[quote=@dirty slime]
You say as if the other candidates will not tear the country down:

Sanders is an idealist, that while having a good vision for the US is simply too old and feeble to definitively take the reigns of the government and not be jerked around by the Establishment. Remember what those BLM bitches did to him?

Hillary is self-explanatory.

Carson is noble, but lacks truly relevant experience in the political arena and I'd see him do far better as a cabinet member rather than President. I'd love to see the man get a relevant position and prove if he really was worthy of becoming President.

Rubio is Establishment. So voters don't like him on principle and furthermore he'd only keep the status quo.

Cruz doesn't truly state how bad the immigrant issue is and is partially in support of using them as a cheap labor force and that he's very likely to support the Trans-Pacific-Trade agreement. Which from what I hear, is going to royally screw over the working man in not only the US, but all the countries it will affect. Not to mention that even the democrats and republicans agree that it's not good for them.
[/quote]

Sanders stood down to the BLM because that was the prudent thing from his position to do. Remember, progressives are his audience. That he's been rather energetic in favor of progressive causes, possible going so far as to sink any chance Hillary has at the general even if she wins the primary, seems to suggest he isn't so feable.

Hillary is status quo. She won't do anything particularly interesting. That's why she is struggling to get any energy in her campaign despite still running so well in the primary. 

Carson is selling a book. Let's not pretend he is a serious candidate.

I kind of agree with you on Rubio actually. It seems he's sunk his campaign already so it doesn't matter.

And what you are saying about Cruz is that he is a pro-capitalist? That's not surprising, considering it's such a big part of his position. What you are suggesting is protectionism, which isn't going to be an attractive option to a free-marketer. I dislike Cruz the most, so I have no reason to defend him.

[quote]Realpolitik, every politician wants something that will advance their nation. If it means paying lip service and lifting some sanctions to Russia in order to make them less hostile in the long run in order to gain a mutually advantageous deal, then both sides will do so. But as it stands, Russia is too busy actually stopping the Civil War in Syria and the reason why Russia is so mad at the US in the first place is because of Obama administration's foreign policy making things far worse by funding the Assad regime's enemies, jeopardizing control of the only Mediterranean port Russia has and sanctioning trade with the CIS. Why the hell would the Russians be so mad in the first place?[/quote]

So what you are saying is that Trump's answer to Putin will be to give Putin what he wants. Sure, let's play devils advocate and say Putin is in the right. That Trump will be good at acquiescing to the demands of a foreign leader still doesn't paint him as a competent leader. I hold my own judgements on Obama's conduct in the middle east, but I'm also not selling Neanderthal manliness either. 

[quote]Fear mongering? In wake of cop-killings, A race war on the horizon, the massive influx of illegal aliens in state prisons and the USA's massive and increasing debt? Wow! He's truly blowing such small problems out of proportion![/quote]

A race war on the horizon. Oh jesus. 

Putting that aside, produce evidence that illegal immigration is the impetus behind our incarceration problems. Something tells me that drug laws and the three strike system plays more of a part in this. As for the debt, that's not new. We had that right out of the gate.


[quote]Isolation for a perfectly valid reason. All those illegals and national security threats hitching on the rides of "refugees" need to be checked, screened and prevented from entering with the same ease as they currently do now. You say as if he'll turn USA into an airtight bubble despite the fact that trump stressed that only Illegals and dangerous people (rightfully so) aren't coming in. To me, that speaks of someone who hasn't really deeply read into what he said and is unfairly biased.
[/quote]

That's fine. Improve the code. That doesn't make it the zeitgeist of the day. That he's focusing on it is his signal failure. Our border situation is disorganized, we need to improve it, but it's at best a tertiary issue. But i'll address it I guess.

Saying "Kick the illegals out" is silly, all you do is create an underclass. At best, you waste money throughout the country chasing down families that mostly aren't doing anything but what the rest of us are doing. Let's put humanity aside and look at this practically. The effects of kicking out your average illegal, with their kids and what not, are negligible. It costs money, it would be a constant fight, and it wouldn't produce that much. It's like saying "Let's make drugs illegal" expecting that to end the drug problem.

What you can do is provide a path to citizenship for those who are already here. They won't be compelled to hide, nor could they be compelled to work for illegal wages, thus eliminating the "Dey tuk er jurbs" problem (if such a problem is truly that big). This also differentiates between dangerous illegals and refugees - those who remain illegal will often enough be deserving of suspicion, instead of mixed in with disorganized scared folk. The obvious problem caused by this policy would be the incentive to come in illegal, so to that you can spend the energy you would have used uselessly hunting illegals throughout the nation, and you can build your damned wall. Because that, honestly, is perfectly fine. Bolster border security, make sure they have what they need to police not only the illegal immigration, but the use of the border to traffic narcotics. Make it difficult to enter, but for those who slip past, give them a way to improve themselves so they don't become a complicating underclass. We'll call it the "Fair play" policy. Get past the goal post and you win the game. Of course, any illegal immigrants who are caught perpetrating felonies get sent back. That's completely reasonable too.

But the thing is that, though all of these are problems, they don't hold a candle to the real issues. The underemployment issue that people are incorrectly blaming on illegals, the historically worrisome concentration of wealth into a small aristocratic minority, those preclude something big. History tells of very few real race wars, but the ascendancy of unsustainable aristocracies preceded by violent revolutionary... that's all too common. That's the trap we are walking into. Illegal immigrants, Putin, Terrorists... none of these things scare me more than the certainty that, as I am entering middle age, the shit is going to horribly hit the fan. We fix the economic inequality now, or we risk a bloody revolution with no predictable outcome.

[quote]True, but he has previous success and experience in his business enterprises so he's not just a loudmouth but one who can back his bluster up. And in my opinion a businessman is a better leader than a politician: They know what they want and they know how to manage people to get what they want. Unlike the Community Leader or the Dumbass before him.[/quote]

Well your opinion is wrong. Businesses and governments are two very different beasts, especially in America. Trump cannot liquidate the American people in order to finance himself. 

[quote]Dumb ideas like wanting give jobs back to Americans and not immigrants? Illegal or otherwise, yet in practice mostly the illegal kind?[/quote] 

They'll go back to Mexico and take our jobs there. NAFTA is already in place, the border won't save you.

[quote]Dumb ideas like wanting people have the right to protect themselves from getting assailed by criminals with weapons?[/quote]

Fine. Don't vote for Hillary Clinton. As it stands, all the other candidates are either openly pro-gun or non-committed to the issue. 

[quote]Dumb ideas like saying that the Muslims are truly dangerous and that refugees from the Middle East and Africa aren't peaceful and helpless victims?[/quote]

Don't conflate Europe's problems with ours. Thus far, we have way more to fear from bullied white kids than we do Syrian refugees.

[quote]
Dumb ideas like tearing down the welfare and healthcare system that Obama set up?[/quote]


That won't happen. The Republicans know this. To actually dismantle it would require taking healthcare away from those who couldn't get it before Obamacare. Assuming they won't do that, what they might do is drop the fines for people not getting healthcare. That would cause health insurance costs to rise, since the entire point of the fine is to moderate the cost of health insurance in order to balance the effects of making it illegal to deny coverage. Of course, without the public option, what happened is that health insurance companies now have a captive market and they can raise prices knowing that the public can't opt out. Putting a public option in mediates that problem. So that's what the Republicans face - ripping out Obamacare and causing insurance companies to either drop shit-loads of customers or simply start denying coverage for virtually anything - or they can finish Obamacare. I'm somewhat convinced that's Obama's plan in the long run, paint the Republicans into a corner where all they can do is bitch, or complete his legacy on their own terms once he is gone. Perhaps Bernie's call for Scandinavian style healthcare will give them the impetus to reintroduce a the public option and pimp it as the conservative choice.

Either way, there is no going back. We are, fighting and screaming, going to join the civilized world when it comes to healthcare. Obama's ultimate legacy, assuming something crazy doesn't happen between here and January, will probably be just that.