Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The UK leaving the EU will cause a split of the UK in my opinion. Scotland voted to stay in the EU and narrowly voted against leaving the UK last time around. Due to the split in votes over the EU, Scotland will more than likely split with the UK. The conflicts in regards to Northern Ireland will rear their heads again. Ireland itself majority supported the EU and may attempt to leave the UK.
Many companies will see the uncertainties in the UK and leave the UK causing economic issues for the country. IMO it is not a good thing. Immigration as a topic in a country can always be worked on by any political party.
It is dangerous to view it as some sort of scourge and act like there are no solutions when there are solutions that don't cause drastic economic fluctuations to occur in an already precarious economy.
No matter how much people don't like that we are a global community, in effect we really are and our economic systems today will falter without a broad outreach across the world.
I'm worried for the UK. I have friends who are expats who live there and they are worried about losing their jobs/livelihoods as some work for companies that have been rumored to be looking to re-locate if the vote went the way it did.
Personally I think it'd be good and proper for both Scotland and N. Ireland to break free of England. Doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't have a close working relationship that is beneficial to each country.
Let us keep in mind this will be a slow process over a couple years, at least. Other countries will follow suit before long, and there are good reasons for it that I don't believe were salvageable. The EU wasn't working well for the citizens any longer, and it's unelected leaders were greedy and authoritarian. This exit vote is the beginning of the end of the EU in all likelihood.
Some companies will relocate, I'm sure. For the people who work for them hopefully they can relocate to continue working. We'll see how many companies actually leave, and how much of that was fear mongering.
Personally I think it'd be good and proper for both Scotland and N. Ireland to break free of England. Doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't have a close working relationship that is beneficial to each country.
Let us keep in mind this will be a slow process over a couple years, at least. Other countries will follow suit before long, and there are good reasons for it that I don't believe were salvageable. The EU wasn't working well for the citizens any longer, and it's unelected leaders were greedy and authoritarian. This exit vote is the beginning of the end of the EU in all likelihood.
Some companies will relocate, I'm sure. For the people who work for them hopefully they can relocate to continue working. We'll see how many companies actually leave, and how much of that was fear mongering.
EU is donezo. Will take time, but you're right, this is the beginning of the end.
Maybe some companies will relocate, but I still think that's mostly fear mongering. Where are they going to go? They'll find out that Britain is still a top spot in Europe to be.
Personally I think it'd be good and proper for both Scotland and N. Ireland to break free of England. Doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't have a close working relationship that is beneficial to each country.
Let us keep in mind this will be a slow process over a couple years, at least. Other countries will follow suit before long, and there are good reasons for it that I don't believe were salvageable. The EU wasn't working well for the citizens any longer, and it's unelected leaders were greedy and authoritarian. This exit vote is the beginning of the end of the EU in all likelihood.
Some companies will relocate, I'm sure. For the people who work for them hopefully they can relocate to continue working. We'll see how many companies actually leave, and how much of that was fear mongering.
Nationalism, especially due to rabid immigrant bigotry (or other convenient scapegoat), is a totally losing proposition. It has never worked out historically, and it pretty much always severely impacts the base nation, whether through war, economic power loss or both. The breakup of the UK and EU has massive econonomic and social consequences, including for the US. Consider that the next time the US has a major foreign military engagement, the allied forces won't necessarily be there, or won't be there in as large of numbers. And a fractioned, isolated Europe is ripe for the rise of demagogues, especially when the reasoning for it revolves around fear and bigotry. We already know what can come out of such a situation. We've seen it time and time again throughout history. People who think this is great news are kidding themselves.
Cruz isn't an extremist, he's a Christian. Having a President that understands the importance of doing the right thing morally would have been nice for a change, rather than having an egomaniac in the White House like we do now, and almost always have. The country had a unique opportunity and blew it.
As for his filibuster, he had an agreement with Harry Reid when he'd start and finish it. He started speaking in the afternoon, continued through the night as you might recall and finished early enough for the Senate to conduct business the morning after he started, While he talked to members in the House it was their stance to stand up to Obama. Unfortunately, Boehner wasn't willing to stand up to the President and let him walk all over him. I would argue it was Obama that shut down the government by not being willing to compromise. It worked out for him since Boehner backed down, which Democrats would not have done if the roles had been reversed.
Trump's position on immigration isn't racist at all. A President's job is to do the bidding of the American people, not for foreigners who have come in illegally stealing jobs and overwhelming and wrecking communities. And certainly not for foreigners who don't share our values, just the opposite in fact. They believe they have a duty to convert us to Islam or kill us. What don't you understand about that? The Orlando mass killing never happens if the terrorist's parents hadn't been allowed to come to this country. That type of evil thinking is passed down from generation to generation as part of their religious beliefs. It is what it is. You can bury your head in the sand if you want, but I choose to see things for what they are.
While I'm no fan of Trump others have given me options of Clinton or Trump, so I had to decide on Trump hoping he keeps his promises. Clinton nominating Supreme Court justices is a scary proposition. It's bad enough we have four activist judges on their already.
Christian and exremist aren't mutually exclusive. Wanting the US to be a theocracy when the Founders wanted nothing to do with such a system, is being an extremist. The "right thing" morally depends on who you ask, and how can you sit there and say one religion is right and wrong over another? All religion is based on faith, not fact. They're all exactly the same. Just because you personally may be a Christian and agree with Cruz does not give you the right to declare that the many millions of people out there who aren't, including many who aren't religious at all, be ignored or marginalized within their own country, especially when it so clearly violates the very document that governs the nation.
Of course you would blame Obama for the shutdown, but Obama has clearly never had very much control over the Republican congress. It's ridiculous and dishonest to suggest otherwise.
Actually, Trump's position on immigration is not only racist, it is bigoted, nationalistic, irrational, fear-mongering and antithetical to American values. I was being too kind before. I am so sick to death of these BS talking points about how immigrants are ruining America. Did you not miss my post about how the US is still the world's most powerful nation on earth and in all of human history? And that that reality was built on being an immigrant nation. Further, wtf are you talking about? The US Muslim population is very small. The Orlando and San Bernardino attacks were US citizens and not immigrants. The Orlando guy was a closet gay who had an as}hole father who raised him in bigotry and self-hate. It's a wonder he didn't snap a lot earlier in life. Regardless, the vast majority of mass shootings have absolutely no Muslims involved whatsoever. This is just fear-mongering tripe, period. And it is a disgusting suggestion that there should be a religious litmus test as to who is allowed to exist in the US. That is so anti-American I have trouble believing you have any understanding of either the Constitution or the founding history of our country. It is completely shameful.
And please. You can pretend like the decision to support Trump was a thoughtful, difficult one, but your positions above leave little doubt that you love the guy. He validates every irrational fear and hate people have, and you seem to have a lot of them.
Cruz isn't an extremist, he's a Christian. Having a President that understands the importance of doing the right thing morally would have been nice for a change, rather than having an egomaniac in the White House like we do now, and almost always have. The country had a unique opportunity and blew it.
As for his filibuster, he had an agreement with Harry Reid when he'd start and finish it. He started speaking in the afternoon, continued through the night as you might recall and finished early enough for the Senate to conduct business the morning after he started, While he talked to members in the House it was their stance to stand up to Obama. Unfortunately, Boehner wasn't willing to stand up to the President and let him walk all over him. I would argue it was Obama that shut down the government by not being willing to compromise. It worked out for him since Boehner backed down, which Democrats would not have done if the roles had been reversed.
Trump's position on immigration isn't racist at all. A President's job is to do the bidding of the American people, not for foreigners who have come in illegally stealing jobs and overwhelming and wrecking communities. And certainly not for foreigners who don't share our values, just the opposite in fact. They believe they have a duty to convert us to Islam or kill us. What don't you understand about that? The Orlando mass killing never happens if the terrorist's parents hadn't been allowed to come to this country. That type of evil thinking is passed down from generation to generation as part of their religious beliefs. It is what it is. You can bury your head in the sand if you want, but I choose to see things for what they are.
While I'm no fan of Trump others have given me options of Clinton or Trump, so I had to decide on Trump hoping he keeps his promises. Clinton nominating Supreme Court justices is a scary proposition. It's bad enough we have four activist judges on their already.
Cruz is a Christian extremist IMO.
He is way too religious to be trusted. Anyone who thinks, in our country, that their religion should be followed by the masses is an extremist.
Trumps position on immigration from a religious standpoint is indeed xenophobic IMO. Americans who practice Islam have been in this country for hundreds of years. All of the sudden placing specific bans on immigration based on religion or denying re-entry into the country based on someone being Muslim is xenophobic and unnecessary. I remember a facebook meme someone posted about muslims which basically stated:
There are nearly 2 billion Muslims in the world. If Islam was truly a religion of violence, we'd all be dead by now.
In regards to Latino immigrants and illegal immigration, there are MANY solutions that can and should be worked out in congress IMO. I would actually love to see an amendment to re-define American citizenship to being having at least one parent being an American citizen at the birth of their child and would support amnesty with conditions (fines and/or military service). If we can get some rational people in Congress (on both sides mind you) it can be worked out and settled.
Christian and exremist aren't mutually exclusive. Wanting the US to be a theocracy when the Founders wanted nothing to do with such a system, is being an extremist. The "right thing" morally depends on who you ask, and how can you sit there and say one religion is right and wrong over another? All religion is based on faith, not fact. They're all exactly the same. Just because you personally may be a Christian and agree with Cruz does not give you the right to declare that the many millions of people out there who aren't, including many who aren't religious at all, be ignored or marginalized within their own country, especially when it so clearly violates the very document that governs the nation.
Of course you would blame Obama for the shutdown, but Obama has clearly never had very much control over the Republican congress. It's ridiculous and dishonest to suggest otherwise.
Actually, Trump's position on immigration is not only racist, it is bigoted, nationalistic, irrational, fear-mongering and antithetical to American values. I was being too kind before. I am so sick to death of these BS talking points about how immigrants are ruining America. Did you not miss my post about how the US is still the world's most powerful nation on earth and in all of human history? And that that reality was built on being an immigrant nation. Further, wtf are you talking about? The US Muslim population is very small. The Orlando and San Bernardino attacks were US citizens and not immigrants. The Orlando guy was a closet gay who had an as}hole father who raised him in bigotry and self-hate. It's a wonder he didn't snap a lot earlier in life. Regardless, the vast majority of mass shootings have absolutely no Muslims involved whatsoever. This is just fear-mongering tripe, period. And it is a disgusting suggestion that there should be a religious litmus test as to who is allowed to exist in the US. That is so anti-American I have trouble believing you have any understanding of either the Constitution or the founding history of our country. It is completely shameful.
And please. You can pretend like the decision to support Trump was a thoughtful, difficult one, but your positions above leave little doubt that you love the guy. He validates every irrational fear and hate people have, and you seem to have a lot of them.
On Trump, ITA with the red and IMO it is sad that so many people are so fearful and hateful of others based on ethnicity, religion, and whatever else.
What happened to the America of old "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."
I honestly am more afraid of the large fearful masses than Muslim extremist. The large fearful masses are much more populous than those who practice "Radical Islam."
On Trump, ITA with the red and IMO it is sad that so many people are so fearful and hateful of others based on ethnicity, religion, and whatever else.
What happened to the America of old "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."
I honestly am more afraid of the large fearful masses than Muslim extremist. The large fearful masses are much more populous than those who practice "Radical Islam."
That quote loses much of its power when you consider the man behind it was responsible for Japanese-American internment camps. There really isn't a golden age of reason over irrationality. There are just periods when we learn our lesson for awhile before doing it all over again. Hitler's Germany taught us how dangerous extreme nationalism by a charismatic leader with a convenient scapegoat can be. Yet here we are again, in a time where several European nations are once again openly embracing the same ideas over Muslims and immigrants, among others (The Brexit vote was largely about anti-immigration). At the same time, the US is running Trump for much the same reasons- It's the "take our country back from them!" rhetoric that is so historically familiar, even as the reality is that there is no true threat. We have forgotten everything we have learned.
That quote loses much of its power when you consider the man behind it was responsible for Japanese-American internment camps. There really isn't a golden age of reason over irrationality. There are just periods when we learn our lesson for awhile before doing it all over again. Hitler's Germany taught us how dangerous extreme nationalism by a charismatic leader with a convenient scapegoat can be. Yet here we are again, in a time where several European nations are once again openly embracing the same ideas over Muslims and immigrants, among others (The Brexit vote was largely about anti-immigration). At the same time, the US is running Trump for much the same reasons- It's the "take our country back from them!" rhetoric that is so historically familiar, even as the reality is that there is no true threat. We have forgotten everything we have learned.
Agreed about how the leaders of our country have always been corrupt and violent. This is going to continue under Hillary Clinton, even though you guys like to think that Trump is somehow different. Whatever.
But also... Yawn. All politicians view the world as us Vs them.
Agreed about how the leaders of our country have always been corrupt and violent. This is going to continue under Hillary Clinton, even though you guys like to think that Trump is somehow different. Whatever.
But also... Yawn. All politicians view the world as us Vs them.
I prefer to think of it as just us, working together peacefully. But I think that makes me a bigot somehow in today's world.
I wouldn't say the leaders of our country have always been inherently corrupt, and certainly not violent. I would say that they have all been flawed, some worse than others. FDR made a terrible, shameful mistake with the internment camps, among others, but he also led the US through the harshest years of the Great Depression, all of WWII and is remembered for a lot of good things otherwise. There can certainly be a lot of nuance of character in people. Trump and Clinton are clearly flawed, but in my opinion, in drastically different ways. The nuances in those differences are very important.
I have to ask you, what do you think the best and worst-case scenarios would be for each candidate should they win the presidency? Here is my view:
Best Case: Hillary
-She would basically continue a lot of the Obama policies, both foreign and domestic. She would support social progress and be fairly pragmatic economically and with foreign engagement. She may push for immigration reform, especially if the Democrats manage to take back the Senate. She would nominate a center-left SCOTUS judge.
Worst Case
-She would be mired in political scandals, whether manufactured or genuine, and be unable to accomplish much, especially if Congress remained hostile to Democrats. Her hawkish foreign-policy tendencies would unnecessarily engage us in more "nation building" exercises and deficits would creep up from where they've been under Obama.
Best Case: Trump
-The best case I can think of is that he won't be able to get anything done. However, I can't really think of any way that would be true, because if he won, Congress would remain Republican and any Supreme Court challenges would run against a now conservative, friendly court.
Worst Case
-The worst-case possibilities are frightening here. Trump has shown, repeatedly, a disdain for Constitutionally-protected free press, and should he stack SCOTUS in his favor, restrictions against the media would be very possible. He has also stated that he's in favor of restricting internet access or "shutting it down", reminiscent of China. He has also stated many times his preference for religious and cultural litmus tests, not only for immigrants, but citizens. His objection to the "Mexican" judge is a perfect example. He would also likely seek reversals on social progression, from gay rights to abortion to religious freedom and the separation of church/state. His economic policies would skyrocket the nation's debt to a greater than 100% ratio to GDP, far worse than it is even now. His suggestion to eliminate everything from the EPA to the education department would ensure an increase in Flint-like incidents and a lack of national education standards, which would further place the US increasingly at a competitive disadvantage. His bombastic, narcisstic "negotiating" style would be detrimental to most, if not all foreign relationships, especially with allies. Should the US need or want to engage in conflict, such as the fight on terrorism, the US could find itself all alone. Trump's total lack of experience in either economics or foreign policy would be a serious hinderance, and his preference to surround himself with yes men would turn the presidency into a defacto dictatorship. Hate groups would flourish even more than they already are, putting minority populations at greater risk. Really, I could go on and on with this.
Trump's worst case threatens the American way of life, literally and figuratively. Hillary's does not. This is not about liking either one. This is about proportional response to what we actually know about them. Trump is measurably worse and it isn't close. I guess I just don't know what you're seeing that you think they are really equally bad. So I would be interested to know just what you think the worst case scenarios for each would be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
