4th GOP Debate

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
  • #15303

    What a shit show. Drop the minimum wage helps workers how? Deport 5 million? Drop taxes to 10%?

    Seriously, you’ve got to be shitting me. There’s no way anyone on that stage has any chance against Hillary. None.


    What’s wrong with deporting 5 million illegals. The world would be a much safer place without them. Plus it’s not fair to the ones who come into this country Legally.


    Exactly what are you implying when you say “the world would be better off without them”? Kind of ominous, IMO. Looking for any “Final Solutions”? The American immigration system is seriously unfair to almost anyone involved. Unless you have the luck to be living in a country that has people we “want,” it can take YEARS to “do it legally.” And yet, the GOP Klown Kar Posse would prefer to keep its collective thumb up its collective ass. Again, another reason why they won’t see the WH for another eight years, at least.


    What’s wrong with deporting 5 million illegals. The world would be a much safer place without them.

    What a dumb comment, they would still be in this World if they were deported. Furthermore, many of the Mexicans who come here simply want to live in the USA.

    Deporting them is not as easy as you might think. Each one of them would need to go though a Federal Judge to prove they aren’t a citizen. And then there is family that must be considered.


    I did not have a chance or much of a desire to hear the fourth debate. I heard parts of the third debate, and I was not impressed. In that debate, I felt that I was hearing ideological talking points, rather than serious, workable proposals on how various contemporary social and economic issues might be addressed. This was too much of a deja-vu to my days as a Libertarian, where I became frustrated and dismayed that the negative stereotypes about Libertarians turned out to be true; that is despite how much Libertarians like to go on and on about their political beliefs, the rhetoric, read between the lines, always seems to boil down to, “we propose putting a person in office who will deliberately do nothing, as a form of damage control.” At heart, this is an anarchist philosophy.


    I rarely bother posting anymore. Once a week or three, I’ll (ahem) lurk during a break for a few minutes and see if there’s anything resembling an intellectually coherent discussion going on. There rarely is. RadioDork’s query is yet another perfect encapsulation of the reasons I have (more or less) abandoned contributing to this site. The derp, it burns.

    Let’s pretend for a moment that question was asked in good faith. I doubt it, but who doesn’t enjoy pretend time? Certainly all of the GOP candidates for President do.

    So, “What’s wrong with deporting five million illegal (immigrants)”? asks RadioDork. Well, in no particular order:

    • It’s incompletely, totally, unworkable. The real numbers are likely double if not triple the figure you’ve quoted, but for the sake of argument let’s say it’s correct and that there are five million illegal immigrants here in the United States. How, exactly, do you think that (deportation) would work? How would you identify them all? How could you locate them all? Whom is going to be responsible for these duties? How do you logistically envision this process to work? Are police officers going to be involved? You’ll need to hire tens of thousands (likely many, many more than that) to take on these duties. And, of course, then tens of thousands of others (at minimum) to absorb the duties they are no longer able to perform. Are they going to be trained for these new duties? Who is going to pay for all of that? Are they going door to door, block by block, street by street across the entire country attempting to identify illegal immigrants? Once they find them, then what? Do you lock them up? How do you transport them? Where are they held? Who pays for all of that? Are you going to forcefully separate families? Is there some kind of due process? Say, if the mother and/or father are not in the country legally but had a child whom by Constitutional law is a U.S. citizen, are you going to deport the parents? If so, who is going to take care of the child? Are U.S. taxpayers expected to take upon that social and financial burden as well? (And that’s just one example of literally dozens of familial and legal complications that would arise from attempting to enforce this unenforceable idea.) I could go on and on. It’s just moronic. It will never, ever, happen. I mean, never. The GOP has been talking about this in a dishonest fashion for thirty years. (And only talking.) And here’s the worst part: All of those GOP politicians know very well what they’re saying is unworkable. You’re being lied to and played, using well-worn tools such as fear mongering, xenophobia, racism, demagoguery, and willful distortion of information, for a fool.

    “The world would be a much safer place without them”, says RadioDork.

    • Putting aside for a moment your opinion sounds both ominous and ignorant in equal measure. What, exactly, do you mean? Are you asserting that illegal immigrants make the United States a more dangerous place, and therefore without their presence things would be safer? There’s no fact based information anywhere that would support that assertion. Let me be blunt: It’s not true. All of the anecdotal fear mongering you read/hear from the conservative media regarding the supposed crime wave created by a metaphorical flood of illegal immigration is just that; anecdotal. I.e. Infrequent, disparate, statistically insignificant exceptions that do not make the rule. The vast (vast) majority of illegal immigrants in this country are here to work. That’s it. And they are for the most part doing low paid, unskilled work that the vast (vast) majority of native born U.S. citizens are unwilling to do for the wages offered. All true. All factually supportable contentions. If the U.S. business community and their proxy mouthpieces in the GOP actually wanted to combat illegal immigration they would have taken a number of easily implementable legal steps years ago to enforce compliance of U.S. labor laws. The truth of the matter is, illegal immigrant workers are an important part of our shadow economy that would be incredibly expensive (for U.S. business) to replace. They don’t want to change a thing.

    “Plus, it’s not fair to the ones who come into this country legally”, RadioDork asserts self-righteously. I’ll generously grant you the benefit of the doubt you’d welcome legal immigration from anywhere that’s not Western Europe or Australia.

    • You’re technically right. But you’re also, willfully, missing the larger point. Our immigration system is really, really broken. It’s very difficult to immigrate legally. It’s slow. It’s expensive. It’s mind-bendingly complex and choked by bureaucratic nonsense. People who are in almost every case, simply coming to this country to work hard and try to improve their economic lot in life (or in more extreme cases may actually be coming here to save the lives of themselves and their family) cannot metaphorically camp outside our front door for years and years waiting for their chance to get in line. Nor can you possibly expect people to uproot themselves, remember that many illegal immigrants have been living in the U.S. as peaceful and productive members of society for decades, and abandon their homes and life to “get back in line”. A line, that doesn’t actually move very much if at all of its own accord. And whom is overwhelmingly responsible for failing to act on this issue? It’s The Republican Party. I don’t really care if you “believe” me or not; that’s the fact, Jack. The information is all out there, it’s free to access, and the truth does not have a liberal bias.

    Now, will RadioDork bother to read (much less understand) any of this? Does he possess any critical reasoning skills? Is he able to recognize the fundamentally true and imminently supportable contention that the GOP’s platform on this issue is just a lot of ignorant bloviating (mostly racial in nature) that’s completely untethered from workable reality?

    Please, prove me wrong. Take the time to ask yourself some difficult questions and attempt to answer the myriad of difficult ones offered in turn that your seemingly “simple” question has raised.

    My bet is he won’t. Or that he can’t. Which is why I don’t bother with this much at all anymore. It’s generally not worth the time attempting to reason with the unreasonable. Or the willfully ignorant. Or the dishonest. Or, maybe, just the plain old stupid.

    Have a great day!


    But I still think your pretty damn cool, Lurking. Please stick around, I always learn stuff from you.


    “…see if there’s anything resembling an intellectually coherent discussion going on.”

    Thanks for stopping by to raise the level a few notches.


    The answers were, for the most part, the same. The questions were more intelligent and less combative. Which leads to more coherent answers. I don’t agree with most, (or really any) on many issues, but atleast this debate was more substantive and intelligent. And by inteligent, I don’t necessarilly mean the answers, moreso the questions. As for could any one or two of them beat Hillary? Yes, IMO.


    There was nothing intelligent about the debate from either the candidates or the moderators.

    Nobody was challenged on anything, and what I found the most funny, was how the crowd reacted to the question regarding Hillary having an impressive resume. I think the GOP is underestimating just how tough a road they have moving forward.


    I had the worst nightmare the other night. It was about Hillary winning the presidency. I woke up in a cold sweat. I tried reaching for the closest sharp object, thankgod there was no knives around.

    #Keep Hillary away from the Whitehouse


    I will assume you are a lower wage earner. The percentages favor my assumption.

    Given that, your best bet is whoever is the D vs the R. The R’s want to reduce the minimum wage you currently earn because people like you are too expensive.

    You are an example of someone, who somehow has been convinced to vote against your own best interest. But, you are not alone.


    Lurking G left behind a lot more questions than answers! 🙂

    Hang around Lurk, you’re appreciated.


    “I had the worst nightmare the other night. It was about Hillary winning the presidency. I woke up in a cold sweat. I tried reaching for the closest sharp object, thankgod there was no knives around.

    #Keep Hillary away from the Whitehouse”

    It doesn’t look like those nightmares are going to improve; this is on AP this morning, and if it’s true, they may as well just pull the plug on the rest of the campaign season:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton has locked up public support from half the Democratic Party insiders who get to cast ballots at the party’s national convention. That’s the indication from a survey of super-delegates. Their backing gives Clinton a commanding advantage over her rivals for the Democratic nomination for president. The Associated Press contacted all 712 people known as super-delegates, and more than 80 percent responded. Clinton got endorsements from 359, while Bernie Sanders was endorsed by eight.

    BTW, I think this is complete BS.


    @LG: Nice to read you here. 🙂

    Didn’t watch this one, because clowns. Life, also.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.