U.S. 2016 Election

I think this will happen, it's not accurate but it's at least a sum of it:

1. His priority is to kick all immigrants from the US back to their original countries, try to guess how many are they, no? It's 11 MILLION IMMIGRANTS, Mexicans included, that's the first thing
2. He'll build the wall between the US and Mexico to prevent US from entering unless we pay a fee, do you know how much a dollar's worth here in Mexico? It's $20.00 Mexican Peso and we're not that stupid to pay a fee just to cross
3. After all immigrants are gone from the US, will everything be better? NO, the US will be going down in a hard way, companies will fall, jobs will be lost, US defenses will be a little lower, the economy on the US will go so low right now that the US will be broke
4. Worst case scenario, war breaks out between the US and Latin Americans because of Trump's moves, by sending all of those immigrants back to their countries, the economy of the other countries would increase after a while and will have more sources than the US currently has
5. The Simpsons predictions come true afterwards, a female US President (possibly Hillary Clinton) will enter the White House to reverse the things that Trump has done during his election years

At least, that's what I think would happen, that doesn't mean it will happen, but considering what's going on recently, I'm afraid that it might actually happen

 

I'm going to have to correct you on your thoughts, because it sounds like your spewing the same bullcrap the media is feeding you.

1. Illegal immigrants. You know, the ones who are criminals for being here in the US without legal authorization (unexpired visas, legal resident, green card, or US citizenship status). Even some legal residents of Mexican decent are for this.
2. Where is the information you're basing the crossing fee on? Even I haven't heard of that fee from either the Republican or the Democrat side, especially the ones that are completely against Trump.
3. After all illegal immigrants have been sent back to their home country, companies will no longer be able to hire them and pay them under the table, which was illegal to begin with. Now they have to be hired on through the proper channels and/or sponsor them for a work visa, the legal way. It's only bad for the companies that are hiring illegals instead of legal residents, even at the basic work visa level. Mom and pop shops might actually have a chance to compete for business.
4. I doubt that. Cartels have more power than the countries themselves. The cartels will have more people to exploit. So a war with Latin America (Central America, depending on how you were taught) is unlikely.
5. Hillary Clinton would be the nail in the coffin for the US. If we're going to have a female president, I'd rather have someone that isn't career politician and someone that can actually fix the problems we have in the US, not create more and be a traitor to the US at the same time. Someone like Ellen DeGeneres, if she finds more value in the People and not the political party or lining her own pocket from lobbyists would be pretty good.

 

Obviously that's just my own opinion and what some people think might happen, but let's just wait and see what happens, also one reason some Mexicans go to the US is to have a better life, to have a new leaf, that's what some of my family did, they left their main families to live a new life in the US with their new families, and even people are willing to enter without legal means because they are poor, if they're comparing all Mexicans to major criminals like "El Chapo Guzman", then you know something's wrong here because we're not all about drugs or even rapes, we're just normal people like everyone in the world, I'm living a normal life as a worker here in Mexico because it's my home, my country and even a lot of people defended us when Trump filed those claims that we are drug addicts or rapists, that's pure racism if you ask me, also that part about paying for crossing, it was actually for the wall build, he wants the Mexicans to pay to build that stupid wall, if he thinks he can just pass by our houses and ask for certain amount of cash to pay for his wall to separate the US and Mexico then he's got another thing coming

I'd rather not talk about this anymore, not just because of many political issues going on, but because I don't want anyone to get angry or do something stupid later on

 

He did mention he was going to make Mexico pay for it, but he didn't specify a fee or a clear method. I've heard rumors floating about ways he would, so I imagine this crossing fee was likely another one of the rumors, likely spurred by a biased media (it's why I always look into what the media says to see how much bullcrap they're trying to feed me). Although it does sound plausible, you would still need a travel visa this is likely to be one of the many methods to fund the wall, but because its one of many methods, you likely won't see it as $1 (USD). Since crossing the border typically means you've got previous authorization, the fee would likely be included in the existing authorization and not every time you cross, otherwise it would be nothing more than a glorified international toll road, and we already have domestic toll roads that are far more expensive than $1.
Another method would be at the legal immigration level and that it's not going to be that high (but because it's a rumor, it was never cleared up on the relativity of what "high" really amounted to).
I've also heard that it was going to be enforced on US companies that decide to outsource their jobs to other countries when it's providing a service to US customers. Example: customer service representatives over the phone. Many giant US tech companies outsource these type jobs to India, instead of providing call center jobs within the US to handle US customers or contracting call centers to provide this service. Although I haven't been able to confirm if this was true, much less possible (legally speaking).

All I'm saying is that for as much flak Trump is getting, a lot of that flak he receives I have found are based on lies and deception from the mainstream media that feeds bullcrap on a daily basis and calls it "truth," even when it's not about a political candidate. The news has a political agenda and it's gotten bad enough that stories that aren't controversial enough to get them ratings, will be buried by something that is controversial and will get them ratings.

 

That's the unfortunate world of politics, pure promises and never actions, some are power hungry while others are honest with themselves

 

So, seeing that the two frontrunners of the election are Loser A and Loser B, is anyone else here considering a 3rd party candidate?

From what I've seen, both Gary Johnson (Libertarian) and Jill Stein (Green Party) have been gathering a bit of momentum since Sanders got booted by Clinton

 

I voted for Jill Stein in 2012 and will probably do so again this year. Her platform already is nearly identical to Sanders, and is even a bit stronger on education. But let's be honest, any third party vote is really a protest vote. As long as they're excluded from the debates and voters aren't allowed to cast a second choice, the mentality is baked in that they can't win and thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

I dunno mate. They're certainly gaining a bit of popularity for people who have a large disdain for Trump and Clinton. And trust me, there's a lot of people who dislike both of them

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...7d3&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook

 

Found this little joke on Facebook. Got a kick out of it

Spoiler

 

We could always vote in another movie star, like Reagan.
This time we will go with Bruce Willis, or Swarzeneger.
Maybe Tom Cruise?
Or an actor that has been the president already. They should already be used to it, or at least fake it and act like they are.

 

Considering Schwarzenegger isn't a US born citizen, he wouldn't be able to take the office if he won, so it would fall on the runner up. The office of president had restrictions in place to prevent the US from being ruled by foreign nationals. With the standards of modern politics though, it wouldn't surprise me that it'll be a US national that hands the State over to a foreign national. There aren't very many actors I would trust with a political office that high up the ladder since most of them all spew more shit than the lying scumbags in both parties combined. If anyone thinks Republicans were bad, you haven't seen the Democrats of Hollywood. Most actors don't think for themselves in political matters, they just follow their Democrat party like sheep. When their masters say jump, they don't ask how high, they just jump. There is one actor that I know isn't a brainless Democrat of Hollywood, at least. Clint Eastwood. But I doubt he'd even want to take the office.

 

With the current choices we have, this is already a farce. Might as well get someone who knows how to do a good farce.

Anyway, actors in politics are not a good idea anyway. May be dangerous. Watch Team America to find that out.

 

They say dogs are a man's best friend. I beg to differ, because this little buddy of mine is going to help me advertise at the gyms.

 

Bleh, I'm not even sure I'm going to vote. I was once young and idealistic about politics, among other things, but politics in particular has ended up being nothing but disappointing. I'm tempted to rant, but I'll try to stay short and to the point.

The first thing that irks me is our government. Our current system of government is not very representative of the people. Perhaps there is no great proof of this then the public's general apathy to elect either one of the presidential candidates. They agree very little, if at all with either candidate, or don't trust them. (Which I don't blame them for. Both have lied on a number of different occasions.) I understand that pure democracy is a pretty terrible idea, but a populace as poorly represented as the US will be this year will be hesitant if not resistant to their own leaders. Generally, I'd say, something government tries to avoid by one means or another. I for one, don't care for either candidate. Even if I didn't agree with Mr. Sander's policies, he seems like a much more honest and straight forward person then Hilary or Trump. He might, perhaps, even be willing to compromise with the other political party members. This brings me to my second point.

The second thing that irks me is the political party mentality. People in different political parties are oftentimes seen as the enemy. They are not the enemy. They are your fellow countrymen, and you should treat them with respect. Nothing good will come of bitter argument and quarreling, only strife, which fosters division, which may lead to armed conflict. However, a willingness to seriously and civilly discuss matters of great importance, especially with those you do not agree with, is an essential part of a government that seeks to represent the people. Too often it is the 51% bossing the remaining 49% around, not caring that the 49% has little to no say in the matters of state. Compromise is seen as a bad thing. It's really not, unless your goal is to force your idea of a perfect government on everyone else irregardless of their thoughts on the matter. That's called tyranny, not democracy. No one group of people has all of the answers. I'm not convinced all of the groups in the world have all of the answers, but I'd say you have a better chance of getting more of them if we'd stop dehumanizing and propagandizing ourselves against our countrymen and actually listen to what they have to say. I'm not saying you have to agree, but at least give it some thought and try to respect one another even if you can't agree.

Which leads me to my conclusion, that I don't agree with either candidates approach to politics. Neither is particularly interested in uniting the people. They would rather divide the country with their worthless rhetoric. I'd rather not vote for either, but if I absolutely had to vote for one, I'd have to vote for Trump. A terrible choice either way, but I don't think Trump will be trying to give us more social programs we can't afford. Then again, he could start a war, which we definitely can't afford. Pros and cons I guess.

 

Before I actually post anything has anyone read trumps or Clinton's proposals?

 

I got your man right here

Spoiler

https://www.change.org/p/the-us-gov...e-next-us-president-and-put-him-on-the-ballot

Let's goooo

 

Uh oh.
*prepares for alien pixel attack*

 

I did see Clinton's speech about "making fairer rules for the middle class and raising taxes on the middle class." Needless to say, I still think she's worse than Trump. We can all admit that Trump is pretty bad, but when it comes to which one is worse. Clinton takes it by a landslide.
- Career Politician
- She has her hand in so many pockets, she's nothing more than a special interest puppet
- Criminal; Email scandals, ignorance of what Confidential, Classified, Top Secret, etc. means and keeping it secure by following secure transmission protocols.

If anyone wants to know what the US will look like after her reign of terror, Detroit is a good example. Controlled by Democrats for 5 years and it still looks run down. That is what Clinton will do to the entire nation if she gets elected.

We're going to need someone a lot more competent than that if the US has any hope to get the economy back on track. We're also going to need to secure the borders more and slow down the immigration processing. We're letting in too many criminals and instead of law-abiding immigrants. This is something that Clinton refuses to change. She wants those votes, whether they're fraudulent or not; what better way than to have illegal immigrants voting as someone else, especially a deceased person. We need someone that is willing to clean house. We've got a mess and we need someone that's truly for the People, and not for the special interests, that can help clean up the crappy excuse we call "government."

Nah, Harrison Ford in Air Force One. Ford's character has more balls than Barack Obama, that is if Obama had any balls to begin with.

 

I think that, in the past 100 years, America has progressed quite a bit in the sense of "rites", whether they be agreeable or disagreeable. At this time, I think rites should be less of a concern to push when there is a gigantic debt on this nation.
I am not saying that rites should not be made better, should anyone think I mean that. Only that they be not the main focus of the head of our nation when more pertinent topics need to be addressed. America became a nation in its desire of rites, but it most certainly was not all about the rites.
Anyway, America will need a president who is more concerned about the economy, at least for now. I do find it pitiful that we must rely on a president for things to happen and blame them for issues that arise when we fail to handle it ourselves. It feels like the national debt could have been averted had the citizens played a role to prevent it.

So much sh*t to dig through with these politics. Hard to remain unbiased when so much crap is readily available when it comes to Clinton. When I hear stuff about Trump, it seems to pale in comparison to Clinton.