cost ( no doubt at least 4-5 billion) in manpower and maintenance to maintain. Let alone as already stated, that it will be ineffective from preventing people from entering the US. And the Israeli one with the West Bank is 600 miles long and costs over a billion each year to maintain. Where even there the Palestinians built tunnels. Now Israel has a very genuine case due to a real security threat on its borders and even then is ineffective in stopping terrorist attacks. If fails to stop the rearmament of Hamas either. Where also over 250,000 illegal foreign workers and African migrants are residing in Israel.


Who says you need to be seeking asylum, when the country is not classified as a war zone?
You see you are using misdirection again off legality, not understanding why people are drawn there.
Are you saying Mexico is not in poverty with near 50% of its populace?
You see, again you go off a law that claims people are illegal, for wanting to better their life and off a view, they should wait decades in the hope of a better life. I ask you, would, you wait decades and then never have hope you will be accepted, when you have mouths to feed?
So spare the misdirection and answer the points on whether Trump was right?

As seen you are avoiding, because you clearly now his views are wrong and ineffective

So try again

The claim based off securing the borders to this problem is wrong and false.
Its not tackling the root cause of the problem, people being drawn there, fleeing from poverty and oppression.
Attempting to push the problem away, is simply not going to happen, building walls, or placing the entire US army on the border with Mexico. People will continually be drawn there and continually gain entry in vast numbers.

So again as I stated before, your view on legality, is irrelevant and fails to understand the problem here.

Yes lets get back to the topic

As seen Trump is wrong

And as usual the Flapper is left flapping unable to respond

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
do you have a problem with the elderly, or are they called seniors over there?

They are called 'seniors'.  And I have no problem with seniors, I'm past my prime myself.  But, let's face it, America is a racist nation.  So older Americans are more liable to fit the mold of the Trump thesis: Make America White Again.  Trump is the last gasp of a dying American brand: older, whiter America.

But more to the point, the cliched blond hair and big tits is giving way to Americans who are more attracted to original thought and creative answers.  Blond hair and big tits are a part of America's past too, like white seniors...women have become mature, thinking beings who no longer need to sell sex in order to succeed in this world.

It's all a dying brand in America.  Why do you think Republicans need to resort to voter suppression and border walls?  It's because, on the numbers, their candidate lost by 10-million votes.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

OQ wrote:
Trump is the last gasp of a dying American brand: older, whiter America

What are you saying?  That you are discriminate against "older" people because you don't like "old white America"?
Wow.  That's pretty disrespectful and insulting.  The Seniors have lived before you and helped build the nation that you currently enjoy.  Have some respect for your elders.  Geez.

OQ wrote:
Who needs a Barbie doll?

Apparently Trump supporters don't need one, but have one anyway.
Barbie Keleigh (a.k.a. the "real life Barbie") is also a Trump supporter.  



Like I said, I find it very uncanny that some of the world's most beautiful people are Trump supporters.  It's like you can just look at someone and tell if they're a Trump supporter, or not.

Original Quill wrote:

IT wrote:The reality is that you feel that the elderly don't matter and their opinions should count less, if at all, than someone younger.  That's called "age discrimination".  Shame.

And where did I say that?  Remember when I called you 'cheap'?  Lying is also cheap...but it's your reputation, so I won't lecture.

The real fact is that older, white Americans statistically favor the conservative values of America.  America was born in slavery, then moved on to peonage, ante-bellum, segregation, and now the open racism of Donald Trump...the conservative values of America.  Hence, by voter facts, I place older, whiter Americans predominately in that class.  

The fact that I am white, and past my prime, is evidence that it is not an absolute.

When a population makes up the core of a political movement, you are justified in seeing them as synonymous.    History of racism = historical (older) beliefs = older believers = Republicans = a dying breed.  The Republicans represent that dying breed.  The Republican Party is representative of an older, whiter population...which is, in fact, dying.

The Republican Party is dying, racism in America is dying, and progressivism is on the rise.  It's a changing base, and hence we see Republicans are fucking round with the mechanisms of voting: immigration, voter suppression, allegations of voter fraud.  

These are facts having nothing to do with what you or I want.  So whether you or I wish to discriminate is irrelevant.  You have some strange sense of association.  Imagine if you had children.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
do you have a problem with the elderly, or are they called seniors over there?

They are called 'seniors'.  And I have no problem with seniors, I'm past my prime myself.  But, let's face it, America is a racist nation.  So older Americans are more liable to fit the mold of the Trump thesis: Make America White Again.  Trump is the last gasp of a dying American brand: older, whiter America.

But more to the point, the cliched blond hair and big tits is giving way to Americans who are more attracted to original thought and creative answers.  Blond hair and big tits are a part of America's past too, like white seniors...women have become mature, thinking beings who no longer need to sell sex in order to succeed in this world.

It's all a dying brand in America.  Why do you think Republicans need to resort to voter suppression and border walls?  It's because, on the numbers, their candidate lost by 10-million votes.

didn;t the democrats, or their forebears practically bring the KKK into existence, wasn't it the republicans that wanted to free the slaves or actually freed them.
.

remember this?