2024

651,250 Views | 10633 Replies | Last: 8 hrs ago by historian
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:


need to see the cross tabs..

First poll i have seen where RFK takes away more from Trump.
Adopt-a-Bear 2024

#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs


#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
First I've seen where Trump does better in swing states than nationally

FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

First I've seen where Trump does better in swing states than nationally


Leading you right where you want to go... Nice little bread crumb trail. Everything is coming up Donald, no matter what he does or what he says the polls just keep checking off boxes that he is a shoo-in. That doesn't raise suspicions? These polls are too good to be true for Donald. It is exactly what he and MAGA want to see. Call me skeptical, let's see how votes turn out.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

whiterock said:

First I've seen where Trump does better in swing states than nationally


Leading you right where you want to go... Nice little bread crumb trail. Everything is coming up Donald, no matter what he does or what he says the polls just keep checking off boxes that he is a shoo-in. That doesn't raise suspicions? These polls are too good to be true for Donald. It is exactly what he and MAGA want to see. Call me skeptical, let's see how votes turn out.
We will likely get to see that.

Just because it's trending his way today (which should be completely expected, given dynamics) doesn't mean it will be a year from now. But the most unrealistic scenario of all should be a Democrat victory. Look around. Look at the factors today likely to shape the course of events going forward. If forced to pick a seat at the table today, nobody in their right mind would rather play the Democrat hand than the Republican hand..
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

FLBear5630 said:

whiterock said:

First I've seen where Trump does better in swing states than nationally


Leading you right where you want to go... Nice little bread crumb trail. Everything is coming up Donald, no matter what he does or what he says the polls just keep checking off boxes that he is a shoo-in. That doesn't raise suspicions? These polls are too good to be true for Donald. It is exactly what he and MAGA want to see. Call me skeptical, let's see how votes turn out.
We will likely get to see that.

Just because it's trending his way today (which should be completely expected, given dynamics) doesn't mean it will be a year from now. But the most unrealistic scenario of all should be a Democrat victory. Look around. Look at the factors today likely to shape the course of events going forward. If forced to pick a seat at the table today, nobody in their right mind would rather play the Democrat hand than the Republican hand..
I don't see the parameters staying the same. I don't think it will be just these candidates. I believe another GOP candidate (moderate) will enter as an Independent. I also believe both Trump and the Dems are aligned in wanting the polls to show a Trump slam dunk to keep anyone else out... They both want Trump to be the nominee.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

whiterock said:

FLBear5630 said:

whiterock said:

First I've seen where Trump does better in swing states than nationally


Leading you right where you want to go... Nice little bread crumb trail. Everything is coming up Donald, no matter what he does or what he says the polls just keep checking off boxes that he is a shoo-in. That doesn't raise suspicions? These polls are too good to be true for Donald. It is exactly what he and MAGA want to see. Call me skeptical, let's see how votes turn out.
We will likely get to see that.

Just because it's trending his way today (which should be completely expected, given dynamics) doesn't mean it will be a year from now. But the most unrealistic scenario of all should be a Democrat victory. Look around. Look at the factors today likely to shape the course of events going forward. If forced to pick a seat at the table today, nobody in their right mind would rather play the Democrat hand than the Republican hand..
I don't see the parameters staying the same. I don't think it will be just these candidates. I believe another GOP candidate (moderate) will enter as an Independent. I also believe both Trump and the Dems are aligned in wanting the polls to show a Trump slam dunk to keep anyone else out... They both want Trump to be the nominee.
I don't see the parameters staying the same, either. I see the floor falling out from beneath the Democrats.

Why would Dems WANT Trump to be the nominee when he's polling stronger than BIden? stronger than any other alternative? Wouldn't Dems want to have Burghum or Hutchinson or some other single-digit nobody on the ticket?

Seriously flawed analysis there, driven by campaign memes premised on the assumption Trump cannot win under any circumstances so we must pick someone else.

I mean, I could point out the illogic of Dems doubling down on the Trump prosecutions, which are helping him. You would counter "well, exactly, they want to help him." So if that's true, why wouldn't they want to help a candidate which alienates a far larger part of the GOP base, like Chris Christie?

whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

FLBear5630 said:

whiterock said:

FLBear5630 said:

whiterock said:

First I've seen where Trump does better in swing states than nationally


Leading you right where you want to go... Nice little bread crumb trail. Everything is coming up Donald, no matter what he does or what he says the polls just keep checking off boxes that he is a shoo-in. That doesn't raise suspicions? These polls are too good to be true for Donald. It is exactly what he and MAGA want to see. Call me skeptical, let's see how votes turn out.
We will likely get to see that.

Just because it's trending his way today (which should be completely expected, given dynamics) doesn't mean it will be a year from now. But the most unrealistic scenario of all should be a Democrat victory. Look around. Look at the factors today likely to shape the course of events going forward. If forced to pick a seat at the table today, nobody in their right mind would rather play the Democrat hand than the Republican hand..
I don't see the parameters staying the same. I don't think it will be just these candidates. I believe another GOP candidate (moderate) will enter as an Independent. I also believe both Trump and the Dems are aligned in wanting the polls to show a Trump slam dunk to keep anyone else out... They both want Trump to be the nominee.
I don't see the parameters staying the same, either. I see the floor falling out from beneath the Democrats.

Why would Dems WANT Trump to be the nominee when he's polling stronger than BIden? stronger than any other alternative? Wouldn't Dems want to have Burghum or Hutchinson or some other single-digit nobody on the ticket?

Seriously flawed analysis there, driven by campaign memes premised on the assumption Trump cannot win under any circumstances so we must pick someone else.

I mean, I could point out the illogic of Dems doubling down on the Trump prosecutions, which are helping him. You would counter "well, exactly, they want to help him." So if that's true, why wouldn't they want to help a candidate which alienates a far larger part of the GOP base, like Chris Christie?


Because Trump has a Freight Car full of negatives to exploit, many his own words! He may win the GOP nomination but it remains to be seen if his support is his ceiling or floor. I would bet they have data showing it is the ceiling. Confirmed if Jim Jordan is the new SOH (confirming GOP does not reflect most of America). We will see.

I do agree that the Dems have a problem, Hamas attacking Israel is not helping. Biden is going to get skewered anyway you cut it over this...
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

whiterock said:

FLBear5630 said:

whiterock said:

First I've seen where Trump does better in swing states than nationally


Leading you right where you want to go... Nice little bread crumb trail. Everything is coming up Donald, no matter what he does or what he says the polls just keep checking off boxes that he is a shoo-in. That doesn't raise suspicions? These polls are too good to be true for Donald. It is exactly what he and MAGA want to see. Call me skeptical, let's see how votes turn out.
We will likely get to see that.

Just because it's trending his way today (which should be completely expected, given dynamics) doesn't mean it will be a year from now. But the most unrealistic scenario of all should be a Democrat victory. Look around. Look at the factors today likely to shape the course of events going forward. If forced to pick a seat at the table today, nobody in their right mind would rather play the Democrat hand than the Republican hand..
I don't see the parameters staying the same. I don't think it will be just these candidates. I believe another GOP candidate (moderate) will enter as an Independent. I also believe both Trump and the Dems are aligned in wanting the polls to show a Trump slam dunk to keep anyone else out... They both want Trump to be the nominee.


The more 3rd parties candidates run, the stronger Trump will poll. He has that cast iron floor, so the more candidates there are, the more disused up the non-Trump vote gets.

Even the die hard neverTrumpers are starting to see it.

FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

FLBear5630 said:

whiterock said:

FLBear5630 said:

whiterock said:

First I've seen where Trump does better in swing states than nationally


Leading you right where you want to go... Nice little bread crumb trail. Everything is coming up Donald, no matter what he does or what he says the polls just keep checking off boxes that he is a shoo-in. That doesn't raise suspicions? These polls are too good to be true for Donald. It is exactly what he and MAGA want to see. Call me skeptical, let's see how votes turn out.
We will likely get to see that.

Just because it's trending his way today (which should be completely expected, given dynamics) doesn't mean it will be a year from now. But the most unrealistic scenario of all should be a Democrat victory. Look around. Look at the factors today likely to shape the course of events going forward. If forced to pick a seat at the table today, nobody in their right mind would rather play the Democrat hand than the Republican hand..
I don't see the parameters staying the same. I don't think it will be just these candidates. I believe another GOP candidate (moderate) will enter as an Independent. I also believe both Trump and the Dems are aligned in wanting the polls to show a Trump slam dunk to keep anyone else out... They both want Trump to be the nominee.


The more 3rd parties candidates run, the stronger Trump will poll. He has that cast iron floor, so the more candidates there are, the more disused up the non-Trump vote gets.

Even the die hard neverTrumpers are starting to see it.


Mark my words there is one more coming in. We will see what happens, there are a lot of votes in the undecided moderates.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

FLBear5630 said:

whiterock said:

FLBear5630 said:

whiterock said:

First I've seen where Trump does better in swing states than nationally


Leading you right where you want to go... Nice little bread crumb trail. Everything is coming up Donald, no matter what he does or what he says the polls just keep checking off boxes that he is a shoo-in. That doesn't raise suspicions? These polls are too good to be true for Donald. It is exactly what he and MAGA want to see. Call me skeptical, let's see how votes turn out.
We will likely get to see that.

Just because it's trending his way today (which should be completely expected, given dynamics) doesn't mean it will be a year from now. But the most unrealistic scenario of all should be a Democrat victory. Look around. Look at the factors today likely to shape the course of events going forward. If forced to pick a seat at the table today, nobody in their right mind would rather play the Democrat hand than the Republican hand..
I don't see the parameters staying the same. I don't think it will be just these candidates. I believe another GOP candidate (moderate) will enter as an Independent. I also believe both Trump and the Dems are aligned in wanting the polls to show a Trump slam dunk to keep anyone else out... They both want Trump to be the nominee.


The more 3rd parties candidates run, the stronger Trump will poll. He has that cast iron floor, so the more candidates there are, the more disused up the non-Trump vote gets.

Even the die hard neverTrumpers are starting to see it.


Bill Kristol is off his meds again..
Adopt-a-Bear 2024

#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs


#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Are they all in on "it?"

boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:


funding candidates that will suck off Democrat votes.

wait until RFKJr starts fundraising.......
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Biden does not appear to be getting a bump from his response to the Hamas attacks in Israel.

boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cobretti
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Note the Biden v. Romney polling. Illustrates the impact of having Trump on the ticket. He enervates BOTH Republicans and Democrats

whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:




The 2 people who established Christianity
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

boognish_bear said:




The 2 people who established Christianity
Wonder when the last time Trump was in a Church and sat through a service?
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:


him doing better with blacks, hispanics, and college age could overrule to suburban women and never trumpers.

He changes the entire make up of the GOP vote
Adopt-a-Bear 2024

#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs


#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

whiterock said:


him doing better with blacks, hispanics, and college age could overrule to suburban women and never trumpers.

He changes the entire make up of the GOP vote
The numbers I see show continued of the trend already underway: evolution of the GOP toward a multi-racial, working class party. Also explains the angst of the neverTrumpers. They tend to detest exactly the type of politics it takes to build a party of the masses. It's going to be a more contentious style of politician, more populist themes, as the coalition is by definition anti-establishment. Even the non-nonsense moderates like FLBear are going to have to make their peace with it. It will take a Trumpy-type to win going forward, much more rabble-rousing, barn-burning, saber-slashing type campaigning designed to fire up the base. A Romney-type candidate will deliver calamitous results (as the Emerson poll a few posts above hints). In other words, Republicans are going to sound more like the old-school union hall Democrats. Has to be so, given the new coalition.

The caveat? High turnout in black & hispanic demographics still lands more votes for Dems than GOP. Has to be a lower turnout election for the declining support percentages to really inflict harm.

Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump won't let in immigrants who don't like "our religion." Clearly has complete understanding of the Constitution.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-ll-ban-immigrants-220504292.html
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank Galvin said:

Trump won't let in immigrants who don't like "our religion." Clearly has complete understanding of the Constitution.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-ll-ban-immigrants-220504292.html
some classes of immigrants are more successful than others, to include quicker/easier assimilation than others. Even better, we have a wide range of socio-economic data to give us indications on which classes are most likely to succeed and which are not.

We do not have to take everyone.
We are under no obligation to be the least bit "diverse" in who we take in.
We can take 'em all from Mexico, or all from Latin America, or anywhere else.
We can take 'em proportionately to our most successful classes of immigrants, or proportionally to the population at large. It's completely up to us to do it right. So far, we haven't. We've imported an awful lot of problems, to include a class of people to tend to be proud antisemites.

Trump is right. it's gotta stop. If you want to immigrate here, you should love us like we are and want to be a part of it. If not, eff off.
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Frank Galvin said:

Trump won't let in immigrants who don't like "our religion." Clearly has complete understanding of the Constitution.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-ll-ban-immigrants-220504292.html
some classes of immigrants are more successful than others, to include quicker/easier assimilation than others. Even better, we have a wide range of socio-economic data to give us indications on which classes are most likely to succeed and which are not.

We do not have to take everyone.
We are under no obligation to be the least bit "diverse" in who we take in.
We can take 'em all from Mexico, or all from Latin America, or anywhere else.
We can take 'em proportionately to our most successful classes of immigrants, or proportionally to the population at large. It's completely up to us to do it right. So far, we haven't. We've imported an awful lot of problems, to include a class of people to tend to be proud antisemites.

Trump is right. it's gotta stop. If you want to immigrate here, you should love us like we are and want to be a part of it. If not, eff off.


We don't have a national religion. Trump thinks we do. That is the point of my post.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank Galvin said:

whiterock said:

Frank Galvin said:

Trump won't let in immigrants who don't like "our religion." Clearly has complete understanding of the Constitution.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-ll-ban-immigrants-220504292.html
some classes of immigrants are more successful than others, to include quicker/easier assimilation than others. Even better, we have a wide range of socio-economic data to give us indications on which classes are most likely to succeed and which are not.

We do not have to take everyone.
We are under no obligation to be the least bit "diverse" in who we take in.
We can take 'em all from Mexico, or all from Latin America, or anywhere else.
We can take 'em proportionately to our most successful classes of immigrants, or proportionally to the population at large. It's completely up to us to do it right. So far, we haven't. We've imported an awful lot of problems, to include a class of people to tend to be proud antisemites.

Trump is right. it's gotta stop. If you want to immigrate here, you should love us like we are and want to be a part of it. If not, eff off.


We don't have a national religion. Trump thinks we do. That is the point of my post.
We are a country where somewhere between 2/3rds and 3/4ths of the country are of the same religious tradition, and our entire socio-political system is based on Western Philosophies heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian worldview. LIke it or not, that drives cultural hegemonies. If those hegemonies change over time, so be it. The American melting pot has a pretty good track record of evolving at a pace that minimizes the centrifugal forces of change. What we should not do is import people who are coming here for the purpose of overthrowing it in their own lifetimes. That is insanity.

We import people to benefit us - for population growth, economic growth, additions of skills in arts or sciences or business or medicine, etc.... No sane nation imports ideological revolutionaries for the purpose of testing the validity of existing social contract. Such is madness.
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Frank Galvin said:

whiterock said:

Frank Galvin said:

Trump won't let in immigrants who don't like "our religion." Clearly has complete understanding of the Constitution.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-ll-ban-immigrants-220504292.html
some classes of immigrants are more successful than others, to include quicker/easier assimilation than others. Even better, we have a wide range of socio-economic data to give us indications on which classes are most likely to succeed and which are not.

We do not have to take everyone.
We are under no obligation to be the least bit "diverse" in who we take in.
We can take 'em all from Mexico, or all from Latin America, or anywhere else.
We can take 'em proportionately to our most successful classes of immigrants, or proportionally to the population at large. It's completely up to us to do it right. So far, we haven't. We've imported an awful lot of problems, to include a class of people to tend to be proud antisemites.

Trump is right. it's gotta stop. If you want to immigrate here, you should love us like we are and want to be a part of it. If not, eff off.


We don't have a national religion. Trump thinks we do. That is the point of my post.
We are a country where somewhere between 2/3rds and 3/4ths of the country are of the same religious tradition, and our entire socio-political system is based on Western Philosophies heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian worldview. LIke it or not, that drives cultural hegemonies. If those hegemonies change over time, so be it. The American melting pot has a pretty good track record of evolving at a pace that minimizes the centrifugal forces of change. What we should not do is import people who are coming here for the purpose of overthrowing it in their own lifetimes. That is insanity.

We import people to benefit us - for population growth, economic growth, additions of skills in arts or sciences or business or medicine, etc.... No sane nation imports ideological revolutionaries for the purpose of testing the validity of existing social contract. Such is madness.


You are babbling. The First Amendment says the government shall not establish a national religion. Requiring immigrants to adhere to a particular set of religious beliefs is inconsistent with that.

Do we keep out the Hindu engineer under your purity regime?
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank Galvin said:

whiterock said:

Frank Galvin said:

whiterock said:

Frank Galvin said:

Trump won't let in immigrants who don't like "our religion." Clearly has complete understanding of the Constitution.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-ll-ban-immigrants-220504292.html
some classes of immigrants are more successful than others, to include quicker/easier assimilation than others. Even better, we have a wide range of socio-economic data to give us indications on which classes are most likely to succeed and which are not.

We do not have to take everyone.
We are under no obligation to be the least bit "diverse" in who we take in.
We can take 'em all from Mexico, or all from Latin America, or anywhere else.
We can take 'em proportionately to our most successful classes of immigrants, or proportionally to the population at large. It's completely up to us to do it right. So far, we haven't. We've imported an awful lot of problems, to include a class of people to tend to be proud antisemites.

Trump is right. it's gotta stop. If you want to immigrate here, you should love us like we are and want to be a part of it. If not, eff off.


We don't have a national religion. Trump thinks we do. That is the point of my post.
We are a country where somewhere between 2/3rds and 3/4ths of the country are of the same religious tradition, and our entire socio-political system is based on Western Philosophies heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian worldview. LIke it or not, that drives cultural hegemonies. If those hegemonies change over time, so be it. The American melting pot has a pretty good track record of evolving at a pace that minimizes the centrifugal forces of change. What we should not do is import people who are coming here for the purpose of overthrowing it in their own lifetimes. That is insanity.

We import people to benefit us - for population growth, economic growth, additions of skills in arts or sciences or business or medicine, etc.... No sane nation imports ideological revolutionaries for the purpose of testing the validity of existing social contract. Such is madness.


You are babbling. The First Amendment says the government shall not establish a national religion. Requiring immigrants to adhere to a particular set of religious beliefs is inconsistent with that.

Do we keep out the Hindu engineer under your purity regime?
No, I'm paraphrasing statute = classes of immigrants. Google is your friend. Otherwise, you are just doing what leftists do: trying to contort the establishment clause into a religious test = we can select for any belief we want, unless it can be credibly contorted to suggest a Christian belief, in which case it is verboten, while non-Christian religious beliefs, of course, are preferable in all cases.

There is nothing at all unconstitutional about requiring immigrants to adhere to a particular set of beliefs. We do in on a number of things....fascism, communism, foreign potentates, etc.... Identifying which classes of immigrants do not assimilate well is a not just a valid policy response, but a necessary one. And if we find that Afghan or Australian immigrants, Pakistani or Peruvian immigrants, Turkish or Thai immigrants, etc....are more prone to engage in terrorism than other classes by orders of magnitude, we owe it to our citizens to exclude those classes. We can also do that same evaluation on which classes are most likely to end up on public assistance, end up in a penitentiary, suffer certain kinds of debilitating disease, etc.... If disciples of the Noble Order of Purple Engineers are 5x more likely than any other class of immigrants to end up smuggling ICBM parts to Inuit Peoples, the NOPEs should be excluded as a preference category for immigrant visas, and stricken from eligibility for Non-Immigrant visas.


Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank (Biden) Galvin: "The First Amendment says the government shall not establish a national religion. Requiring immigrants to adhere to a particular set of religious beliefs is inconsistent with that."

Pretty silly take.

First, the First Amendment says Government may not establish a state religion. It never said people could not practice their beliefs freely and openly, in fact it says the opposite. Frank seems to be confused by ACLU and other fake rights groups, who lie about the Constitution to attack religion where they don't like it.

Second, no one is "requiring" immigrants to "adhere to a particular set of religious beliefs", but denying that the United States has been Christian in character and moral foundation for pretty much its whole history is really dishonest, but again that's what Democrats do.

But to Whiterock's point, the one Frank ducked, every country has a culture, a way of life that immigrants should reasonably try to support and join, simply because that makes their own life better. The US has always been more free than most nations in its defense of religious choice, including atheism, paganism and in the case of the Left, Moron Worship.

But every community prefers the new resident who pays his way, does no harm, is courteous and tidy, and respects the traditions in place where he arrives. Newcomers who do not work, leave trash in their yards, who are rude to their neighbors and disrespect the community are unacceptable, no matter where they come from, California, Mexico or wherever.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Frank Galvin said:

whiterock said:

Frank Galvin said:

whiterock said:

Frank Galvin said:

Trump won't let in immigrants who don't like "our religion." Clearly has complete understanding of the Constitution.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-ll-ban-immigrants-220504292.html
some classes of immigrants are more successful than others, to include quicker/easier assimilation than others. Even better, we have a wide range of socio-economic data to give us indications on which classes are most likely to succeed and which are not.

We do not have to take everyone.
We are under no obligation to be the least bit "diverse" in who we take in.
We can take 'em all from Mexico, or all from Latin America, or anywhere else.
We can take 'em proportionately to our most successful classes of immigrants, or proportionally to the population at large. It's completely up to us to do it right. So far, we haven't. We've imported an awful lot of problems, to include a class of people to tend to be proud antisemites.

Trump is right. it's gotta stop. If you want to immigrate here, you should love us like we are and want to be a part of it. If not, eff off.


We don't have a national religion. Trump thinks we do. That is the point of my post.
We are a country where somewhere between 2/3rds and 3/4ths of the country are of the same religious tradition, and our entire socio-political system is based on Western Philosophies heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian worldview. LIke it or not, that drives cultural hegemonies. If those hegemonies change over time, so be it. The American melting pot has a pretty good track record of evolving at a pace that minimizes the centrifugal forces of change. What we should not do is import people who are coming here for the purpose of overthrowing it in their own lifetimes. That is insanity.

We import people to benefit us - for population growth, economic growth, additions of skills in arts or sciences or business or medicine, etc.... No sane nation imports ideological revolutionaries for the purpose of testing the validity of existing social contract. Such is madness.


You are babbling. The First Amendment says the government shall not establish a national religion. Requiring immigrants to adhere to a particular set of religious beliefs is inconsistent with that.

Do we keep out the Hindu engineer under your purity regime?
No, I'm paraphrasing statute = classes of immigrants. Google is your friend. Otherwise, you are just doing what leftists do: trying to contort the establishment clause into a religious test = we can select for any belief we want, unless it can be credibly contorted to suggest a Christian belief, in which case it is verboten, while non-Christian religious beliefs, of course, are preferable in all cases.

There is nothing at all unconstitutional about requiring immigrants to adhere to a particular set of beliefs. We do in on a number of things....fascism, communism, foreign potentates, etc.... Identifying which classes of immigrants do not assimilate well is a not just a valid policy response, but a necessary one. And if we find that Afghan or Australian immigrants, Pakistani or Peruvian immigrants, Turkish or Thai immigrants, etc....are more prone to engage in terrorism than other classes by orders of magnitude, we owe it to our citizens to exclude those classes. We can also do that same evaluation on which classes are most likely to end up on public assistance, end up in a penitentiary, suffer certain kinds of debilitating disease, etc.... If disciples of the Noble Order of Purple Engineers are 5x more likely than any other class of immigrants to end up smuggling ICBM parts to Inuit Peoples, the NOPEs should be excluded as a preference category for immigrant visas, and stricken from eligibility for Non-Immigrant visas.



You are really bought into purity tests much the same way your intellectual forefathers argued against the immigration of Asians, Italians and Irish and argued against citizenship for African Americans.

Specifcially, however, there is a constitutional prohibiition on the government using religon as the test. Its in plain English in the First Amendment. Trump proposes to exclude not just Islamic terrorists (who are of course already excluded under current screening) but anyone "who does not like our religon." His requirement is therefore respect for a mythical national religon.

The reason for the first paragraph is you are using the same bogeyman as has been used for centuries. You can't trust "them." As you note, however, we already have laws in place to exclude those who might act adversely to our security. You just want to exclude those who who you beleive do not worship like you.

boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
First Page Last Page
Page 48 of 304
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.