Trump has his left wing tendencies himself. Bringing in trade barriers and controlling the labour market by putting up walls.

Tarriffs used to be the main revenue source for the federal government, so that's about as Founding Fathers as it gets.

Controlling the labor market?  Sure, by limiting it to people in this country instead of the whole world. 
Get back to me after you open your home to anyone who wants to eat or sleep there.

He's created a band of supporters who think education is useless so the social classes may be next to go.

Social classes?  Is this another progressive perversion of the language?  Sounds like we wouldn't miss them, whatever they are.

You're right that federal government's main source of revenue for a very long time was tariffs.  The founders avoided talking publicly about the virtues of tariffs, though, except for Alexander Hamilton.
In any case, it's wrong to categorize any particular thing that the founders might have done as "right wing" or "conservative" just because they did it.  They were dealing with a totally different set of issues than us.

But you're (very) wrong to trot out the popular metaphor about a nation-state being equivalent to a home.  First of all, unarmed people and families have been free to cross the borders of empires, city-states, and nation-states throughout the vast majority of recorded history.  Second, a nation with borders is not at all like a home.  A nation is a public space where public affairs take place.  A home is a private space where private affairs take place.  A nation is a place of commerce and spending.  A home is a place of rest and saving.  If you bring somebody into your nation, they won't invade your privacy and they will participate in the marketplace, whereas, if you bring them into your home, they'll be sharing your food, hogging your toilet, listening in to your bedroom activities, etc.  These things are not at all alike but because bad people keep repeating the metaphor we accept it uncritically.  Let's stop, now.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Sorry could you dispute the points? Very traditional left wing policies I mentioned.

I don’t do this often on here but your comments are so distorted and you so ignorantly provided them as fact, that I’m not even going to entertain giving you an explanation. I’m sure someone more tolerant than I won’t leave you unchecked.

---

You don't want your home invaded but you want to allow unlimited invaders. So basically, NIMBY.

---

Nice deflection, but Donnie does it better. You should leave it to the professional and just lap it up as usual.

This economy and his approval rating have to be driving you and your people insane. Keep on keeping on though...

I'd like to know myself, SC1 is the one who brought it up, ask him. 

(this is assuming you understand why I put "my people" in quotes)

So we’re was foot note for the once removed “my people” and who be SC1 
The “My people” what are they and the context your referring to

SC1 is StroudCrowd1, who can hopefully help you out with your questions. "My people" was in response to "your people". I'm releasing your hand now, figure it out.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

You don't want your home invaded but you want to allow unlimited invaders.  So basically, NIMBY.

Um, no.
The country is not like my home.
Nor is it like other people's homes. 
If we allow more immigrants to come, they could end up being your backyard neighbors, or mine.  Neither of us would have much way to be a NIMBY about it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

"They" already are my backyard neighbors. From Myanmar. Only the smallest one speaks English. But we share the universal practice of growing one's own food, so I am learning about Asian vegetables and they are growing native American squashes. We also have a shared citrus tree project.

---

"They" already are my backyard neighbors.  From Myanmar.  Only the smallest one speaks English.  But we share the universal practice of growing one's own food, so I am learning about Asian vegetables and they are growing native American squashes.  We also have a shared citrus tree project.

That's a beautiful thing.  I assume they came legally.  I am glad you have a good relationship with them either way.
I dont think that the borders should be completely open.
But I do think we should allow more legal immigration.  
And while I think we need to deport any illegal immigrant who has committed a crime (and immigrating illegally is a civil infraction, not criminal) I don't see anything wrong with a one-time amnesty on people who have come and not committed crimes, as long as it was coupled with stricter enforcement on employers and payroll companies to discourage illegal immigrants from coming to work without permission.
These things are in no way analguous to me wanting strangers to live in my home or in your home.  How could they be?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I dont think that the borders should be completely open. But I do think we should allow more legal immigration.  

And while I think we need to deport any illegal immigrant who has committed a crime (and immigrating illegally is a civil infraction, not criminal) I don't see anything wrong with a one-time amnesty on people who have come and not committed crimes, as long as it was coupled with stricter enforcement on employers and payroll companies to discourage illegal immigrants from coming to work without permission.

First.. We WOULD HAVE more legal immigration if we simply controlled our boarders. The hundreds of thousands that cut to the front of the line and cross illegally every year make what you want pretty much impossible. You want more legal immigration..well so do I, but that ain't happening until you stop the epidemic of illegal crossings on the southern boarder...and whoever told you that crossing illegally is not a crime/criminal act and is just a "civil infraction" is a dambarse and you're a idiot if you really believe them.

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-i...gally.html

Second.. as far as you wanting a one time amnesty. Well it wouldn't be a "one time", it would be a second time, because we already did that in the 80's when Reagan was president with the promise from democrats and republicans that after we brought everyone out of the shadows that they would finally enforce our immigration laws on the books, they lied and didn't..actaully enforcement got even worse. The same thing would happen again if we just offered amnesty without real concessions from the other side of the aisle..You know like real enforcement of our laws. Until things change and concessions are made (man made barriers/walls and legit boarder enforcement) open amnesty is not a legitimate answer or solution.

---

You don't want your home invaded but you want to allow unlimited invaders.  So basically, NIMBY.

Um, no.
The country is not like my home.
Nor is it like other people's homes. 
If we allow more immigrants to come, they could end up being your backyard neighbors, or mine.  Neither of us would have much way to be a NIMBY about it.

Legal vs illegal immigrants.  Why is it that so many of the population have a hard time with that concept?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Tarriffs used to be the main revenue source for the federal government, so that's about as Founding Fathers as it gets.

Controlling the labor market?  Sure, by limiting it to people in this country instead of the whole world. 
Get back to me after you open your home to anyone who wants to eat or sleep there.


Social classes?  Is this another progressive perversion of the language?  Sounds like we wouldn't miss them, whatever they are.

But you're (very) wrong to trot out the popular metaphor about a nation-state being equivalent to a home.  First of all, unarmed people and families have been free to cross the borders of empires, city-states, and nation-states throughout the vast majority of recorded history.  

For the history of this nation, the only time period germane to this discussion, that has not been the case.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

"They" already are my backyard neighbors.  From Myanmar.  Only the smallest one speaks English.  But we share the universal practice of growing one's own food, so I am learning about Asian vegetables and they are growing native American squashes.  We also have a shared citrus tree project.

That's a beautiful thing.  I assume they came legally.  I am glad you have a good relationship with them either way.
I dont think that the borders should be completely open.
But I do think we should allow more legal immigration.  
And while I think we need to deport any illegal immigrant who has committed a crime (and immigrating illegally is a civil infraction, not criminal) I don't see anything wrong with a one-time amnesty on people who have come and not committed crimes, as long as it was coupled with stricter enforcement on employers and payroll companies to discourage illegal immigrants from coming to work without permission.
These things are in no way analguous to me wanting strangers to live in my home or in your home.  How could they be?

The greatest trick of the left is convincing people their failed policies have still never been tried.

---

But you're (very) wrong to trot out the popular metaphor about a nation-state being equivalent to a home.  First of all, unarmed people and families have been free to cross the borders of empires, city-states, and nation-states throughout the vast majority of recorded history.  

For the history of this nation, the only time period germane to this discussion, that has not been the case.

The history of this nation goes back somewhere between 231 and 242 years.
For more than half of those years, we had open borders.
No attempts were made to restrict immigration until about 1920.

---

I dont think that the borders should be completely open. But I do think we should allow more legal immigration.  

And while I think we need to deport any illegal immigrant who has committed a crime (and immigrating illegally is a civil infraction, not criminal) I don't see anything wrong with a one-time amnesty on people who have come and not committed crimes, as long as it was coupled with stricter enforcement on employers and payroll companies to discourage illegal immigrants from coming to work without permission.

First.. We WOULD HAVE more legal immigration if we simply controlled our boarders. The hundreds of thousands that cut to the front of the line and cross illegally every year make what you want pretty much impossible. You want more legal immigration..well so do I, but that ain't happening until you stop the epidemic of illegal crossings on the southern boarder...and whoever told you that crossing illegally is not a crime/criminal act and is just a "civil infraction" is a dambarse and you're a idiot if you really believe them.

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-i...gally.html

Second.. as far you wanting a one time amnesty. Well it wouldn't be a "one time", it would be a second time, because we already did that in the 80's when Reagan was president with the promise from democrats and republicans that after we brought everyone out of the shadows that they would finally enforce our immigration laws on the books, they lied and didn't..actaully enforcement got even worse. The same thing would happen again if we just offered amnesty without real concessions from the other side of the aisle..You know like real enforcement of our laws. Until things change and concessions are made (man made barriers/walls and legit boarder enforcement) open amnesty is not a legitimate answer or solution.

The amount of legal immigration we have is dictated by quotas.  The rate of illegal immigration has nothing to do with how those quotas are computed.

Crossing the border illegally is indeed a criminal act.
Most illegal immigrants crossed legally.  They claimed to be tourists or similar things.  

Overstaying a visa is a civil infraction.

Seeking and accepting work for wages without a work permit or work visa is also a civil infraction.

I agree that amnesty and border protection was tried before in the 1980s. In fact, if I recall, there was an instance of it in the 1960s as well. Obviously the effort to secure the border was either not sustained or not effectual.
Starting in 1994, there was a financial crisis in Mexico, and a President in Bill Clinton who was willing to look the other way with regard to businesses employing illegal immigrants. Bush 2 took the same stance. Now that crisis is long gone and Mexicans don't want to immigrate. Now the problem is more with poorer central Americans, but they are fewer in number than the Mexicans were.
In either case, stopping people at the border is not a real solution. The real solution is finding the employers that hire them and punishing them along with the immigrants.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The Sky is Falling The Sky is Falling..........

Cable Fearmongering: Everything Is a 'Constitutional Crisis'

The Chicken Littles of cable news are in a full-scale panic over the latest fantasy disaster that hasn’t happened yet. Over the weekend, TV talking heads burst into flame in anticipation of the supposed “constitutional crisis” that might ensue if President Trump were to pardon himself – which he has not done, and which his lawyer has flatly stated he “has no intention” of doing.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/bil...nal-crisis

---

Sorry could you dispute the points? Very traditional left wing policies I mentioned.

I don’t do this often on here but your comments are so distorted and you so ignorantly provided them as fact, that I’m not even going to entertain giving you an explanation. I’m sure someone more tolerant than I won’t leave you unchecked.

So in other words you can't. You were just angry that trumps populism goes to traditional left wing thinking sometimes.

---

For the history of this nation, the only time period germane to this discussion, that has not been the case.

The history of this nation goes back somewhere between 231 and 242 years.
For more than half of those years, we had open borders.
No attempts were made to restrict immigration until about 1920.

---

1875.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I don’t do this often on here but your comments are so distorted and you so ignorantly provided them as fact, that I’m not even going to entertain giving you an explanation. I’m sure someone more tolerant than I won’t leave you unchecked.

So in other words you can't. You were just angry that trumps populism goes to traditional left wing thinking sometimes.

Sure thing skippy.

---

So in other words you can't. You were just angry that trumps populism goes to traditional left wing thinking sometimes.

Sure thing skippy.

Sounds like you may benefit from a safe space?

---

The Sky is Falling The Sky is Falling..........

Cable Fearmongering: Everything Is a 'Constitutional Crisis'

The Chicken Littles of cable news are in a full-scale panic over the latest fantasy disaster that hasn’t happened yet. Over the weekend, TV talking heads burst into flame in anticipation of the supposed “constitutional crisis” that might ensue if President Trump were to pardon himself – which he has not done, and which his lawyer has flatly stated he “has no intention” of doing.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/bil...nal-crisis

It was laid out very specifically in a 20 page memo from Trump's legal team to Mueller. I suppose his lawyers are trolling, too.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I believe my neighbors came here as refugees via Catholic Social Services. My wife has friends from Bosnia who were brought as refugees during the Bosnian war. They are good people and thankful for the chance to come here. Also they have incredible food and know how to party!

---

Sure thing skippy.

Sounds like you may benefit from a safe space?

Haha. Oh geez.

---

I believe my neighbors came here as refugees via Catholic Social Services.  My wife has friends from Bosnia who were brought as refugees during the Bosnian war.  They are good people and thankful for the chance to come here.  Also they have incredible food and know how to party!

I did some time in Bosnia and they are awesome people that were in a bad situation. They invited us for meals every chance they got, even when they had very little to share. Hard workers also.

---