We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, July 7. 2015
So what can be said about Trump's removal? Not much, really. NBC has every right to employ whomever they choose. On that basis alone, Trump's dismissal isn't worth talking about. What is worth talking about are the reasons NBC used. Had they said "We do not choose to work with him anymore" or "We really just don't like his comb-over," I doubt many people would pay much attention to this tempest in a teapot. But they didn't. NBC called him out for his comments about Mexicans, citing these as the reason for the parting of ways. It's an odd reason, considering their other employees' stated views.
When we discuss issues of commercial entities, bakeries, homosexuality and flags are all 'hot'. Apparently, there are some people who have never heard of free association. These people feel it's incumbent upon them and their groups to use the judiciary process, or pressure government into regulating businesses, to force behaviors that benefit them and how they see the world. They would have government pass laws which stipulate businesses serve everyone, no matter what. But businesses frequently choose to not take on clients for a variety of reasons. Perhaps they do not pay the right price, they may not be in the right locale, they may make too many demands, etc. Ultimately, all businesses have the right to pick and choose who they work for, and with, as clients.
Bakeries asked to bake a cake for gay wedding have every right to say no, for whatever reasons they choose, including intolerant ones. Similarly, NBC has the same right to tell Trump they have no interest in working with him. These two points are intertwined. But the details are tricky. Issues of hiring and firing do have existing laws which limit free association. I can say I oppose these laws, but I will be labeled 'intolerant'. Just because I oppose the law doesn't mean I am fine with people who are discriminatory. I hate discrimination, but I fail to see why there should be laws which force people to 'be good' or act in a manner I believe is 'correct'. Laws like this confuse the nature of society with how we wish society to be. I want discrimination to stop, but laws against discrimination have not ended it. Reductions in discrimination can clearly be laid at the feet of heightened and improved awareness, not laws. Bastiat's famous quote applies:
When a bakery says "we don't want to bake a cake because we're religious and we don't believe in gay marriage," that's not socially acceptable, but it is not illegal and should be protected by the First Amendment. I don't think it's good business, and that is where my power lies. I'm unlikely to patronize shops which engage intolerant viewpoints of this sort, and groups have the right to protest and boycott these businesses. Still, if that's the how the business chooses to operate, then I am fine tolerating their right to be bigoted - but I don't have to respect them. Their point of view is similar to them saying they are on a diet so they won't make me a donut - hey, if it works for them, great. I'll buy my donut somewhere else.
When the bakers start saying homosexuals can't have the same rights that they do, because their religion forbids them to allow gays those rights, well I'm afraid that's out of bounds and NOT protected by the First Amendment, which not only protects free association, speech and religion, but also certain individual rights like the right to get married. Choosing to work with a homosexual, or Trump, is a choice you can and should be allowed to make. Asking the government to force someone to work with Trump is clearly ludicrous (outside of a breach of contract). If Trump wasn't right for the job, or a religious baker wasn't right to bake a cake, then don't have them do the work for you.
NBC cited Trump's statements as the reason for releasing him. I'll reiterate NBC was well within their rights to use those as a reason. What's strange, in the case of the baking and Trump, is the double standard. NBC has many other people on their payroll who say incredibly offensive and stupid things regularly. It's a bit odd to let Trump go and not release Sharpton or Matthews. This is the nature of the boorish behavior our politically correct society has created. It's also indicative of just how bizarre our nation has become. Trump didn't just suddenly become outrageous. He's always been outrageous, and he's funded Hillary along the way. Meanwhile, those supporters of gay rights who want bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings have remained silent about NBC firing someone who lives an outrageous lifestyle.
Some felt NBC was in a win-win situation by dumping Trump, mainly because if he ran for president, airing his show would require Equal Time to his opponents. So they can 'look good' getting rid of him and avoid the Equal Time issue. However, if they ran the show on cable, this would not be the case. Since the show is mostly aired (in reruns) on cable, and Trump was going on hiatus while he ran for president, this argument holds no water. Furthermore, it's worth noting that the show (which I haven't watched in ages) raised quite a bit of money for charity. The consequences of NBC's action does little to harm Trump, whose hard-core followers love him more because of the double-standard, but actually harms the income of various charities which benefited from the program itself.
This 'tolerance' campaign is based entirely on the concept that intolerance of intolerance is tolerance. It is fine to be intolerant of people who don't agree with 'socially conscious' attitudes. The 'socially conscious' are so correct that anyone else must be evil and banned, shunned, or otherwise ostracized. This perverted mindset is becoming so pervasive it is undermining the moral code of our nation. Many young people are actually beginning to believe this nonsense. We're essentially raising a nation of 'I mean well and will prove it by condemning all things I consider bad' social fascists. Ignorant of the hypocrisy they employ, they take umbrage when it is mentioned they've used a double standard. The classical rule of tolerance is this: Tolerate persons in all circumstances, even when their ideas are false or silly. Progressives call the willingness to tolerate opposing views cowardice. I want to be clear - I don't feel you need to respect the intolerant, just their right to be intolerant.
Corporations are suffering from this double standard, as well. Recently, TVLand took The Dukes of Hazzard off the air because the car's name is the General Lee and there is a Confederate flag on the roof. The company which owns merchandise rights to the show has ended production of a profitable line of products. The new owner of the original car is having the Confederate flag removed. I understand some people believe the Confederate flag is 'racist', but I'd argue it's just a flag. If we truly wanted to get rid of a 'racist' flag, we should ban all flags, presumably starting with the current U.S. flag, which was/is flown prominently and frequently at KKK rallies. Which means firms that continue to sell the American flag but will not sell the Confederate flag are employing a massive dose of hypocrisy. I flew a Confederate flag all summer at my house back in 1982. I lived there with 8 other young men, and we had many parties which included people of all races and belief systems. The flag was a symbol of our 'rebellion' against the norms of society, a common theme among young college-age folk. I continue to see Confederate Battle Flags on college dorm walls (probably not as many this year - saw plenty last year).
A detestable and unfortunate image. But is the flag racist because of who uses it?
Firms that ban the sale of the Confederate flag, but which continue to sell Mein Kampf, trade Nazi memorabilia, sell the writings of Lenin, Stalin, Mao or any other mass murderer, produce Che Guevara t-shirts and clothing (Che being one of the most outrageous racists known to history), Charles Manson gear, or anything of this nature are grossly out of touch with reality.
It's worth noting that while the Confederate Battle Flag is often considered the flag of the Confederacy, so are many other flags. I wonder how people would feel about the Bonnie Blue Flag? Or the Stars and Bars? Or any number of other flags of the Confederacy? Certainly all these flags must be racist and banned? What about any flag with a swastika on it? For what it's worth - I found all of these on Amazon. Will banning them make the hatred they supposedly cause subside?
We live in an uncomfortable world. Not everyone and not everything is going to conform to our view of 'how it should be'. That doesn't give us a right to force others who don't share our view to live life as we believe it should be lived, or buy things we don't believe they should be allowed to buy because it 'offends' someone or some group. We don't get to choose which flag is 'good' and which is 'evil' - flags are merely symbols, they cause no harm. Finally, we can't force all our politicians to share our views, and when they espouse a view we find difficult or uncomfortable, we have the right to choose to whether we will vote for them, listen to them, work with them. But we really need to be aware if our choice is employing a double standard or causing some unintended consequences.
I don't care that Trump was fired, and I don't care if Wal-Mart, Amazon or ebay stop selling Confederate flags. In these cases, the companies in question have every right to make choices which they feel impact their businesses. However, there is a massive hypocrisy at work which mirrors a deeper hypocrisy cruising through the veins of our nation. It's an unhealthy trait which seeks to deprive a few of their liberty and freedom of choice - however offensive those choices may seem - in order to appease a feeling of 'greater good'. It is a tyranny of a majority slowly reaching fever pitch. Right now it's just a few stores and companies making business decisions, which is acceptable. It won't be long before politicians choose to make laws that make those choices for us. Progressives may feel my version tolerance is 'cowardice', but I feel that people should be allowed to be who they are, even if they are assholes (that includes assholes like Progressives). When Progressives (and Conservatives) cross the line and pass laws, or seek legal injunctions, to make me act and think like them, I'm pretty sure we know who the cowards really are - the ones who use force and coercion to get what they want.
Boycott Amazon because they sell a Confederate Battle Flag? Sure. Don't watch The Celebrity Apprentice because Trump is a joke? No problem. But in either case, remember you need to pay attention to some larger issues that your focus has missed:
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I don't think his comments were that misguided. We are inundated with thousands of illegal immigrants every year with no idea who they are, what their intentions are or where they are going. This is a situation that just opens the door to criminals crossing our borders with impunity. Our courts are so clogged with illegal cases that many of those who commit crimes are just released back into society with no way to track them or find them for a court date later on. What a joke.
Unless you live in a border state and have to deal with this on a daily basis, I don't think you truly grasp the magnitude of the problem. I feel badly for ranchers in Texas and other southern states who have people crossing their property day and night...they find garbage, human feces, and, yes, dead bodies. Delightful, isn't it?
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration and the left and apparently even this website pretend as if this is no big deal, no worse than the criminals we already have in this country, etc. Do we really need to encourage more poor, uneducated and criminal people into the U.S.?
Sorry, but this issue makes me very upset. Especially after the murder in S.F. A crime that could've been prevented with some common sense. Instead, we have California openly encouraging illegal immigration by offering benefit, sanctuary and even Obamacare. Great.
I totally agree with you MissT. It is an enormous problem. I live in a Sanctuary City and an illegal can do nothing wrong.
Whether you agree with Trump's comments or not, I admire the fact that he has the courage to say what he believes. He is an anomaly in a time where PC speech codes have carried the day and even GOP candidates abide by them.
You wrote "I consider him a blowhard who does not add much meaningful dialogue to the discussion of politics."
Blowhard or not he does add meaningful dialogue. If not for him shaking the other candidates comfortable, overly tired and mostly useless and gutless tirades we would again maybe end up with another feckless Bob Dole, Mitt Romney or God forbid John McCain again giving an easy win for the Democrats.
Seriously aren't you tired of the ceaseless crap sandwiches being served to the Republican party by their supposed leaders? I want Trump in there to make these useless Conservative pretenders to either damm a truth or embrace it. Hoping they will do it on their own accord is like believing Baracky boy will ever become a man. Leave Hopey/changey for the losers in life.
I'll respond to all 3 of the first comments (which focused on Trump and not so much the relationship all these issues have to each other - the point of the post).
YOU may feel Trump adds meaningful dialogue because you believe his nonsense. That's fine. I do not agree. You have every right to think however you choose with regard to his comments.
I do not live in a border state, but I may as well, since NYC has a fairly large illegal immigrant population. So I'm VERY familiar with the issue. I'm also familiar because previous jobs took me to border states (where I watched daily workers cross the border in the AM and return in the PM, with little or no care from border patrol).
It's not that I am unconcerned with the issue. I just disagree with how Trump described it. It's an issue that requires being dealt with. But not by someone like him.
I do agree Trump has the courage to say what he believes, and that's good. He is certainly not like most other candidates. Again, that's not particularly meaningful. Perot said what he believed, too, and he was just a joke (well, not so much to Bush who lost because of him, but he was a joke to me).
I would prefer that people like Trump go away. I do think he adds a dimension which no other Republican has the guts to provide, but in adding that dimension he drags down the entire field.
As I said at the start of the piece, I don't really care about what he said or believes. I just don't care about him at all. I was more concerned with this massive double standard which was apparent in his release, in how gay rights groups deal with their perceived rights, and how the flag issue has made many companies look stupid.
Trump? Let him run. I won't pay attention to him, I don't need to.
If I understand you correctly, you are calling our attention to Donald Trump in order to tell us you are not going to pay attention to him?
My feeble mind is confused. Please pardon me for asking, but why write a post in the first place?
No. I used Trump as an example of a double standard which NBC employed. I only included my thoughts on him to assure any reader that I don't care one way or the other if NBC employs him.
Here's the issue - NBC fires Trump. NBC keeps other racists on staff. NBC claims racism is the problem with Trump, but clearly it isn't. NBC can hire or fire Trump for any reason they want, but they used racism as the issue. Double Standard in play.
NBC has every right to fire Trump, but bakeries have every right to not work with gays, too. Gay rights groups say that's not true and seek redress. Double Standard in play.
Confederate Flag not sold at Wal Mart or Amazon. Racism is used as the reason. Wal Mart and Amazon sell many other racist 'things' - some of which I listed above. TVLand cancels "Dukes of Hazzard" for same reason, leaves on "The Jeffersons" (where the term honky is used regularly). Double Standard in play.
All of you focused on Trump. His firing, for me, was the catalyst for a larger commentary on Double Standards and hypocrisy.
I simply don't care about Trump, in general. I don't care that he was fired, either. I am concerned at the double standard utilized, however.
I agree with feeblemind. All due respect Bulldog. Because you believe he spouts nonsense does not in fact mean he spouts nonsense just because you name it so.
And as far as you not paying attention to him. Too late, you already have. And though he may drag down the entire field, The leaders of that field you speak of are too PC queasy in what they say already. How will they do when they come up against a Bernie Sanders who has no morals or a Hillary who is delusional.
We need a touch of mad dog in our candidates to be able to stand up to the left.
If nothing else, it has allowed me to see who in the Republican field understands the immigration issue. So far, the only two candidates who 'get it' are Cruz and Carson. Anyone else point out another candidate who has come out strongly against illegal immigration since Trump said his piece?
With all due respect, if you think what he says isn't nonsense - good for you.
If I think it is, then it is to me.
I'm not paying attention to him. You didn't read my post.
I think Trump is saying something that needs to be said, but I don't think he's saying it very well. He's right to focus on the fact that there is no control on the border so we have no idea who these people are. He's right that far too many of them are criminals, thugs, drug dealers, human traffickers, leeches, etc. but in my opinion, he muddies his message with comments like "... I'm sure some of them are good people" which makes it seem that he's saying the majority of the illegal immigrants are the criminals. His opponents latch on to that part while his supporters latch on the first part. I don't know if he's just being clumsy or purposeful in his message.
I'm not excited about the possibility of Trump becoming president, but I suspect I'd feel better about that than President Sanders. And similarly to how I felt about Perot, I think if he does become president, he will definitely change things. Of course, the last person who promised that (Obummer) has put a bad taste in my mouth for "changing things". On the other hand, could it get much worse? (God, I hope not!).
In the end, I think he's gaining traction for the same reason Perot got traction for talking about the deficit - people are mad as hell about it and they're not going to take it any more, and nobody else is talking about it in terms that give people the feeling he'd actually do something about it. The only people who are making any hay about this are Trump and Coulter and Coulter isn't running for president.
My personal opinion is there a very few differences between most of the Republican candidates, and they are only slightly more tolerable than the main Democrat, who is considerably more tolerable than Sanders.
Which is to say, none of them catch my eye.
I have one candidate as my governor. He's OK here in NJ, because of how NJ works. I still don't really like him. I think he's done a fine job here in this fishbowl, but he's a non-starter outside of the Delaware or Hudson Rivers.
But this post was not about presidential candidates or what they said. It's about the hypocrisy of our national dialogue which is taking place right now.
I agree with your point on the hypocrisy from NBC, Amazon, et al. The discernment necessary for a coherent policy requires too much thought.
Looks like th PGA of America is pulling tournaments from Trump's courses.
"I consider his comments about Mexicans wrong."
What exactly did he say about "Mexicans"? I heard him say it about ILLEGALS.
There is a difference.
He didn't say it about Canadians, our other border, because we don't have a neighbor to the north that is as corrupt as the neighbor to the south. He didn't say it about those coming from Europe or Asia because they all have to cross an ocean so are not as numerous as those crossing illegally from the south.
So, I'll ask again - what did he say about MEXICANS?
I am playing devils advocate, of course.
No, his comments were about Mexicans.
Immigrants, illegal or otherwise, but it was Mexicans.
"When Mexico sends its people," Trump said during his presidential announcement, "they're not sending the best. They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."
Again - this post IS NOT ABOUT what Trump said or stands for. I'm amazed at the number of people who don't get past Trump.
Immigration is one of the most important issues facing this country. Before Trump everyone was silent on it and the press was pressing to find out Hillary's favorite ice cream flavor. So he has definitely stimulated a meaningful dialogue. Unfortunately I doubt his firing will stimulate a discussion of double standards and hypocrisy. We are changing from a rule of law to a rule by five justices, an AG, and a president. Arguably this is just as important as the immigration issue.
Immigration was being addressed before Trump entered. I'll go back and find plenty of conversation, if you'd like. Trump raised the ante on it, but not in a positive fashion as far as I'm concerned.
I doubt his firing will stimulate a discussion on hypocrisy, either. My wife thought I was nuts when I said NBC has every right to fire Trump but is stupid to do so without firing half their staff. As I started to show her examples of their intolerant commentators, she replied "they are news reporters and opinion people, they are SUPPOSED to do that."
No, no they aren't. I don't think they need to be impartial, but if NBC is imposing a code of tolerance, then they need to do some internal analysis.
She then replied "they can work with whoever they like." Yes, they can. So they should have said "Trump's hair sucks" and left it at that. But they didn't.
Then the flag thing came up and my boys, both of whom have various flags adorning their rooms, were told by their mother that there was no place for a Confederate flag in our house. I begged to differ, as did my boys. I pointed out the KKK regularly uses the US flag - so that makes it racist.
You're right. Immigration is important. So is the imposition of "feelings" over law by the SCOTUS, and a variety of other issues.
I think this double standard is a bigger issue, but it's one which cannot be solved with a law or regulation - YET THAT IS WHAT THE PROGRESSIVES WANT! They will impose their double standards with law. And with impunity.
That scares me more than a few Mexicans, who I've hired to paint my fence and fix my bathroom from time to time. Mexicans who are willing to work and do work better than many Americans, or that many Americans are unwilling to do.
I'm not afraid to say I've hired illegals from time to time. I live in a neighborhood where contractors raise their rates by up to 20%. If I lived one town over, I'd pay considerably less. Bless these Mexicans, I say. They give me freedom of choice.
Glad someone finally read it all the way through and didn't stop after the Trump part.
It's like Tess said in "Working Girl": If you want people to take you seriously, you gotta have serious hair.
I have no TV and I am not an Amazon Shopper. I do like Donald Trump for speaking out about the defense of illegals and condemnation of citizens. I note that he cannot speak out about the travesty of our border problems without the infernal media trying to crush him. Tells one a lot about what the average citizen would face were they brave enough to speak up.
I don't care much about Trump, either. I did notice though, Bulldog asserts that there is a "right" to marriage. That's a slippery definition of the concept of rights.
Because what is at issue is not what any two, three, or sixteen people arrange between themselves. It is granting privileges in law (tax law) which everyone else must recognize and abide by under threat of force.
People should not be coerced into making cakes. They also should not be coerced into shouldering a larger tax burden (or living with less services) because some clump of people decided to claim marriage privileges from the government.
Either we are all equal, or we are not. Does who we love change that fundamental equality? Double-standard, indeed.
When I say there is a "right" to marriage, I'm implying there's no reason for government to make that determination on what marriage is or isn't.
Tax law seems to be what is driving this, but I could write reams on the problems with tax law, particularly as it relates to marriage.
I have no problem with polygamy or gay marriage. Actually, I removed a whole paragraph on what marriage is or isn't, simply because it didn't belong on this post.
We have many candidates for president and everyone of them except Trump are falling over themselves to welcome in as many illegals as we can get across the border. Many of them would actively try to get even more of them to come in legally, illegally or even if we have to Shanghai them. This is bad for the country and bad for the citizens. illegals cost on average $1500 a month per family while they "hide" once in the open that number easily doubles. Legals cost about $5000 a month in welfare and other forms of free stuff. We simply cannot afford both welfare and open borders.
Trump is a pompous jerk but he is 100% right on the illegal alien problem and he is the only one who is right on this issue. For that reason alone he will get my vote in the primary.
Although I believe Trump would be a bad president and I hope he isn't elected I also believe he would be 100 times better than Clinton and a million times better then Bernie.
Yet we are probably going to elect Hillary!! Certainly all the names we choose to call Trump are deserved but, come on; Hillary deserves far worse. The one thing I will say about Trump that is the exact opposite of Hillary is that he is honest. Do we really want Hillary who has never told the truth in her life.
I seriously wonder if HRC can even win the nomination. Many of her former supporters can no longer stomach her.
There are about five states that decide the presidential election. Within these states there are 2-4 countires that decide the state vote. For the most part the Democrat machine has these precincts locked up with union thugs, activists and millionaires stealing the elections. My state (oregon) for example will vote solidly for the Democrat candidate no matter who it is. Putin, or worse, Clinton would win this state hands down if they are the Democrat candidate. It makes no difference who runs the Democrat will win this state. A lot of states are solidly in the hands of Democrats. The five swing states will decide the election and unless you live in one of those swing states it really doesn't matter if you vote for president nor how you vote. IF you live in one of those swing states the Democrat operatives are already working overtime to steal the elections. They are encouraging more people to apply for absentee ballots, registering illegal aliens, dead people and homeless. They are circulating in the "right" communities to register voters and they are appointing their people to monitor elections and to count the votes. The 2016 election is already being stolen.
It looks to me like the Republicans don't have a viable candidate: They don't have fake Indian, or a community organizer, or a Socialist, and none of them is "dead broke".
The Donald is polling in the number 2 spot, so somebody must like what he's talking about.
It's no mystery.
I've lived in NYC and the Metro area since before Trump was out of military school. I watched him crash and burn in Atlantic City twenty-five years ago, and comeback from it. I watched him build those ugly buildings in Mid-town, and that development on the West Side highway (which, by the way, looked like total shit before he changed it.)
He's tapped into the frustration and anger that's seething underneath many lives today. Most thinking people are more than pissed off about what's going on in this country, and what looks like the never ending cycle of The Obamanomics Bullshit Economy, with low wages, and a financial future for most of us that smells like warmed over week old crap.
And also, by the way, we're more than fed up with these mamba-pamby PC correct Republican's, who don't have the balls to say what they know, that everyones else already knows too! Too pussy to make a mistake, right?
So Trump's an assh@le. So what?
Like Bush isn't some kind of rich assh@le too? glomming on his family name? (Like you'd spend thirty-seconds listening to his bullshit if his were name Jeb Smith?) My ass you would.
Like Rand Paul knows anything about jobs? (Ask the thousands of NYC ironworkers, construction engineers, hotel workers and thousands of others who have Trump to thank for their paychecks over the last thirty years. It least he's done something besides talk out of his ass.)
Chris Christie? Really? He helped the cause Big Time in '12 didn't he? Dry humping Obama before he got off the airplane? On account of a hurricane? Would it have helped if he wasn't french kissing Barry, six weeks out from the election? Who knows?
But he's not an assh@le shmuck for doing that all day, like a paid TV commercial for the DNC?
Hey, Marco! If I have to hear that story one more time about you speaking at events in hotel ballrooms where your father used to be the bartender, I'm gonna' puke.
Get some new stuff. (Never mind. You shot yourself in the ass with the gang of eight years ago. I like your boat , though.)
Trump is the least of the problems the Republican Party has right now. He's the only one who doesn't give a shit if he loses, the rest of them will be suicidal.
Tell me which one of these lightweights is ready to forearm shiver Hillary Clinton right in the face. (which is the only way that witch won't be getting oral sex from her own intern in the oval office in two years.)
Mr. Charisma himself, Scott Walker?
Yeah. Right. Trump's ruining the Republican Party.
Like I said, I didn't write this about Donald. I don't care about him.
That said, I live in NYC, and I also grew up around AC. I'm intensely familiar with who he is, what his style is, and what kind of person he is. I have 2 degrees of separation through 2 friends. One who worked for him in real estate (hated every minute, though admitted he ran a tight ship), and I can't tell the other's story without giving away who he is but let's just say he turned down a very important job with Trump because Donald is not the kind of person you want to work for.
I can respect his business acumen, and I do. But Carter was a good businessman - it doesn't work in politics.
More to the point, I simply don't respect him, as a person. He's had plenty of opportunity to show what kind of person he is and it's not pleasant.
That doesn't mean I like any of the other candidates. It is what it is. But I didn't say Donald was ruining the Republican Party. He did lower the level of dialogue, however.
For a guy you "don't' care about" and whom you "didn't write this about" you sure fooled me. Starting off your piece with his name before the first comma, and then bothering to inform us that, you, (who cares nothing for him) also felt it necessary to share that "he's a blowhard", in your opinion, and "misguided" in his remarks, along with others in this country about "immigration". ( Excuse me, but you never bothered to correct your mistake in the fifth sentence. Trump is talking about ILLLEGAL immigration. You didn't understand that part?) And then you included in your piece that flattering photograph to make the point that its not about Trump.
Good thing this wasn't about Trump.
Do the right thing, and clean up your error regarding Legal Immigration versus Illegal Immigration.
Trump has never referred to the former in his speech.
I will reply once and not again. This thread was hijacked by Trump lovers, God bless them. But a full read of the article would make it clear it is not about Trump at all.
I responded to some people who seemed to think it was.
If you paid attention to the post, my issue was the double standard, the hypocrisy, of letting him go. In light of other topics, it all ties neatly together.
In responding to a few people who question my disdain for the man, it has been misperceived by some (and you) that he is somehow meaningful simply because I made comment or two. Let's put it in perspective. I don't care about Kim Kardshian, but I mentioned her and if you choose to question me on it and I respond, it still doesn't mean I care. Me having to explain why I don't care for someone is not me saying he or she is meaningful.
Say what you want about the Carter comparison. It's legit whether you choose to agree or not. Such is the marketplace of ideas.
Clear up your clear misrepresentation about immigration.
You refer to Trump:
"His statements point to many misguided but widely held beliefs about immigration in our country."
I don't have any widely held or misguided beliefs about legal immigration, and neither does Trump. Illegal immigration into this country is another matter entirely, except for you, it appears.
By the way, when you hire Pedro to paint your fence and his paint sprayer jams and while he's clearing it the tip pops off under 2200 psi and hits your mailman in the face as he's walking by, who's paying for that?
Oh. Shit. Pedro has no insurance. Guess that's on you, too.
Carter ran a government subsidized family freakin' peanut farm.
You've GOT to be kidding.
Jimmah's Peanut farm was so immense and time consuming, it took his drunk brother Billy to manage it.
Got the comparison. Trump/Carter Peanuts. Check.
Bulldog, you paid Mexicans to do jobs Americans will not do? I was led to believe Americans where a can do people? surely fixing the attitude that allows such a turn of events would be preferable to flooding the market with cheap foreign labour. I run a contracting period building restoration company and have only ever employed Englishmen whatever the cost, I've never taken the cheaper option.
Americans are can-do. They often are not willing to do.
Let's put it this way. You come and quote me $1500 to paint my small fence. I don't have the time to do it myself, Pedro at the train station will do it just as well as you for $800.
Meanwhile local Billy, the entitled son of the stockbroker will do it for $800, too, but I've seen his and Pedro's work and Bobby is not good. I will eschew your offer for Pedro, laws and regulations and politicians be damned.
I don't owe anyone a marked up price just because they are "American".
I applaud you for not taking the cheaper option. If it works, great. But passing laws which force people to overpay for goods and services doesn't enrich the nation. If it did, let's have a $100,000 a year minimum wage and see how wealthy we get.
I will agree that usually the Mexican workers are good at what they do and willingly work hard for their money. I don't blame Mexicans or any people who come here for work. I want to stop it but I don't blame THEM.
I don't blame the individual who hires an illegal to paint their fence or house. Again, I want to stop it but I don't blame individuals who hire anyone they want to hire.
I do blame employers and our government for allowing and even encouraging emloyers to hire illegals. Understand that 100% of the illegals who work above the table with tax and SS withheld from their pay are identifiable within weeks to months of being hired. That big computer at the SSAdministration identifies fake or dead SS #s in microseconds. We choose to ignore this data. I had to fill out I-9 forms to get a job but illegals do not (go figure). SO I would fine employers $1000 a day for each day and each illegal they hire. This would dry up the primary lure to illegals coming to the USA.
I would also like to see a policy that deports illegals within 24 hours of their being taken into custody with zero excuses for missing the 24 hours. Fly them from New York to Mexico or wherever they came from it would be money well spent.
I would like to see schools and hospitals be required to report illegals using their facilities. I think this should then be used not only to capture and deport but to also charge their country of origin for the services given.
The federal government AND the 50 states spend trillions on illegals every year. They are essentially robbing the citizens to reward the illegals.
This thread has gone off the rails with, as far as I can see, only 2 or 3 comments actually related to the point of the post. I guess that shows just how much people are willing to read....
That said, I've been accused of not knowing anything, or caring, about immigration. That's not true, and I have a point of view. It probably won't be something some of the more outrageous people here want to read, but I'll state them, because they are reasonable and well-thought out. I'm not a Xenophobe, like some here can be. Our nation is built on the backs of illegal aliens, and the sooner we accept that and build reasonable laws which provide for their path to citizenship, the better.
I would prefer to see a few things.
1. Greatly reduced benefits (which draw immigrants because they can get all that stuff without being citizens). Besides, I'm not a fan of giving people 'free' stuff. I hate Obamacare, believe most welfare is abused, it's certainly true food stamps are out of control (when college kids are getting them?) and we're producing a society of "I want mine, and the rest of you owe it to me" children. Illegals just add to that burden.
2. A path to citizenship. Even for illegals who have shown a legitimate desire to work and don't have criminal records or evidence of criminal activity. I believe it's important to provide them the same opportunity which my great-grandparents had. Most of them are willing to work hard, abide the rules, and pay taxes. They aren't given the chance.
3. A policy that deports illegals that have criminal records as soon as possible. 24 hours is tough. Confirming whether you have an illegal on your hands, let alone one with a criminal record, isn't always easy. But I agree that reasonably timed deportation is justified.
4. Punishment for firms which hire illegal aliens. This could be difficult since public corporations are seen as a form of 'person' by the courts, and I believe (as you do) that individuals have every right to work with whomever they want. But corporations are legal entities which have contractual arrangements with governments to exist. I do not (despite claims to the so-called 'social contract'), I exist of my own volition, unlike a corporation.
5. Reporting of illegals, and immediate background checks made. At that point, there should be a 30 day period whereby they are either put on the path to citizenship or deported.
I agree that illegals are a cost on our tax spending and something needs to be done. But the implications made that they are a blight on society are far from the truth, and most are very hard-working and just want to become citizens like our ancestors did.
I don't think deporting them immediately (except in cases of criminal records or activity) is beneficial. Plus you have the problem of children born in the US - they are citizens, what do you do with their parents?
If an illegal shows up in a border hospital to give birth, they should immediately be shipped out if possible (if getting them back to their home country is reasonable, and without harm to the mother).
I'm not ignorant of the problem of illegal immigration. But there are some misguided notions flying around about it.
The most misguide notion here is yours:
"Our nation is built on the backs of illegal aliens."…. Huh?
I guess our nations origins only date back to the late 1960's early 70's when the first utterances of "illegal" immigration slipped into the lexicon.
Find me earlier references in the general back and forth of American life, and I'll paint your fence for nothing.
So, I guess were not doing to bad for a country only in it's 40's.
So the concept of "illegal" only applies if there is someone to assign the "illegality"?
Some of my ancestors arrived on a boat, before there was a reasonable process of managing immigrants, and the minute they stepped ashore they were met by opposition from people in the Know-Nothing Party.
My ancestors were, until they appeared before court and made a declaration of intent and offered an oath before the judge, technically "illegal" (at least by the Know Nothings) - though they were never defined as such. They, too, were considered to be taking jobs from existing Americans.
The "damage" they inflicted, we were told, was significant in terms of crime and alteration of American 'culture'.
Of course, today very few people remember all this.
Yes - illegal immigrants were a steady source of workers and new citizens for many years. So you're more than just a little off base.
Since when did a hack political party in the 1850's stand in for an official government entity?
There were no "illegal" or "legal" immigrants here at that time. Just immigrants looking for a new life in a new nation that was desperate for a labor force. Those days are long, long past.
You didn't get a handout then, or and EBT card, or free medical care. You just took your chances like my ancestor on the one side of my family, who sailed from Ireland to Boston in 1717 with 23 others, bound for the Kennebec wilderness in Brunswick, Maine. The settlement in Maine failed. Indian problems. He settled at Ten Hills farm in Charleston, Massachusetts, died on April 14, 1754 and is buried in the vaults at Christ Church, Boston. And nobody opposed him, challenged him, told him to cite an oath for a judge, or any other nonsense. Either to him or any of his crew. They just got the f@ck out of their way.
You want the proof and particulars? I'd be more than happy to send you the paperwork. Those days are gone. We're not desperate for an uneducated labor force to build this nation anymore.
The other side of my family showed up at Ellis Island. They were met by representatives of the the U.S. Government. Checked for illnesses, processed, and accepted into this country. And they were on their own.
That's called LEGAL immigration, friend. And I can guarantee you, nobody accused them of taking anyone's job.
And as to your total bullshit quote, made up out out of thin air: "The damage they inflicted, we were told, was significant in terms of crime and alteration of American culture"? What crap.
Got to hand it to you, you've got some pair of balls to come out with that.
The only alteration to "American culture" my ancestors contributed to, was my great-great-great grandmothers husband, John Sappington, who fought in the 13th Virginia Regiment under Captain David Steele, Col. William Russel, and General Nathaniel Greene at the Battle of Brandywine, Penn. Sept. 11, 1777. A year later, he was Sargeant John Sappington, body guard to General George Washington at Valley Forge, and with him till Yorktown, three years later. Moving to the Kentucky wilderness in 1786. A Trustee of Boonesborough in 1797.
Your people were still pulling up weeds in Europe then, no?
Yeah, "the damage they inflicted" was significant. Been a while since I've read such bullshit about immigration. Congratulations.
Today we also have immigrants seeking a new life. But we assign them "legal" or "illegal" status. According to the rules as they exist today, my ancestors were "illegal."
What you're saying is that the term "illegal" only applies when there is a government body to assign it. I disagree. The rules apply equally to all or not at all when it comes to the law. While I can't go back and change the law as it existed in 1849, I can understand that the nature of why people come here, generally, is still the same.
The main differences being how current governance assigns them and what current government gives them.
You may consider what I wrote to be crap, but if it is, then you've rejected a large portion of American history as crap. We weren't more tolerant back then - we were probably less so.
The fact you have roots that go further back than I do speaks volumes about why you have your point of view, as does your demeaning tone about my forebears.
The Know Nothings were not a fringe party. After all, one President was a member.
My demeaning tone is purposeful, and in direct response to this crap you spout about the "damage inflicted to American culture" by those who immigrated here.
My ancestors insured that yours weren't moving to yet another part of the British Empire.
And I don't need a half-ass lecture by you about the country's political history, either. Fillmore was president long after what you cited as "interference and opposition" to your people on a dock somewhere.
So you're saying nobody ever complained about immigrants back then?
That it was all sweetness and light and nobody felt the arrival of the Irish, Italians, Germans, Japanese or Chinese - nobody ever complained about potential damage to our culture? That never happened?
Our current complaints about immigrants, in this vein, are an entirely modern phenomenon?
You may not like it, but the truth hurts when it doesn't conform to your view of the world. Yes, all these cultures were complained about at least as much as other illegals are complained about today.
They were all viewed poorly by various subsections of our nation at the time.
I see that you seem to be proud that your ancestors created a nation which protected the rights of citizens which my ancestors were later able to improve their lives with. I'm surprised you're not willing to accord the same value to others today.
Or did your forebears look as poorly upon mine?
You take umbrage at facts and claim they don't exist. Don't they? We welcomed everyone easily back then? Or should we have pushed them all back across the sea?
Illegal Immigration in 2015 is not helping this nation.
Stop defending it. Stop whining about it. Stop parsing history.
First, I didn't defend it. You assumed I did. I am merely making very lucid points that some immigration, deemed "illegal", is actually very positive for our nation. It's not an issue of "it's all bad so we must stop it," it's an issue of approaching the topic intelligently rather than with a one-size-fits-all mentality.
Second, I'm not whining about it. You are.
Third, you are parsing history, I am not. You choose to willfully ignore the portions which don't suit you.
You're welcome to do or say as you please. It's a free nation, and I'm more than happy to allow you to have your point of view. But you've gotten very personal with your attacks. I usually reserve that kind of response for one particular visitor to Maggie's whose mere presence is to simply be an annoyance rather than adding meaningful dialogue.
I consider your view to be rather common here in the US, even if I don't agree with it. Doesn't make you wrong to have it. However, I'm trying add some depth to the concepts you've engaged. You just don't like that depth. Fine.
Assuming I'm making all this up and I have no backing or reasonable stance....I suggest (if you choose) to visit this site:
I don't go "all in" with their view of "OPEN ALL BORDERS" and vie for unlimited and unmanaged immigration (at least not yet or now), but all the concepts I've laid out here are, and all the history is, accurate.
Or don't visit it because you will probably just seethe with rage after reading Dr. Boudreaux's commentary.
Needless to say, just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me wrong and doesn't make you right. It just means we disagree. Though I think you've made it pretty clear exactly why you disagree...and I'll pass on joining you with those sentiments.
I think your five points are not unreasonable and if I didn't have 72 years of experience I might agree that it is a good compromise. But in 1986 we "fixed" the immigration system with a compromise that allowed 3 million illegals tobe given citizenship and god only know how much "free stuff" paid for by taxpayers. Now we have between 12 million and 30 million illegals and hundreds of thousands more every year. Why, after the great compromise of 1986 that "fixed" immigration???
Why is because the left wants a compromise that gives them most of what they want and they have no intent in holding up their end of the deal. If we compromise and give people citizenship and unending 'free stuff' then I guarantee you that in 20-30 years we willagain have 30 million or more illegals all seeking citizenship and 'free stuff' and only the people old enough to remember and smart enough to realize we have been snookered again and again will object to a grand comromise to "fix" immigration.
There is only ONE thing that will stop the never ending flow and ever increasing flow of the illegals. A policy like the one Australia implemented which simply says that if you come here illegally you can NEVER become a citizen and we will send you home. Anything else, any other 'compromise' will result in a failed immigration system and millions of people coming here and sucking off the government teat. Simple as that.
"most are very hard-working and just want to become citizens"
If they are just hard working good folks then that is exactly what their country needs and they should go home and work hard to fix their own country. There was indeed a time when America needed immigrants. Back when our population was 30 million or so it made sense. Today we have more than enough people and there is really no big need for more immigrants, period.
"you have the problem of children born in the US - they are citizens, what do you do with their parents?"
Are they citizens? We don't know. By policy we decided they are citizens but a honest Supreme Court would probably decide that the 14th amendment never was intended to allow residents of another country to sneak into our country and have a baby and thus the baby is a citizen. What we should do until the Supremes decide the citizenship issue is send the parents home and they can choose to take their kids with them. My daughter was born in Germany and I never once thought I should leave here there OR that Germany owed me citizenship and welfare. Let them take their kids back to their own country.
Was your daughter born on a US base? If so, that's US soil. So it's different concept (McCain, remember, was born in Panama, but on a US base if I remember correctly).
I don't agree that they need to go home and fix their country. In many cases, their country's politicians do not want it 'fixed' and have made these people outsiders.
In 1986 we didn't 'fix' anything - we only bent to Teddy Kennedy's will and allowed many illegal Irish people to become citizens. That was OK, though. They spoke English, were white, and most of them held under the table jobs, so few people complained.
But the 'free stuff' is the real problem. When we stop the handouts and giveaways, the tide will end. Not immediately, but slowly.
People come here because they know they can get 'free stuff' from the Democrats, who cynically want to continue to give 'free stuff' to maintain their voter base. If not for the giveaways, the Democrats would be out of office already.
Not so. She was indeed born in a military hospital but Germany would have accepted her as a citizen and once I returned to the U.S. I had to complete paperwork to assure her citizenship. All of this may have changed since then but even so it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. If you are in another country legally or illegally and you had a child why wouldn't you take them home with you when you went home? AND why shouldn't anyone here illegally go home or be sent home?