If Donald Trump's immigration plan came true, the results would be scary.

[Jack V Savage]

From my understanding is Hilary actually lost in SC and only won because of the superdelgates (correct me if I'm wrong) Which essentially means the people did not want her, but the people in her party holding political positions did and their vote trumps that of the average citizen.

The Democratic primary in South Carolina will be on Feb. 27, and superdelegate counts don't affect reported primary results.

 

[Desdinova]

I find the juxtaposition of this thread and the thread about jobs lost to automation amusing. http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/r...n-jobs-world-wide-just-the-beginning.3176727/

 

[panamaican]

That's an awful video. All of those jobs would be filled with Americans, presumably at a higher wage. So the economy wouldn't dry up, parts of it would just get more expensive.

 

[Madmick]

2.) I don't agree with that. I believe the majority of voters are so upset with establishment candidates that Trump smashes Hillary and his only real threat would be Sanders.

It really doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. It's the way it is; the reality doesn't require your consent. It's the same numbers we've seen for over a solid year. Even as Trump does well in NH/SC he can't crack this ceiling. Trump doesn't stand a fucking chance against Hillary (or anyone) in a general election. Hell, you could throw Bloomberg or Biden in there at this point. Trump's just pissed too many people off. He's merely pulling plurality for the same reason a glorified neo-Nazi could get elected to become Prime Minister of Austria in the late 90's.

Bernie won't even win the nomination, dude. Millenials are naive to buy into this, but if they took the time to put down the vape pen long enough to pick up a Kindle and learn a bit about the election process they'd realize he's going to get mutilated once the big states and the southern belt file in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/u...-leaving-bernie-sanders-with-steep-climb.html

Senator Bernie Sanders vowed on Sunday to fight on after losing the Nevada caucuses, predicting that he would pull off a historic political upset by this summer’s party convention.

But the often overlooked delegate count in the Democratic primary shows Mr. Sanders slipping significantly behind Hillary Clinton in the race for the nomination, and the odds of his overtaking her growing increasingly remote.

Mrs. Clinton has 502 delegates to Mr. Sanders’s 70; 2,383 are needed to win the nomination. These numbers include delegates won in state contests and superdelegates, who can support any candidate. She is likely to win a delegate jackpot from the overwhelmingly black and Hispanic areas in the Southern-dominated Super Tuesday primaries on March 1, when 11 states will vote and about 880 delegates will be awarded.

Since delegates are awarded proportionally based on vote tallies in congressional districts and some other areas, only blowout victories yield large numbers of delegates. And Mrs. Clinton is better positioned than Mr. Sanders to win big in more delegate-rich districts, like those carved out to ensure minority Democrats in Congress, where she remains popular.

“She could effectively end the race in less than two weeks’ time on Super Tuesday,” said David Wasserman, a top analyst for The Cook Political Report, who has been closely tracking the delegate race...

It's going to be Clinton and Trump doesn't stand a chance against her. So it's time the Republicans got serious and started thinking about someone who can unless they want to blow a red carpet walk to a White House exchange of hands.

 

[speakhandsforme]

1.) I feel like this hasn't been mentioned enough and could deserve it's own thread. From my understanding is Hilary actually lost in SC and only won because of the superdelgates (correct me if I'm wrong) Which essentially means the people did not want her, but the people in her party holding political positions did and their vote trumps that of the average citizen.

The SC primary has not happened yet and Clinton is an absolute lock to crush Sanders in a way comparable to his win in New Hampshire. He'll be lucky to steal one southern state-- Clinton has spent decades pandering to blacks and convincing them that she and her husband's politics haven't rammed them in the ass and has predicated this illusion on the pretty accurate fact that her Republican colleagues want to ass ram them to a greater degree. She's also done a very good job of turning her recent campaign messages on the point that she and Obama are the absolute best of friends and that Sanders hates him.

 

[86'd]

The Democratic primary in South Carolina will be on Feb. 27, and superdelegate counts don't affect reported primary results.

Care to explain to me the function of superdelegates and the impact they can have on a caucus election?

It really doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. It's the way it is; the reality doesn't require your consent. It's the same numbers we've seen for over a solid year. Even as Trump does well in NH/SC he can't crack this ceiling. Trump doesn't stand a fucking chance against Hillary (or anyone) in a general election. Hell, you could throw Bloomberg or Biden in there at this point. Trump's just pissed too many people off. He's merely pulling plurality for the same reason a glorified neo-Nazi could get elected to become Prime Minister of Austria in the late 90's.

Bernie won't even win the nomination, dude. Millenials are naive to buy into this, but if they took the time to put down the vape pen long enough to pick up a Kindle and learn a bit about the election process they'd realize he's going to get mutilated once the big states and the southern belt file in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/u...-leaving-bernie-sanders-with-steep-climb.html


It's going to be Clinton and Trump doesn't stand a chance against her. So it's time the Republicans got serious and started thinking about someone who can unless they want to blow a red carpet walk to a White House exchange of hands.

We'll see. Although, I honestly will be disgusted if people go Clinton over Trump. Or Clinton over Sanders. All those talking points that I read and hear around the water cooler of sticking it to big corporations, wall street, career politicians etc. is just talk if people actually vote for Hilary.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

It'd be even worse to elect a naive old socialist whose economic pipe dream of turning the US into Scandinavia has been met with ridicule even by leftist economists.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Care to explain to me the function of superdelegates and the impact they can have on a caucus election?

Superdelegates can vote for whomever they want at the national convention (contrasted with the delegates who are selected during primaries and caucuses based on the votes). They don't have an impact on primaries or caucuses.

We'll see. Although, I honestly will be disgusted if people go Clinton over Trump. Or Clinton over Sanders. All those talking points that I read and hear around the water cooler of sticking it to big corporations, wall street, career politicians etc. is just talk if people actually vote for Hilary.

Trump is proposing a large cut on the top income-tax rate, a small cut on taxes on investment income, and the elimination of taxes on large estates and a repeal of Dodd-Frank. He wouldn't "stick it to big corporations" or Wall Street. Clinton would (even if she couldn't get the votes for her increase on investment income or expansion of financial reform, she'd at least stop Congress from moving backwards on those issues). As for politicians, the majority of Congress would get their way if Trump were to win, and they'd benefit from those same debt-funded giveaways to the rich.

 

[kpt018]

No they don't. All of them that I worked around sent all their revenue back to their families on farms in Mexico were they spend the winters.

They also sell drugs for cash while they're here. Its how I met one of my first coke connects as a teen. They also joked how they make money off the white man by doing that. And many preached to me that we give our women too many rights here(which we do). So hows that racism and sexism for you?

Well, the evidence says that your experience (if to be believed) is the anomaly.

I've worked with and employed lots of Mexicans and they're the hardest working motherfuckers. And while they send back money they have to live, right? Most of their wages pay for food, rent, etc.. Like I said, right back into the economy.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

A civil war is definitely a stretch. Riots and unrest? Sure. Those can sometimes snowball out of control, but I don't think enough potential armed revolutionary-types are going to fight for outsiders.

i agree, but i think the US (especially along the arizona, NM and Texas boarders) have enough potential armed citizens who would gladly join in the deportation round up process.

 

[Renard]

That's an awful video. All of those jobs would be filled with Americans, presumably at a higher wage. So the economy wouldn't dry up, parts of it would just get more expensive.

That's an oversimplification. We would adapt and recover eventually but there would be a patch of turmoil. I understand how satisfying it would be to get rid of all illegals, but how many years of economic downturn are you willing to endure for that principle? What if the next 10 years are shit and you can't afford to buy anything? We won't be young forever, personally I'd say fuck that, I want to enjoy the next 10 years. Not to mention Trump's wall is impossible. For all the billions you spend on deportation, how do you know they won't just strut back in?

I'd give the illegals residency and a possibility of citizenship if they jump the hoops. Accept that the damage is already been done for the illegals already here. Focus on preventing future illegals from getting in and making sure employers are heavily penalized for hiring illegals.

 

[panamaican]

That's an oversimplification. We would adapt and recover eventually but there would be a patch of turmoil. I understand how satisfying it would be to get rid of all illegals, but how many years of economic downturn are you willing to endure for that principle? What if the next 10 years are shit and you can't afford to buy anything? We won't be young forever, personally I'd say fuck that, I want to enjoy the next 10 years. Not to mention Trump's wall is impossible. For all the billions you spend on deportation, how do you know they won't just strut back in?

I'd give the illegals residency and a possibility of citizenship if they jump the hoops. Accept that the damage is already been done for the illegals already here. Focus on preventing future illegals from getting in and making sure employers are heavily penalized for hiring illegals.

You're arguing something that wasn't in the video or in my post. No one claimed a timeline or even the absence of a period of adjustment.

The video is awful because it completely disregards how the economy would respond to Trump's plan and acts as if in the absence of illegal immigrants, those jobs would simply sit unaddressed until the end of time. That's poor reasoning.

Now you're arguing that it's superior to avoid 10 years of job shifting from illegals to legal would result in an economic downturn so bad that 20 years from now isn't worth 10 years of difficulty now? That's a very short term way to look at it. We're one of the largest exporters of food in the world and dramatically subsidize our agricultural industry. I'm sure there's enough wiggle room between those 2 points to offset the immediate loss of our illegal workforce.

Also, why would replacing illegal labor with legal labor result in an economic downturn? If the jobs of essential, the underemployed and unemployed will fill them. If they're non-essential, they'll be phased out and replaced with something better. Where's the downside. We're removing labor, not the job supply.

 

[sloppypie]

We'll see. Although, I honestly will be disgusted if people go Clinton over Trump. Or Clinton over Sanders. All those talking points that I read and hear around the water cooler of sticking it to big corporations, wall street, career politicians etc. is just talk if people actually vote for Hilary

this is the problem w/ this kind of logic - it's utterly moronic to hate big corporations, wall street and career politicians just because they are those things. a big corporation and a career politician is not necessarily evil. bernie sanders is a career politician.

this is what fuckin hipsters don't get. they haven't been through a lot of the shit that republicans want us to go back to. they want to repeal the ACA - great, there goes my pre-existing condition regulation. now i'll be on the phone for weeks with fuckfaces from insurance companies if i have to switch health providers again.

that's what happens if you are so stupid that you think it's cool to be "anti establishment" when you don't even understand the fuckin consequences of letting a psycho like trump or ted cruz anywhere near the white house.

i get why republicans don't get any of this and vote against their own interests. they have massive brainwashing propaganda to fight against - radio shows, blogs, youtube videos, fox news. it's a literal jungle of hatred and paranoia being pumped into soft brains on a daily basis. for everyone else, a person like cruz or trump is utterly terrifying. and these fuckin college hipsters literally don't understand this very simple concept b/c they are too wrapped up in their own egos to actually give a shit.

 

[Gandhi]

I will say this, though... Many of Trumps supporters are racist and hate Hispanic People. That is abundantly clear. I just don't believe he does, nor have I seen any evidence for that being the case. Only the opposite, in fact.

Oh please he knows exactly what demographic he is targeting and his rhetoric shows it. Asking us to sift the mountains of crap he spews to find his real moderate position is silly.

 

[Gandhi]

Ahhh yes, the old "line" analogy that just doesn't die.

For the trillionth time: there is no line.

If you want to argue that if there's no way for them to come in legally they should just stay home and deal with it, fine. But the notion that there is a "line" but that the undocumented are simply impatient or they just really prefer doing illegal and dangerous things for the fuck of it is just inaccurate.

Great pic, I am living the skilled worker route now.

 

[Fawlty]

You're arguing something that wasn't in the video or in my post. No one claimed a timeline or even the absence of a period of adjustment.

The video is awful because it completely disregards how the economy would respond to Trump's plan and acts as if in the absence of illegal immigrants, those jobs would simply sit unaddressed until the end of time. That's poor reasoning.

Now you're arguing that it's superior to avoid 10 years of job shifting from illegals to legal would result in an economic downturn so bad that 20 years from now isn't worth 10 years of difficulty now? That's a very short term way to look at it. We're one of the largest exporters of food in the world and dramatically subsidize our agricultural industry. I'm sure there's enough wiggle room between those 2 points to offset the immediate loss of our illegal workforce.

Also, why would replacing illegal labor with legal labor result in an economic downturn? If the jobs of essential, the underemployed and unemployed will fill them. If they're non-essential, they'll be phased out and replaced with something better. Where's the downside. We're removing labor, not the job supply.

He would do better arguing that it will decrease the standard of living in the middle/lower class, in the areas of food prices, small construction/home repair, hotel prices, etc. The labor shortages would take care of themselves from what I can see.

 

[Fawlty]

i agree, but i think the US (especially along the arizona, NM and Texas boarders) have enough potential armed citizens who would gladly join in the deportation round up process.

Operation Wetback part 2? Please no thanks.

 

[panamaican]

He would do better arguing that it will decrease the standard of living in the middle/lower class, in the areas of food prices, small construction/home repair, hotel prices, etc. The labor shortages would take care of themselves from what I can see.

That's something I would agree with. Although, I do wonder about wages and prices and the impact on unemployment. Tech won't innovate fast enough in the short run to offset the labor shortage.

 

[86'd]

Well, the evidence says that your experience (if to be believed) is the anomaly.

I've worked with and employed lots of Mexicans and they're the hardest working motherfuckers. And while they send back money they have to live, right? Most of their wages pay for food, rent, etc.. Like I said, right back into the economy.

Its not for Minnesota (they don't like our winters) and definitely not for the company I'm referring to (it's seasonal) and my experience is very real.

And matter of fact the worldwide company I'm referring to buses them up here and provides boarding for those that want it. I'm not referring to some low-rent private contractor with his LLC that needs a cheap laborer.

And I'm not questioning their work ethic, however I would've rather seen legal US citizens having worked alongside me being paid a reasonable wage.

 

[Fawlty]

That's something I would agree with. Although, I do wonder about wages and prices and the impact on unemployment. Tech won't innovate fast enough in the short run to offset the labor shortage.

I think that would all depend on how a program like that is rolled out. If the government decides to strike out with raid after raid, filling up those hundred-odd hypothetical buses to Mexico every day, then the hit to labor would be maximal right? It seems pointless because we're just going to bring in workers anyway at the end of the day if Americans can't or won't fill those jobs.