Gay republicans?
-
Transsexuals in the military isn't a problem when they aren't using the military to fund their transition.
It cost lots of money to train a soldier, then to have them laid up recovering from surgeries for most of the 4 year contract makes no sense, either from a money or troop readiness standpoint.
That's very simple: the army can accept only transgenders already operated and properly recovered. It's also important to say that most of trans people are not operated and do not wish for it.
-
I'm not trying to prove that being trans is a choice. Sex reassignment is a new thing, so not natural, but being trans internally is a personal thing. And also if someone wants to cut off whatever, it is their choice. I have a difficult time when sexuality and gender are merged into LGB-T, because they are different, and we have a problem with mis-identification, but it's all about identity politics so people stretch what they can get away with. And I don't have anything against Transgender people, one of my best friends was Trans before I moved, and she was a fun, positive person who I love and miss. Some people are nudists for instance. Some people want to cover up even when alone. People feel all sorts of different ways, and much of that has to do with society and external, but a lot is internal. You were trying to make some case about it, so I expressed my feelings about it.
As far as common law goes, there really isn't a solid definition, there are many types. But you could always go to a church that accepted you and marry - as long as you kept the government out - which was my point. You wanting the government's approval shouldn't be a thing, because they only want control over it. I was raised to not necessarily care what other people think or to seek other's approval. And much of this is obviously that, which is why if you go to a Muslim bakery and ask them to bake your cake, they'll tell you "no way, get lost," but gay people don't seem to care. It's hypocrisy and fascist to force a baker to break his freedom of religion. If they don't want to bake your cake, go somewhere else (because they'll spit in it anyway). It's about forcing people to accept your religious beliefs and violating theirs and that is criminal because you are violating their rights. You can't force people and I don't support that in any manner.
Legalese sounds like English, but it's not. The words mean very different things. For instance the word "includes." Most people believe it means "also," but in fact it means "only," in many cases and you've got to be careful therefore with every single word. This is how people are conned all day long - by mere words. In regard to Christianity especially, but in the other Abrahamic faiths as well, the best form of government to them is always a Monarchy - because that's how the Kingdom of Heaven works. They'll always be at odds with the Republic, and this is why I prefer Buddhism (even though it is considered a non-theistic religion of sorts).
You are talking about laws obliging the marriage of gays, and what I'm saying is that the highest law in this land is Freedom of Religion and there should be no laws infringing it and thusly, no laws regarding it whatsoever. The government can only intervene when it has to do with a couple where one party doesn't consent, like a minor who can't, or goats, or whatever. The law is very different from legalese. Everything is different from Drive to Operate, from Person to People, Freedom and Liberty, Legal and Lawful (too totally different words) and this is why corporations are persons under the law because a body is a corpse (CORPS/Corporate). One is flesh and blood, the other is paper and fiction. The government does not control the flesh and blood, they only control the corporate fiction, because the Law of the Land puts the people as above the government. By creating the personhood scheme the government has managed to get all of us as their subjects rather than them as ours. And person means an actor or mask - pretend (Persona). Deep stuff I don't want to get into because it's not too relevant.
My point is, people should be demanding that the government has no say in marriage, gay or straight (not that I'm against gay or straight marriage). I'm against legal marriage. Legal refers to the Law of the Water (Commerce - corporate law/ Persons), and Lawful to the Law of the Land (People) (Article III).
-
Transsexuals in the military isn't a problem when they aren't using the military to fund their transition.
It cost lots of money to train a soldier, then to have them laid up recovering from surgeries for most of the 4 year contract makes no sense, either from a money or troop readiness standpoint.
That's very simple: the army can accept only transgenders already operated and properly recovered. It's also important to say that most of trans people are not operated and do not wish for it.
I would agree with that.
Also, I wouldn't mind them getting hormones via the military.
-
And much of this is obviously that, which is why if you go to a Muslim bakery and ask them to bake your cake, they'll tell you "no way, get lost," but gay people don't seem to care. It's hypocrisy and fascist to force a baker to break his freedom of religion. If they don't want to bake your cake, go somewhere else (because they'll spit in it anyway). It's about forcing people to accept your religious beliefs and violating theirs and that is criminal because you are violating their rights. You can't force people and I don't support that in any manner.
My point is, people should be demanding that the government has no say in marriage, gay or straight (not that I'm against gay or straight marriage). I'm against legal marriage. Legal refers to the Law of the Water (Commerce - corporate law/ Persons), and Lawful to the Law of the Land (People) (Article III).
Yes, If I go to a Muslim bakery they ought to bake my cake, because if they refuse to, it's like them saying I'm inferior, that I don't deserve to be treated like everybody else. They have to right to think and say (to one another, not publicly) whatever they want, but once they open a business to serve the entire community, they cannot discriminate. They must accept orders from whoever is able to pay for their service. You know there are many churches of all sorts being created every day. What if tomorrow they create a church which believes that black people should be sent back to the plantation? Is a member of that church entitled to kick a black consumer out of his store? The answer is no! The store's owner right to freedom of religion cannot be bigger than the consumer's right to dignity and equality. Freedom of religion is about being able to express your faith, not imposing it.
I'm going to tell you about the [bgcolor=#FF0000]TRUE hypocrisy[/bgcolor]: If Christians are discriminated and humiliated for being Christians, they call it hatred and prejudice. Take for example the persecuted minor Christian communities in Gaza and Lebanon. However, if gays, blacks or gypsies are discriminated by a Christian, they claim to be exercising their right to freedom of religion. So, once a Christian can spank to death a gay in the name of their god, why can't a Muslin murder a Christian to please Allah? It's just a matter of freedom of religion…
-
My point is, people should be demanding that the government has no say in marriage, gay or straight (not that I'm against gay or straight marriage). I'm against legal marriage. Legal refers to the Law of the Water (Commerce - corporate law/ Persons), and Lawful to the Law of the Land (People) (Article III).
I agree with you on legal marriage end, but once it involves legal benefits like insurance, right to citizenship, etc, I think some level of bureaucracy would still be required.
-
I get what you're saying, and obviously there is a lot of that, "I'm better than you stuff," going around - in fact everyone has an ego and does that, not just Christians or Muslims or whatever religion. It's a very fine line, and also a gray line, and honestly, the law will never be able to stop people from having egos, that's not it's purpose. The law is set up to protect people's rights. So you can argue that they are treating you unequally, and they can argue that their religion sees it as wrong, so they don't have to support it. Who's right and who's wrong is in the eye of the beholder. Now obviously being gay, I think they are wrong, and really it's a difficult debate, but you're not going to win the war by force. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
The answer, I think, is more along the lines of taking your business elsewhere, and twofold, treating them with respect to their beliefs, as you wish to be treated. The Law of the Water (Commerce) works on transactions. You cannot order people to do things, that's dictatorship, and it goes against civil law because it's uncivilized - it's in fact, fascist, and against the very nature of commercial law. The Constitution basically doesn't even exist anymore in the courts, it's all Commercial Code. If you hold a gun to my head and order me to mop your floor, I'll do it, but I'll send you a bill you won't like. I don't like this forcing people to accept your view (stooping to their level in a way), no matter how right you may think you are. It's the wrong path and it leads to vengeance and will only hurt your cause in the long run, and it will come back. This is the liberal pathogen - always more concerned with telling people how to live their lives rather than just living your own. Learn some patience. You already have so many victories and now you're concerned that someone doesn't want to bake your cake? If I owned a business I wouldn't bake your cake because I don't agree with you forcing me to perform a service for you, so what's to stop them from doing the same and just changing the tactic? You need to focus more on promoting businesses that support you, not those that don't. Why would you give them money if they hate you? It's counter-intuitive. Then they take that money to spend on causes you don't support. How stupid is that? All the gays celebrating, "Yay! We forced them to accept our view!" That's not a win. In the long term that makes them hate you more now than in the past, and strengthens their determination to fight you.
You don't have a right not to be offended. People are offended by "it's ok to be white." If you are offended, it doesn't mean you are being treated unequally, automatically. If you are offended that the government doesn't refer to you as a Ze, or your babies as theybies… who cares? I don't. You can call your babies whatever you want. Why force the world to adopt your belief system? You're no God. Isn't that the same as the religions do? How are you different? Are you becoming that which you detest the most? The answer is resoundingly simple: yes. You've become that which you despise. Maybe focus more on making the gay community appear more accepting, as it claims to be, of inclusion and diversity - instead of exclusion of those who disagree, and have a right to do so. The gay community has become vicious and ruthless in general when it comes to the same crap they argue against. It's the wrong path, and it's beyond hypocritical.
-
This is not a point of view. The Human Rights state that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, and it wasn't through submission that we achieved this universal consensus. Your right to speak your mind ceases where my dignity begins. Once it is unlawful to insult people because either you'll say words that aren't true or you'll hurt them; it is unlawful to say that gays are filthy, nasty, perverted, etc., because once it's not true, you can't say it. You might claim that if you believe it, it's true to you. However, if everyone starts imposing their beliefs, the world will become a chaos, that's why you have to prove it before you say it.. You call it dictatorship; I call it equality. Dictatorship is not about being unable to act like you want, it is about having part of the population acting like they want, and the rest sucking it up.
I do wish everybody were able to speak their minds at will, but that would cause the world to fall apart. People are forced to do things all the time and there's nothing wrong about it. If I'm using a priority seat, I'm forced by law to give it up to the elderly and disabled, even if I think they're in better shape, and that's because most citizens agree that my right to be weary must not come before people with difficulty standing up. It doesn't matter, in this case, If I think that a middle-aged man who worked all day deserves the seat more than a retired man who spends his time in front of a TV. The same way, I may think I have to the right to treat people like I want to, but the majority says I don't. That's why we have the Human Rights. Again, it's not a point of view.
Of course stepping back is an important daily life strategy, but you must resist. Had the blacks moved out every time their neighbors mistreated them, had they accepted to be thrown out of every bus and given up every job; they might have been exterminated from the Americas.
-
Why force the world to adopt your belief system? You're no God. Isn't that the same as the religions do? How are you different? Are you becoming that which you detest the most? The answer is resoundingly simple: yes. You've become that which you despise. Maybe focus more on making the gay community appear more accepting, as it claims to be, of inclusion and diversity - instead of exclusion of those who disagree, and have a right to do so. The gay community has become vicious and ruthless in general when it comes to the same crap they argue against.
There's no such thing as belief system. We're just looking for the quality of life that heterosexual people can have, and the only way of achieving that is fighting for our rights. We don't want to make them act and live as we believe, all we want is that they stop meddling in our lives. That's all!
Religious people are the ones who force the world to adopt their belief. We don't want to forbid anyone from working on Saturdays, we don't want to force any woman to wear a hijab, we don't knock on anyone's door asking for donation for our movement, we don't circumcise our children without their consent…
I agree with you on the exclusion within the gay community, though. Prejudice, too. Some even use race filters on online daters
-
I think that dignity is one of those nice political words (security is another one).
It looks good and right. But you can't achieve it while people who think "filthy, nasty, perverted, etc.." exist.
So the nice word is incompatible with other people existence and what they think.
Because you get a cake and you don't know what is inside it because you used government force.So you should reprogram/replace other people to get this "dignity".
Making others think and behave the way you want is the biggest meddling one can have. -
Why force the world to adopt your belief system? You're no God. Isn't that the same as the religions do? How are you different? Are you becoming that which you detest the most? The answer is resoundingly simple: yes. You've become that which you despise. Maybe focus more on making the gay community appear more accepting, as it claims to be, of inclusion and diversity - instead of exclusion of those who disagree, and have a right to do so. The gay community has become vicious and ruthless in general when it comes to the same crap they argue against.
There's no such thing as belief system. We're just looking for the quality of life that heterosexual people can have, and the only way of achieving that is fighting for our rights. We don't want to make them act and live as we believe, all we want is that they stop meddling in our lives. That's all!
Religious people are the ones who force the world to adopt their belief. We don't want to forbid anyone from working on Saturdays, we don't want to force any woman to wear a hijab, we don't knock on anyone's door asking for donation for our movement, we don't circumcise our children without their consent…
I agree with you on the exclusion within the gay community, though. Prejudice, too. Some even use race filters on online daters
No such thing as a belief system….? Yea there is. I don't see any republicans or conservatives around trying to steal away your life. That's a problem. Everyone acting like victims and losers is troubling. Stop that! Quit acting like you have it so hard. You have it better than most. People will think you're filthy, so what? Do you really care that much? Dignity? Get lost! Quit acting like you're superior to others. This is inverted. I went out to the gay bars tonight and nobody acted like a victim... Just sayin' it's ridiculous. You ain't no victim. In fact, you're the opposite. It's stupid to play this game.
Trump also never did anything to hurt you. He's been super nice to all people, especially gays who are most of his hotel managers. Quit acting like you have some kind of case. You don't. This will all come out, of the closet, when you're ready. Talk about dignity. You have to earn that. You aren't granted it, just because you're gay, or living, heads up. You have to earn respect in this world, and don't expect it just because you suck dick. Sorry.
You're not understanding the law, still. It has nothing to do with dignity. If you lick pussy or suck dick it doesn't matter, everyone does. Dignity is self-imposed, and we need a wall. Trump is right to demand a wall. 4K murders last year. Illegals. They suck more than us. They suck actually. Latin America was founded by Cortez like Alexandria, killing millions, Spanish. Acting like we're so terrible, no. We bought Texas, then there was the Lousiana Purchase. Then they acted like we're so imperial when we bought it. The Indians sent their criminals here. That's why so many Mexican and Latin words are SANSKRIT - like Chihuahua Desert. ShivaVa - Shiva's Temple. It's because Columbus confused us. They are literal Indian rejects, like Britainia to Australia. It's not True that illegals commit less murders, and even if that was the case, it's dumb.
If you have to jump over the fence, and can't go through the port, you probably have a criminal record to hide. Mexico is the second most dangerous nation in the world. That's why people want the damn wall. Cool, you want to come here to have a good life, go through the damn port, idiot. If you gotta jump over a fence, you probable have something to hide. It's so stupid that people don't get basic common sense. I will support Donald Trump and the Wall, because it's basic common sense that you don't let gangs through open borders who want to kill us like MS 13. How could you be that dumb? Oh, because the only thing you care about is making sure that you get gay marriage and making sure that a Christian has to bake your stupid cake. It's beyond retarded.
-
That's why so many Mexican and Latin words are SANSKRIT - like Chihuahua Desert. ShivaVa - Shiva's Temple. It's because Columbus confused us.
Man, you're pathetically insane.
Sorry I bugged you trying to have a rational conversation… -
Read the book, "India Once Ruled the Americas." It will show you many Indian words used in Latin America today. The Chihuahua is merely one, pronounced by the natives as Shivava. There are also many symbols and pyramids related to the Vimanas from Egypt to Mayan. "Rah Rahm Uri" is another from South America, but again, I don't need to prove anything to you because you aren't interested in learning about it anyway. You probably have no idea about history, etymology in foreign languages, or archaeology. This also goes to Islam (Isha-Aya-Lam) meaning Shiva's Temple, as well as Muslim (Musha-Aya-Lam) meaning Shiva's Temple, because it was - as I said, world wide.
The Indian Hittite Caste was considered royalty to Abraham, who asked these Indian royals post-Exodus for a burial ground for his wife (Sarah - in Hindu that's Brahma not Abraham and Saraisvatsi not Sarai). His teacher was Melchizadek, and in Abram (Brahman it was Meliksedaksnenah). These words as I said, are found all over the Americas, and even to Rome (etymologically from Ram - the Brahman cult of India). Then even into Africa and the Egyptian caste of deities.
There is a long history before the conquistadors and regardless, my point is that White Men should feel little shame compared to what was done to the Americas before the Spanish came, and compared to what the Africans themselves did trading their own people as slaves. I feel no guilt - is my point, because I didn't do it. If you want to blame white men, when it was Spanish and Africans who started and perpetuated the whole thing - just remember, we bought most of this land, and we actually were the ones who ended slavery. So who cares if you're adept enough to understand what I'm saying? You are ignorant. That's not an offensive thing, it just means you don't know.
If anything, would a black man take the blame for another black man's crime? No. So why should I feel like I'm guilty for what other white men have done? If anything, we shouldn't be blaming each other for this particular circumstance, but instead, the institutions such as religion that have slavery written into their holy works such as the Bible. In case you don't understand the methodology I'm using here, we as white men don't owe other races anything. They're just as brutal, just as evil, just as bloody when it comes to these things such as crusades - they were not a "white" thing. Slavery is not a "white" thing. Look at Africa today and look at America today and you'll see injustice committed on blacks by blacks in human trafficking in Africa to black on black crime being the number one problem in suburbs and urban areas like Chicago. Now it's not all blacks of course, there is a great crime of elites on all of humanity, and they aren't of one particular race at all. It's not just United States. Look at Saudi Arabia, China, Israel, Ireland, Italy, Britain, Rome, North Korea, Germany, Russia, South Africa, etc. It's gangs running it all, especially in South America - Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, El Salvador, etc. You think that Native American Indians were innocent and spiritual and all-loving? That's a fairy tale. They were kicked out of India for the same reason Australians were kicked out of England. Most nations have a long history of corruption and crime and gangs. It has more to do with power by elites than race, and a divide and conquer strategy.
-
Did you believe Da Vinci Code as well? ;D
I've googled "India Once Ruled the Americas" and it is nothing but a laughable fairy tale! Only an untrained reader will buy his loose views.
The peoples of Americas couldn't have developed a completely different culture across the continents between the 15th and the 19th Centuries. Had Americas been populated by "Indian rejects", the languages spoken there would still be close to the Indian Languages. Once we're talking about a recent period, many aspects of the Asian culture would have remained to this day. They would be flagrant and obvious. This book is a fraud.
The Indus Valley Civilization dates back approximately to 5500 BCE. The Asian peoples crossed the Bering Strait from 23000 to 9000 BCE. Thus, it's not possible that India ever ruled the Americas.
Many words are alike, but they don't necessarily share a common root. Scholars have proposed that Japanese and Korean belong to the Turkic language family. They show some similarities, indeed. However, the earlier forms of any related languages must be closer than their modern forms, and that's not what happens when we compare Japanese and Mongolian, e.g. Their evolution shows different morphosyntactic patterns.
Once we can't know how Nahuatl evolved, it's not possible to realiably compare it to Sanskrit. Moreover, according to what I have read about the Aztec language and Tupi syntax, both are very different from Sanskrit's. Did the author even use phonology reconstruction?
DNA analyses suggest the indigenous peoples of Americas have Siberian roots.
If you like theories, see the new hypotheses based on more recent DNA studies which proposes that the indigenous peoples of America have Australian and Polynesian background. It also claims that Clovis wasn't the only paleoamerican culture.
-
I'm sorry, but your analysis is ridiculous and just not readable. You act like an expert on something you've never even heard of and never even read a book on, but just because you read a review of the book that suited your liking, doesn't make it so.
Get real. You haven't refuted the words I stated, for starters. You just said it was "impossible" because SOMEBODY said so. LOL. You don't take much do you? Particularly about a subject that you have no knowledge of. That's super. Super intellectual! Wow, LOL.
You also managed to totally ignore the point of it all, shocker. No more reason to discuss this with you. BYE. Have your fun, I have no interest in further discussing things that someone has no knowledge of, with someone who evades the point just to sound like they're smart. You're not.
-
It's you who don't have the knowledge to refute my arguments. Why don't you refute them like a true scholar? Because you can't. You haven't done that once.
I study languages and make a living as a translator. So, yes, I know something about etymology and I can recognize a serious language research. We don't know what the early Nahuatl was like prior to the 16th century, and without a proper reconstruction, no honest scholar would claim to prove that the two languages are related. Resemblance is not enough. If you believed that Chihuahua and Shivava are related only because they look similar, I'm sorry for you.
Given that we can't see how the Mexican language evolved, the option left is comparative reconstruction. We take the later form of the languages, and by comparing the features they inherent from their ancestor, we infer the traits that the proto-language possessed. it's a way to prove relatedness. However, I insist; evolutionary/diachronic comparison doesn't work in this case.
The book just isn't feasible, you can tell by the title. Anyone capable of a critical analysis and willing to compare the facts will see it is loose material, at least.
No. I showed arguments why I think it isn't possible. Once dates don't match, I've found no DNA analysis and the language comparison that you provided is too little and general, I thought no further arguments were needed. If mere comparisons were enough to prove something, how many writers wouldn't be scientists?
Before you copy "facts" from a book and paste them here, please think it through.
-
Not copy pasting actually. I read it years ago. I gave you one example and you laughed, and then I gave you five and you said it wasn't True by your scholarly "knowing." But you're totally wrong. I'm not going to give you more because you just don't want to believe it, so it doesn't matter. The book lists a hundred, work that you never did. It doesn't matter to me in the end as I said, Conquistadors and African Slave Traders did way more dirty work than white Europeans. America didn't start slavery, we ended it. Of course there were some terrible slave owners, but there were also some that treated them well. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not guilty, and so I'm not interested in reparations. However the liberals want to burn down monuments like Robert E Lee who was a democrat, I say, good, but you're burning down your own party's history, not the Rebublican's or the Conservative's. There are very few Republicans out trying to stop gay marriage or end our way of life. It's fake news. Most of them have moved to the center now.
As far as refuting your arguments, there are none to refute. The democratic party is the most filthy organization to exist on this planet. I'd rather have a Republican any day of the week. Democrats are insane. They fake all these hate crimes, play the victimhood game, try to make us feel guilty, and you're not getting that I don't care. I am not guilty by association for racism or for slavery. I'm liberal about some things, but the Republicans are adults and the Democrats are little obstructionist children looking for something that isn't there, like Trump colluding with Russia nonstop. For two years, nothing. It's a waste of tax dollars because you guys just want to believe it. He's not a racist and employs many gays. He's done more for blacks and hispanics than any President ever, and Alveda King, MLK's niece is an avid supporter. How could you get someone like that if you were a bigot?
The Truth is, Trump was always liberal and only ran as a Republican in name only because Hillary had the Dem ticket. He's not for abortion because it's disgusting. He doesn't have to support everything you say to be "the one." Obama was terrible. I'm still paying a thousand dollars a year for Obamacare, to support people that suck and don't want to work and make up excuses. I shouldn't have to. The Democrats pander to everyone they can, acting like they're all a bunch of victims and losers. I don't want to be a part of that. I'm a winner. I don't care about the underdog. You want democracy, look that word up in the etymology dictionary if you're Truly an etymology expert. It means mob rule, in case you didn't know. It's 33 whites hanging one black. Get it right. The Republicans have compromised in their ideology but the Democrats are going nuts. These fake investigations and saying the border isn't a problem when they've always said it was is just bullshit. I'm really tired of trying to explain it. It's not complicated.
Mexico is the second most dangerous nation in the world and if you have to jump over a fence instead of going through a checkpoint than you obviously have something to hide - like a criminal record. Don't bullshit me. It's blatant. Van Jones said at CPAC two days ago that "illegals commit less crime than citizens." That's a bunch of bullcaca. Inmates of the Latin Americas are far more likely to be in jail than citizens. And America jails more people than anyone - that's a problem, but don't just outright lie and expect to be believable. My boyfriend is from Latin America but he was born here and his family wanted to escape the crime, but many of his extended relatives are stuck in it now. I grew up in an industry that employs many Latin people and Muslims. I'm ok with that. But let's get real. They're for the most part, not friends of the gay community in the least sense, in the obvious sense. The United States is a refuge, but you gotta do it legally or fuck off. No hopping a fence.
Democrats say 90% of the drugs pour over the legal venues like checkpoints and airports, but that means obviously that's all they can catch, it doesn't reflect what pours into the nation outside of checkpoints (because it's unaccounted for). It's so stupid that democrats cite those as sources that mean no other drugs cross the border - period. It's a blatant lie and everyone knows. They just want the votes because too many blacks and hispanics are jumping ship. Trump will win again in 2020 because of crazy town Democrats like Occasia and Bernie who are easily refuted. You can't spend 100 trillion dollars to make us socialist. It's the dumbest thing of all time. The Democrats are idiots. They've gone insane. It's over for them. You may as well try to convince the Republicans of being a little more accepting, as much as they've tried to be already. They aren't trying to stop you from living your life. But they are a political party and just as capable of corruption, not making excuses for them - just saying - the Democrats are doomed because they're stupid beyond comprehension.
-
The only accurate thing you said is that America didn't start slavery.
Why does Alveda King support the Republicans? That one is obvious! She's very religious and closed-minded. Oh! She's also a hypocritical, after all, she's had abortions and has been divorced.
Yes! On the one hand Trump employs gays and illegal immigrants, but on the other hand, he says they're dangerous to the country and must be expelled. Can't you see it doesn't make sense? He declared war to the minorities not because he hates them himself, but because his voters expect that, since they're frustrated people willing to blame others for their own failure.
The Republicans and Democrats have found a niche to exploit: Trump will stand up for the poor who hate themselves. The next Democrat candidate will stand up for the poor who hate the rich. Both kinds of poor are frustrated, but the target of their frustration is different: The Republican whites are too good and too proud to fail, so when they can't get the job they want, they blame it on the latinos. The Democrat whites think the businessmen live at their expanse. The religious and rich people tend to align with the Republican, obviously.
You say Mexico is the second most dangerous nation in the world and I'm the one who wants to believe bullshit here? Trump statics cannot be more accurate than all the other Analyses around the world. Mexico doesn't even make the top ten in any of the reviews that I've researched.
-
Mexicans have nothing to hide. They enter the US illegally because they're denied visas and that can happen for many reasons: The applicant seems to be to poor enter the US as a tourist. The applicant is believed to already have family within the country, which means he may be planning to stay…Work visa/permit, on the other hand, is even harder to get. It depends on labor demand, if the applicant's education fulfills the current demand, if the they've got an employment contract prior to applying...As you see, there are many reasons why an immigrant has their entrance denied other than a criminal record.
-
Mexicans have nothing to hide. They enter the US illegally because they're denied visas and that can happen for many reasons: The applicant seems to be to poor enter the US as a tourist. The applicant is believed to already have family within the country, which means he may be planning to stay…Work visa/permit, on the other hand, is even harder to get. It depends on labor demand, if the applicant's education fulfills the current demand, if the they've got an employment contract prior to applying...As you see, there are many reasons why an immigrant has their entrance denied other than a criminal record.
Regardless, they are entering the US illegally.
Mexico has immigration laws that they enforce, so why can't the US enforce its immigration laws.
For some reason, everyone thinks that the 1st world countries of the world must have open borders, while non-first world countries can do as they like.
One thing that really bothers me is seeing illegals waving the flag of their home country, but get butt hurt when they get deported to their beloved home country.
We also saw that illegal chick snatch the guy's MAGA hat and refuse to give it back to him. During the altercation, she said "fuck your laws and fuck the United States". This was in California, where she was getting subsidized by the taxpayers for her college education, but as she said, fuck them.
More recently, an illegal woman (now being deported) harassed a guy in a MAGA hat in a restaurant. She's willing to violate his right to free speech, even though she's in the country illegally. Illegals have been empowered to violate US laws and they think it's their right.
Similar things happen in all first world countries.
