Do we have 20 million or so “undocumented” Canadians living in the US?
History books are cheap. How did Texas become part of the US instead of Mexico? How did Crimea become part of Russia?
You forgot Scott Walker.
Many people are talking about it. Many, many people.
We don’t have 20 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
More than you might think. How many before we take action to stop the flood of snowbacks? And make Canada pay for it?
The point was about Trump’s race-baiting, as you’ll recall.
None of the Mexicans who’ve moved to Texas have any sentimental longing for the government of Mexico. Music, food, culture–sure. Those crooks in PRI? That’s why they left.
You known fuck all about Texas history. Or the reality of Texas today. (We do have some damned annoying Republicans.)
Reading comprehension yo! How did Texas become part of the USA? The point is too many folks from one country near the border can result in problems. If you needed a more recent example I also gave Crimea and Russia.
Thankfully the Baltic states have NATO otherwise we might see more annexations.
According to this it’s a 10-1 ratio between Mexican and Canadian. If we add others that also come across the southern border it seems like that would be the place to focus efforts.
And a wall is silly.
Obviously you do need some penalties for offshoring etc. While the US shouldn’t try to preserve every cheap consumer goods industry here necessarily, it should certainly seek to preserve the heavy industrial core of modern civilization (steel, automobiles, airplanes, ships etc.). Ultimately, though, more American blue-collars jobs have been lost to automation then either offshoring or illegal immigration. As for farm labour, enough willing citizens probably will be found were the job unionized and well paid.
Of course the American consumer cares about the American workers because they are the same person. And it’s precisely because not everybody get be in STEM or the professions that we need to ensue that every American worker meets a minimum standard of living through labour regulations and government social welfare programs. Michael Lind has an excellent article on this in the Times.
That’s questionable at best-studies on inconclusive on the effects of a moderately higher minimum wage.
I don’t think she’d govern anymore rightward then Obama simply due to the nature of the Democratic coalition at this point in time. There has been a distinct leftward shift in the party in the last few years which has resulted in Obama abandoning attempts (for example) at pursuing a “Grand Bargain”. As for TPP, you forget that there is a good chunk of the Tea Party and paleocons in the House opposed to the trade bill so progressive Democrats will presumably ally with them in Congress on that particular occasion.
Enough!
Take the hijacks about Trump, Canadian or Mexican immigration, and other unrelated topics to their own threads.
Stick to the discussion regarding the reasons to vote for Clinton.
**
[ /Moderating ]**
The reason to vote for Clinton is that she’ll do the better job for us of either of the two possibilities. How is that not enough?
But even if Trump wasn’t on the ticket, the Republican Party represents anti-intellectualism, climate change denial, racism, enforced Christianity, and the oppression of women. A vote for Hillary is a rejection of all those dark forces.
Well, yes. By definition a “credential” is “a qualification, achievement, personal quality, or aspect of a person’s background, typically when used to indicate that they are suitable for something.”
-The Dictionary
I mean, it’s not as impressive as “credentials” like inheriting a lot of money to start a business or being “someone I’d sit down and have a beer with”.
I question a lot of Clinton’s policies. With Trump, I question his sanity.
Clinton was rather substantially less qualified in 2008.
That said, this “most qualified ever” thing is silly. She is fairly well qualified for a Presidential candidate but people are going a little overboard. She is certainly no more qualified than Al Gore, or George H.W. Bush, or, arguably, John McCain or Bob Dole. If you consider Joe Biden a “candidate” in this cycle she’s no more qualified than he.
So a couple things.
Recent ~= “ever”
She is the most qualified “candidate” ever so you need to compare he qualifications to other candidates. How would she compare to McCain (House and Senate 1982-Present) or Al Gore (Senator + VP).
Dems discounted the whole “experience” thing when Obama was running the first time.
So what’s the point? I’m sure many candidate in the past have done similar things and more. So are the goalposts now that we consider everything Clinton has done outside of elected life while ignoring the same for everyone else and thus she is the most experienced candidate ever?
Mitt Romney
Graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School
Led Bain & Company
Bishop of his LDS ward
Co-president of his LDS Mission
President of the BYU Boosters
President of SLC Olympic Organizing Committee
While Governor of Mass and successfully implemented Health Care reform (unlike HilllaryCare)
What of that counts as political experience? FTR: serving as a chair or on a board does not automatically count as political experience IMO. Now if you claim all of that counts as public administration experience I would agree with you.
Certainly being governor and president of the Olympic Committee count as political experience. Probably leading Bain & Company counts as well. I don’t know how political LDS Missions are, so I have no comment about that.
I have no idea at all that this might have to do with a why-vote-for-Hillary thread. Did you mean to post that in GQ?
She is running against a fool that even the GOP doesn’t want, that conservative newspapers won’t endorse, that needs to have staffers tase him and sit on his chest until his urge to tweet leaves him. Christ, ain’t enough?
So clearly you never watch Fox News.
You’re wrong.
As are you.